Democrats Propose New Competition Laws That Would 'Break Up Big Companies If They're Hurting Consumers' (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Senate and House Democratic leaders today proposed new antitrust laws that could prevent many of the biggest mergers and break up monopolies in broadband and other industries. "Right now our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care," US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote in a New York Times opinion piece. "We are going to fight to allow regulators to break up big companies if they're hurting consumers and to make it harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition." The "Better Deal" unveiled by Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was described in several documents that can be found in an Axios story. The plan for "cracking down on corporate monopolies" lists five industries that Democrats say are in particular need of change, specifically airlines, cable and telecom, the beer industry, food, and eyeglasses. The Democrats' plan for lowering the cost of prescription drugs is detailed in a separate document. The Democrats didn't single out any internet providers that they want broken up, but they did say they want to stop AT&T's proposed $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner: "Consolidation in the telecommunications is not just between cable or phone providers; increasingly, large firms are trying to buy up content providers. Currently, AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner. If AT&T succeeds in this deal, it will have more power to restrict the content access of its 135 million wireless and 25.5 million pay-TV subscribers. This will only enable the resulting behemoths to promote their own programming, unfairly discriminate against other distributors and their ability to offer highly desired content, and further restrict small businesses from successfully competing in the market."

Comments

We have laws for this already

[JoshuaZ]

We already have anti-trust laws. The primary point of them is to break up companies that are too big, or to prevent the formation of companies that are too big. The solution is to enforce those laws seriously not to add more laws on top.

Re:We have laws for this already

[gfxguy]

The primary point of anti-trust laws is not to break up companies, but seek remedies against companies when they violate the laws. If a company is deemed a monopoly, that could possibly be one of the remedies, but it's not the goal of anti-trust laws to break up companies because people "feel like" they are too big.

I don't like AT&T. I don't like Comcast, either. But lately Comcast has been pushing HBO, trying to get subscribers to pony up for the premium channel, citing shows like the new season of Game of Thrones. HBO is a Time Warner property. They have also spent quite a bit promoting that you can watch Netflix on their X1 platform. Apparently, despite how much I dislike Comcast, they are not forcing their own (NBC Universal) content on me.

Point being that large companies are actually capable of not violating anti-trust laws, and there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law. I agree they simply need to be enforced, and like any effective deterrent, they need to be enforced swiftly and with commensurate punishments.

Re:We have laws for this already

[bobbied]

The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them. This is but a trial balloon to test the political winds aloft.

They already know that the Anti-Trust laws exist, they don't care. They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle. This is a good as any I suppose..

I figure this trial won't gain much traction..

Re: We have laws for this already

[guruevi]

The thing is that Democrats allowed these mergers they are decrying. Obama allowed not just one but two of the biggest mergers in media history and left office with a third one pretty much approved.

The main reason this is happening is because Dems are finally noticing that they created this media mess that got Trump elected and most likely reelected. Now that it's no longer working in their favor must it be abolished. It's just a repeat of the Nixon administration and the Bell breakup.

It's all just politics in the end.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Jack9]

> there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law.

That's a philosophical determination, not a factual claim. When talking about "the good", it's important to set a standard so that it might be measured and some sort of determination can be made. The common good in terms of retaining or growing economic power for the average individual of a population? or what? In practice, the concentration of wealth has shown to have a negative impact on all strata of economic systems for many definitions of common good. Even when redistribution occurs, it's usually applied in a regressive manner, so it's hard to say what the proper remedy would even look like.

There is commensurate political power that comes with economic power, as with every economic system in history. This will never go anywhere for the political reason, not because politicians will come to their senses about some quasi-morality like "it's ok for the super-powerful super-wealthy organizations to be super wealthy".

Re:We have laws for this already

[ShanghaiBill]

Shouldn't all politicians seek to find policies which resonate with their constituents?

No. Politicians should have principles, and stick to them. They should stand up for things they believe in, and try to convince voters that they are right. What they should NOT do is find out what a plurality of voters want, and then just bend their principles to give it to them.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Politicians should have principles, and stick to them. They should stand up for things they believe in, and try to convince voters that they are right.

Hmm, not one word to suggest that a politician should change their minds, rethink their positions, or let the people convince them of anything.

That seems quite dogmatic.

What they should NOT do is find out what a plurality of voters want, and then just bend their principles to give it to them.

Why not?

Re: We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation?

Six thousand years of historical examples.

Re:We have laws for this already

[s.petry]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy? What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content. Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.

Nothing like shallow fallacy logic.

The problem with accumulated wealth goes back to the first recorded Democracy and ideas recorded in Plato's "The Republic". Paraphrased for convenience, The problem with people becoming extremely wealthy is that they are free to fuck with everyone else to gain more and more wealth. The same is true for any form of power really, but money is the easiest for people to understand.

