Slashdot Mirror


Netflix CEO Hesitant To Fight Cable

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."

366 comments

  1. Translation by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Nice little Netflix you got there. Pity if something were to happen to take you down, hmm? Your friend, Comcast"

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Translation by creat3d · · Score: 1

      "Nice little Netflix you got there. Pity if something were to happen to take you down, hmm? Your friend, Comcast"

      If you're gonna go that route, sign it "The cable industry".

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    2. Re:Translation by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There are cable companies other than Comcast? I mean, there were 3 or 4 Satellite companies in the 90s, but now they're all DirectTV. Dish Network still plugs, but nobody actually buys their service. Comcast has always been the only CableTV provider in the entire mid-atlantic region, though...

    3. Re:Translation by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Interesting

      this isn't about bandwidth and network caps, this is about challenging cable companies where they're most visible.

      Cable TV and TV content.

      He's right in not going after cable companies in the content field. After all, they and satellite companies are basically subsidizing the content creation with their dues to cable channels(Well, in Comcast's case, they outright own a lot of channels).

      Sure, Netflix is venturing into new content, but, I'm pretty sure Comcast isn't seeing that as big of a threat as say, Viacom, who are producing way more shows and run many channels that show up in traditional retail markets.

      Plus, even with Netflix's own content, they're not doing live content like news or sports either.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:Translation by stephathome · · Score: 1

      In my area, depending on where you live, it's Cox or Time Warner. No overlap that I know of, so it's still usually no choice between the two.

    5. Re:Translation by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      "Nobody" buys Dish?
      My brother has dish. $20 a month, plus an antenna to receive locals. That's a lot cheaper than what Comcast costs.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:Translation by muindaur · · Score: 1

      We left Cox Communications(cable) due to another increase in price in our small(pop)/large(land area) town; since they figure they can get away with it. Cox is also setting net policies with caps similar to Comcast.

      I've seen Direct TV dishes spring up all over, and once we looked into it noticed the elevation for DISH was terrible up north(barely over the tree line ~200-300 yards away.) So that's likely one reason they don't get as many customers(at least those that LOOK at that information before buying.) We are middle income, but we followed with the lower income people in town. I mean less than $60 a month for much better offerings than the now $70 a month BASIC cable options. To get some of them we would have to spend $150 a month(the decent channels like Nat Geo Cox moved to digital lineups to force upgrades.)

      So yeah, I can see the point of "There are other cable companies?" in the way that most are pulling the same crap.

    7. Re:Translation by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      TV is simultaneously one of the best inventions mankind has come up with and the worst invention in the history of society. Do something else with your time. Play Go, read a book, learn a new skill; sit down every month or so and power through a whole series in one gulp, or something, maybe sprinkle them through weekends.

      For all the money you pay, you get an IV addiction, served regularly throughout the day between the wage slaving hours and the not enough sleeping hours. Think about how the $40/mo you pay for Internet affects your life versus the $60/mo you pay for TV. I like to binge on TV just because it's a more efficient waste of time than the normal vacuous space spread out from day to day; though all TV does is load a pile of worthless crap into my head to satisfy an information addiction I can't seem to shake (my brain constantly seeks new information to process; I keep learning new things). It's like a... well, a binge. It's a fast way to get a lot of information in my head, useless as it is; all of Deep Space 9 would float my brain in some decent enough endorphins to calm down a while. I actually read an entire Web comic over this weekend, in about 7 hours.

      Still, think about it. Swallow the whole season of a couple series in a few days. I guess you would be "behind," especially if you staggered seasons (let's watch all of DS9 and SGA's last season this month, then some anime next month...); but think about how that works with books: who reads the new release of a series the day it comes out? (I've done exactly that.) In any case, you could blast things out in 8-14 hours, waste 2-3 days a month at most, in solid blocks rather than metered daily disruptions that constrict your daily flexibility.

    8. Re:Translation by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      Comcast has always been the only CableTV provider in the entire mid-atlantic region, though..

      That is factually incorrect.

    9. Re:Translation by SonofSmog · · Score: 1

      Dish Network still plugs, but nobody actually buys their service.

      With 14.1 million subscribers. I wouldn't say "nobody." That's that third largest base of subscribers in the WORLD after Comcast and DirecTV, btw.

    10. Re:Translation by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think the translations is. Cable Companies supply the ISP for most of our viewers with more then adequate speed. Meaning if we compete too much with the cable companies they will go out of business and thus loose the infrastructure they need to operate. And with Net Neutrality laws it may cause some additional fight back from the cable companies. Netflix is probably right in their statement just showing the older stuff and keeping new releases and this season shows is a good deal, as those are the cable companies big money makers, While the reruns are just there to fill space.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Well by The+O+Rly+Factor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That could be the result of the fact that we gave the keys to the pipes to the same people who create content to push through those pipes. It's not difficult for them to decide that Netflix's traffic is a conflict of interest, and can be easily choked off.

    1. Re:Well by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Easy, just sue the cable company for fraud if they do choke it off. Afterall, they advertise themselves as an internet provider, not comcastnet or aolnet, etc provider.

      Also, don't they lose common carrier status if they do discriminate, thus are unprotected from copyright suits?

    2. Re:Well by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      Well we gave HALF the keys to the content providers (Comcast, Cox, cablevision, etc). The other half of the keys went to the phone company (DSL or fiber) which has always acted as a conduit for information flow, not the content generator. This is why I stick with Verizon, because even though it's slower, they won't do any tricks like Comcast would (i.e. blocking hulu or syfy or tnt.tv).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Well by alen · · Score: 1

      all they have to do is not upgrade their internet gateway if they don't have a direct link to Level 3. then all the streaming traffic will saturate it and everything will be unwatchable.

    4. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am sure they would lose their common carrier status if they were actually covered by common carrier status, but they are not they are protected by the DMCA safe harbor provisions

    5. Re:Well by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      to the same people who create content to push through those pipes.

      Ahh good, so the rest of us who really aren't interested in said manufactured "content" have nothing to worry about. Poor you - they are going to make you pay through the nose for that Madonna/Pink/Britney/Lady Gaga/Rebecca Black/whoever the flavor of the month is. Oh and remember, version 12 of that old comic book franchise Hollywood has completely destroyed is coming out soon - gotta watch that!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Well by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that, especially since now the Supreme Court has ruled that you can be forced to accept arbitration...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Well by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      The electric industry went through deregulation where the pipes were divided from the generation.....hasn't exactly made it nirvana there, either.

    8. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISPs are not common carriers, will you please quit spouting that?

    9. Re:Well by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      That might work with Verizon, but they don't work everywhere. AT&T sells TV over fiber, and has added bandwidth caps that don't apply to their own content.

    10. Re:Well by compro01 · · Score: 1

      DSL ISPs used to be common carriers. Cable ISPs never were.

      Both should be common carriers.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    11. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gave the keys? They put the pipes in the ground.

      If you think the government can do a better job, then by all means--get them to build their own. I look forward to constantly bailing it out, like the post office.

    12. Re:Well by Arccot · · Score: 1

      Good news! Comcast just announced a content package for people like you. Its called the "Elitist Combo."

      It comes with the same content as the other packages, but includes picture-in-picture of a middle-aged Englishman wearing an Oxford, smoking a pipe, and drinking a microbrew while scoffing at whatever is on in the main window.

    13. Re:Well by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Rather outdated. The new elitist is streaming movies on his iPhone at Starbucks while he walks away from his mortgage because it's underwater.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Well by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Read your TOS. A residential broadband contract guarantees nothing. The whole "ZOMG ITS FALSE ADVERTISING - ANY JUDGE WILL SEE IT - LOL WHATS THE PROBLEM!?!?" is far from convincing and historically highly inaccurate. If you think its so easy then why are all the tech powers fighting it out over neutrality? Hint: its not easy and Netflix really is one firewall rule away from bankrupcy.

    15. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It will only take the better part of a decade to fight the cable companies in court, in the meantime they will have zero video-streaming subscribers.

    16. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISPs in the US are not actually common carriers. Internet ISPs are currently in a 'have their cake and eat it too' deal. They generally receive benefits of 'common carrier' without being responsible for providing the services that are supposed to go along with that status.

      Though this is on wikipedia, it is at least concise: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier ] - Read the last three paragraphs under the "Telecommunications" heading.

      Here is an interesting opinion on the situation that I believe to be pretty close to correct: [ http://cco.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-3/uncommon_carrier.html ]

    17. Re:Well by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      Gave? That's an interesting word choice there.

  3. No win... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, now that they know that - they can push NetFlix into oblivion. Why share the pie when you can keep it all for yourselves.

    1. Re:No win... by vell0cet · · Score: 2

      If it came down to it, I wouldn't put it past the cable companies to destroy themselves just to take Netflix down. The cable companies would probably put themselves to the brink of going out of business and only be pulled back by being bailed out by the government.

      And at that point, Netflix would be gone and it would be mission accomplished.

    2. Re:No win... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Next time the government bails a business--any business, I don't care if it's a healthcare provider or an orphanage for puppies or the largest car manufacturer in the world--we should start a riot in DC. Imagine if GM and Chrysler collapsed ... Ford would own the market, but they don't have the capacity. People would still buy Toyota and superior Mazda cars (Mazda way better than Toyota), Volkswagen and Audi, and of course new American car companies would spring up.

    3. Re:No win... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. These are corporations we are talking about, who exist to make a profit, and for no other reason than that. Giving you charity internet access is not high on their list of priorities.

    4. Re:No win... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      But remember, they're too big to fail, right?

      Meh, I say. Liquidate the assets to pay the creditors, and let those creditors bathe in the bathwater that they themselves drew -- just as with any other failed business. Loaning money is never without risk; loaning money to GM should be no different.

      In the aftermath is a bit of a mess, but the end result is cleaner: The assets that were worth anything would be reutilized, while the assets that were worth little will fester and die (and, as is likely in the case of an old factory, be sold as scrap to be turned into new Mazdas). The worthwhile people who worked for them will either find a new job with the new owner of whatever asset, or they'll end up doing something else.

