A News.com reader says that if AOL acquires AT&T Broadband, we'll just have another U.S. monopoly on our hands.
AOL vs. Microsoft: Is there a lesser evil?
In response to the Dec. 7 column by Charles Cooper, "Saying yes to AOL, no to Microsoft":
I would have to disagree with you. Think about it: We have Microsoft putting out operating systems and office programs while on the side looking for a way into the same business that AOL got itself into. Then there's AOL Time Warner, a huge conglomerate that already has a cable network that basically serves half the country--and now it wants to buy another cable company on top of that to serve the rest of the country, with a few exceptions. And you find no problems with this?
You must be out of your mind if you hate one company because it has most of the control in one industry and then you are willing to give most of the control in another area to an even more evil company. Who knows what AOL has in mind if it gets ahold of another cable network. It would just add another monopoly to our country if AOL acquired AT&T Broadband.
It might also adversely affect the Internet. If I had my choice out of these two companies as far as which one should run the Internet, I would choose Microsoft, because at least Bill Gates believes in freedom of speech and would let the Internet lie. I cannot say the same things for our free speech-stifling friends over at AOL--the company that, given the opportunity, has the power to completely ruin the Internet and all its potential. I just wanted to say be careful what you say before you say it.