The dark side of Palladium [Archive]

View Full Version : The dark side of Palladium

Jason Dunn

06-27-2002, 11:45 PM

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020627.html">http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020627.html</a> Robert X. Cringely is easily one of the most well-written and shockingly intelligent columnists I've ever read. His latest column takes on Palladium, and it sure made me do a double-take. Microsoft releasing a proprietary version of TCP/IP? Oh my - smells like trouble to me! Go check out the article - very interesting stuff. "Last August, I wrote of a rumor that Microsoft wanted to replace TCP/IP with a proprietary protocol -- a protocol owned by Microsoft -- that it would tout as being more secure. Actually, the new protocol would likely be TCP/IP with some of the reserved fields used as pointers to proprietary extensions, quite similar to Vines IP, if you remember that product from Banyan Systems. I called it TCP/MS in the column. How do you push for the acceptance of such a protocol? First, make the old one unworkable by placing millions of exploitable TCP/IP stacks out on the Net, ready-to-use by any teenage sociopath. When the Net slows or crashes, the blame would not be assigned to Microsoft. Then ship the new protocol with every new copy of Windows, and install it with every Windows Update over the Internet. Zero to 100 million copies could happen in less than a year. This week, Microsoft announced Palladium through an exclusive story in Newsweek written by Steven Levy, who ought to have known better. Palladium is the code name for a Microsoft project to make all Internet communication safer by essentially pasting a digital certificate on every application, message, byte, and machine on the Net, then encrypting the data EVEN INSIDE YOUR COMPUTER PROCESSOR. Palladium compatible hardware (presumably chipsets and motherboards) will come from both AMD and Intel, and the software will, of course, come from Microsoft. That software is what I had dubbed TCP/MS. The point of all this is simple. It may actually make the Internet somewhat safer. But the real purpose of this stuff, I fear, is to take technology owned by nobody (TCP/IP) and replace it with technology owned by Redmond. That's taking the Internet and turning it into MSN. Oh, and we'll all have to buy new computers. This is diabolical. If Microsoft is successful, Palladium will give Bill Gates a piece of every transaction of any type while at the same time marginalizing the work of any competitor who doesn't choose to be Palladium-compliant. So much for Linux and Open Source, but it goes even further than that. So much for Apple and the Macintosh. It's a militarized network architecture only Dick Cheney could love."

kaiden.1

06-28-2002, 01:15 AM

OH..... Microsoft. The company that we all love to hate; and hate to love!

You know; I hate to say it but you just never really know what is up MS sleeve. They have had their eye on the NET ever since it got started. And unfortunately you can't say that it possibly ain't true. Big Corporate Scandal it seems to be found every where these days. :roll: What to do?!?

XmanHP548

06-28-2002, 01:37 AM

8O This is SO why I am mostly a Mac user. Microsoft is so full of itself it is disgusting. And I gotta be honest - although I am a PocketPc user now (since it is superior to Palm), if Apple ever comes out with an improved PDA I am jumping ship so fast. MS can really make me sick sometimes. :evil:

PlayAgain?

06-28-2002, 02:04 AM

You got to give Microsoft credit for trying and heck, they might even get away with it! Doesn't mean I like it - I think it stinks, but there we go.

But why pick on Bill Gates? I thought he'd taken a back seat for Steve Ballmer (spelling?) to take charge? I don't know why but I see Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer (spelling?) as a kind of Tony Blair and John Prescot partnership, one is brainy and charming while the other is always ready for a bit of fistycuffs.

Jonathan1

06-28-2002, 03:31 AM

I still stand firm to my afore mentioned plane statement. :evil: As evil and totally anti-politically correct as it is.

This company lacks any type of moral core whatsoever. If something isn’t done soon they are going to weasel their way into total control of the net. Won’t that be a cheery day?

Again I'm no longer worried about the government. It’s MS. Computers are KEYS to information. When a company controls those keys what makes them any worse then a government that bans certain information. I don’t know about the vast majority of the cattle…oops sorry consumers out there worry about this but if they aren’t they are:

1. Don’t understand technology and what the ramifications are of this will be.
2. Are cattle that just follow the pack.
3. Are Microsoft apologists that would follow Microsoft into the gates of hell if necessary.