      *shrug*

      And I say this even though I'm a stupid American, raised in a Chevy family, and I'd actually consider some of their cars if I were in the market for something new at the moment.

      Back to the topic at-hand: A government-sponsored bailout of Cable is not so far fetched. I dropped subscription-based broadcast TV service a year ago (though with U-Verse), and haven't looked back. Netflix provides what I want just fine, and the rest comes in via antenna. I hate TV news, I don't watch sports, and MTV has been shit for a couple of decades. There's just not much on TV that I care about.

      We also dropped our home phone line at the same time, just because we hardly ever used it (everyone's got a cell phone).

      Oh, sure: I do miss out on the latest releases with paid on-demand PPV services, but I never used that much at all anyway (and if I did want to, the PS3 offers similar functionality...if Sony would ever get their network back online, anyway. I was rather impressed with it the one time I did use it).

      So, the cable TV provider (whether AT&T or Time Warner) went from close to $150 per month in revenue from my house, to $45. This must hurt them, but I just don't care: They're simply not offering me anything else that I want to pay extra for.

      If this buries them, so be it. Liquidate the gear, the right-of-ways, and the infrastructure, and let someone else figure out how to make money with it (and if that's impossible, even at pennies-on-the-dollar pricing, simply scrap it and turn it into new Mazdas).

      Am I missing something?

    5. Re:No win... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something?

      Short-term effects. Nobody wants to see millions of jobs lost, because it upsets people, and it's "horrible." Too fucking bad, shit happens; and besides, with all those unemployed people and that sudden huge vacuum in multiple markets ... lots of talent out there for rapidly growing businesses. Sure, there's death and destruction; but a few years later we're all better off, minus a few thousand casualties, instead of all of the hundreds of millions of us here in the US (not to mention impact on the rest of the world) dragging ourselves along under the dead weight of this failed-and-bailed economy that we wrung more money out of to 'save' after it started dying from lack of money.

      People are impatient and they want everything and they want it now; politicians especially have their short terms and can't stand to make a problem even worse in the short-term to avoid unholy hell in the long-term. They'll always say they tried, it's good enough for the voters; if they save us all and build a giant eternal utopia via 2 years of suffering, that's 2 years in which they're voted out in the interim and the new guy gets all the credit.

  4. The Business Secretary? by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

    He's 68...This can't be right?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Cable

    1. Re:The Business Secretary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that got to do with the price of fish?

  5. Please fight the good fight Netflix... by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is the first time in my computing history that I like my entertainment service, and don't feel like turning to alternative sources for my movies and tv. So please Netflix, take em to the mat, let us count to 10.

    1. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by lexsird · · 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?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    2. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Funny

      make our communications technologies public owned, like the roads

      Water supply would be a better comparison. After all, it is a series of tubes...

    3. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Netflix. At least I can watch Hulu on my non $PROPRIETARY_OS of choice.

    4. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by DrKnark · · Score: 1

      Please, Netflix, extend your service to Europe! Yes, I know this is probably hard due to the policies of studios.. I really miss a service like that over here.

    5. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by hitmark · · Score: 1

      And the last time someone tried to privatize that, there was civil war...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    6. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If given the chance again, I would never read anything else written by that sad, forlorn failure.

    7. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Patience. Let the change come naturally. It's when companies feel forced that they react so strongly. Let Netflix, Hulu, and their like continue to grow. Viewership will fall off from cable companies, unwatched channels will start to die off, and the cable companies will be weakened, especially if the majority of people are getting their entertainment from streaming services.

      The ultimate death of cable will come about when sports becomes widely available in a legal streaming format. Right now, ESPN is the major factor for most people I know who still have cable and satellite TV. If ESPN were to make available a pure subscription streaming format, people would pay good money for it. I've asked some friends what they would pay for it, and most of them answer at least $10, and some are willing to pay $20 to $25 a month for it. Once the network realizes this, it can cut a huge support out from under the traditional paid delivery services.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by SonofSmog · · 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.

    9. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of a straw man?

    10. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever read Atlas Shrugged?...

      You mean the fictional book that had to throw our amazing government funded road system under the bus so that a made up rail system problem could be the focus?

    11. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by lexsird · · Score: 2

      Yeah. That worked out great for the commies.

      Tell that to our Chinese Overlords to whom we are in debt to.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    12. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by wintersdark · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly interested in seeing how this plays out. You're absolutely right, though, that the deathblow would come via sports streaming. As things stand now, live sports is the only Cable product that is extremely difficult to replace.

      My only fear is that the Cable industry will succeed in legislating victory over Netflix etc.

      Cable is done, it's dead. It's a delivery and pricing model that nobody wants anymore.

      --
      Meh.
    13. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by ah.clem · · Score: 2

      Are we the public going to stand by and be raped by another corporation?

      Of course we will.

      We will bitch and moan and then bend over to have our shinys. Drop 'em or get over it.

      --
      "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
    14. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      But traveling on a road at 60mph in a station wagon full of reel-to-reel tape is a lot of bandwidth. I still think the road analogy works great.

    15. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... which is the one major failing of Netflix, a company that is otherwise quite geek friendly in that they deliver streaming content for a reasonable price on a whole slew of devices.

    16. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And my privately owned and paid for [Cheese Grater] is VASTLY superior to my publicly funded and managed [Wheelchair].

      Ad lib as desired, there don't seem to be any restrictions.

    17. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by imric · · Score: 1

      Written by an author that abused social security users while accepting it quite happily herself?

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    18. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by imric · · Score: 1

      Privately funded FIOS? You mean Verizon never accepted the billions in tax break for putting in fiber? You mean they got rights to run the fiber by negotiating with each individual property-owner?

      Wow. Pass that over here. I need some.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    19. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      That's easy -- just make sports watching unpopular.

      It's not like there is anything genuinely interesting about a bunch of overpaid meatheads running around somewhat confined place hitting some kind of ball with their limbs or primitive implements.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    20. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense intended...

      Why do people always say/type "whole slew"? Is that different than a "partial slew" or a "half slew" or an "almost-whole slew"?

    21. Re:Please fight the good fight Netflix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and while we're talking about a good fight... how about support for Linux, DAMMIT!

  6. Browser cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scrape that douchebag

  7. Noooooooo! by gbutler69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Netflix, gives me, for the most part, exactly what I want in television watching. I pay a reasonable monthly fee. When I want to watch a movie, there is a selection of B-movies and older classics (I use the term lightly) for me to choose from. No commercials. Nice! I pay my cable/internet bill on-time and regularly. I watch on average 1.25 moviews per day. AS far as I can tell, everyone wins. I'll never go back to straight cable. If netlix dies, I'll throw the TV in the trash and be done with it.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:Noooooooo! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, everyone wins.

      Cable: "There can only be ONE!"

    2. Re:Noooooooo! by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      Netflix is decent but I prefer hulu. It's free (well $15 if you include internet hookup). Like having a VCR to catch shows you missed, but without the hassle. ----- And TV is free too (via antenna). Sometimes there's a one year delay, as is the case with Deadliest Catch or SG Universe, but eventually it moves from Pay TV to Free TV.

      >>>If netlix dies, I'll throw the TV in the trash

      I won't do that because I like shows & movies too much. But I won't go back to cable either. I'll just wait for the season-set DVDs to come out and rent them. ~$5 rental is cheaper than ~$1000/year comcast hookup. Cable makes little economic sense given the other alternatives available.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Noooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been cable free for about 10 years now, mostly because at the time there was no way to only watch the programming you actually enjoyed, and when you did catch it, half the broadcast time was dedicated to ads. Cable TV just wasn't entertaining enough to put up with all the crap to content ratio. Two years ago enter Netflix on the xbox and I'm in heaven, well, close enough for 8 bucks a month anyway. Got to catch up on a bunch of shows I'd missed, and re-watch some classics (Lost, Quantum Leap, Dr. Who) Tried the free hulu plus preview last week, nice new selection, but man did it remind me just how much ads destroy my ability to enjoy TV shows. Even at shorter durations, there's NO WAY I can pay for a service that interrupted my program for commercials. The most I could put up with is emergency weather/earthquake bulletins and maybe the president needing to get a word in.

      I'm with the parent. If netflix goes, there are no other options that offers decent content at decent rates, and with no ads. Back to the darkages with me.

    4. Re:Noooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take your TV from you, no need to throw anything in the trash.

    5. Re:Noooooooo! by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      I hate Cable. The worst part about it is the endless commercials you have to watch and pay them for the privileged. Once I switched to netflix surprisingly most of the shows I want to watch are on their anyway, or they have been added over time.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    6. Re:Noooooooo! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's as if Kurgan turned into Mr. Crabs!

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Noooooooo! by emarsman · · Score: 1

      I would get rid of cable if it wasn't for sports. espn3.com is good, but it still doesn't carry everything. What would be better is a la carte like netflix, but includes live streaming of sports. Then I'll cut the cord.

    8. Re:Noooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be interesting to see if how many of the Netflix subscribers are under 25. As a college student I can justify $7.99 a month compared to $60 a month. If Netflix goes down, I'll just download my content like I used to. At least I'm paying something now compared to before.

    9. Re:Noooooooo! by MarqueeMoon · · Score: 1

      mlb.tv, NHL Game Center, and NBA League Pass. Of course if you live in the area of the team, the games are most likely blacked out. The cool thing about NHL Game Center is it works with Roku boxes.

    10. Re:Noooooooo! by e1618978 · · Score: 1

      Netflix has problems with streaming, at least on an AppleTV. If I rent an iTunes movie and watch it right away, it never stops to rebuffer, but netflix shows often do. I think that they need to improve their data rates and buffering before they try to compete with anybody.

    11. Re:Noooooooo! by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      The pessimistic side of me is waiting for Netflix to offer a 'premium' service that costs more and changes the 'standard' service to include commercials. I hope against it.

