Is it really? Think about it, who is your local phone carrier? I know for myself here in the North/Mid-East it used to be Bell Atlantic (Now part of Verizon). Before Verizon came to fruition, I certainly never saw an advertisement for Bell Pacific in my area. I'm also pretty sure Bell Atlantic didn't advertise much in California either. Why do you think that is? For all intents and purposes, they were both monopolies. Why didn't the two compete? Because it wasn't in their best interests. If the Baby-Bells don't intercompete, they can continue to charge their monopolistic rates in their respective areas. And because they're still much larger than any mom-and-pop operation that may develop, they can easily out market any of their competetors into oblivion. Then, as far as I can tell, several of them merged back together into Verizon. (Bell Atlantic and GTE did at least. I'm not sure of Verizon's reach.)
Any Microsoft split would probably involve a variation of the above. Each post-split company would hold a monopoly in its respective niche. When was the last time WordPerfect Suite was really a strong challenger against MS Office. Heaven knows there's no OS that can yet challenge MS in all respects (When I say all respects, I include marketing as well, so don't say Linux can compete). So instead of one massively huge giant gobbling up the competition, you split the company into two or more smaller parts. Each of those parts still towers head-and-shoulders above the competition. Microsoft/OS would probably work hand-in-hand with Microsoft/Office to ensure both companies continue upwards. And while that would probably fall into the realm of illegality once again, it's a completely new event, requiring new hearings, new trials, etc, etc, etc...
This is just one big game folks. I don't think we've even reached halftime yet.
The impression I got from the story is that in 2006 the broadcasters would have to quit broadcasting on the analog spectrum and return their licenses to the FCC. This would then allow the FCC to issue new licenses for broadcasting in the analog spectrum. I don't think it in any way meant they could hold a little public auction in front of their buildings saying "The bid for Channel 4 is up to $250,000, the bid for channel 5 is up to $270,000, and the bid for channel 61 is up to $73,000"
I think it's time for a stand. My theory is that if one country, the USA, were to completely disarm itself, then other nations would follow suit. By destroying all of its weapons, the USA would be finally making a plea for peace in the world. Other nations would see this as a gesture of goodwill, and would be similarly encouraged to disarm.
The main problem with this is that it's all based on trust. How do you trust that the Russians aren't hiding their nukes for later use? How do the Koreans trust us that we're not mothballing our forces instead of dismantling them? It is not likely to happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
Look at the whole Missle Defense plan right now. We're asking the Russians and Chinese to trust us that we're not trying to defend against any of their missles. Do you see them trusting us? How do you think they'd respond if we said "We're scrapping our nukes, scuttling our carriers to make artificial reefs, and melting down our tanks to make highway guard rails. Do the same and the world will be better."
This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that there are just plain insane rulers out there that would love nothing better than to attack their neighbors without fear of reprisal. Do you think Saudi Arabia would be an independent nation right now if we didn't have troops stationed there, and carriers sitting right off Iraq's shores ready to pound the snot out of Saddam if he blinks the wrong way? Absolutely not. Yes, our intervention in the Kuwaiti invasion may have been based on keeping oil cheap and out of Saddam's hands, but that doesn't change the fact that if we hadn't responded, he would have kept going. Kuwait was an exercise to test the world's response. Unfortunately for him, the world responded saying "You already have enough oil!"
Unfortunately peace is not guaranteed by disarmarment. If push came to shove, a bunch of naked unarmed people could rush another country's borders and wage war by beating each other senseless. Peace is maintained through strength. All throughout history there are examples of superpowers rising in the ranks and attacking each other when one felt intimidated by the other's potential or position. (England & Scotland, France & Britain, Germany & France, Russia & Japan, Japan/Germany/Italy & France/Britain/Russia/US, etc, etc, etc.) Why didn't this happen between the US and Russia? Because each side knew that if the nukes started flying, neither one would survive. And while we hated each other deeply, neither one of us was willing to commit suicide in the process of killing the enemy.
So where does this leave us? Just where we've always been, standing on our side of the ocean with a big stick. And so long as some nutcase carries a big stick too, we have to be prepared to wield ours.
Of course, if we can do it without producing acid-rain or causing lead-poisoning, excellent. After all, somebody has to clean up after every war. Let's limit that to burying the dead.
Slashdot Mirror
Squad!
Confuse the... cat!
w00t!!!
only criminals will drive drunk.
