241–250 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could all pressure our local governments to provide municipal internet. Many cities have already created services that are much faster too.
Unless/until the state or local governments pass laws that make that illegal and grant even stronger de facto monopolies to the cable companies.
If this merger goes thru, (and the AnitTrust people would have to be really asleep at the wheel for that) two things are certain: 1) Americans can expect some of the worst Cable price gouging they have ever seen 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"
> 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner" I agree with your first point, but your second point doesn't follow. If anything, Comcast will price gouge Netflix out of business, and we'll be back to being stuck watching their awful "On Demand" instead. They can do this, because Comcast owns the content (NBC), the delivery mechanism for said cont…
You forgot Universal, which together still amounts to only a fraction of Netflix's content. There's a reason that Netflix doesn't carry many titles in their streaming service: it's already too costly to acquire the rights to stream them all. If Comcast were to raise the price on that content, Comcast could simply stop streaming those movies/shows. Given the size of their library at this point, I doubt any of this would be missed. The "content" you mention is no longer as critical to Netflix's business strategy as it used to be, especially as they move to more original content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think your second premise is entirely true, since Comcast doesn't provide enough bandwidth for streaming services like Netflix and YouTube already. Those services are going to become harder and harder to use if anything.
This would be a perfect point for the regulators to harp on for approval... No need to divest, just require a condition of the sale to provide a neutral network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner" I agree with your first point, but your second point doesn't follow. If anything, Comcast will price gouge Netflix out of business, and we'll be back to being stuck watching their awful "On Demand" instead. They can do this, because Comcast owns the content (NBC), the delivery mechanism for said cont…
They might want Netflix to survive in some form so as to avoid awaking the sleeping antitrust dogs. Same way as Microsoft found the Mac a useful argument against the "desktop monopoly" argument in the 90s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless/until the state or local governments pass laws that make that illegal and grant even stronger de facto monopolies to the cable companies.
We control our government. If they fail to act in our best interest it is our fault.
If this merger goes thru, (and the AnitTrust people would have to be really asleep at the wheel for that) two things are certain: 1) Americans can expect some of the worst Cable price gouging they have ever seen 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"
I feel bad for those poor Time-Warner customers, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See his second paragraph about owning NBC.
That was also about monopoly power. If NBC were an independent entity, they would license their back catalogue to the highest bidder. Given that NBC is owned by a cable company, the strategy changes. The current dynamic for NBC is, if we license to Netflix, then some people will cut the cord, lowering Comcast/TWC cable revenue. The bigger Comcast is, the less likely NBC is willing to license content to Netflix. If NB…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The physical network is absolutely a natural monopoly - the cost to run copper out to every house in a region is fixed, and any player in the market would need to do just that in order to compete effectively. From a cost efficiency perspective, the ideal number of such networks is one, just as it is for electricity and water. What's different is that electricity tends to be heavily regulated, and water is generally a…
I'm not an expert, but I think what you describe is exactly what happened with telephone service in the United States (i.e, the breakup of Ma Bell, etc.)
Unfortunately, cable companies live under a different set of regulations, so the same rules don't apply to them. Meanwhile the industry progressed to the point that in many markets companies that were once just cable and phone companies now offer the same menu of services. But the law hasn't changed to keep up with that, so the net result is that we've got a regulatory regime that cripples an already anemic competitive environment by arbitrarily giving an enormous advantage to only one of the players.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how would this 'FU ComcastWarner' work in America? Anywhere you live you only have the choice of paying your cable provider, your telephone carrier or your wireless carrier for internet. - DSL infrastructure hasn't evolved in a decade or more. You're lucky to get mid-single digit megabits/sec. I had 0.7 mpbs offered to me in Mountain View by at&t. - Cable is the only speedy one, but they can price gouge you, limi…
We could all pressure our local governments to provide municipal internet. Many cities have already created services that are much faster too.