People on the Right don't hate Soros because he has money, they hate him because later in life much of his money came questionably and he funds people who he believes benefits him and his agenda in politics. People on the Left don't hate the Koch brothers because they have money, they hate him because they fund people who they believe benefit them and their agenda in politics.

Have another weak ad hominem you wish us to correct?

Re:We have laws for this already

[Kohath]

Democrats: We had Whitehouse for 8 years, and now that we lost it, here are our ideas (that we're totally really committed to, not faking at all, honest).

Re:We have laws for this already

[Dutch Gun]

chord-cutter

Chord-cutter: n. One who decides to stop listening to music.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Obfuscant]

Somehow Democrats and Obama did this while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.[1]

The DOJ, FCC, and FTC are executive branch agencies, controlled by the Chief Executive. A decision by the DOJ not to prosecute under anti-trust law, or the FTC/FCC to allow a merger, are executive branch decisions.

Republicans controlled the House for the last six of Obama's eight years in office, and the Senate for the last two.

And every time they tried to oppose something Obama wanted they were called racist or obstructionist.

Re:We have laws for this already

[interkin3tic]

The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them.

Wait... wait... a political party... trying to get... people... to vote... FOR... THEM?

HOLDTHEFUCKINGPHONEOMGWTFBBQIJUSTSHITMYPANTS!!!!!

You've done it. I've soiled my pants and my heart has stopped and I ruptured my vocal cords screaming in shock at this upsetting insight. I'm literally dead and covered with feces. That's what the shock of what you just said has done to me. You need to introduce things slowly, you can't just drop "Political parties in democracies seek to get votes" on us like that.

They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle.

No, Obamacare was for the middle. Single payer like the rest of the civilized world is for their base. "Lets make the US an actual fucking democracy where 1 citizen = 1 vote instead of 1 redneck vote = 100 city votes" is for their base.

"How about we don't let huge corporations rule the country" maybe could be considered for the middle, but personally I think the average voter is far too stupid for that to catch on, so I'm almost more convinced it's just because it's a smart idea.

We have antitrust laws right now, but that's like saying "We have antibiotics right now, what do we need to develop new ones for?" We need new antitrust laws because banks, telecoms, and media companies are still getting too big and powerful compared to real citizens.

Re: We have laws for this already

[BlueStrat]

He probably assumed you were educated.

Well, you've proved you aren't, despite any schools you may have attended.

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty & starvation, has raised the average standard of living higher and faster for more people, done more to advance science and technology, done more to empower the poorest and provide a way out of poverty, and has provided more charitable assistance worldwide than any other system yet devised by Man. And that's just a partial listing.

As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

Strat

Re: We have laws for this already

[PaulRivers10]

As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

The economic defense of capitalism is premised on the ubiquity of competitive markets, providing for the rational allocation of scarce resources and justifying the existing distribution of incomes. The political defense of capitalism is that economic power is diffuse and cannot be aggregated in such a manner as to have undue influence over the democratic state. Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.

Re: We have laws for this already

[BlueStrat]

Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.

Quite true.

A functioning capitalist economy/society must have Rule of Law to make certain laws, contracts, etc etc are not broken or violated. There must be laws against predatory monopolistic actions and the must be enforced, and enforced equally.

Most of the laws to restrain such predatory monopolistic actions are already on the books. There is no lack of laws under which to prosecute such crimes, or prosecute anyone for almost anything, there are so many laws and regulations with the force of law on the books.

No, what is lacking is the willingness, nothing else. This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less. This is one of the main reasons why it is wise to keep the central government weak and relatively small. First, a weaker government is less attractive to the corruptible/corruptors as the risk/reward ratio is narrowed and pushed into the red, and second, what corruption that occurs can only inflict a minimum of damage. Less bureaucracy in which to hide corruption, incompetence, and to avoid accountability hiding within the faceless ranks.

Strat

Re:We have laws for this already

[jandersen]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?

As many others have already pointed out, with great wealth comes great power, which is invariably abused. Perhaps the obscenely rich don't intend to hurt anybody and destroy the environment, but they don't see the consequences of their actions and they don't care. People around the world live in extreme poverty as a consequence; we in the West are isolated from the reality of this, but there is a clear line from wealthy people and corporations seeking more wealth, through local corruption in 3rd world countries to extreme poverty, so calling it petty jealousy when people object to this state of affairs is at best, simply uninformed.

What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content.

The average is all that matters? So, if you live in a room that is 50 degrees centigrade half the day and 0 the other half, you will be confortable in shorts and a t-shirt, because on average the temperature is 25 degrees?

Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.

