By David Kully – The source of the increasing concentration in many markets, in the view of some commentators, was a shift that began in the 1970s in how antitrust enforcers and the courts view the role of antitrust enforcement.
At that time, economists in the “Chicago School” led an evolution away from concern about protecting small competitors from larger competitors to a current enforcement paradigm that emphasizes “consumer welfare” and calls for intervention by the government only if a merger or alleged anticompetitive practice is likely to harm consumers – through higher prices, lower output, poorer quality products or services, or diminished incentives to innovate. This shift, according to critics, made antitrust enforcers less likely to go to court to block large mergers or take on monopolies, with the result being the concentrated marketplaces we see today.
The nostalgia for the antitrust enforcement of the past, however, ignores important concerns about an approach predicated on attacking large firms merely because of their size. The evolution in antitrust thinking that began with the Chicago School was driven by economic research establishing that some mergers and certain practices that antitrust law previously forbade offer tangible benefits to society. Critics offer no countervailing basis to believe that these benefits would not be lost if we were to revert to past thinking. more> https://goo.gl/rt1ZSQ
Modern Monopolies: What It Takes to Dominate the 21st Century Economy, Authors: Alex Moazed and Nicholas L. Johnson.
By Alex Moazed & Nicholas L. Johnson – Although monopolies get a bad rap, they’re not always a bad thing. In the short term, modern monopolies are often a boon to consumers. They bring valuable new inventions to market, and, in the case of platforms, they build new communities and markets that would not exist otherwise.
The downside comes much later, as the monopolist ages and starts to crowd out potential new competitors without delivering new value.
Although networks today do create the strongest and most defensible moats, they don’t create the same barriers to entry as past monopolies that required vast investment in physical infrastructure in order to succeed.
AT&T’s domination of the telephone industry lasted from the beginning of the 20th century until its 1984 breakup. Not surprisingly, in its later years, the company delayed or killed many important innovations in an effort to keep new entrants out of the market. more> http://goo.gl/eSffVH
Posted in Book review, Broadband, Business, Communication industry, Economic development, Economy, Education, History, Net, Regulations, Technology, Telecom industry
Tagged Broadband, Business improvement, Government, Industrial economy, Internet, Monopoly, Organization, Regulations, United States
In Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, Author: Susan Crawford.
By Sam Gustin – Should broadband Internet service be treated as a basic utility in the United States, like electricity, water, and traditional telephone service? That’s the question at the heart of an important and provocative new book by Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Cardozo Law School. In Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, released Tuesday by Yale University Press, Crawford argues that the Internet has replaced traditional phone service as the most essential communications utility in the country, and is now as important as electricity was 100 years ago. more> http://tinyurl.com/axrj95d
Posted in Book review, Broadband, Business, Economy, Net, Technology, telecom
Tagged Broadband Internet access, Monopoly, Susan Crawford, United States, Yale University Press