Until Fall of 2000 I was a MAJOR MS supporter. I would go to bat for them. Some Linux lover started hacking on them I would defend MS tooth and nail. But something happened. Somewhere between 2000 and 2001 something happened at this company. MS has always been cocky. EVERYONE knows this. But somewhere in that time span Microsoft went beyond being cocky into actually implementing it in their products. With such things as .NET, product activation both in their OS's and their software products. I think MS wised up to the fact that the antitrust trial wasn't going anywhere and KNEW that were going to get off with nothing more then a slap on the wrist. So what’s the point of playing the good child. I see Microsoft like a child that is allowed to get away with anything. They keep testing the boundaries. When they go to far they get spanked and back away (Last year they made msn.com inaccessible to other web browsers. For about 2 hours. Ya see they got tons of e-mail about this and backed off.) The child is never punished. Never shown that THIS is inappropriate behavior. Every time they go to far they get slapped on the hand by the Justice dept and go about doing their usual.

This is to be expected. MS generates how much revenue for the US? You think the government is going to break that stream?!?!? Heh. Ya right.

I think once this antitrust sentencing is really over you are going to see some serious crap come out of MS. And in response to that I also think virus and hackers are going to ramp up their attacks on MS technology. You see attacking MS products is more then just making a statement about the security in MS's products. Its also bad publicity. The holy grail of these virus writers is a virus so bad. So infectious that it makes its way around the globe in a matter of hours knocking down every MS product it finds along its way. That would put MS out of business in a month. I'll throw a block party the day that happens.

I hate this. I WANT to love their products. But this. This is no way to sell your product.

ricksfiona

06-28-2002, 04:57 AM

Jonathen1, I couldn't have said it any better! Amen brother. Only thing is, I'm a CNE (Novell), and have usually used products that have been competition to MS (IBM-OS/2). I have been in the business close to 20 years and I have seen this time and time again with MS. Make MS OS/Office products incompatible with other vendors software to the point where you need to switch your application to an MS equivalent. This is not new.

TCP/IP huh? This is REALLY scary! What to do? Well the people who maintain these systems are going to have to say "NO" with a big, united voice. Is this going to happen? Doubt it. Isn't Microsoft already doing something familiar with Java? J++ is what I believe they call it, or C#? What are the programmers doing about this?

I'm a VAR and while MS products are good for computing in general, I hate the upgrade cycle. Technology is supposed to serve the community, not vice-versa. I have a responsibility to my clients and that is to make their systems both performance/cost efficient as possible.

MS servers connected on the Internet are not very cost efficient at all. Gee, how long does it take to install ALL of the patches when building a system? It might even take longer to install all the patches than to install and configure the server.

But what to do? People LOVE Outlook & Office and certainly don't want to use anything else. Peple hate change. Sure you can use Outlook with NetWare, but you lose a lot of functionality with Outlook/Exchange. Sure you can use WordPerfect (version 2002 is SUPER nice) instead of Word, but you have file 'compatibility' issues. There we go again.

What to do? Give the client the choice and have them make the decision. Option A (MS), has a familiar face and is a little more user friendly, but will cost you more purchasing, installing and maintaining. Option B (Novell, Linux, WordPerfect), invovles a little more training, less expensive, more stable and is more secure. Now this is a great simplication since there are other factors involved, but you get my point.

I'd rather fix REAL problems and implement REAL solutions rather than being a plumber. BTW, you know there are NetWare servers out there that haven't been powered down/patched in 5 years? Tell that to the accountants!

Bottom line, the people in charge have to think in a bigger picture than what they do now. It's all about "mind-share" and "warm fuzzy feeling" that MS has been so good at doing. If I.T. managers take the cowardly road with the executive board, then M.S. will keep rolling along just fine.

BTW, I LOVE my IPAQ 3870!

Will T Smith

06-28-2002, 06:25 AM

rlobrecht

06-28-2002, 12:54 PM

Too much of the internet is powered by UNIX/Linux servers. These are the REAL workhorses of the internet. These vendors will NEVER buy in to a proprietary solution.

