That was my immediate reaction as well, but as pointed out nearby (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762415), Time Warner Cable != Time Warner, Inc., so this is not a telecom merger.
The regulations did have an effect in the 1980s, of course. That was back when there was only one company that did long distance service, and (earlier) you rented, not owned, your home telephone. So long-distance calls were very expensive, and a Big Deal, and you had only one or two phones in your house, because they were so expensive.
(off topic) WSJ had a hilarious writeup last summer about the confusion [0]. Basically, the CEO of Time Warner continued to get hate mail from Time Warner Cable customers post spin-off. Time Warner Cable has since been acquired by Charter for $60B with a brand phase out.
They certainly were. That only changed in 1996, when the Telecom act of that year removed regulations around long-distance and local carrier mergers created by the break-up and also instructed the FCC to remove other similar barriers that were no longer "in the public interest".
Knowing how glacially software companies merge with each other and how their internal processes basically remain as they were originally, I'm wondering exactly how much actual control the parent companies are exerting on physical operations as opposed to branding and taking a cut of the profits.
It shows much regulations have had an effect, and it shows how policy changes in government (from anti-monopoly, to pro-monopoly) can have a major effect on the corporate landscape.
The only true monopolies are those backed by the government, which the original AT&T was. There has never been a "monopoly" not backed by the government that did not benefit the customer. Standard Oil and U.S. Steel, the classic examples always used, both drove down prices and increased supply for the market. By the time the government took action both had lost significant market share already as competition improved.
The only ones on your list that create problems would be Comcast and Verizon (assuming not wireless) as they are granted local monopolies by local municipalities and governments through right of way access to utility poles, etc. Breaking up the others, as you are suggesting, would only harm consumers.
This is completely incorrect. Every unregulated monopoly catastrophically chokes an economy over time and those that are regulated are almost as disastrous.
Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century.
And US Steel certainly did _not_ have competition when anti-trust was brought against it. By 1907 there were no longer any competitors and anti-trust attempts only started in 1911.
What you do have today, for adopting pro-monopoly policies for decades is, among other things, the highest bandwidth prices in the developed world. Higher even than the comically inept regulated monopoly Telefonica. Which btw has phone plans and per minute charges a fraction of the US and where the idea for charging for an incoming call is unthinkable. And a food supply monopolies that inflates the price of food to stunning levels. The list is endless but my typing patience is not. So here's a link.
Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century.
Ummmmm, no.
Whatever your economic viewpoint, there's no credible way you can claim that the Bell monopoly was healthy for the economy. This is the same organization that had to be taken to court to allow new devices to be plugged in. Remember these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler They weren't built because it's more efficient for computers to communicate over soundwaves.
there's no credible way you can claim that the Bell monopoly was healthy for the economy.
The Bell monopoly invented the transistor. I think there's a credible claim that could be made that the invention of the transistor was healthy for the economy.
I did not say Ma Bell was good for the economy. And certainly not that it should have remained intact. I point out that had it been an unregulated monopoly, it have been worse.
As far as I can tell their market control is limited to just their devices which though still significant isn't enough for a breakup to make sense to me.
That's not too say nothing should be done to prevent abuse of the control they do have.
Walmart yeilds quite a bit of market control. I'm not sure on the specifics though but they are a powerful retail force that's wrapped around many lives in the U.S.
While I am sympathetic to the issue, I'm concerned about how we can achieve our goals within the limits of the legal framework. Should we break up Kelly services or Robert half staffing? Should we break up GitHub?
http://i.imgur.com/US2mwgq.jpg