    12. Re:Noooooooo! by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      If you get yourself an Xbox 360 you can watch netflix and ESPN ala carte I think. I am not sure if its everything normal ESPN has but its worth a shot. I don't watch anything but baseball but I only tend to go to the games themselves rather than watch it on TV.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    13. Re:Noooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I literally just got rid of Comcast the other day. I realized I was literally watching Comedy Central for a few choice shows, and an occasional sportscenter clip. What a waste. Netflix has been a godsend. I watch what I want, when I want, and no commercials. I would gladly pay more every month (but don't tell them that!)

  8. DO IT by milbournosphere · · Score: 1

    Come on, Netflix. You're really the only company in the position to fight big cable and the crappy ISPs. Plus, they're in the interesting position that if they really take this seriously, they'll be on the consumer side of the bandwidth cap\throttling argument. I'd love to see Reed grow a pair and put a large company behind the little guys in a fight that we'd otherwise certainly lose. In a justice system dominated by corporate money, and with an anemic FCC, we the people might actually stand a chance with some corporate money on our side for once.

    1. Re:DO IT by truthsearch · · Score: 2

      I agree, but Netflix will need to be a lot bigger to win this fight. Right now they have to play nice or they'll get squeezed out of many markets.

    2. Re:DO IT by Seumas · · Score: 5, Informative

      All Netflix needs is the consumer on their side. They have that, already. Just not enough, yet. Right now, it's about 7% of the population with Netflix accounts. When they reach 20%, they'll have the critical consumer support to push those efforts. People will continue to flee cable, because even though there's more great television on now than ever before, it's not worth $1,200-$2,400/yr for it. Especially when the competition can do it for only $96/yr. For that much of a price difference, I think just about everyone can tolerate their content being a year behind.

      In the mean time, Netflix is already working on generating their *own* content. They'll be able to sell that content to traditional television/cable networks for a nice up-front price and then after they've run it, he can return it to his own service and make long-term profit from it as content to generate new Netflix viewers. If he burns his bridges with cable before that, he has nowhere to shop that content they're currently spending $100,000,000+ producing.

      Also, it's hard to argue with the man's history. In 2006, Mark Zuckerberg was listed in the CNN or Forbes (I forget which) list of "Top Tech Industry People That Don't Matter". Zuckerberg was on that list, because he came too late to the game when Myspace was already the big guy on the block. Then, they listed Reed Hastings a couple pages later, because the world was moving to streaming content and DVDs weren't going to remain relevant.

      Five years later, those two "people that don't matter" are the biggest shit on the planet.

    3. Re:DO IT by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Actually, Netflix streams about 60% of the content in the US that is streamed. They are getting very big, and scaring the cable companies. Reed Hastings is wise to tread lightly.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:DO IT by morari · · Score: 1

      [...] there's more great television on now than ever before [...]

      Citation requested.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    5. Re:DO IT by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      YouTube (aka Google) could help Netflix.

      This kind of situation is why a strong government (and agencies like the FCC) is needed.

    6. Re:DO IT by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      Subjective, citation needed isn't correct, it's probably original research.

    7. Re:DO IT by Kjella · · Score: 1

      All Netflix needs is the consumer on their side. They have that, already. Just not enough, yet. Right now, it's about 7% of the population with Netflix accounts

      Exactly, why go to open war when you're slowly winning? He'd be wise to let the cable companies attack Netflix, like they are the aggressors. Like they are the one trying to hold onto a golden past. He wants the TV industry to suddenly find themselves in the same place as the music industry, the world is moving to streaming whether you like it or not.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:DO IT by Seumas · · Score: 1

      People who act like the golden age of television is over make me sad. The last fifteen years of television (especially thanks to FX, HBO, AMC and SHO among others) have been unbelievable. Not to mention a few decent shows on the big-three that have managed to find their way to air during that time.

      Not really worth $100-$200/mo, but still . . . if all someone is watching is reality television and countless "Dating Story, Wedding Story, Makeover Story, Baby Story" shows on TLC, then they really only have themselves to blame.

  9. colaborate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cable companies are providing a hell of a lot of connectivity for folks at home. why not dump their less robust on demand services and make netflix a partner? My former ISP (Frontier) had DSL speeds up to 3 meg in my area. That's lame and sort of sloe for streaming. My local cable company provides a similar priced plan that is about 12-18 meg. I got basic cable too, but never watch it because it looks like poo. I kept the antennae hooked up instead and stream hulu and netflix. I keep the basic cable because it's cheaper than not having it.

  10. Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by tepples · · Score: 1

    If Comcast continues to purposely oversell its upstream connection so much that Netflix use is crowded out, watch Xfinity Internet customers switch to FiOS or high-end DSL where available.

    1. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, but what happens when the FiOS and DSL outfits do the same thing?

    2. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Lumpy · · 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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No less foolish than trusting your "congresscritter".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      I already downgraded from Comcast's "Digital Starter", which ran me over $80 a month *just for TV*.

      I'd can the cable internet from them too, if I could, but DSL doesn't represent a cost savings. There's no incentive to switch when, although oversold, DSL offers no speed advantage and no cost advantage.

    5. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Okay, but what happens when the FiOS and DSL outfits do the same thing?

      According to the capitalistic idology that should not happen.

    6. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Digicaf · · Score: 2

      And watch a lot of them get turned away. The cable companies have been hard at work introducing legislation to greatly limit competition in a lot of areas. Try asking Verizon when FiOS will be available in Tennessee for example. In the entire Memphis area, your choice is pretty much Comcast or Comcast. There is DSL, but its throughput is laughable and the service is highly unreliable, and there is no "high end" DSL to speak of.

    7. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hah. I absolutely trust my 'congresscritter' to do exactly what said congresscritter currently believes to in that congresscritter's best interest. Don't you trust yours to do that?

    8. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      It is still a danger, but on the other hand FiOS and DSL both have a reason to support rather then oppose netflix. Cable's main hatred of netflix isn't the bandwidth usage as they claim, but the fact that it directly competes with cable TV. Alternative internet providers biggest disadvantage when competing against cable in the home market, is that cable bundles cableTV with internet. If cable TV were to die off due to failure to adapt to new technology, that would not be a bad thing for alternative providers.

    9. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      If only AT&T would get off its ass and actually offer us FIOS. In fact, Comcast laid all sorts of Dark Fiber in my city a couple years back, so they are already poised to do FIOS cable if they really wanted. Or .. if my city would go the way I suggest and contract out FIOS deployment to all houses, and run its own switching system and lease FIOS to Comcast and AT&T or whomever.

      A guy can dream.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      In your poorly wired city? yes.

      In my city, my DSL is better than the CableModem from comcast. I get far lower latency and jitter that even a 3Mbps connection blows Comcasts 5mbps cable modem service out of the water. And anything higher is a joke as most websites and services dont have a backbone to support it. Netflix will not stream faster to you if you have 200mbps incoming, you can just stream Netflix in the bathroom, Hulu in the kitchen, and run 20 torrents wide open in the master bedroom and hallway closet. for 90% of the people out there they dont need to do that. only 1 stream at a time as they like being near each other and all watch the TV together.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by tepples · · Score: 1

      How? 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.

    12. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by tepples · · Score: 1

      The cable companies have been hard at work introducing legislation to greatly limit competition in a lot of areas.

      What Google keywords should I try if I want to learn more about this?

    13. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the market for congresscritters is better than the market for ISPs, the only barrier to entry in the congresscritter market is money (and maybe your eternal soul). Act now and you too can have a congresscritter of your very own!

    14. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0

      What Google keywords should I try if I want to learn more about this?

      "Tin Foil Hat" should do nicely. You can also try "What happens if I don't take my medication?"

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Okay, but what happens when the FiOS and DSL outfits do the same thing?

      Although Verizon can technically oversell FiOS, it won't happen in reality.

      The throughput available to the neighborhood concentrators is such that Verizon would have to have 100% of the homes in the neighborhood subscribe to at least 75Mbps download speeds. At 50% uptake it's impossible for Verizon to oversell FiOS download speeds (with currently available packages).

      In addition, Verizon does not offer a package with a fast enough upload speed to oversell uploads even with 100% uptake. In the future, there might be some contention on FiOS, but it wouldn't be until you hit speeds of faster than 50Mbps, which is still better than almost any other provider can guarantee.

    16. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      What is free market about the current way that cable and internet are done in the US?
      Is it the part where local governments give out monopolies to specific companies?
      Because it does not sound like free market to me.\
      A free market has choices. A free market is not defined by the statement, "Take ours or have nothing bitch.".

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    17. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by ChikMag777 · · Score: 1

      If only AT&T would get off its ass and actually offer us FIOS.

      FiOS is a Verizon product.

    18. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I switched because of a teaser $20 a month rate. Uploads are slower and downloads are often slower, but I have found that bit-torrent is much faster on DSL, and while 100MB downloads are slower, GB downloads are faster. The cable connections seems to penalize you after that first couple minutes of speed burst.
      FYI

    19. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      As an atheist I don't have a soul, but will that show up on the soul detector or can I just pretend to have one in order to get what I want?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm going to quote Noam Chomsky on this one:

      "Government has a flaw that General Electric doesn’t have. The government is potentially democratic. There’s a way of influencing the government and participating in it. I’m not joking, just think about it. When you’re saying that the government is doing this and that and the other thing to us, yes, the government is reflecting the interests of the people in it, but they could be representing us - there is no way for private tyrannies to be representing us. So yes, they would like you to hate the government. There is a lot wrong with the government, there is a lot to be hated about it, there is a lot to be changed about it. But the main thing about it is you can participate in it. And there are ways of changing what it does, and therefore, for at least people who believe in democracy, gives us advantages that other systems of powers don’t have. It is potentially our system of power, and the private corporations aren’t."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    21. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lately Comcast has become so unreliable that I will switch to almost anything as soon as it's available. I'm using my Verizon phone plan to post this because once again Comcast's internet service is DEAD.

      WTF?