Without such support, Microsoft CANNOT make this successful.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. According to Netcraft (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/) Apache runs 63% of the Web. I also don't think cisco will buy in to MS's proprietary protocol. What's a router going to run? Embedded XP?

hshortt

06-28-2002, 01:58 PM

Scott R

06-28-2002, 03:16 PM

I've always said that proprietary for proprietary-sake is not good, but if it's proprietary for a good reason, don't be so quick to dismiss it. Now, if this protocol really is more secure, etc., that's fine. The key is that MS needs to go to great lengths to keep this an open standard and get other industry leaders (and the public) involved in accepting and owning it.

Scott

JonnoB

06-28-2002, 05:02 PM

I am of the camp that says let the market run itself. If MS wants to come up with a different protocol... let them. If they are successful, it will be because it is better or it was marketed better, or products they use it with are/were better. I can see in the future where a browser on the OS would run over regular IP, but to get 'special' features, it must run on the new protocol.

Unless MS does something illegal, doing something to gain marketshare (even 100%) is not so wrong.

A Mac, a Linux desktop, or another OS can be used with its own proprietary protocol. When you don't like/want to use MS, use something else. I know there are apps that only run on MS, but that is our decision or that of who we work for to run those apps.

Don't kill the mousetrap just because it is used by 99% of the people.. either make a better mousetrap or use the one that everyone else uses. There is always going to be someone who tries better. No natural monopoly has been able to stay at the top unless they continued to innovate. Technology is changing so fast, in a few years, MS could be made irrelevant.

Hans the Hedgehog

06-28-2002, 05:04 PM

Guys, the only institution that stands firm in the face of change is the graveyard.

If anyone else came up with the idea of better, more secure computing, people would listen. Of course, such individuals or companies may not have the necessary weight to make things happen.

So, it is with all upmost respect to the other posters that I move to the left and stand alongside Microsoft in it's venture.

Cheerio
Howard

Howard, I beg to differ. AMD and Wave did come up with a very similar plan, way back in 1999. Also, this is not a move to the left... it is a move to the far right! :twisted:

Let's put a paranoid spin on things and look at what MS is doing:
1. Tries to keep all Passport and .NET info on their servers, forcing all e-commerce to come through them. MS backs off only after incredible heat from the industry.

2. MS product activation scheme and increased pressure to shorten the upgrade cycle. Don't go along with it, pay up to 170% more!

3. Longhorn and it's journaling file system where, according to Gates, every program knows where all my "stuff" is and understands this "stuff."

4. Media Player and XP search function send info back to MS servers. Users are not told of this, rather it takes packet sniffing to discover it.

5. Palladium marking every bit of data on your machine with a digital stamp.

All these things show how desperate and egotistical MS has become. They are trying to create a environment where they know everything about someone... what music they listen to, how often they upgrade their hardware, what they buy, what they watch, where they surf, what they are interested in.

MS knows that they are on the edge of losing everything. The constant Windows/Office upgrade cycle is slowing and they have been trying to change business models for a while now. First, they wanted to host Office on the web... failed. They they wanted to have a subscription model for software, even tried it in Aussie, and they, through marketing and such, have found this to be unpalatable to the consumer. What's left? Information, and more specifically-- consumer info. They know that if only Certificated programs can access they data, the 'net, and whatever, then they have a new source of revenue... the Certificatation process. Also, they will control the marketing info and the means to access this info.

Longhorn will work perfectly with this scheme. Having a proprietary TCP/IP that can tag every packet is also a very important and necessary part of all this, too. MS's paranoia that the consumer may shop somewhere else has gotten the better of them, and in this paranoid post-9/11 world, this scheme meshes well with the intelligence community (FBI's Carnivore, anyone?). Their claim that TCP/IP is insecure is moot. It was never meant to be secure. The major problem with how the 'net works, is not TCP/IP but MS's products such as the "loved" Outlook and all that. If they had not left such enormous security holes in their products, I doubt we would ever have seen the kind of rampant viral attacks like we have.

Sure, this may have a very difficult time ever coming to be in the marketplace, but don't underestimate the power of fear and paranoia-- both of which MS with it's FUD marketing skills are wonderful at selling. Our government and our country are scared, and that can create an environment where something like this could get put into effect quite easily. It is too easy to say that if you have nothing to hide, then this should not scare you. Yeah, well, we have a Constitution that says different. I am guaranteed my right to privacy and protection from illegal search... this kind of data collection and data tagging that MS wants goes directly against this concept.

