Monopoly is a bad thing, to be sure. But the FCC's rules don't act to prevent monopoly. That's what we have antitrust laws for. The FCC's rules do something more - something whose value has never been very clear to me. My point is this - if Pfizer and Eli Lilly want to merge, we have a set of rules for dealing with whether we allow this to happen, and on what terms. Why should the rules be more stringent when its Viacom and Fox?
I thought it was a given that the "bottom" of concentration was a bad thing. Not so? More tomorrow then...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-19-03 10:30 PM
Monopoly is a bad thing, to be sure. But the FCC's rules don't act to prevent monopoly. That's what we have antitrust laws for. The FCC's rules do something more - something whose value has never been very clear to me. My point is this - if Pfizer and Eli Lilly want to merge, we have a set of rules for dealing with whether we allow this to happen, and on what terms. Why should the rules be more stringent when its Viacom and Fox?
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 05-20-03 10:55 AM