Isn't 'caring if someone has more than you' what drives capitalism? Ambition, in other words - the constant drive to do better, have more, acquire luxuries; why else would anyone work hard to make more money rather than just hang around in an armchair, beer in hand? What you are saying is nothing more than the shallow excuses for inequality, oppression and slavery, as they have been used throughout the ages. It's the sort of nonsense that goes along with saying "we're better of being poor".

Re:We have laws for this already

[Namarrgon]

If you think power is easier to abuse in government than it is in a corporation or private individual with a few billions, you really haven't been paying attention.

If you think corporate regulation is bad, have a look at all the red tape the bureaucracy has to fight through to get anything done. Have a look at all the public scrutiny on the higher levels of government. Have a look at how many people have to sign off on everything for even inconsequential actions.

There's no need for elections, no worries about limited terms, and public opinion is almost irrelevant to any diversified individual or corporation. And if they want more power than their money already gives them, they can lobby to get the rules changed to suit them more, or simply move to a more favourable jurisdiction.

Re: We have laws for this already

[liquid_schwartz]

Pure capitalism is an extremely ruthless and egoistic system and far from the "best we've tried".

Gods above and below, you are completely daft.

Feel free to demand each according to his needs, and quickly find out your need is a moldy potato.

There is a middle ground between these two extreme positions. A restrained capitalism keeps the peace while still allowing the rich to be quite rich. An effective inheritance tax is even more inline with capitalism. Let each generation earn their own way on their own merits. The rich will still be able to help influence at least two generations. The concept of trusts and other tax shelters need to be done away with. The wealth card should not renew automatically forever.

Re:Rather pointless....

[rickb928]

Comcast doesn't have to be split up.

0) Permit local municipalities to form utility-style ISPs.
1) Permit companies such as Google to light up dark fiber.
2) Watch as T-Mobile turns up 600Mhz wireless broadband.
3) Figure out how to prevent ISPs with competing businesses diminishing various streaming services.

Ok, what did I miss here?

The Dems know this

[rsilvergun]

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).

They're searching for an issue they can use to differentiate themselves from the Repubs. They can't do Medicare for All, College for All, End the Wars, real infrastructure bills (aka the "New New Deal") or even really end the war on drugs since their donors don't want any of that. So we get crap like this. Meanwhile they keep losing seats because what the hell's the point of voting for Republican Lite?

The Bernie Democrats (a wing of which is calling themselves "Justice Democrats") is trying to kick 'em out of the party. If you want to see the country move to the left you need to join 'em and get voting in your primary.

Re:The Dems know this

[HanzoSpam]

Maybe what we need is a law to break up the Democrats.

Re:The Dems know this

[Tablizer]

Maybe what we need is a law to break up the Democrats.

Close: break up the party system(s), or at least weaken them.

Re:The Dems know this

[Frank Burly]

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).

You grossly understate the difference between the parties, even while the party that controls all three branches of government plots (in actual secrecy) to strip healthcare from the poorest Americans to give tax cuts to the top 1%.

Hillary's FCC would not be dismantling net neutrality and her Supreme Court nominees would not say that corporations are people, or that forced arbitration terms must be obeyed. And hawkish as she is, it is a safe bet Hillary wouldn't let generals kill as many civilians in 6 months as Obama did in two years.

So if you wanted to see daylight between "corporate" Dems and Repubs there you have it.

Hillary lost because did didn't make the 99% (or bottom 33%) feel that she felt their pain or their resentments. Hillary acknowledged that the Earth is flat for capital and practically parabolic for labor, but she didn't provide a clear and compelling solution so a critically located minority of voters opted for the guy who said he would bring coal back.

Finally, Dems don't keep losing seats: Dems picked up 6 house seats and 2 Senate seats in 2016, and the special elections that Dems lost this year were all in Republican territory. In Georgia the winning Republican candidate said expressly "I do not support a livable wage"; I don't see how tacking left would have helped there.

funny

[superwiz]

Industries missing from the list:

• -- Entertainment companies.
• -- State Bar associations (private organizations controlling access to law licenses!!! which act as gateways to petitioning the government!!!)

In other words, we'll make life difficult for the companies which haven't paid us off, but will leave you alone if you are a big Democratic donors.

Re:Citizen's United

[Obfuscant]

Much of what used to protect the American people has been torn away over the last 40 years. And now we have the ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which neither the Democrats or Republicans wish to address.

You mean the decision that the First Amendment was important enough to allow people to exercise their right to political speech despite unconstitutional attempts to restrict it? A decision that protected the First Amendment is tearing away protections? Huh?

Yes, those people happened to have formed a corporation, but by doing so they did not abdicate their First Amendment rights. And you might want to note that the same decision that said that the people forming the corporation called Citizens United had First Amendment rights said that people who form labor unions also do not give up their rights. It was a decision that took the venue of paid political speech away from exclusive control of the media and allowed the public to band together to pay for speech they would otherwise be unable to afford.