Well, this is a bit longer than I expected, so I'll sign off. I don't think this is a good thing, and I think MS has gone way overboard this time. Pick up some George Orwell and spend the weekend reading why this is such a dangerous and frightening thing.

Hans.

Will T Smith

06-28-2002, 05:50 PM

klinux

06-28-2002, 07:56 PM

Steven Cedrone

06-28-2002, 10:10 PM

You see attacking MS products is more then just making a statement about the security in MS's products. Its also bad publicity. The holy grail of these virus writers is a virus so bad. So infectious that it makes its way around the globe in a matter of hours knocking down every MS product it finds along its way. That would put MS out of business in a month. I'll throw a block party the day that happens.

First of all, this would not put Microsoft out of business. But in all likelihood it could put hundreds or thousands of companies out of business! Ever hear the old saying: Be careful of what you wish for, it might just come true! Have you looked at the job market/unemployment rate out there recently?

Steve

Instead of throwing that block party, you may want to stretch out those unemployment checks :wink:

JonnoB

06-28-2002, 11:15 PM

Steven Cedrone

06-29-2002, 12:39 AM

I compete with MS on several fronts.... I also partner with them. There are some ways that my product could be absolutely crushed if MS would focus on a specific area/technology. Ultimately, it is my responsibility to do a better job and market better. Sure, MS has a leg up because of size, etc..... but just because they are bigger doesn't mean they should be hindered from being successful.

I'm not advocating hindering Microsoft (or helping them for that matter), I merely point out that "wishing" every machine that runs Microsoft code to be hacked and crash is not in all of our best interests.............

Steve

Jonathan1

06-29-2002, 06:54 AM

First of all, this would not put Microsoft out of business. But in all likelihood it could put hundreds or thousands of companies out of business! Ever hear the old saying: Be careful of what you wish for, it might just come true! Have you looked at the job market/unemployment rate out there recently?

Steve

Instead of throwing that block party, you may want to stretch out those unemployment checks :wink:

Couple of thoughts.....

1. Sometimes to cure the patient the patient must endure some pain.

2. Real lessons in life very rarely come at little to no cost.
*coughs* Sept 11...

What do you think this Bills Gates memo that was released earlier this year heralding the introduction of trustworthy computing was?!?! Pure marketing speak. Simply put the virus's of the last 2 years. I Love You, Melissa, Code Red, Nimda, Sircam, Klez all have kicked the crap out of MS and their products. You think Trustworthy computing came as a result of Microsoft seeing the light? No, it’s because just about every tech site, every news site, every discussion at IT shops around the globe have focused on MS and their virus vulnerability. It’s a generally bad thing when you can watch the 10PM news and see virus's make the headline news. And that is EXACTLY what happened with Code Red. Then you have vulnerabilities like RAW sockets. MS has NEVER admitted that this could even potentially be a problem even though it potentially could spread a virus from PC to PC as easily as water flows through a river.

Plus I bet you've never see this article

Ralph Nader Joins Call For Federal Procurement Action Against Microsoft Security

By D. Ian Hopper
Associated Press
- 5:12 PM EST Tues., June 04, 2002

Government technology officials, tired of security holes in Microsoft's products, are discussing whether to use their collective purchasing power to force changes in the way the software giant does business.
Their efforts got a boost Tuesday when consumer activist Ralph Nader joined the cause in a letter to the White House saying that changes in purchasing policy may be more effective and palatable to the administration than antitrust sanctions.

The Bush administration gave a cool response to the four-year antitrust case against Microsoft, which it inherited from the Clinton administration, settling it last year on terms that many critics found too weak.

"[The government is] going to have a harder time explaining this proposal away," Nader says. "This deals with taxpayer efficiency, promoting competition without resorting to regulation and national security."

It is a long-simmering problem among government officials, where almost every office from the smallest cubicle in Washington to aircraft carriers at sea use Microsoft's Windows operating system and its software--and are forced to install frequent security fixes.

The White House Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a message seeking comment. In an earlier interview, however, an OMB official said federal officials have discussed how to deal with Microsoft's security problems.

"We haven't gone to them as a united front yet. That's one of the options," White House information technology chief Mark Forman said late last year. "This is actually much bigger than just Microsoft."

Since then, the government's top computer officials have said they have been too busy with other computer security issues to confront Microsoft about the problem.

