this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
94 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

74003 readers
3013 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Why the fuck can we never get ISP executives on trial for anti-trust charges?

I don't have to use Google, but I'm forced to use Comcast.

[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

The right people greasing the right palms.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago

Three words: Open widespread corruption.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

You see back in the days it used to be Bell Systems (AT&T) that ran a huge vertical monopoly on telecommunications. Being the peak of some major consumers rights cases around that time, Bell was split up into like 7 different companies to free the market in a very big anti trust case.

AT&T of course has clawed its way back to the top, but it avoids anti trust cases by not holding an outright monopoly. Their argument is "Yeah but there's also comcast", ie an oligopoly.

An oligopoly, which is still very bad, is not a monopoly, so congress continues to take huge funding bribes which we call lobbying, and let both AT&T and Comcast do whatever they want so long as no one company takes over.

Both company execs and shareholders get rich and go home to sleep on a big pile of money, while you as the consumer curse out both for their crappy prices and overwhelming control.

Oh and AT&T wastes government funds on not expanding fiber networks because they can earn the same amount without caring about the consumer because no alternative other than maybe Comcast exists with a superior service or offer.

[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The thing with last-mile ISPs is that it doesn't make sense for 6 different companies to lay fiber optic in the same neighborhood.

In that case, socialized infrastructure is the better solution.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


WASHINGTON, Oct 30 (Reuters) - Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and its subsidiary Google, testified Monday in a once-in-a generation antitrust fight with the U.S. government that the company sought to make browser use and internet search easy and secure.

If the government wins, the company may be forced to scrap some business practices that have helped it stay on top.

In testimony Monday morning, Pichai took a couple of swipes at Microsoft's (MSFT.O) browser, Internet Explorer.

The government, in cross-examination, will likely also ask about the billions of dollars paid annually to smartphone makers like Apple (AAPL.O) and wireless carriers like AT&T (T.N) to be the default in search on their devices in order to stay on top.

The clout in search makes Google a heavy hitter in the lucrative advertising market, its biggest revenue source.

Google has argued the revenue share agreements are legal and that it has invested heavily to keep its search and advertising businesses competitive.


The original article contains 317 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 49%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!