      Calling customer service is a fucking nightmare.; Yes, I do have a wireless router you illiterate twat, but I've already power-cycled everything and connected directly - with a wire - to that router. Your fucking cable modem isn't even getting signal, how can it be my router?

    22. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by tepples · · Score: 1

      Then what is the generic term that covers Verizon FiOS service, FiOS service offered by companies such as Frontier that serve former Verizon territories, and AT&T's similar service?

    23. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the market for congresscritters is better than the market for ISPs

      But it's a bidder's market, and in this market your ISPs are buyers... direct competition to you, in fact, and with very deep pockets... so good luck trying to outbid them for a congresscritter of your very own.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    24. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      Too bad most Congressmen have apparently already been bought out by Comcast,. . . Good luck with that plan!

    25. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by magamiako1 · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

    26. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by ChikMag777 · · Score: 2

      Fiber?

    27. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by magamiako1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty simple. Look up "Comcast Exclusivity Agreements"

      This apparently changed in 2007, but 4 years is not enough time to undo the damage of decades.

    28. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      so your solution is to do nothing?

    29. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by cpu6502 · · 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."

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    30. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and they also did things on the county level as well.

    31. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      While you've got a good point (barriers to entry are a pain when it comes to utilities) - you just talked past the parent. The parent is referring to regions where the local government bids out a monopoly for a service. So even if investors were willing to push through the Natural monopoly you note, they are not allowed to by the local government.

    32. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by sideshow · · Score: 1

      FIOS is a Verizon product, so if you're looking for at&t to offer it too you, you'll be waiting a long time.

      --

      Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

    33. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by danlip · · Score: 1

      And if congress acts swiftly they may that in place by 2025. I'm sure Netflix will survive until then.

    34. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      If "the free market" was allowed to decide, no areas outside major cities would have telephones or internet services. Unless they were willing to pay the thousands of dollars to run all the phone/cable lines to their house. The government paid phone/cable/utilities companies, through subsidies and tax breaks, to string lines even where it wasn't immediately profitable. The mythical unregulated "free market" would not have done allowed this to happen. Sometimes the "free market" does not offer choices unless forced to by regulation.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    35. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You're looking for Fiber to the Home, or FTTH. There's a company in the suburbs of Kansas City, KS, that also provides this. There's also Fiber to the Curb (FTTC), which is similar in that the fiber terminates very close to the end-user equipment, but the last few meters are copper and the fiber endpoint is shared by several neighbors.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    36. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      You tell the drone "shibboleet".
      http://xkcd.com/806/

    37. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by danlip · · Score: 1

      Right, in my area I have a choice between Comcast and Qwest. Qwest has the worst customer experience I have ever seen in my life, and crappy connections as well. So not much of a choice. Most of the country doesn't fair any better for choice.

    38. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It's not their local loop infrastructure that they oversell. It's their upstream bandwidth.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    39. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      Oh slashcode, how I loathe thee...

      http://xkcd.com/806/

    40. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Zenaku · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As an atheist with a layman's interest in neuropsychology, I believe that what I would call my "soul" is an emergent phenomenon arising from the highly complex biochemical and electrochemical reactions in my brain. If my soul is decoupled from my brain it immediately ceases to exist, and my brain quickly gives rise to a new, largely identical, soul.

      Consequently, I've sold my soul, dozens of times -- usually for change to use in the soda machine. My brain, however, is not on the market.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    41. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Cable modems and DSL modems have a life expectancy of maybe a year, in my experience. If you have one that lasts more than two years or so, count yourself lucky. Go buy a new cable modem, and your problem will probably go away.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    42. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I've heard FTTH (Fibre To The Home) or FTTP (...Premises).

      AT&T's uverse currently uses FTTN or Fibre To The Node (fibre to the DSLAM, then copper from there), which is a useful compromise/stop gap if you use VDSL2 and keep the loop lengths short (<1km).

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    43. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by deander2 · · Score: 1

      it's because i do trust the free market i want (good / common-sense) regulation. good regulations makes markets more free, not less. this is why we regulate "not throwing a brick through your competitor's storefront".

      likewise, how robust do you think the air-conditioning equipment market would be if you're electric company was free to cap your Carrier-brand AC compressor's electricity usage but leave cap-free their own home-brand compressor? (like how netflix usage is included in your data cap but at&t's u-verse movie streaming is cap-free...)

    44. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      While I agree, there are certain corporations which do, in fact, try to utilize the government for protection of their outdated mode profit generation by means of sending gov't workers with guns to raid your wallet, audit your bank account, and/or throw you in prison. (ie. see RIAA).

      But, on the whole, I agree with you. The government *is* more powerful and potentially more dangerous than a corporation. As a lateral piece of evidence, see the bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Those companies would have failed if not for the "more powerful" government to step in and use the public's moneys gained through the force of threat (perceived or otherwise).

    45. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      The participation is minimal because everyone who has a decent idea or principals gets washed out by idiots. Something is wrong with a country that cares more about Osama Bin Laden or abortion funding over the national debt, or the fact our rights in the Bill of Rights are being violated on daily basis by A) The RIAA lawsuits (cruel and unusual), B) The TSA (freedom from unreasonable searches) and... etc. You get the idea. Our country is full of morons and smarter people that are greedy assholes and that is why we are quickly falling compared to Europe, Japan and China. Once they stop relying on us economically the system will rebalance itself and they will flourish.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    46. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      On Comcast I had worse DL and upload speeds over AT&T. I also had less reliable service. AT&T was more expensive, but I really hate Comcast after the shit they pulled. If your network is out its your fault, and if its slow its still your fault, even though you know its peak usage time and they obviously oversold bandwidth in your area.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    47. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by locallyunscene · · Score: 4, 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.

    48. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      I have noticed, since this "Xfinity" garbage came along, that now if I put my PC to sleep it's like my IP gets revoked. Upon waking it up, it takes 3, 4, maybe 5 minutes to be online again.

    49. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      But the main thing about it is you can participate in it.

      Bah ha ha ha! Boy, that Chomsky kid sounds like a real rube!

    50. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    51. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      What is there to do? The companies suck and don't care. The politicians suck and don't care. They're all butt buddies of one another. Voting is for shit because the system filters out anyone but sociopaths even before the primaries.

      So give us *your* magical solution.

      If it's "contact your sociopathic congressperson in between fuck sessions with lobbyists" we will laugh at you, put dirt in your hair and steal your lunch money.

      Ooo! I know! An internet petition! Yeah! That'll learn 'em!

    52. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by imric · · Score: 1

      That _IS_ the free market. The 'invisible hand' is you, working through your elected officials. 'Free Marketeers' that claim otherwise are dishonest.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    53. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a reason no one else is quoting you. The only reason corporations do not have guns or throw you in prison is because the government has a monopoly on that. As soon as the government abdicates its monopoly on that, corporations will have that ability, and they will use it. And then, you will finally discover for your own what failed states have discovered a long time ago: government sucks, but lack of governments suck even more.

      Furthermore, what's the difference between a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because you stole some CDs, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because of a law that the corporation running the state jail drafted put through the legislature through bribery - sorry, I meant campaign contributions? For you, there is no difference. Chew on that.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    54. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We "participate in" private corporations all the time when they bill our credit cards. Just saying.

    55. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I believe Atheists still have souls, they just don't care what happens to them.

      Fixed that for you.

    56. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given zero regulations or barriers and sufficient capital interest, ALL markets devolve into monopolies. When said monopolists have no more room for growth they target other markets. Common carrier status -ensures- a free market.

      So if you enjoy choice of electrical, gas, or phone providers then you should thank your congresscritter.

      Now if you want to the government to stay out of telecommunications, the model to look to is Mexico, which is a monopoly.

    57. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Rockoon · · Score: 1, 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 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" .. the translation of which is "comcast offers a superior broadband service that I find to be worth the money."

      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." .. the translation of which is "Metrocast offers a superior broadband service that I find to be worth the money."

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    58. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "There is a lot wrong with the government, there is a lot to be hated about it, there is a lot to be changed about it. But the main thing about it is you can participate in it." (paraphrasing the contrast that the poor bourgeois can't participate in the evil-BWAAHAHAAHAHA-mega corporations!)

      Corporations also require participation in them - it's called cash-flow. They don't exist without people's participation via money. That's why it's hard for them to be truly evil yet successful - if they are successful, then the people purchasing from them are enabling them* meaning they are no less evil than the enablers. In other words, don't like GE's "look ma, no taxes!" 2011 heist? Then please stop buying from them.

      On the other hand, government continues - nay, grows - with less participation. Unlike private enterprise, there's no requirement for you too participate (read: vote) in government. Indeed, I'd wager that if we had to "spend" our votes on government as a method of sustaining it, it would have imploded from lack of need a long time ago.

      (* I'm presuming there's competition which allows choice by the consumer, and note that - who restricts competiton? Government. Hmmmm... )

    59. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An issue with what Chomsky says is that GE also participates in the process alongside you. Congresscritter will likely be influenced by GE more than any of us due to GE having an interest in survival. GE also have a bit more money to throw Congresscritter's way. In a free market we could simply boycott a company and take up the issue directly with the source. One might say that we really can't boycott GE since they monopolize the market in . One could then say that's due to not having a free market. Relying on gov't to solve our issues only complicates things and gives undue power to those who will be gone in a couple or so years. That power helps to enable monopolies to form. (See: Corporatism for more information.)

    60. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2

      Furthermore, what's the difference between a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because you stole some CDs, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because of a law that the corporation running the state jail drafted put through the legislature through bribery - sorry, I meant campaign contributions?

      Well, clearly in the first instance you're stealing a physical item (compact discs) and thus clearly guilty of a crime and in the 2nd instance your thrown into jail for....ummm......incoherent rambling which violates your first amendment rights?

    61. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      Awww, that's cute. A person who thinks a low user ID counts for something ;)

    62. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Fios, in some areas, is getting out of the TV arena. Pricing themselves so high people are forced to switch. In some cases partnering with Dish so they don't have to sell "cable" services anymore.