Microsoft declined to discuss its conversations with the government.

"We think that if Mr. Nader took a close look at the software industry he would find that no one delivers more technology at affordable prices to empower consumers worldwide," company spokeswoman Ginny Terzano said in a statement.

While Nader's proposal also deals with ways to control Microsoft's power, federal officials are focused on security holes.

"All of us rely on Microsoft to a greater or lesser extent, and we all wish Microsoft did a better job on security," says David B. Nelson, head of computer security at NASA.

Most commercial products are made for business and consumer customers, Nelson says, and the growing number of software gadgets added into Microsoft products is a headache for federal computer buyers.

"They come with all kinds of bells and whistles and every bell is a vulnerability," he says.

Microsoft has taken some of the concerns to heart. After being embarrassed on an almost regular basis by security flaws in its products--including a debilitating problem found in its latest Windows XP operating system just days after its release--it began a companywide training program on security issues earlier this year.

Open-source operating systems like Linux, which makes its software blueprints free to the public for inspection and changes, have made some headway in the government for use on large servers that store software and Web sites.

A recent study completed for the Pentagon by Mitre recommended further use of open-source computing systems on the grounds that they are less vulnerable to computer attacks and far cheaper.

Microsoft, which does not widely distribute its source codes, disputes that conclusion.

The Nader letter, also signed by James Love of the Nader-founded Consumer Project on Technology, suggests the government should place limits on the number of Microsoft products it buys, dividing the federal pot among Microsoft, Apple, IBM and other companies.

Decades ago, government computers ran proprietary, often outdated, software. While Microsoft's ubiquity increases the possibility of viruses, officials have said it also ensures that workers in different agencies will be able to share files among themselves and with others.

The letter suggests the government could push Microsoft to make changes, using that market share limit as leverage. Many of the changes--such as more technical disclosure and making its products available on competing operating systems--mirror those suggested during the antitrust case and championed by the nine states still suing Microsoft.

Copyright %A9 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Tell me again how MS couldn't go out of business from bad publicity. Granted Ralph Nader isn't exactly a moderate now is he? :wink: But the article makes the point. The virus exploits that have been occurring have put MS in a bad light with even the government. As far as I'm concerned I want this to continue.

Trust me I KNOW what a pain it is when a virus hits a server. I inherited a network that had no virus software on all 6 of their servers. 2 novel, 1 NT, 3 W2K Adv server. I got everything up and running and what happens on the VERY last server. There were 4 virus’s on this sucker that Symantec found. 1 of which couldn't be cleaned while running the OS. 2 Nimda variants, and 1 Code Red. I'm surprised that the virus's didn't spawn a consciousness considering more then 7,000 files were infected with these things!!!!
I know the pain of getting the server back and thinking you are good to go and finding out you missed one the little bastards. So you end up blowing away the entire server. All partitions. EVERYTHING!

And even after that experience I say bring it on. Bring on a virus that wipes out everything. 30 years from now the IT industry would see it as a blessing. Because I'm quite sure if MS is stopped history will see this company as a doubled edged dagger that's hidden behind bill gates back. MS has done some wonderful things in the IT industry. They have standardized the GUI. They have make the working environment the same as the home environment so users of home PC's are right at home at work. They have created a programming environment that works across all of their products (One of the benefits of a monopoly.)
But then there is the downside. And that downside is. Well you know what the down side is. What was this thread originally stared for?

As for unemployment. If it would make the industry and the entire population wake the heck up and pay attention to what MS is doing to the computer world I would burn every possession I have and live as a bum on a corner. That is how much this and Microsoft as a company scares me.

marconelly

06-29-2002, 05:44 PM

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

This is not the first time we heard that Microsoft is trying to control [fill in the blank here] segment. Market will decide just like it is doing now with Palm vs. PocketPC, for example.

Sometimes, if market is left to decide something, consequences can be catastrophical. I'm sure there were people like you in 1930s in Germany who were saying -

"Hah, all of you who keep saying that Hitler is the raving lunatic, talk nonsense. People love him, what other proof of his good will do you want?!"

Marketing, false propaganda is a strong weapon, and can make the weak masses do whatever the marketeer has inteneded, just if it's made the right way and wrapped in a nice package.

jeffmckean

06-29-2002, 06:17 PM

Wow, all of this invective based on one commentary from Robert X. Cringely.

