Complete and total government control

[vraiblonde]

First the government went after Microsoft, then they went after campaign financing, now they're trying to limit free enterprise in the media (which they have turned around so that a stupid person with a low attention span might actually think that these new FCC regulations will actually promote diverse media). When will this end? When will the American public stand up and tell the government to kiss off and quit trying to control everything?

It stuns me that anyone gives a fig about some felon who refuses to have her picture on her driver's license. You want to see some REAL freedom-busting, take a look at what the facists are trying to do to privately owned businesses.

 

[Bruzilla]

Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft... why do you get so bent about what the USG did to Microsoft? They did exactly the same thing to Ma Bell in the 80's, and what did we get for that effort? five cent per minute long distance, cheap cell service, and a vast array of competition. Microsoft was a huge monopoly that was getting bigger and acting more badly every day. It wasn't just some big company that wanted to compete fairly with others. They were a big company that thought they could get away with anything they wanted to, and the USG showed them that they couldn't.

Back in the early 80s, Ma Bell tried to do the exact same things to MCI and Sprint that Microsoft was doing to software companies. I think the government did the right thing to the Bell Telephone Company and I think they did the right thing with Microsoft. I look at business rights the same way I do personal rights... you can do whatever you like until you start infringing on the rights of others.

 

[vraiblonde]

Please explain to me how Microsoft infringed on the rights of others?

 

[jlabsher]

The whole "free enterprise in the media" thing is a joke. When you have Clear Channel owning most of the radio stations in the country it is wrong, if you have Viacom owning the majority of TV, radio & newspapers in a market it is wrong. If I want to hear the same top 40 song every 15 minutes it is OK, but maybe my tastes are not the same as somebody in Lubbock, TX or Seattle. By allowing a large corporation to control and homogonize the media you lose a lot.

Why?

One board of directors can control what the people hear and know. I remember after 9/11 clear channel issued a directive of "songs that shouldn't be played" Imagine by John Lennon was one of them, huh? Explain that to me, but a board of directors probobly thought it could be "insensitive".

I'm surprised that people who decry the "liberal media" would want a big liberal media conglomerate to own all the outlets in their town. Personally I'd rather have the government controlling the access rights to the media than have a board of directors intent on the bottom line, or their own agenda controlling what comes on my screen.

 

[Bruzilla]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Please explain to me how Microsoft infringed on the rights of others?

Microsoft's tactics were to identify potential competition and squanch it. They did this either by buying the competition, or duplicating the work of the competition and marketing it at a greatly reduced cost until the competition went out of business. They got away with the later of these practices until they tried it with Netscape and they fought back.

I would also point out that Gates/Microsoft have a long and infamous history of stealing the intelectual property of others. Gates used a good bot of subterfuge to get the rights to the Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS) against the wishes of the guy who programmed it. He stole the Graphic User Interface (GUI) that Windows uses from Apple (who stole it from Zerox.) If you look at just about every product that Microsoft has produced you'll see that it's mostly something that some other company designed and developed, and that those companies were either bought and closed by Microsoft or were put out of business.

I find it funny how people who have serious issues with the Japanese and Germans dumping cheap steel in the 70s, the French dumping cheap airplanes today, and all other matters of foreign companies unfairly cutting into US business see nothing wrong with Microsoft doing it. Whether the country is foreign or domestic the result is the same... the consumer gets screwed.

A little history here... Ma Bell tried this exact same stunt to try to get MCI and Sprint to go away. The Bell System tried to claim exclusive rights to transmission lines (many of which they didn't own) and tried to force MCI and Sprint to pay hefty access charges while Bell lowered their rates. They almost got away with this, but just like Microsoft they got arrogant and pushed their monopoly status a bit too far, resulting in a court-ordered divestiture of the company.

The purpose of the FTC is to make sure that a company doesn't take unfair advantage of its position, and both Microsoft and Ma Bell did, and that's why they're the only two companies who have been forced to divest. I don't see this as government intrusion. I see it as the government stepping in to protect businesses and consumers when a company starts to see itself as being omnipotent.

