Antitrust and the big tech companies

[wisbech]

It is going to be fascinating to watch & read the next round of anti-trust regulation to deal with data network effects.

Amazon is relatively simple to deal with with existing tools IMHO, force AWS hive off, force logistics & warehousing hive off, restrict or ban bundling (Prime). Rump Amazon is then 'just' another online retailer with same access on same terms to fulfillment as anyone else. Stockmarket would love it too as the profits would explode as they stop trying to take over the world, and move to profit maximising

Facebook/ Google/ Twitter are much harder. The best idea I have seen so far is to copy from telecoms, and force transferring your data between platforms as easy as changing mobile phone providers (in countries that force number mobility) and also force data openness (i.e., allow other companies same access to your Facebook history and footprint as you allow Facebook, subject to GDPR type rules and your consent).

I.e. you could allow Apple TV, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, BBC iPlayer cross access to all your viewing data on all streaming platforms, so the Netflix algos & producers can see what Disney shows you liked and watched. Or you could refuse any of them to ever use any of your data, insisting to be forgotten after each viewing.

Anyone with more knowledge than me on what the way forward should be?

[Rivenink]

wisbech said:

Facebook/ Google/ Twitter are much harder. The best idea I have seen so far is to copy from telecoms, and force transferring your data between platforms as easy as changing mobile phone providers (in countries that force number mobility) and also force data openness (i.e., allow other companies same access to your Facebook history and footprint as you allow Facebook, subject to GDPR type rules and your consent).

I.e. you could allow Apple TV, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, BBC iPlayer cross access to all your viewing data on all streaming platforms, so the Netflix algos & producers can see what Disney shows you liked and watched. Or you could refuse any of them to ever use any of your data, insisting to be forgotten after each viewing.

Anyone with more knowledge than me on what the way forward should be?

There was a project, and I can't remeber what it was called, that was focused on how to deal with this data management.

The gist of it was to give people ownership of their data again.

Any personal data is stored on a persons own device(s), and they explicitly give access to that data to companies. The companies wouldn't copy or store that data, just have access to it when they needed it. Which means a person could cut off a company from accessing that data at any time.

Obviously that doesn't work that well for a site like Facebook, but it works for most other websites who only need to know your name and address to sort out a purchase and delivery.

Same could work for streaming sites; what you watch is your business, and if you want to share it to these companies to recommend you better stuff, you can. Or you can cut their access to that data at will.

[wisbech]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No, not in response to Parler, just following standard anti trust rules that outlaw vertical integration if it is used (or can be used) for market dominance. Classic example is that the USA forced United to split into three parts in the 1930s (Boeing, P&W, United the airline).

[wisbech]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The fact that they could offer Amazon competitors a worse service, or give priority to Amazon in retail/ streaming etc. You could try and regulate that they treat everyone the same, but at that point it is much easier just to split them up. Analogy to the aircraft case - the government could have insisted on Boeing selling to (say) British Airways on the same terms as their own airline, but the soft side is too hard to police (speed of reaction to technical issues, insights into future developments etc)

[DeejRC]

Who or what is AWS?

And what do they/it do?

[bitchstewie]

DeejRC said:

Who or what is AWS?

And what do they/it do?

Amazon Web Services.

Hosting and cloud tools and services.

Simple version is that when you visit many websites (this one I believe) they don't go and buy their own physical servers and look after them they purchase the services off AWS and it all sits on infrastructure owned and managed by AWS.

[Mrr T]

wisbech said:

Anyone with more knowledge than me on what the way forward should be?

Can I suggest your way forward is to look up the definition of a monopoly. Amazon does not have a monopoly position. It might want to but we are some way off. FB and Twit are free for the user so cannot be a monopoly. They are paid for by advertising and that's a very competitive market.

[CzechItOut]

wisbech said:

The fact that they could offer Amazon competitors a worse service, or give priority to Amazon in retail/ streaming etc. You could try and regulate that they treat everyone the same, but at that point it is much easier just to split them up. Analogy to the aircraft case - the government could have insisted on Boeing selling to (say) British Airways on the same terms as their own airline, but the soft side is too hard to police (speed of reaction to technical issues, insights into future developments etc)

That doesn't really make sense for two reasons:

Firstly, wouldn't a better and dare I say simpler approach be for Amazon competitors to simply not use AWS? There are plenty of other cloud hosting providers available.

Secondly, if Amazon wanted a competitive advantage for its own ecommerce or streaming platforms, they can simply build and host their own servers, like people did in the olden days.

This is the problem I have with all these anti-trust shenanigans. People (mainly politicians) don't seem to know what they achieve, other than a bit of sabre rattling as a show of strength.