I'd argue if the DNC was serious about going after corporate behavior that harms Americans, there would be talk from the main-stream Democrats to deal with the Citizens United ruling,

Yeah, Democrats would get a lot of political mileage by angering the labor unions that spend a lot of money on political speech supporting Democrats, and by becoming the party that opposes the First Amendment rights of the people.

but I really haven't seen anything but hot air.

I've see a lot of hot air about CU vs. FEC, but I've also read the decision and know the truth. Trying to claim that CU hurts Americans is only one warm front amongst many.

Re:Bravo sir

[s.petry]

What a troll. I don't think I've ever seen a better one. You tick all the boxes, referencing my post while ignoring it to make a nonsensical point that passes the truthiness test (Leftist gave us Trump, which is so silly I'm not going to bother).

You don't believe that if the Democrats ran a better candidate Trump would have lost? You can't run a basic Google search and find all of the Presidents, Senators, and Congress people and find their ideologies and influences? Oh, I get it. You just don't like facts.

You should go work for one of those Russian outfits that engineered the Trump presidency. Shoot Jared and email, I'm sure he'll meet with you (he meets with _everybody_). Say hi to Paul Manafort for me.

Oh, I see. It wasn't that Trump won the Electoral college with a better message for Middle Class Americans and looked cleaner than Clinton. It was all those damn Russians who did it.

You do realize that that narrative lacks any facts, and was completely dismissed by the Obama Administration's head officials right? Oh noes, more of those things called "facts"! Show me one single fact of Russia hacking the election. I will personally write my Senator, Congressional Rep, the AG, and President and demand that Comey, Kerry, and Clapper be tried for Contempt of Congress since they lied.

I'm pushing back against the Marxist tactics the far left has engaged in since Trump won the election, you are promoting them. Who exactly works for the Russians between the two of us? If you are lost on the "Marxist tactics", see how other totalitarian governments attack opponents and their families.

We can debate facts, but facts in political threads tend to be moderated "troll" on Slashdot. While your allergy to facts is bothersome to rational debate, it's actually sensible on Slashdot. FWIW, I'm not pro-Trump at all. That does not make me for the BS that the far left and media have been spreading for the last year.

Re:Citizen's United

[OrangeTide]

The shills are out in full force tonight.

Re:Um... when did I do that?

[doctorvo]

I'm saying we've got some right wingers in our party who are soft on a few social issues.

Yes, the kind of people that actually represent what the majority of Americans want: small government, low taxes, individual responsibilty, and individual liberties. When the Democrats had more of those kinds of politicians, they were winning. On the other hand, when even a fairly tepid progressive like Hillary can't win against someone as unlikable and incompetent as Donald Trump, you'd think people would figure out that the problem with the Democratic party is their actual policies and directions. Yet, it looks like Democrats are going to double down on stupid and nominate a loser like Warren or Booker next time.

If I want to blame the Republicans for something I've got multiple wars, the 2008 economic crash (though Clinton gets some of that Blame for starting the deregulation that led to it), our awful healthcare system, the war on drugs and all the horror it brings,

You're a bloody fool if you blame Republicans for that, but I guess that kind of folly and ignorance is typical for 21st century Democrats.

decades of institutionalized racism being used to drive a schism between members of the working class so wages could be suppressed.

The majority of African Americans in the US are living under institutions and in communities dominated for decades by Democrats, Democratic policies, and businesses, civil rights organizations, and charities close to Democrats. So, there is institutionalized racism alright, but it is the creation of Democrats. Republicans, on the other hand, simply don't give a fuck either way about African Americans or their problems.

Hilary lost because she didn't campaign

[rsilvergun]

in the rust belt and because Trump ran on a populist message while she ran, well, without one. She couldn't say anything that would piss off her corporate donors so she had to shy away from anything better than "we'll take a few percentage points off your college loans and let you borrow more money, and oh yeah health premiums are gonna skyrocket about 20% less". That's not a message _anyone_ could get behind. It didn't help that she was for TPP until it became clear it would cost her the primary.

Never mind the fact that the Dems should never has nominated somebody with 20 years bad press. But she could've weathered all that and won if she had just stopped being so damn arrogant and campaigned in the rust belt. She was off wasting time in Arizona while Trump's people were pounding the pavement in Ohio and Wisconsin. There's interviews with Dem party leaders in swing states talking about how they never once saw any of her people. When one of the key issues is that voters feel like their being forgotten and/or taken for granted and you're taking them for granted well, you're just out of touch.

Hilary was everything everybody hates about the Democrats. Not just in theory but in actuality. She's the real thing. A genuine right wing democrat. And just as useless.