 

[demsformd]

Microsoft violated the law...so of course they were prosecuted. Vrai, what is wrong with that? Hell I am surprised that you aren't calling for their heads over there.

Vrai, I hate campaign finance reform just as much as conservatives. Why? Look at what campaign finance did for this election...George Bush is going to be able to raise around $250 million from wealthy CEO's and the such while the Democrats, who relied on soft money, will be stuck with federal spending limits. Bush can saturate the airwaves while the Democrats cannot because they enjoy the support of those that cannot pay out $2,000 to a candidate. The only campaign finance reform that can actually acomplish its goal is to create free campaigns for national offices.

There was a time that the government never interferred with business. The result? Incredible poverty, terrible working conditions, and abject sanitary conditions. Do you want to go back to that? I sure as hell do not.

 

[vraiblonde]

Microsoft's tactics were to identify potential competition and squanch it.

Yeah, Bru, them and every other business in the country. What are you supposed to do - encourage competition?

Was anyone forced to sell their company to Microsoft? Did MS get those companies for free? If MS stole someone else's property, that would be copyright infringement, not a monopoly, and they would be held accountable.

Did you know that, according to your definition, Southern Maryland Online is a monopoly? THAT, Dems, is why I'm not calling for Bill Gates' head. Any successful business that out-innovates or out-performs it's competition is considered a monopoly, by those standards.

 

[migtig]

I think it's time to run off west and join the freemasons.

 

[Heretic]

THe worst thing microsoft did but its not very talked about involves Sun Microsystems and their language Java. Microsoft liscensed java from Sun then they bastardized it so that it would only run correctly on a windows machine (copywrite infringement)

Personally I dont care if they put internet explorer in with windows or not, I just want them to make it work.

 

[ConcrndCitizen2]

When will the American public stand up and tell the government to kiss off and quit trying to control everything?

When the American public stops sucking up to it trying to get the government to fund everything FOR them instead of using their own private resources.

You can't have it both ways. People can't beg the government to be in control and do everything FOR them, then scream for freedom when it DOES take control. Taking Private Responsibility, ( regardless of the outcome ), begats civil rights and liberties. Shirking those responsibilities, ( "while selling your soul for 30 pieces of silver" ), negates freedom.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by ConcrndCitizen2
You can't have it both ways. People can't beg the government to be in control and do everything FOR them, then scream for freedom when it DOES take control. Taking Private Responsibility, ( regardless of the outcome ), begats civil rights and liberties. Shirking those responsibilities, ( "while selling your soul for 30 pieces of silver" ), negates freedom.

Amen to that, sister!

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by jlabsher
The whole "free enterprise in the media" thing is a joke.

So what you're saying, JLab, is that someone sits in your car with you, holds a gun to your head and forces you to listen to Rush Limbaugh? You should do something about that.

Anyone with money can buy a radio station. It doesn't even take a genius to run one. Unfortunately, you must have listeners so you can sell advertising and pay for it all. And you can even sell advertising when your ratings are in the toilet.

If you don't like the format of a particular radio station, TURN THE CHANNEL. Isn't that what you Libs always say when someone objects to all the sex and profanity on TV? Sucks to have your words thrown back in your face, doesn't it?

 

[jlabsher]

Unfortunately Vrai, broadcasting licenses are like liquor licenses, controlled by the government, so, no not anybody with money is able to buy a station and begin broadcasting. There are only so many stations available in each local area. If every station in town is owned by the same company, I cannot just "turn the channel" as you say.

Unfortunately your idea of an individual owning their own station and bucking the big corporate system will never happen. All the major media outlets are controlled by a handful of people: Murdoch, Turner, Viacom, AOL/Time, Clear Channel. The government (read Powell Jr.) is proposing making it easier for one company to own all the outlets in one town. I don't believe that is right.

How, for instance would you feel if all the media you could get in your town, newspapers, TV and radio was owned by those hated liberals.