    63. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      If "the free market" was allowed to decide, no areas outside major cities would have telephones or internet services. Unless they were willing to pay the thousands of dollars to run all the phone/cable lines to their house

      For Internet service, this is reality. I've been getting multiple bids to get Internet service to an area that gets at best 19.2k dial-up in Indiana, and they range from $500/month and go up from there.

      USF has worked moderately well for voice, but it does not yet have any impact on Internet.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    64. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by cpu6502 · · 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."

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    65. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Golddess · · Score: 1

      DSL maybe, and maybe this isn't true everywhere, but FIOS offers TV and phone in addition to internet. So FIOS would have the same reason to oppose Netflix as Comcast.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    66. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by youngdev · · Score: 1

      This is not a case of free market failure. In the case of cable tv, electric and phone service, the US suffers from Government established monopolies!!! In a free market, if Comcast Pissed you off, you would be able to call Cox Cable and have a new provider. But because the local governments establish monopolies for each category, the only recourse left is to call your congress person and hope that (in this case) Comcast is not a bigger contributer than you are. This is the worst type of "free" market: Cronie Capitalism.

    67. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      FiOS offers TV in addition to internet access. AT&T is one of the larger DSL providers in my area, and they offer TV with their UVerse service. Many other DSL providers have close partnerships with Satellite TV companies to provide bundles as well.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    68. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by couchslug · · Score: 1

      One doesn't TRUST the fuckers, one either offers them support (they need votes) or offers their opponent support.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    69. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Unkyjar · · 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.

    70. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by smartr · · Score: 1

      A competitive market has higher anarchic potential than democracy. Democracy without limits is more tyrannical than the worst of fascist monarchies. Unlike a democracy, your dollar is much more your power than any diluted power you may receive from a vote. By voting with your dollar in a competitive market, you are influencing other people's behaviors. Certainly, non-competition and over concentration of wealth erode this liberty to tyranny, but at its very core - Democracy is no means to attain personal power but instead a means to subject the individual to the collective regional preference. I find it curious that to escape deleterious laws and cable providers your best bet would be to move.

    71. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by LiquidLink57 · · Score: 2

      Exactly. People don't seem to realize that the reason big corporations lobby for (and often get) legislation passed in their favor is that the overreaching government has the power to change and shape the system in their favor. If the government didn't have this power to begin with, lobbying would be a fruitless endeavor. Instead, all of them tug and pull to get what they argue is "fair" for them, and all of a sudden we have thousands of tiny laws for every permutation of business out there, leaving gaping holes for rampant corruption.

      Too bad, really. The Constitution was set up specifically to limit the government's power to very few, very particular things. What it does today, or tries to do, continues to astound me, and they're only pushing to make it bigger. A government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.

    72. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And watch a lot of them get turned away. The cable companies have been hard at work introducing legislation to greatly limit competition in a lot of areas. Try asking Verizon when FiOS will be available in Tennessee for example. In the entire Memphis area, your choice is pretty much Comcast or Comcast. There is DSL, but its throughput is laughable and the service is highly unreliable, and there is no "high end" DSL to speak of.

      Verizon decided to stop hitting their coffers and treasure chests since they finished putting FIOS in those areas where they can make the most money... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-03-26-verizon-fios_N.htm

      It's about the almighty dollar no matter how you slice it.

    73. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Corporations also require participation in them - it's called cash-flow.

      They don't necessarily though.

      Imagine you live in a farming community downstream from West Virginia coal country. You don't buy coal directly, hardly anyone does, but you're most definitely affected by the runoffs coming from the mining upstream. You can't easily vote with your dollars, because the people making the decision on who's coal to use (or whether to use coal at all) aren't you, they're purchasers in electric companies and consumer goods companies who have no incentive to minimize your runoffs.

      But you can vote with your ballot, through your elected representatives. It's not a big chance, but it's a non-zero chance.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    74. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Linux+Torvalds · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, what's the difference between a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because you stole some CDs, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because of a law that the corporation running the state jail drafted put through the legislature through bribery - sorry, I meant campaign contributions?

      Gee, Wally, maybe you should've thought of that before you gave the government so much power in the first place.

    75. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the above was correct, unless the atheist is dead. Anything animate by definition has an anima.

    76. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      "My refusal to give General Electric (or any other corporation) my money has zero consequences."

      Yep, zero consequences. For you and GE. You don't matter. In a modern capitalist society the same people own EVERYTHING. Go ahead. Don't buy from GE. You'll buy from their competitor, the board members of which will be ex GE employees. It's called a ruling class, and you're not a member.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    77. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by mldi · · Score: 1

      It's only for fools if it's not a "free market" to begin with. Legalized monopolies and federal dollars given to giants who don't use it as intended don't count.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    78. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Doctor+Morbius · · Score: 1

      Your analogy fails because not paying your taxes is like walking into Walmart and trying to walk out with a TV without paying for it. Try that and see how fast they pull guns on you. Right now you are benefiting from what the government does and therefore you have to pay for it. Your taxes pay for police, firefighters, military, education, roads, etc. If you want to live in a country where you don't have to pay for that then you'll have to find some other country. But good luck with that because the only countries like that are all 3rd world shit holes.

      --
      If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.
    79. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by DM9290 · · Score: 2

      Your refusal to give a corporation your money has the consequence of depriving you of the best available prices, and also imposing on you the burden of doing costly research before each and every single purchase to see what practices the often foreign manufacturer is engaged in. To say it costs nothing is dishonest. Any refusal to perform a transaction for anything except purely economic reasons has a cost.

      Ultimately since you have no way of knowing who actually has manufactured any given product or the components of it, you'll just buy what's available, the same as everybody else.

      Corporations exist as a legal fiction created by government. They have access to your money via tax incentives, grants, government contracts, and unfair business practices enabled and imposed by government.

      The corporation is an extension of government. It is a deliberate way to shield the wealth from public accountability while giving peons like you the illusion of freedom.

      When the richest 400 americans earn more than the bottom 150million americans, you think your paltry dollar counts for anything? Trying to boycott anyone is going to hurt you more than they.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    80. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      I've had my DSL modem for about 4 years and it still works great. All I've ever done is flash the firmware with an update or two.

    81. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      You can vote in an election once every 4 years. You can vote with your dollars every day.

      To vote with your dollars, you have to have a sufficient amount of dollars. What's worse is that people with more dollars have a more significant vote - it's oligarchy, not democracy.

    82. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're also brushing away the valid point made above.. The companies WOULD start coming after you if they could. Unless someone is there to check them, they will become *the* government, in addition to doing what you're pointing out here, they would also be answerable to no one.

    83. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Nimey · · Score: 1

      You'll have a valid complaint when you don't use any government services, such as roads, the police, and our military. Until then, you're a moron, and Somalia is that -> way.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    84. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by imric · · Score: 1

      Wow. How naive.

      So. separate infrastructure for each competitor? The infrastructure would, of course magically just be there, and without government intervention, the first lessee/row purchaser would OF COURSE never sign any exclusive agreements. And a single recalcitrant user would NEVER hold an entire industry or block hostage for a lease/row.

      In the free market fantasy, NOBODY ever gets ANY service.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    85. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by russryan · · Score: 2

      To quote myself, "When government is corrupt, it is for the same reason we need it"

    86. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by imric · · Score: 1

      ROFL. The only way we'd have service at all is with these monopolies.

      One of the major problems we have is free market weenies trying to free monopolies of any restraints. And in the name of 'competition', too! Bwahahaha!

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    87. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by mldi · · Score: 1

      ROFL. The only way we'd have service at all is with these monopolies.

      One of the major problems we have is free market weenies trying to free monopolies of any restraints. And in the name of 'competition', too! Bwahahaha!

      Only if they're extreme. Just like in any group there are extremists. Legalized monopolies and antitrust policies are two completely different things.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    88. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by ect5150 · · Score: 1

      His analogy doesn't break done when you look at some of the services government often provides. Take Amtrak, the government owned railroad... last time I looked it up, they have only had one profitable year. If they cannot provide a service at a price people are willing pay, how do you suppose they make up the difference? If Comcast cannot do the same thing, how do they make up the difference?

      Answer? Comcast closes it's doors (bail-out jokes for the banks and auto-industry aside)... the government does not. It is an effective waste of resources. That's not to say there is no use for government. It should uphold laws when individuals or companies try to steal, etc...

      --
      I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    89. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by citylivin · · Score: 0

      "Comcast: "We want your money. Please sign-up for service."
      ME: "Fuck you." (hangs-up on comcast sales idiot)"

      You (then implicitly): Does without internet service because corporations have purchased laws preserving their monopoly and outlawing competition in certain areas. Corporation doesn't give a fuck about your $50 a month service fee and barrels happily along.

      Question: Which is easier for a citizen to change, the behavior of a corporation who can purchase laws? Or an elected government which allows laws to be purchased.

      Doing without essential services in order to try and teach a corporation a "lesson" isnt my idea of fun. Legislating that corporation to behave fairly and not back me into a corner, is much more societally workable. I mean I HATE the current conservative government in canada right now. But I do not hate the idea of government or government in general. This is a big difference between the way americans think, and the rest of the world.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    90. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by ect5150 · · Score: 1

      You can vote in an election once every 4 years. You can vote with your dollars every day.

      To vote with your dollars, you have to have a sufficient amount of dollars. What's worse is that people with more dollars have a more significant vote - it's oligarchy, not democracy.

      This further proves AC's point... the only way have extra dollars can affect anyone other than yourself is if it is used to twist the system (i.e. - buying advertising to get your candidate voted in), and you are back to the original point that government and corp. are in collusion.

      If I buy a new pair of gold plated shoes at $15,000 ... this doesn't impact you in any fashion. Let's say I make 4 times the average salary compared to any random slashdoter... how would my purchasing patterns have affects you at all today? How would you even know what the typical slashdoter did today other than browse the website?

