Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Microsoft - The Evil empire -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (1245)	6/12/1998 11:11:00 AM
From: Judd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1600

Cable and phone companies are regulated by the feds for this reason. They are a monopoly right now. BTW, where I just moved from I could get cable from 2 different companies, or one of many brands of dishes, or a microwave antenna service. Lots of choices there. There is soon to be more than one local phone company there also. The problem when running an alternative OS is lack of support for about everything. If the government regulated this perhaps they could force software companies to include drivers for more than one OS. If my scanner, printer, etc. came with Linux drivers it would feel like I have more freedom than I do. Just about all of my hardware came with windows drivers only. My old AMD chip even said that it was Windows 95 compatible, what a joke. There is only one choice that is easy, and its not because of any other reason than its the de-facto standard. I am fighting a battle running Linux. I'm not saying that they should do this, just that I think something like this is needed to make consumers really have a choice. If, and when Windows becomes a superior operating system I'll be the last to happily start using it. Judd

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (1245)	6/12/1998 11:23:00 AM
From: Judd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1600

Oh yea, kind of OT, I had cable company A for a while. They were rude and A$*holes. I waited on the phone many time for 30-60 minutes getting through when I had problems. I canceled them and they tried to charge me for the box I returned. I went without cable for months waiting for cable company B to come in. I loved cable company B. They were great. Cable company A cut their prices quite a bit and started sending my letters and coupons, etc. I even got a letter from the president of company A telling me how they have improved and were now better than company B. I called A twice just out of curiosity and their touch tone menu was fixed and I got a real person without too much waiting. Company B has no computer answering, all humans. This was a real eye opener for me. I was amazed at how quickly company A changed and improved. judd

To: Robert Winchell who wrote (1245)	6/12/1998 12:50:00 PM
From: Kal	Respond to of 1600

I guess what it comes down to is that I think a) the term "monopoly" is misused as it is applied to Microsoft, and b) the DOj and others don't seem to understand the issues Yeah. a) Only Microsoft knows the true definition of monopoly., b) No one understands technology as good as microsoft. Good guess on your part though. My cable company is a monopoly. I literally have no choice as to my cable provider. I cannot get it someplace else. That to me is a monopoly. Yeah. And what percentage of wealth do cable companies generate to/in the economy?. FYI, according to CIO's magazine, Information Technology now is the biggest single contributor to the economy. IT related expenditure accounts for 45% for all new equipments bought in the USA. If you desire, I'll look up the exact quote. Now draw your own conclusions. Perhaps that is not how the DOJ or the law defines a monopoly, and I can accept that. I just don't agree. Law is clear. Microsoft has broken it. Contract tying. Leveraging one monopoly to get access to new markets. You just refuse to see it.