 

[demsformd]

Vrai, if you really want to talk about complete and total government control look no further than your president's Patriot Act and Republican attempts to force people all over America to carry national ID cards so that the government can track and know everything about us. Hello big brother.

 

[Oz]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
They did exactly the same thing to Ma Bell in the 80's, and what did we get for that effort? five cent per minute long distance, cheap cell service, and a vast array of competition.

I'd gladly pay more for long distance if it meant that the telemarketers didn't ring the phone all day long and at dinner time.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by jlabsher
How, for instance would you feel if all the media you could get in your town, newspapers, TV and radio was owned by those hated liberals.

Wouldn't make a bit of difference to me - they practically are already. I'd just turn it off when I got tired of it, much as I do now. My Internet connection is all the media I need.

look no further than your president's Patriot Act and Republican attempts to force people all over America to carry national ID cards so that the government can track and know everything about us.

Well, Dems, if YOUR President hadn't opened the gates and let terrorists just saunter into our country with no restrictions or tracking, we wouldn't have the problems that require things like the Patriot Act and ID cards, now would we?

 

[Bruzilla]

Vrai... you're being silly again. Southern Maryland Online is not a monopoly. There is a difference between being the only provider of a good or service in an area and being a monopoly. In business, a monopoly organization or business not only serves as a sole provider, but also controls the abilities of competing goods or services to enter the market. Some monopolies, like power companies, are formed and regulated by the government. But strictly commercial monpolies are a different matter and they need to be monitored for abuses.

SOMD Online is not a monopoly because they have no control over who else enters the market. If I wanted to start up Northern St Mary's Online I could without any approvals or concessions from SOMD Online needed. That's the free market. With Ma Bell, who had control over all of the phone lines in the country up until 1985, there was no way for any competitor to enter the market because Ma Bell controlled who used the lines. That was what the landmark MCI case was all about. It said that Ma Bell had to provide access to the phone lines to any business capable of providing service. The FTC was also smart enough to know that left intact the Bell System would still be able to unfairly control the market, so they forced them to break into the baby bells. It was the same deal with MS. MS controlled the operating system, and therefore had total control over who could enter the market to compete against them. They misued this control and paid the price for it.

Did companies "have to" sell out to MS? Let me ask you this... you're the president of a software company, and you just developed a new software tool that works better than MS's, and you're going to market it. Then, one day an MS rep comes into your office and says "nice product! We're planning to develop a similiar one of our own (which is actually your code with a few changes to make it technically theirs) and we're going to market it at 1/3 of what you'll be able to price it at. So why don't you just sell out to us instead of going out of business?" Would that really be a choice?

MS's position allowed them to strongarm any company that threatened to take away their market share, and those that they couldn't strongarm (Netscape) they tried to put out of business by dumping product on the market and denying them access to the operating system source codes they needed to make their product work better. Just like Ma Bell denying access to the phone lines.

When any company controls not only its market, but also the means a competitior needs to enter that market, the FTC needs to take action.

And Dems... I am 100% in agreement with you in regards to your comments about the Patriot Act. When I hear "National ID Cards" I can't help thinking of Gestapo agents asking for people's papers at a German train station. That may sound funny to some, but it honestly scares the heck out of me.

 

[vraiblonde]

WHO is being silly, Bru?

"So why don't you just sell out to us instead of going out of business?" Would that really be a choice?

Yes, that would really be a choice. The small company can either spend a fortune developing and marketing their product, possibly without making a dime, or they can sell their product to MS and let THEM distribute it and make easy money.

Pretend the Wash Post decided to build a local online community to compete against Southern Maryland Online. They come to us and say, "You can either sell to us or we'll put you out of business." We can either tell them to pack sand and take our chances or we can say "cha-CHING!" But either way, it's a choice and business decision we would make.

denying them access to the operating system source codes they needed to make their product work better

There are any number of programs that work just fine on Windows. I have 2 or 3 dozen of them installed myself and have tried out hundreds more. Did MS farm out their source code to all of those companies and only say No to Netscape?