      --
      I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    91. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by statdr · · Score: 0

      You'll have a valid complaint when you don't use any government services, such as roads, the police, and our military. Until then, you're a moron, and Somalia is that -> way.

      He has a valid complaint. The key issue here is one of partitioning of government responsibilities. According to the Constitution, there are supposed to be two types of Governments in the U.S.; State and Federal with the State having most of the responsibilities and the Federal Gov't having a few specific responsibilities. If the country hadn't gone off the deep end starting with FDR, then the Federal government would have limited power (and thus limited ability to pry into people's private lives) and we could treat States like companies. If someone didn't like the government in a State, move to another; much like if I don't like Comcast, I don't have to use it. Unfortunately, it seems as if many people do not care to differentiate between the two levels of government and they appear to think that the Federal government should have ultimate authority over everything. Because of this attitude, and because it's readily apparent that people will vote for people who promise them free stuff, we are in the fiscal shape we are in and we cannot just "move to another State" to find a government that is in better shape fiscally; though I hear Canada has elected a conservative government and , wouldn't that be ironic, immigrating to Canada to find some sanity.

    92. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by imric · · Score: 1

      Right - but both need regulation if markets are to be healthy.

      You made me smile just now, BTW. Thanks. I needed to know there are at least a few out there that don't think extreme=virtue.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    93. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by statdr · · Score: 0

      "Comcast: "We want your money. Please sign-up for service." ME: "Fuck you." (hangs-up on comcast sales idiot)"

      You (then implicitly): Does without internet service because corporations have purchased laws preserving their monopoly and outlawing competition in certain areas. Corporation doesn't give a fuck about your $50 a month service fee and barrels happily along.

      Question: Which is easier for a citizen to change, the behavior of a corporation who can purchase laws? Or an elected government which allows laws to be purchased.

      Doing without essential services in order to try and teach a corporation a "lesson" isnt my idea of fun. Legislating that corporation to behave fairly and not back me into a corner, is much more societally workable. I mean I HATE the current conservative government in canada right now. But I do not hate the idea of government or government in general. This is a big difference between the way americans think, and the rest of the world.

      It's easier for a citizen to change his own behavior and not give his money to the nefarious corporation. Because of the desire for people to want "free stuff" or money from "Obama's stash", it is much harder to elect a Federal government that has fiscally sane policies. p.s. It wasn't a company who passed a law saying all U.S. citizens must give money to a private company in order to have health insurance; it was a bunch of elected democrats and an authoritarian President who passed a law to force individuals to give money to private companies. The way out of this scenario is for people to realize that centralized power over everything in life is going to be horrible and uncontrollable. The masses want more and more free stuff and the billions we spend on education have done nothing to create a mass of educated and independent people in the U.S.

    94. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If I buy a new pair of gold plated shoes at $15,000 ... this doesn't impact you in any fashion.

      It does in the context of the original post, which made a point that "voting with your wallet" is more efficient than voting at the polling booth. If you buy a pair of gold plated shoes at $15k from a company, while that same company is boycotted by 100 other potential customers (due to e.g. monopoly abuse) which chose not to buy $150 shoes from them, then your single vote effectively canceled out that hundred.

      It's really a very simple concept. Voting with your wallet is proportional to the amount of money you would otherwise give to the business in question. Rich people tend to buy more expensive things, and thus them "voting" (or not "voting") has a disproportionally large effect.

    95. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by overlordofmu · · Score: 1

      Yo mama is a girl . . .

    96. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      FiOS = Fiber Optic Services.

      And I meant it in the "generic" terms not the TM version of it. Kind of like kleenex vs Kleenex, and bandaid vs Bandaid and aspirin vs Bayer Aspirin.

      IS that okay with you? Or Did you misunderstand what I meant?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    97. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by samsonaod · · Score: 1

      Yeah like my vote carries more weight than my dollar. The only goal of Government is make sure the group in power stays in power, and that's the only thing we remotely have power over (and it ain't much). At least with Private tyrannies I can choose which I want to belong to (coke vs. pepsi vs. water). However when the government reflects the "intrests of the people" we ALL get screwed. We all lose the ability to decide what is safe (wear a seat belt, helmet, drugs and their availability, sale of raw milk), what we can do with our body (prostitution, sell my organs), what you can do with your money (I have 2 choices of companies to buy health ins. from, don't tell me competition doesn't work because it hasn't been tried, can't buy alcohol in a dry county), what is moral ( marriage (what sex and how many I can have), can't sell alcohol/sex toys in some places, what movie I can watch/make) Do I agree with some of those decisions sure because they work for me, but I think we should be able to make decisions for ourselves rather than having the decisions decided at the point of a gun.

    98. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 1

      This is demonstrably false. The only way you can meaningfully participate is if you have money. You can neither get elected or buy influence without enough money. The people who actually participate in the federal Government are all millionaires both the ones buying the influence and the ones accepting the bribes. The federal government is the top 1% talking to the top 1% about what the top 1% wants it has very little to do with what you or I might want. Our government is corrupt to the core and there is no saving it.

      The corporations have always been corrupt so nothing new there.

    99. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by locust · · Score: 1

      If you live in the good old USofA, where (ostensibly) its a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, aren't you basically saying "Fuck You" to yourself?

    100. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Are there any emergent phenomenons that continue to exist after decoupling from the original source?

    101. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're right - Amtrak's inability to compete with tax-subsidized highways and airports is proof that government can't do anything right ...

    102. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a sec; let me fix that for you:
      In a democracy only people with money for campaign contributions really matter to government officials.

    103. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Which has fuck-all to do with paying your taxes. If it's that big of a problem, agitate for change from within the system.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    104. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      And those who live in areas where Comcast has no competition?

    105. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

      when a corporation or cartel controls access to something you need then they don't need their own men with guns, they can use the governments mwg for free while they wring you dry.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    106. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Sweeet, so you all are n00bs then?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    107. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Surt · · Score: 1

      We're within a binary order of magnitude class of ids. If you want to call me a n00b, you should really get a 4 digit id.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    108. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase, "All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and public order... what has the Government done for us?"

      There are many more things that the government does for you that you don't even know about, or take for granted. But if you insist on considering the government to be analogous to a company, keep in mind you can always cash out and move to one of the many other governments out there which may suit your taste in management better.

    109. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      And if the steamroller factory next door accidentally rolls over your car, what are you going to do, stop buying steamrollers from them?

      Good luck "driving them into nonexistance".

      At some level, something bigger than the corporations has to exist. The only way to shrink the size of government is to shrink the size of corporations.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    110. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Welcome to representative democracy: The people voted in may be shit but at least they have the correct stance on abortion.

      allowed to enter my market by the local government

      Here's a game for you: find out how long ago the franchise agreement was established (it's public records, google indexes a few hundred just searching "cable franchise agreement") then go pull out a newspaper archive and count how many cable companies you could get service from at your house before then. If it's more than one, you win (double FREEEEEEE MARRRKET! points if you would have had to pay more than $50,000 to get cable installed). You lose double if there were zero carriers because none of them would front the billions of dollars for infrastructure without the guarantee of not having to compete. It's a draw if the franchise agreement was signed in the 50's when cable tv was invented.

    111. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just unlucky, but I'm on DSL modem #4 in 10 years. Four different brands. I'm hoping this one proves to be less unreliable.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    112. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Trusting is for idiots, mainly when money is involved.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    113. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      As an atheist I don't have a soul...

      What do you mean? Atheists don't have souls but everybody else does? I can see believing that everybody has one or that everybody doesn't, but the idea that each person may or may not have one according to their opinion on the subject is uncommonly odd...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    114. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Piers Anthony's "On A Pale Horse": if you truly refuse the afterlife - not merely "I don't believe", but rather "do not want" - you don't get one.

    115. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Clearly some people didn't understand my point, so let me boil it down to internet IQ level:

      We understand your point perfectly. It's stupid.

      Let me boil it down even further:

      Comcast: "We want your money (that only exists because a government exists to print it). Please sign-up for service."
      You: "Fuck you."

      Government: "We want your money back to pay for all the shit you've been using. We printed it, after all, and with out us your money has absolutely no value, so it's best that you put some of it back into the system to be reused to ensure that it retains at least some of its value."
      You: "Fuck you."
      Government: "Ok, welcome to prison"
      Everyone else: "What a douchebag freeloader. Glad he's in jail."

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    116. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I've been voting with my wallet for a couple years now: no internet or TV services because they're ridiculously overpriced. I'm pretty sure Comcast and Qwest are *just* about to crack.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    117. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be easier to have sympathy for you if you'd never been an unhelpful pedant.

    118. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except... Try running on a position of "reduce the Military Industrial Complex" and see how long you survive random accidents.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    119. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      But, on the whole, I agree with you. The government *is* more powerful and potentially more dangerous than a corporation.

      The government only has as much power and money as you want to give it, unless you do stupid things like have been done recently. We have actively given up our rights over the last couple of decades, that isn't the government's fault - it is ours. The government isn't evil, people are just rash and reactionary and people IN the government take advantage of that.

    120. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Then what is the generic term that covers Verizon FiOS service, FiOS service offered by companies such as Frontier that serve former Verizon territories, and AT&T's similar service?

      VDSL. AT&T calls its VDSL service U-verse; my parents switched to it a while back.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    121. Re:Comcast isn't a monopoly everywhere by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Excluded middle much? There's rather a wide span between "no government" and "government controlling all aspects of life" that you seem to be missing.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  11. Vertical Integration by realxmp · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Vertical Integration by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>>market forces do not work towards efficiency in situations of "natural monopoly".

      I agree with your viewpoint, but Comcast, Cox, et cetera are not "natural" monopolies. They are government-created monopolies. 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. Then the consumer could choose if they want Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Verizon and so on.

      Water, electricity, sewer are "natural" monopolies due to space limitations (i.e. big fat pipes or poles). CATV has no such limitation and there's no reason for a monopoly to exist.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Vertical Integration by webbiedave · · Score: 2

      What is the government specifically doing then to create these cable monopolies?

