roadkill2

There's a couple of things unstated here . . or mis-understood. The "Government", per se, didn't "Break Up" Ma Bell. The court did because . . IT WAS A LEGAL MONOPLY that had begun to stifle even R & D by companies outside the Communications business. It is, perhaps, one of the oddities of our laws. Utilities can monopolize, but only to a point, and it becomes the duties of state created utility commissions and the courts to decide where that line in the sand exists. Ma Bell had become a totally self stustained company. They were their own R & D company, their own equipment supplier, their own construction company(s), etc. Thus the courts said that they were an all inclusive Monoply and had to divest. I believe that it was the "Commerce Clause" that was used in the winning arguments, because of AT&T's totality of interstate monoply.

And, in a way it was good, in another, it set a precedent that wasn't good for the county, looking back. The one good thing that came from the divestment of AT&T was the mobile (or cell) phone. AT&T fought the concept because of their investment in physical infrastructure (Lines, Poles, etc) knowing, that at some time in the future, physical connections would become a thing of the past. However with cable broadband, they still reap millions of dollars in rent for just the poles that the cable is hung on.

Wal Mart, on the other hand, is nowhere close to being a monoply. Thus, there is no need to even consider any court action to divest or shut down. Actually, even the courts don't have the power to shut down a corporate business unless they can prove criminality in it's operation(s).