House Bills Seek to Break Up Amazon and Other Big Tech Companies

[asbril]

One of the objectives of this proposed legislation would seem to "propose"  or "impose"  inter-connectivity between competing services. I understand this to mean for Apple messaging to be able to connect to Facebook messaging, etc. However I wonder how far this could lead and whether this could also mean for Alexa to communicate with Google Home. However it seems unlikely that this proposed legislation would end up in its current form.

I abstain here from any opinion on merits as we must avoid a political debate here, but the theoretical implications could provoke an earthquake in the tech world.

House Bills Seek to Break Up Amazon and Other Big Tech Companies - WSJ.pdf

[lilyoyo1]

Overall I'm against this. Just like most laws, down the road it'll be interpreted in ways that cause more harm than good

[MrBill]

In an earlier portion of my life I lived on a private lake.  Year round population around 2000, summer population 5-6K, summer weekends 10K, 4th of July---who knows could be 50K.   The lake itself being private property, we had to have our own rules and our own rule enforcement (much like private security guards), Police and Sheriffs officers didn't have jurisdiction until a crime had been committed and they were called onto the property to investigate.   Normal ordinances and laws of course also didn't have provisions for how you can use a lake... think swimming, boating, fishing, skiing etc.

For many years I sat on the Rules committee, the committee tasked with wording and drafting the rules, which later had to be passed by vote of the elected board of directors which I also sat on.   It's MUCH harder than it sounds to write said rules.  First draft a proposal, then you had to dissect it, slice it, dice it, etc.   The rule change might be something the fishermen requested, but the same language might not bode well for a different special interest group such as the water skiing crowd, or vice versa.  We once had a rule that required no more than 5 MPH speed in certain area and anywhere within 100 feet of shoreline, the problem with that is boat speedometers don't measure that low, enforcement was a guess, so one year it was proposed we change 5MPH to "no wake", but then we had to define what a wake was because virtually any movement creates a ripple, when does the ripple become a wake? it took almost 2 years to write the definition of "wake" that everyone was happy with.  Then there was punctuation... we once wrote a rule and when it was published a comma snuck in, which completely changed the interpretation.  The funny part: we specifically discussed there could not be a comma where it ended up in the text, some revision of the rule "in committee" had already had it.  It then took 2 months after publication to get the comma-less version implemented and republished.

Unfortunately Our Congress has ANFC (loosely translated Absolutely No Clue) what legislation they are passing.   One political party creates proposed legislation and it almost always contains pork barrel items or something that wasn't well thought out.   Take the Paycheck Protection Program as a prime example, the idea sounds great!  provide loans that won't have to be re-paid if the money is used to keep people employed rather than laid off.  BUTTTTTTTT... no protections against abuse were written into the law. The entities that ended up benefiting the most, were those that least needed the aid, and the mom and pops and small businesses that really needed it couldn't get it because there was a mountain of paperwork and the bankers tasked with approving the loans were more interested in catering to the large businesses that were never part of the intent. 

On the other hand... we have Antitrust laws for a reason and they have suffered badly in recent years.  Take broadband internet as example. A too large % of our population doesn't have any broadband access, or at best has crappy very slow original DSL as the only option.   The big providers like the marketplace less competitive.  The gigantic cable company charges me almost double in my small rural town where they have the monopoly.  Why do I say double?   Just 30 miles away at my son's house their promotions are for 50% of my best promotional rate. (don't even get me started that I have to call and ask for a "new promo" every 2 years or more often.)  Why? because at my son's house there is a choice between Gigantic Cable Company and once gigantic landline phone company that now has gotten giant again in the fiber and cellphone business and yes a THIRD choice too, that search giant that was building a fiber network for awhile also has fiber available at his address.  Competition, as well as Supply and Demand, dictate the pricing!  Price gouging those like me that have no choice and great deals in area where they MUST compete.

