[watwut]

> 've never heard anyone claim before that just having these laws on the books for a small period of time is "enough".

Why would it be enough? This legislation prevents monopolies from abusing position, therefore we will repeal it the moment it turns out to be useful?

Yeah, it takes time to consolidate power again, that does not mean the legislation is not good.

[awongh]

> Why would it be enough?

It worked out just fine? Are you saying that post-2003 internet access should have had more regulation to allow open access?

I've never heard anyone complain about that before- is there a specific issue that could have been fixed?

[hackthemack]

You bring up an interesting point. This is something I discovered years ago when I would have "political discussion lunch" with three of my friends who all had very different political views. After years of going to lunch together and debating things like, "Was giving AT&T a monopoly in 1913, good, or bad?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment

The answer is... nobody will ever agree on anything. You can always cherry pick some detail to bolster your case, whatever it may be.

We can never visit the alternate reality where another choice was made and so you can not win an argument.

Now, you can go and find similar circumstances. You can find other countries who did not grant a monopoly (for instance). But then, your opponent will argue all the differences between that instance and what occurred.

Also, I think it is a shame your original reply is getting voted down. I am against people voting down comments just because they disagree. Voting down should be used for comments that are low quality.