how can this even be allowed to happen? It is literally the

File: nfl.jpg (104KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 501x585px

>>1583603

>>1583603
>implying the AT&T breakup was a good thing
In reality, a regulated monopoly can be a very efficient and effective service provider. Not perfect, but not inherently bad either.

Every major electric, gas, and water utility in the country has been a regulated monopoly for decades.

>>1583682

>defending having to pay 100 bucks / mo for shitty Comcast internet

>>1583723
That's the best argument you can make? You do know there's plenty of competition for internet space: cable, DSL, fiber, satellite, even cellular data? Competition doesn't necessarily lower prices, improve service quality, or prevent consumer problems.

>>1583750
wtf I hate capitalism now

Why isn't every industry protected from the evils of competition?

>>1583750
>cable, DSL, fiber,

All Comcast

>satellite internet

Are you kidding

>cellular internet

Yeah, the other option being at&t with shoddy reception

There is no genuine competition.

>>1583754
Strawman much? Monopolies and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. I've already given examples of economically useful and efficient monopolies that have existed in this country for generations.

Not everything has to be one extreme or another, faggot. When you stop being 12 you'll realize some questions have subtleties.

>>1583755
Everything is your post is factually wrong. Fuck you, troll.

>>1583756
>Everything is your post is factually wrong. Fuck you, troll.

Nice ad hominem. Proves that you're cornered.

Look at the service coverages in the non-metropolitan US.

You'll see shit that even smells like cartelization among the monopolies.

>>1583682
you arent saying why Ma Bell should have been allowed to exist and why the sherman anti-trust act is wrong, and why the 1982 break up was wrong.

i guess you think its okay for a utility to dictate to you what equipment you are allowed to hook up to the line?

>>1583765
>Look at the service coverages in the non-metropolitan US.
You do realize this is the single biggest argument IN FAVOR of monopolies, right? It's why utilities became monopolies in the first place.

I called you a troll because you're a stupid fucking shit. Its not an ad hom if it's true.

>>1583823
>you arent saying why Ma Bell should have been allowed to exist
No, you're right, I'm not. I full discussion of the Bell break-up is far beyond the sophistication level of this board. I simply made the point that not everyone believes that the baby bell divestiture was the right solutions, now that we've seen the result. This is not debateable.

>i guess you think its okay for a utility to dictate to you what equipment you are allowed to hook up to the line?
Depends on the circumstances. If the restrictions is reasonably related to preserving the quality and efficiency of service, then its fine. If its a blatant profit grab, then its not.

That's why I've been talking about "highly regulated" monopolies, not "do whatever the fuck they want" monopolies. Words matter. I don't type this stuff for my health. If you're going to debate my arguments, at least be adult enough to read my arguments.

>>1583914
>You do realize this is the single biggest argument IN FAVOR of monopolies, right?

wherefrom doest thou draw the authority to call me a stupid fucking shit if you yourself are clinically retarded?

maybe your argument entails that a monopoly is more resource efficient. but that's a bogus argument because a monopoly has no requirement to be resource efficient.

>>1583603
Invest in at&t to hedge yourself against unfair prices, then

>>1583920
>maybe your argument entails that a monopoly is more resource efficient
Sigh. I never said anything such thing. What I said is that a monopoly CAN be an effective and efficient service provider. I also clearly said that its not inherently better or worse than a fractured, competitive market. They both have pluses and minuses.

>Also, you get no more (You)s unless you stop being a massive faggot. You're not worth my time if you're actually as stupid as your posts suggest.

>>1583928
>CAN be
>not inherently
>I never said anything such thing.

>could ancient aliens have built the pyramids in the antarctic? They could have, doesn't inherently mean that they did, but it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't, either. In any case I never said it wasn't aliens :^)

go fuck yourself and get outta here with your smokescreen non argument bullshit.

>>1583603
It probably wont be allowed to happen.