So in short, I DO think we need some laws to keep the giant organizations from taking over, but in the end I don't trust our Congress to pass laws that make sense.  They wait until the last minute, and/or tie it to something completely unrelated, then someone makes a 900 or 1500 page legislation that no one has has actually read, then they vote.  and at the end they have NFC the actual provisions of the bill they passed.

Those are my thoughts.

[lilyoyo1]

3 hours ago, MrBill said:

In an earlier portion of my life I lived on a private lake.  Year round population around 2000, summer population 5-6K, summer weekends 10K, 4th of July---who knows could be 50K.   The lake itself being private property, we had to have our own rules and our own rule enforcement (much like private security guards), Police and Sheriffs officers didn't have jurisdiction until a crime had been committed and they were called onto the property to investigate.   Normal ordinances and laws of course also didn't have provisions for how you can use a lake... think swimming, boating, fishing, skiing etc.

For many years I sat on the Rules committee, the committee tasked with wording and drafting the rules, which later had to be passed by vote of the elected board of directors which I also sat on.   It's MUCH harder than it sounds to write said rules.  First draft a proposal, then you had to dissect it, slice it, dice it, etc.   The rule change might be something the fishermen requested, but the same language might not bode well for a different special interest group such as the water skiing crowd, or vice versa.  We once had a rule that required no more than 5 MPH speed in certain area and anywhere within 100 feet of shoreline, the problem with that is boat speedometers don't measure that low, enforcement was a guess, so one year it was proposed we change 5MPH to "no wake", but then we had to define what a wake was because virtually any movement creates a ripple, when does the ripple become a wake? it took almost 2 years to write the definition of "wake" that everyone was happy with.  Then there was punctuation... we once wrote a rule and when it was published a comma snuck in, which completely changed the interpretation.  The funny part: we specifically discussed there could not be a common where it ended up in the text, some revision of the rule "in committee" had already had it.  It then took 2 months after publication to get the comma-less version implemented and republished.

Unfortunately Our Congress has ANFC (loosely translated Absolutely No Clue) what legislation they are passing.   One political party creates proposed legislation and it almost always contains pork barrel items or something that wasn't well thought out.   Take the Paycheck Protection Program as a prime example, the idea sounds great!  provide loans that won't have to be re-paid if the money is used to keep people employed rather than laid off.  BUTTTTTTTT... no protections against abuse were written into the law. The entities that ended up benefiting the most, were those that least needed the aid, and the mom and pops and small businesses that really needed it couldn't get it because there was a mountain of paperwork and the bankers tasked with approving the loans were more interested in catering to the large businesses that were never part of the intent. 

On the other hand... we have Antitrust laws for a reason and they have suffered badly in recent years.  Take broadband internet as example. A too large % of our population doesn't have any broadband access, or at best has crappy very slow original DSL as the only option.   The big providers like the marketplace less competitive.  The gigantic cable company charges me almost double in my small rural town where they have the monopoly.  Why do I say double?   Just 30 miles away at my son's house their promotions are for 50% of my best promotional rate. (don't even get me started that I have to call and ask for a "new promo" every 2 years or more often.)  Why? because at my son's house there is a choice between Gigantic Cable Company and once gigantic landline phone company that now has gotten giant again in the fiber and cellphone business and yes a THIRD choice too, that search giant that was building a fiber network for awhile also has fiber available at his address.  Competition, as well as Supply and Demand, dictate the pricing!  Price gouging those like me that have no choice and great deals in area where they MUST compete.

So in short, I DO think we need some laws to keep the giant organizations from taking over, but in the end I don't trust our Congress to pass laws that make sense.  They wait until the last minute, or tie it to something completely unrelated, then someone makes a 900 or 1500 page legislation that no one has has actually read, then they vote.  

Those are my thoughts.

Exactly my sentiments. I'll add, i wouldn't be opposed to legislation if they actually passed something that truly addressed issues vs their normal slap on the wrist with a wink stuff