Wait.
Never mind. I thought I had something insightful.
made two monopolies instead of one.
that sentence in itself is stupid
Is it really? Think about it, who is your local phone carrier? I know for myself here in the North/Mid-East it used to be Bell Atlantic (Now part of Verizon). Before Verizon came to fruition, I certainly never saw an advertisement for Bell Pacific in my area. I'm also pretty sure Bell Atlantic didn't advertise much in California either. Why do you think that is? For all intents and purposes, they were both monopolies. Why didn't the two compete? Because it wasn't in their best interests. If the Baby-Bells don't intercompete, they can continue to charge their monopolistic rates in their respective areas. And because they're still much larger than any mom-and-pop operation that may develop, they can easily out market any of their competetors into oblivion. Then, as far as I can tell, several of them merged back together into Verizon. (Bell Atlantic and GTE did at least. I'm not sure of Verizon's reach.)
Any Microsoft split would probably involve a variation of the above. Each post-split company would hold a monopoly in its respective niche. When was the last time WordPerfect Suite was really a strong challenger against MS Office. Heaven knows there's no OS that can yet challenge MS in all respects (When I say all respects, I include marketing as well, so don't say Linux can compete). So instead of one massively huge giant gobbling up the competition, you split the company into two or more smaller parts. Each of those parts still towers head-and-shoulders above the competition. Microsoft/OS would probably work hand-in-hand with Microsoft/Office to ensure both companies continue upwards. And while that would probably fall into the realm of illegality once again, it's a completely new event, requiring new hearings, new trials, etc, etc, etc...
This is just one big game folks. I don't think we've even reached halftime yet.
The impression I got from the story is that in 2006 the broadcasters would have to quit broadcasting on the analog spectrum and return their licenses to the FCC. This would then allow the FCC to issue new licenses for broadcasting in the analog spectrum. I don't think it in any way meant they could hold a little public auction in front of their buildings saying "The bid for Channel 4 is up to $250,000, the bid for channel 5 is up to $270,000, and the bid for channel 61 is up to $73,000"
I think it's time for a stand. My theory is that if one country, the USA, were to completely disarm itself, then other nations would follow suit. By destroying all of its weapons, the USA would be finally making a plea for peace in the world. Other nations would see this as a gesture of goodwill, and would be similarly encouraged to disarm.
The main problem with this is that it's all based on trust. How do you trust that the Russians aren't hiding their nukes for later use? How do the Koreans trust us that we're not mothballing our forces instead of dismantling them? It is not likely to happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
Look at the whole Missle Defense plan right now. We're asking the Russians and Chinese to trust us that we're not trying to defend against any of their missles. Do you see them trusting us? How do you think they'd respond if we said "We're scrapping our nukes, scuttling our carriers to make artificial reefs, and melting down our tanks to make highway guard rails. Do the same and the world will be better."
This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that there are just plain insane rulers out there that would love nothing better than to attack their neighbors without fear of reprisal. Do you think Saudi Arabia would be an independent nation right now if we didn't have troops stationed there, and carriers sitting right off Iraq's shores ready to pound the snot out of Saddam if he blinks the wrong way? Absolutely not. Yes, our intervention in the Kuwaiti invasion may have been based on keeping oil cheap and out of Saddam's hands, but that doesn't change the fact that if we hadn't responded, he would have kept going. Kuwait was an exercise to test the world's response. Unfortunately for him, the world responded saying "You already have enough oil!"
Unfortunately peace is not guaranteed by disarmarment. If push came to shove, a bunch of naked unarmed people could rush another country's borders and wage war by beating each other senseless. Peace is maintained through strength. All throughout history there are examples of superpowers rising in the ranks and attacking each other when one felt intimidated by the other's potential or position. (England & Scotland, France & Britain, Germany & France, Russia & Japan, Japan/Germany/Italy & France/Britain/Russia/US, etc, etc, etc.) Why didn't this happen between the US and Russia? Because each side knew that if the nukes started flying, neither one would survive. And while we hated each other deeply, neither one of us was willing to commit suicide in the process of killing the enemy.
So where does this leave us? Just where we've always been, standing on our side of the ocean with a big stick. And so long as some nutcase carries a big stick too, we have to be prepared to wield ours.
Of course, if we can do it without producing acid-rain or causing lead-poisoning, excellent. After all, somebody has to clean up after every war. Let's limit that to burying the dead.