    3. Re:Vertical Integration by PRMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The monopoly is so that you do not have your streets torn up every week by yet another competitor. People hate construction.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:Vertical Integration by Surt · · Score: 1

      Licensing the right to install said cables exclusively to a single entity for terms of typically 50, 100, or infinity years.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Vertical Integration by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 2

      I hate construction, but not NEARLY as much as I hate DSL, cable, and internet monopolies. Do you have any idea how crappy my internet is because of that?

    6. Re:Vertical Integration by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    7. Re:Vertical Integration by Telvin_3d · · Score: 4, 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.

    8. Re:Vertical Integration by hitmark · · Score: 1

      State or county government, right? not federal?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    9. Re:Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there is - cost. Who wants to pay $2.31/foot for a 48-pair bulk cable plus installation? The 144-strand fiber would be perfect for a trunk in a major metropolitan area. Using 100Gbit switches, it could provide enough bandwidth for 2.4 million people to watch Netflix with a 6Mbit dedicated link. Even the world's largest city wouldn't need over a dozen of those for a non-oversold backbone.

    10. Re:Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is the little problem of laying all that fiber through private and gov't property.

    11. Re:Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your viewpoint, but Comcast, Cox, et cetera are not "natural" monopolies. They are government-created monopolies.

      What the hell is the difference?? Microsoft is a "natural" monopoly. Is it "better" in your viewpoint? Or worse?

      Infrastructure is government regulated for very good reason - they mandate how much crap is put on utility poles. Having 1 owner of the transmission lines, be it electrical or optical, is preferred. Duplication results in clutter, mistakes, excess capital costs, etc. etc.

      I could go on and on and on. But having 1 physical layer makes things *simpler*. How that physical layer is divided up later on is politics and it has nothing to do with it being 1 physical layer. Hell, in places like UK, you can have dozens of DSL providers and they are all using the same last-mile wires.

      Water, electricity, sewer are "natural" monopolies due to space limitations (i.e. big fat pipes or poles). CATV has no such limitation and there's no reason for a monopoly to exist.

      Wrong. CATV is same as electricity. It uses the same poles.

    12. Re:Vertical Integration by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      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. Then the consumer could choose if they want Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Verizon and so on.

      Or, instead of wiring 50 lines to each home, terminate those 50 lines at a common switch box in the neighborhood. Then each home will need only one line. The coax which they already have will suffice, so you won't need to dig up everyone's lawns.

      Similar strategies could also be used for telephone and electricity service.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    13. Re:Vertical Integration by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      Sure they are natural monopolies.

      I'd like to see fifty different, or even five different, cable companies all get all the requisite right of way access to wire any metropolitan area of significant size. And, even if they could, the duplication in physical plant would likely lead to higher prices over all. Multiply the costs of existing "last mile" infrastructure by 10 and then spread that total cost over ten different carriers. Each carrier ends up having to charge far more per customer to recoup its fixed costs.

      Here's a hint, its that last bit that puts the "natural" in "natural monopoly." It's not a question of possibility, or even of convenience, it's whether the efficiencies involved are such that a single firm can deliver at a lower cost per unit than if multiple firms are involved. Whether these efficiencies are "natural" due to the laws of nature or "artificial" in that they are mandated by a municipality is of no consequence. For it to be a natural monopoly all that needs to obtain is that the average price of the good or service be lower if provided by a single firm than a free market with multiple suppliers would produce.

    14. Re:Vertical Integration by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You run one large conduit once, to each house. Then pulls are dead easy later. The conduits should be owned by the city.

    15. Re:Vertical Integration by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      You don't need to tear-up the streets to snake a 1 cm cable (with 50-100 optical fibers). Cmon people. Don't you ever watch those blue collar wire-layers in action along roads, or snaking internet through office walls? It's not a destructive process.

         

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    16. Re:Vertical Integration by njvack · · Score: 1

      Water, electricity, sewer are "natural" monopolies due to space limitations (i.e. big fat pipes or poles). CATV has no such limitation and there's no reason for a monopoly to exist.

      While that's partially true, with no telco regulation you get stuff like this, which isn't particularly good for anyone.

      Also, one of the other "natural" monopoly resources is right-of-way -- the right for someone to come onto your property to install or maintain the utility. Balancing the benefit of an efficiently-run utility and individuals' right to sovereignty on their property is nontrivial -- and a big reason for government-sponsored monopolies.

    17. Re:Vertical Integration by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So run the conduit once, then pull whatever you want through it. We already have something like this, your water comes in them.

    18. Re:Vertical Integration by Elviswind · · Score: 1

      I agree with your viewpoint, but Comcast, Cox, et cetera are not "natural" monopolies. They are government-created monopolies. 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. Then the consumer could choose if they want Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Verizon and so on.

      Can you please elaborate on why you assert they are government-created monopolies? Didn't the cable companies themselves pay for right-of-way access to run the coax way back when? I think you are implying that because cable companies are government-created monopolies there are government-created roadblocks in place to prevent fiber from being run to every home. I'll have to do some research myself, but if anyone knows some background information I'd love to read it.

    19. Re:Vertical Integration by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    20. Re:Vertical Integration by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Simply saying "but the bundle is smaller!" doesn't lay fiber. Whether the utility you're laying requires a one-foot pipe or a one-centimeter line, it still needs digging and laying in and connecting. Doing that gets much, much harder when you're trying to retrofit the installation into existing construction, because you either disrupt roads, yards, buildings, etc. for the duration of the install, or you resort to more complicated and time-consuming methods like boring machines.

      Basically, the logistical challenges of laying in permanent utilities don't go away just because your bundle got smaller. That does make it a bit easier, but the primary logistical hurdle is labor and installation around/under/over all of the existing roads and other infrastructure. The diameter of the line in question doesn't matter too much.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    21. Re:Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is that the government is allowing monopolies to use their monopoly power and move into other territories. When was this last an issue with the DOJ, and what did the government do about it then?

    22. Re:Vertical Integration by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      As always, you and every libertarian out there is dead wrong on this. Comcast and Cox are natural monopolies because the hard part isn't pulling fiber into your home, it is building it out into a worldwide network - or at least building it out so that it can tap into a worldwide network. That little fiber in your house needs to be running to some central hub, where it is connected to a million other little fibers. The hubs and lines have to all be bought, built and maintained. Personnel needs health care, a compensation plan; contracts need to be written by legal and sold by sales teams - and suddenly you're looking at a multi-billion dollar affair to get a network off the ground that doesn't rely on CLEC laws and does more than string a neighborhood bbs system together.

      Do you have about 20 billion dollars lying around? Didn't think so. The natural telecom monopoly has nothing to do with space, and all to do with capital. I really wish you people would stop voting. Your ignorance is killing the Internet.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    23. Re:Vertical Integration by fallen1 · · Score: 2

      You do realize that what he said was "there's no reason why every home cannot be wired with 50 incoming optical lines (1 cm thick bundle)" -- which means that you don't have to dig the yard up 50 times AND you could create one large switch station in the neighborhood and have each company utilizing it pay part of the maintenance fees. Yes, Virginia, you can pack an assload of fiber optic lines into one small bundle and run it to the house and to the switching station(s).

      --

      Dream as if you'll live forever.
      Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
      ~Anonymous~

    24. Re:Vertical Integration by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      I personally have no problem with either option, but you typically have a "government regulation always bad" slant to your posts. What you're talking about in your second option isn't much different from what your parent originally suggested. Indeed, why have fifty cables, why not one government owned cable with a government owned or regulated switching room that hooks it up to the upstream provider of your choice. You pay a small maintenance fee to the government for your physical "last mile" connection, but mostly pay a provider of your choice for all the logical layer stuff. That's a discussion I could definitely get behind.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    25. Re:Vertical Integration by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      This sounds insanely corrupt. Do you have any links to evidence? Thanks

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    26. Re:Vertical Integration by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I do not see the difference. Monopoly is monopoly and it if it is unregulated it does bad whether it's natural or government-created.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    27. Re:Vertical Integration by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      No. It's still a natural monopoly. Someone still has to own the conduit where the cables sit and do the work to wire everything up.

      That entity willing to lay the cable is going to end up with ownership of it. Anything else comes into conflict with GOP notions of corporate private property. This is something that has been in conflict with the individual for a VERY LONG TIME in America. This isn't just a new thing. This goes back to the beginning of large corporations in America.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    28. Re:Vertical Integration by Bengie · · Score: 1

      That's why the infrastructure should be considered a utility. Let the ISP handle the internet connection and let the last mile be publicly owned and shared at whole-sale prices.

    29. Re:Vertical Integration by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      IOW the government needs to own the shared infastructure that depends on a physical right of way.

      It's like roads.

      No one here would seriously advocate all of our roads being privatized but the advocate exactly this for the information super highway.

      Just imagine if you had to pay your local phone or cable monopoly for the right to get from your house to the local freeway.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    30. Re:Vertical Integration by Surt · · Score: 1

      http://www.google.com/search?q=cable+franchise+agreement

      Looks like a lot of cities have as little as 10 year terms, but they typically renew without competition.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    31. Re:Vertical Integration by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Go to the Dallas Fortworth area, they seem to be going down that road. Personally I think it is nuts.

    32. Re:Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 RTFP

    33. Re:Vertical Integration by randallman · · Score: 2

      Each and every one of those 50 cables will have to have its own hole dug

      That's not the way I read it. The grandparent said "50 incoming optical lines (1 cm thick bundle)", which I took to mean that the 50 optical cables contained in a single cover. So there is only one hole needed. I've been told that the major cost is not the cable, but the digging, so I say cram as many cables as you can while you're there. Sure there will still be some shared infrastructure where those cables terminate, but it's still the best option we're looking at.