[wisbech]

Mrr T said:

Can I suggest your way forward is to look up the definition of a monopoly. Amazon does not have a monopoly position. It might want to but we are some way off. FB and Twit are free for the user so cannot be a monopoly. They are paid for by advertising and that's a very competitive market.

AWS according to Gartner has 49% of the market, and the top 3 between them have over 70%. That is certainly enough market concentration to warrant an antitrust investigation.

A monopoly absolutely can be free to the end user. Local TV was free, but highly regulated due to the fact that broadcast bandwidth meant that the number of channels was limited. The government awarded regional franchises to ensure competition on the production side, rather than have one UK wide ITV.

[anonymous-user]

CzechItOut said:

That doesn't really make sense for two reasons:

Firstly, wouldn't a better and dare I say simpler approach be for Amazon competitors to simply not use AWS? There are plenty of other cloud hosting providers available.

Secondly, if Amazon wanted a competitive advantage for its own ecommerce or streaming platforms, they can simply build and host their own servers, like people did in the olden days.

This is the problem I have with all these anti-trust shenanigans. People (mainly politicians) don't seem to know what they achieve, other than a bit of sabre rattling as a show of strength.

This, it seems odd that companies wanting free speech platforms etc are then putting themselves under the rules of AWS or worse on apps relying on google or Apple etc.

Surely they need webhosting service that will allow whatever they’re about?

[speedy_thrills]

When Standard Oil was broken up, for much the same reasons really, it actually made John D. Rockefellow wealthier. The sum of its parts was worth more than Standard Oil as a near-monopoly.

[Mrr T]

wisbech said:

Mrr T said:

Can I suggest your way forward is to look up the definition of a monopoly. Amazon does not have a monopoly position. It might want to but we are some way off. FB and Twit are free for the user so cannot be a monopoly. They are paid for by advertising and that's a very competitive market.

AWS according to Gartner has 49% of the market, and the top 3 between them have over 70%. That is certainly enough market concentration to warrant an antitrust investigation.

A monopoly absolutely can be free to the end user. Local TV was free, but highly regulated due to the fact that broadcast bandwidth meant that the number of channels was limited. The government awarded regional franchises to ensure competition on the production side, rather than have one UK wide ITV.

So AWS is the largest cloud provider. Why would that require it to be seperated from its other businesses. The cloud is just one method of storage and currently only a small part of the market.

Local TV and radio where regulated because the available bandwidth was limited. That is not the case with the net.

[CzechItOut]

speedy_thrills said:

When Standard Oil was broken up, for much the same reasons really, it actually made John D. Rockefellow wealthier. The sum of its parts was worth more than Standard Oil as a near-monopoly.

That's the irony. Jeff Bezos would likely see his fortune increase by much more than if Amazon stayed as one single company.

[purplepolarbear]

wisbech said:

It is going to be fascinating to watch & read the next round of anti-trust regulation to deal with data network effects.

Amazon is relatively simple to deal with with existing tools IMHO, force AWS hive off, force logistics & warehousing hive off, restrict or ban bundling (Prime). Rump Amazon is then 'just' another online retailer with same access on same terms to fulfillment as anyone else. Stockmarket would love it too as the profits would explode as they stop trying to take over the world, and move to profit maximising

Facebook/ Google/ Twitter are much harder. The best idea I have seen so far is to copy from telecoms, and force transferring your data between platforms as easy as changing mobile phone providers (in countries that force number mobility) and also force data openness (i.e., allow other companies same access to your Facebook history and footprint as you allow Facebook, subject to GDPR type rules and your consent).

I.e. you could allow Apple TV, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, BBC iPlayer cross access to all your viewing data on all streaming platforms, so the Netflix algos & producers can see what Disney shows you liked and watched. Or you could refuse any of them to ever use any of your data, insisting to be forgotten after each viewing.

Anyone with more knowledge than me on what the way forward should be?

For Amazon I think the problem is the marketplace - if you want to buy something, by default many people go to Amazon. I would ensure companies can list their products, stock, prices and terms of sale in a standard format. Anyone could then set up a marketplace by reading these listings and offering the product for sale adding the markup they see fit, dealing with payment and then passing an order to the supplier for fulfilment.

A consumer could then go to their preferred marketplace - some would emerge that compete on price, others that do innovative things to provide high levels of service but the consumer would have a choice.

For Facebook and other social networks, my preferred solution would be:

You store your profile and everything you post at a profile hosting company (possibly your ISP). Something like DNS links your email address to your preferred profile hosting company.

Applications can access your profile with your email address and password - e.g. facebook would find the hosting company you use, send the password you gave it and your email address to the hosting company and get your profile. It would then get your friends and makes a request to their hosting company (using your email address) for items they have posted and made available to you and construct a news feed.

Competitors to facebook would emerge that display data in different ways or have a different commercial model (e.g. subscription instead of advertising), and if your friend wants to use something different to you then they can.