Is there anyone here with enough balanced expertise to truly comment on what this means, or if there's anything to it?

I'm in the group that says let 'em try, and let the market do its work.

Remember, you don't have to buy anything that you don't want to. So my advice is, if you don't like it, then vote with your wallet.

JonnoB

06-29-2002, 06:22 PM

"Hah, all of you who keep saying that Hitler is the raving lunatic, talk nonsense. People love him, what other proof of his good will do you want?!"

Hitler was a dictator that no one could remove from power once he had it. MS on the other hand could become powerless with a more superior offering becoming available or a new technology that makes MS influence irrelevant. I prefer a world where government does as little as possible to meddle in business afairs other than to protect from corrupt (stealing, lieing about earnings, etc) Otherwise, let products determine value and power by themselves.

Steven Cedrone

06-30-2002, 01:43 AM

...........

I really wasn't even going to dignify this post with an answer. But, I'm bored so what the heck.....

First of all, lets remember this: The operating system in control of the market is the one that will be targeted by the hackers/script kiddies. Today it is Microsoft, ten years from now who knows......

MS has NEVER admitted that this could even potentially be a problem even though it potentially could spread a virus from PC to PC as easily as water flows through a river.

Microsoft never admits the existence of a vulnerability...until they have the patch to fix it! :wink:

Ralph Nader
The Ralph Nader that exists today is not the same Ralph Nader that existed in the 60's.......That's why there are not huge amounts of people out there hanging on his every word. Ralph sending a letter to the White House means very little in this day and age..... :roll:

If it would make the industry and the entire population wake the heck up and pay attention to what MS is doing to the computer world I would burn every possession I have and live as a bum on a corner. That is how much this and Microsoft as a company scares me.

And

The holy grail of these virus writers is a virus so bad. So infectious that it makes its way around the globe in a matter of hours knocking down every MS product it finds along its way. That would put MS out of business in a month. I'll throw a block party the day that happens.

I have to answer these with a question:

a) Are you nuts?
b) Are you a troll (if so, you got me...)?
c) Are you 12 years old?
d) All of the above

Ultimately, the market will decide what happens next. If people are willing to accept a digital world controlled by Microsoft, so be it. That is after all, how a free market economy works........

Steve

Now, I won't even touch the whole "Adolf Hitler" thing (I'm not that bored! :wink: )

mikeschmidt

06-30-2002, 07:49 AM

Unfortunately, there are many more people who do not know about computers and technology then do. Most of the people who have exposture to computers have been limited to Microsoft.

If you have an OK product and a billion+ dollars in the bank, you will succeed over the new comer with less money and better product. There may be a few exceptions to this rule, but then there are always exceptions to every rule. Better marketing does not equal a better product.

If I think of my family, managers, friends, etc... many of them would not even consider looking at another vendor's product if Microsoft provided a solution. Many of these people see viruses as a risk of computing and they think it is great that Microsoft offers a patch.

If managers choose Microsoft then employees are more likely to choose Microsoft at home. If the employees are parent, then the children are more likely to be biased toward's Microsoft.

Choosing Microsoft products is OK, but I think choosing them because they are from Microsoft is ignorant and ignorance breeds more ignorance.

If the computer industry evolves then it will be hard for Microsoft to be affected. They will continue as they do today. What we need is a technology shattering event. Hopefully from this event some strong companies emerge with morale regard to the public. Microsoft could be one of these companies if it got hit on the head during the event and forgot about it's past.

JonnoB

06-30-2002, 09:12 AM

Unfortunately, there are many more people who do not know about computers and technology then do. Most of the people who have exposture to computers have been limited to Microsoft.

If you are to compete, part of your responsibility in being successful is not only making a better mousetrap, but telling/educating others about your mousetrap. MS definately has done a better job than Apple for example that its mousetrap is better... even if is not the case (not the discussion at this time).

To win, you must be good enough on more fronts than that with which you compete... I think that MS has mastered enough of these skills to be successful. They are not invincible, but difficult to beat. Just because they are difficult to beat doesn't mean we should ask government to make them easier to compete with.

This reminds me of intentional sports handicapping to make people of various athletic skills more competitive. Sometimes, some people (companies) just do a better job.