Netflix CEO Hesitant To Fight Cable 366
imamac writes "Those who were hopeful that Netflix would bring the fight to the cable companies may be disappointed in the latest comments from their CEO. 'Reed Hastings is pleased with his company's massive growth, but he fears that getting too large will start "an Armageddon" with cable networks.' It's a fight he doesn't think his company could survive."
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Noooooooo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Vertical Integration (Score:5, Insightful)
What it will take for true competitiveness happen here is a regulatory order to have the cable and DSL companies split their content purchasing sides off from their "pipes" business. Whilst they still have vertical integration there is going to be no further incentive for them to compete on usage limits and speeds. What they have today is "fast enough" for web access, email, etc. Their own digital content whilst travelling across the same physical infrastructure does not count toward usage limits.
The problem is that market forces do not work towards efficiency in situations of "natural monopoly". I don't blame Comcast, or AT&T for how they behave, it's only natural and in the interests of their shareholders, however economically they are benefiting from an externality and this must be gradually dealt with.
Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen.
I think we need to face up to the fact that we will need to make our communications technologies public owned, like the roads. Too much innovation will be hijacked by the greed factor. The good of all the people outweighs the greed of a few corporations. Are we the public going to stand by and be raped by another corporation?
Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Honest people call their congresscritter and demand that internet be considered "common carrier status" and a "utility" that instantly fines comcast high $$$ for their antics.
Trusting the "free market" to do the right thing is for fools.
Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No win... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vertical Integration (Score:4, Insightful)
With modern technologies like fiber optics, there's no reason why every home cannot be wired with 50 incoming optical lines (1 cm thick bundle), each one carrying a TV lineup.
No reason except the insane and wasteful expense of doing so (You don't think they're all going to let each other use their existing infrastructure do you? Each and every one of those 50 cables will have to have its own hole dug. That or the government will have to force the companies to share the resources, which seems contrary to your point.) When I lived in Lafayette, LA the local government decided to say "fuck you" to Cox and had the local power company lay FIOS (which, by the way, is working out great by all reports, government run and all). Even using the infrastructure they had laid in already it was a multi-year, billion dollar operation. These were people that already had tunnels, right of ways, everything they needed to run power straight to every house in the city and most of the parish, and it still cost them a fortune and took a good long while. How long, and how much would be required for Google or Apple to do it from scratch?
Re:Vertical Integration (Score:5, Insightful)
No reason why every home cannot be wired with 50 different lines? Really?
If you mean that fiber optics are small enough that it is physically possible for 50 lines to be run to one home, then sure. But that has never really been a barrier to entry.
Who is going to let 50 different companies dig up their yard? Is there room for 50 different switching stations in the neighborhood?
Besides, it's great to say that with smaller technology anyone is free to run their lines. But the real barrier to entry is the need to duplicate what the incumbent companies have built up over half a century before you can offer competition. It's a massive and almost insurmountable barrier to entry. That's why it's a natural monopoly, not the lines to the houses.
Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere (Score:1, Insightful)
And I'm going to quote myself:
"My refusal to give General Electric (or any other corporation) my money has zero consequences. They do not send employees with guns to raid my wallet, audit my bank account, or throw me in prison. Furthermore if enough people feel the same as me, the corporation will go bankrupt and disappear (see Montgomery Wards, Commodore, Circuit City, UPN, and so on)."
"Now try that with the Congress or State Legislature. Refusal to give money is not a wise course of action. They have a monopoly over your money, your property, your liberty, your life, and the use-of-force to make you submit to their will.
"I consider corporations to be far more democratic. Every time I spend a dollar (or not) I am casting a vote to keep the corporation afloat, or drive them into nonexistence."
Re:Vertical Integration (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>That or the government will have to force the companies to share the resources
(1) Why not? Government forces Baltimore Gas&Electric to share its electrical system with other companies, thereby giving me multiple choices. Even before government was involved, the electricity was shared across companies (most of my electric did not come from BGE, but nearby Edison Power's dam). They cooperated with one another.
(2) Or the government could own the 50-fiber bundle itself, in the same way government owns the road and allows multiple companies (toyota, honda, gm, chevy, ford, kia, hyundai, VW, etc) to share the resource. Just as we have a free market with cars, we could have a free market with CATV providers. You just choose which company you prefer.
Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... (Score:1, Insightful)
Amen.
I think we need to face up to the fact that we will need to make our communications technologies public owned, like the roads. Too much innovation will be hijacked by the greed factor. The good of all the people outweighs the greed of a few corporations. Are we the public going to stand by and be raped by another corporation?
Yeah. That worked out great for the commies. Oh! And BTW, my privately owned and paid for FIOS service is VASTLY superior to my shitty publicly funded and managed crumbling pot-hole ridden roads.
Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
My refusal to give General Electric (or any other corporation) my money has zero consequences. They do not send employees with guns to raid my wallet, audit my bank account, or throw me in prison. Furthermore if enough people feel the same as me, the corporation will go bankrupt and disappear (see Montgomery Wards, Commodore, Circuit City, UPN, and so on).
They would if they didn't have to follow the rule of law enforced by the government.
Now try that with the Congress or State Legislature. Refusal to give money is not a wise course of action. They have a monopoly over your money, your property, your liberty, your life, and the use-of-force to make you submit to their will.
To live in industrial society you must pay taxes. Places where you don't have to pay taxes are generally not nice places for the majority of the people that live there.
I consider corporations to be far more democratic. Every time I spend a dollar (or not) I am casting a vote to keep the corporation afloat, or drive them into nonexistence.
In a democracy everyone gets one vote. In a corporation only a few people with money really matter.
Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Brilliant man, but Chomsky's dead wrong on this. You can vote in an election once every 4 years. You can vote with your dollars every day. The free market is far more democratic. Our current problem, though, is that government and corporations are in collusion. The term for this is fascism, and it is the hated enemy of free market capitalism. No, it's not some minor offshoot or deviation of free market capitalism, it's the complete opposite. Governments and corporations destroy laissez-faire capitalism.
Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought that under capitalism, in an industry with high entry barriers such as last mile telecommunications, it was most profitable for the producers of a good to enter into a cartel.
This is the flaw in "the free market wont work" argument on this subject. Every time someone makes the argument, they have to stretch things absurdly pointing to wild speculation about the future that doesnt even hold water on the face of it.
.. the translation of which is "comcast offers a superior broadband service that I find to be worth the money."
.. the translation of which is "Metrocast offers a superior broadband service that I find to be worth the money."
The fact is that there is no free market here so there is no room for the free market to work. The barriers to entry are entirely artificial, by mandate of local governments (such as yours.) Organize your community to throw out your local comcast (or whoever) monopoly. If you can't get momentum behind that sort of thing, then there are either alternatives or maybe comcast (or whoever) isnt so evil after all.
Many times you will hear people say "but I have to use comcast because the DSL around here is slow"
Clearly these people are voting with their money, but somehow are not voting the right local government in to improve what they seem to think isn't a good situation.
I live in an area where neither Comcast nor Verizon are allowed to enter my market by the local government. If Comcast and Verizon were allowed in, I would surely enjoy seeing what sort of competitive offer they have for me because it would have to be better than Metrocast (10 Mbit, no caps, non-bundled $45/mo) and AT&T (6 Mbit, caps, non-bundled $45/mo)
I could say "but I have to use Metrocast because DSL around here is slow, and capped too."
Let someone else make me an offer. Comcast isnt stopping that from happening.. on the contrary surely Comcast would pay big bucks to be on of those offers.
Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere (Score:1, Insightful)
Clearly some people didn't understand my point, so let me boil it down to internet IQ level:
Comcast: "We want your money. Please sign-up for service."
ME: "Fuck you." (hangs-up on comcast sales idiot)
Government: "We want your money."
ME: "Fuck you."
Government: "Wrong answer Mr Anderson. Welcome to prison."
I prefer the freedom that I have with Comcast and other corporations. I don't "have" to deal with them. But I have to deal with the Tyranny known as Congress. As Jefferson remarked, "We would have no government if it were possible. It is only to protect our rights that resort to a small constitutionally-limited one."
Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy breaks down because you are constantly using government services. If you really don't want to pay them, don't use government services. Sadly for you, that means you have to move somewhere without a government.