Microsoft has been smart in the way Apple never was. They WANTED a myriad of software choices for their users - it's what's kept them in business. The more software choices their customers have, the more likely they are to get Windows OS.

Ma Bell owned the actual phone lines, precluding competition. Microsoft doesn't own your computer. You can have Windows, Apple, Unix, Linux or whatever else for your OS. Since MS has competitors (and ones who actually do well in the marketplace) they are not a monopoly.

 

[Bruzilla]

"There are any number of programs that work just fine on Windows. I have 2 or 3 dozen of them installed myself and have tried out hundreds more. Did MS farm out their source code to all of those companies and only say No to Netscape?" No, they didn't. But then again, Ma Bell wasn't out trying to take over the post office either. MS went after any developer who they considered a threat or who's business they wanted. When you force your business out of competition, using unfair business practices instead of letting the consumer decide, you are breaking the rules and you have no competition.

It's one thing to buy out your competition and that happens every day. It's another thing to coerce your competition to sell out or to dump your product on the market. Remember that MS didn't get in trouble until they really went over the line with Netscape. Just a quick recap here, Netscape's browser was vastly superior to the MS browser of the time. Rather than play catch up, MS tried to buy Netscape out. Netscape said no, they wanted to "take our chances" and let the consumer decide which software they wanted.

Microsoft could have just focused on developing a better browser and competing with Netscape, and that would have been fine. Instead, they opted to do two illegal things. First, when Windows95 was being developed they denied access to the codes to Netscape, while openly providing them to companies developing software as a subsidiary of MS or companies that were developing software that MS had no interest in. Second, they developed their IE software and rather than sell it as a seperate application, as was the original plan, they began packaging it in as a part of the Windows software. Dumping product on the market in order to put a competitor out of business is unfair competition.

"Microsoft has been smart in the way Apple never was. They WANTED a myriad of software choices for their users - it's what's kept them in business. The more software choices their customers have, the more likely they are to get Windows OS." You're comparing apples and oranges. The IBMPC platform was what drove the success of Microsoft, and that's what competed with Apple. The reason that the IBM platform succeeded while Apple went under was that IBM licensed out their technology so that many companies could produce their product while Apple did not. So while IBM PCs got cheaper and cheaper, Apple's did not.

Also, I would point out to you that MS has never licensed out their technology. They are the sole proprietor of the operating system that runs about 95% of the world's personal computers, and they share that capability with no one. The only source code data that they allow out is used by programmers to develop software that will be compatible with MS Windows. They'll never license out their core software.

"Ma Bell owned the actual phone lines, precluding competition." That was the problem... the Bell System did not own all of the phone lines. They only had operating control over them, which is why the USG decided they did not have the right to say who could use them and who couldn't. But they did own enough of the lines to be able to cripple anyone who wanted to compete, and when that is the case you can't have competition.

"Microsoft doesn't own your computer. You can have Windows, Apple, Unix, Linux or whatever else for your OS. Since MS has competitors (and ones who actually do well in the marketplace) they are not a monopoly." Geeze Vrai, you're sounding more and more like a Democrat with these stetches of reality! Yes there are other operating systems, but how many of these are certified to work with most business applications? Can you say Zero? Remember that the biggest consumer of computer technology is businesses, and businesses can't afford to gamble on unproven technology... especially now that computers have become such an integral part of most businesses. So the net effect is that MS is really the only proven and cost effective means of adding computer services to your business. And sicne the consumer market follows the business market... the answer is Yes, MS does own your computer.

 

[demsformd]

Look, to say that the U.S. economy is completely controlled by the government is just a complete misconception. Yes, there are federal regulations that owners must deal within but we do not live in Red China or Communist Russia where all the economic planning was down centrally without private ownership.

Vrai, tell me how is Clinton completely to blame when Bush did nothing to stop 9/11 either? 9/11 occurred because of American complacency which both presidents displayed. Neither can be blamed. Only American complacency as well as Islamic fundamentalism can.