      I just don't understand the pessimism towards FTH. We implemented a phone network over 60 years ago and look what it did for us. My imagination runs wild thinking of what could be done with synchronous multi-Gbps fiber connections as ubiquitous as POTS. Having fast, reliable, affordable Internet access would open the door for companies to offer services over this medium. The obvious ones are phone and TV, which would benefit from REAL competition. Businesses and individuals alike could make large datasets geographically redundant in real-time as the data rates would be similar to SATA (1.5, 3 GBPS) speeds (yea, there's still latency). High quality video streams and conferences would be the norm instead of the exception they are now (my upstream rate is 2 Mbps on a good day). Consider what happened from dial-up (56K) to what we're at now (~10Mbps/~1Mbps). Now think about the jump to 10Gbps/10Gbps or even 1Gbps/1Gbps. It's a similar sized leap and I think we can expect similar sized advances as a result. Either way, we should wire up our buildings with fiber and while we're digging throw in some extra fiber to grow.

    34. Re:Vertical Integration by Triv · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the pictures of what NYC looked like in the late 1800's when every telegraph company had competing lines strung up on every street? In some places you couldn't see the sky.

      http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/09_18_2001/story03.htm

      Is that what you're looking forward to?

    35. Re:Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. what you're advocating here is.. a government-created monopoly? This sounds suspiciously like a re-invention of the 3rd-party responsibility of the 'common carrier' idea.

    36. Re:Vertical Integration by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Government forces Baltimore Gas&Electric to share its electrical system with other companies, thereby giving me multiple choices.

      Power is essential. Living without power is possible but highly uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous. Cable TV is entertainment. You can live without cable TV. I have for nearly a decade now and quite frankly have little interest in contributing tax dollars to support your TV viewing habits.

      Or the government could own the 50-fiber bundle itself, in the same way government owns the road

      Governments frequently do not own the road. Many roads, bridges, rail lines, airports, power and telecom lines, and other critical infrastructure is privately owned and (sometimes) regulated. When governments do own infrastructure, they do not do so because it is cost effective, they do it because no one else can or will. There (usually) is no money to be made in owning roads unless it is a toll road. There is obviously plenty of money to be made in cable television. The fact that you want a better price is unsurprising and also irrelevant.

      A 50 fiber bundle is unbelievably wasteful and expensive. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about with that proposal. That is a VAST amount of bandwidth. A single fiber cable carries a tremendous amount of data - far more than most people actually will use.

      Just as we have a free market with cars, we could have a free market with CATV providers.

      I have at least 4 TV service providers available to me where I live. (Comcast, Dish Network, DirectTV and AT&T) Plus I have access to the full content of the internet and a variety of pay-per-use services like Netflix. While it isn't as competitive as I'd like it to be, it's hardly the single provider monopoly of yesterday.

    37. Re:Vertical Integration by sys_mast · · Score: 1

      But that 1cm cable would Only go to the CO or Node of one company.

      If they shared the bunldle you'd have what there is today, one company owned the last mile pipe and resells it through few other companies. Where I live both cable and dsl are resold through other companies, but I think there is little difference in the service or price. (haven't checked all the details, but the ones I did looked the same)

      While your right about a 1cm bundle holding enough fiber to your house, the rest would not work in the current world. I guess maybe if they all ran to a gov run building, like a publicly owned CO. But in that case why not just have one fiber to each house and patch it correctly in the shared CO?

      --
      Those who can, do.
    38. Re:Vertical Integration by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      You don't need to tear-up the streets to snake a 1 cm cable (with 50-100 optical fibers).

      That's what I've been saying, but nobody's interested in making themselves into what is essentially a data utility. Even AT&T wants to sell you TV over their phone lines.

      Google is probably the only company with the cash and the conflict of interest to build out such a low-margin project, and it's unclear that they'd be willing to undercut their control by letting other ISPs access the line. After all, they have to justify it to their shareholders eventually, and when the shareholders start demanding ROI on their trillion dollar infrastructure installation, Google ain't going to let some other ISP watch every website you visit.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    39. Re:Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Others have had this idea...if you agree with it, email your representative. It seems like it's advanced enough and has enough support behind it that it's got a chance of getting passed.

    40. Re:Vertical Integration by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      One cable can not carry 50 different companies' CATV options.

      Put another way: Comcast's system already uses the frequencies from 0 to 1,000,000 megahertz. So if the government decided to let Cox, AppleTV, and a few others share that line, where would they go? There's not enough room.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    41. Re:Vertical Integration by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Interesting picture, thanks for the link. Many cities in less-developed parts of the world (including in Thailand/SE Asia in general which is what I'm personally familiar with) look almost like that today. And in most of those places, in the cities anyway you can get unrestricted, fast broadband for a fraction of what our crappy service in the US costs. Do we want our cities to look like that? No, but hey, it works...

      Over time, as in NYC those places will move this kind of infrastructure behind walls and underground. In the mean time, they've got better connectivity than us, and chances are when they move underground everything will be upgraded to the latest and greatest. In that same time, I foresee the situation in the US only getting worse.

      Here are three photos I took in Chiang Mai and Bangkok, Thailand, illustrating my point. In Bangkok they've even got a special crew with special poles designed to lift up low-lying power lines for when things with high clearance need to pass underneath (you can see this in the third photo).

    42. Re:Vertical Integration by ZFox · · Score: 1

      Do they really go up to 1 terahertz or was that just a typo?

    43. Re:Vertical Integration by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      You missed the part about switching the one cable to a logical provider of your choice at some government run/regulated NOC. Probably not physically, they can just route your cable to the provider of your choice logically. Though I'm not sure on where exactly CATV stops being a networked digital signal and becomes a "TV" signal; a physical switch might be necessary. Regardless, such a system would alleviate how much hardware has to get "to the curb" or even to the neighborhood level amps and splitters (which would have to be huge to accommodate even 10 different company's hardware. Those green boxes would become green garden sheds or even small houses). If you want to switch providers you just call the entity that runs the public infrastructure and have them switch your provider at the NOC.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  12. Wait for market diversity by robot256 · · Score: 1

    Netflix just needs to wait a few years for some more streaming companies to get a foothold. Then when the cable companies try to crack down, there will be more than just one company to fight back. It's also a lot easier to get public opinion/lobbyists on your side if an entire industry is the defendant rather than just one company.

  13. Cable doesn't want to admit its VOD is less robust by tepples · · Score: 1

    why not dump their less robust on demand services

    Two reasons:

    • The cable companies want TV subscribers in the upper subscription tiers, such as Digital Premier as opposed to Digital Starter. They make being in the highest tier a prerequisite for adding any premium channels.
    • The cable companies don't want to admit that Starz On Demand and the like are less robust.

    My former ISP (Frontier) had DSL speeds up to 3 meg in my area.

    What happened after that? What excuse is Frontier throwing around for why it hasn't rolled out FiOS?

  14. They should team up with Google by Omnifarious · · Score: 2

    Neither company is very well served by the way the telecommunications monopolies in the US work. If they teamed up with Google and funded alternate companies and bribed regulators and such, I bet they could create a telecommunications infrastructure that was independent of these monopolies and a whole ton better for everybody.

    1. Re:They should team up with Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bribed regulators

      The term is lobbied, they need to lobby regulators. If you call it bribes you'll be thrown under the bus so fast...

    2. Re:They should team up with Google by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      When the only difference is legality who gives a shit.

    3. Re:They should team up with Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the guys with a virtual monopoly on search are the exemplar of monopoly busters? Really?

    4. Re:They should team up with Google by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Yes. They came by their monopoly honestly, by being good, not by shutting out competitors. :-) There may be some interesting criticisms of their online advertising business I could agree with, but criticizing them for their monopoly in search is silly. They could be replaced if someone started doing a better and more trustworthy job.

  15. He's right. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    Basically instead of having to produce content he's letting cable companies pay up front so cable and network channels produce content and he reaps the benefits later on when the DVDs ship.

    Producing content is an expensive and painful business. Why fight the guys who are in essence subsidizing his business plan?

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:He's right. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Well Comcast, Disney, and the other content providers can always choose to go 1970s-BBC on themselves, deleting old content so that it "doesn't compete" with newer content.

      Or they could, you know, choose to not release that older content on DVD, thereby preventing Netflix from utilizing their fair rights to buy some copies and loan them out.

      (It goes without saying that they could choose not to license it to Netflix for streaming.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:He's right. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Producing content is an expensive and painful business.

      Really? Then stop hiring Charlie Sheen and look for cheaper talent. Movies continue to be made for peanuts, you just don't know where to look or refuse to watch something that isn't overproduced and chock full of special effects.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:He's right. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      They already have. Look for Aladdin on Netflix. Deleted.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:He's right. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "Producing content is an expensive and painful business. " No it is not.

      http://twit.tv/

      http://www.pioneerone.tv/

      http://revision3.com/

      http://www.theonion.com/ - they make a broadcast "news" show for almost nothing.

      Also The daily show and colbert report were dirt cheap before both of them got greedy as hell. John Steward started that show making a GOOD wage but now hew is making an obscene wage.

      The costs per episode tv show is complete bullshit and they know it. High quality TV can be made a LOT cheaper and is starting to surface. SciFi channel CLAIMED they were going to do that but they became retarded and only used SAG actors and that instantly drove the price through the roof. Sorry but Charlie Sheen is not worth 1/20th of what he got paid for that really low budget TV show that ended up having expenses that were on par with a TV show like Eureka that has real talent and the cost of prop building and EFX every episode. And the costs for EFX are coming down fast... IF I can make a convincing meteorite hit on my $350.00 computer using a $800.00 program... It's game over. http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials/meteor_crash_3d_p1/

      I am for paying a good actor a reasonable wage and covering his/her expenses... but getting 7 figures for a movie or a year in a TV series is bullshit. And it's not acting ability that they are paying for. Tom Cruise cant act.

      The whole industry needs to be shaken up hard.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:He's right. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Disney has for decades made it a habit to take things in and out of print. For some reason they think it increases sales because they can advertise both "new" releases and things going "back in the vault".

      This shouldn't, of course, have any effect on Netflix' ability to store and ship DVDs. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix finds a lot more of its out-of-print DVDs "accidentally broken" by customers. Netflix also signs deals with providers that may voluntarily limit their rights to ship DVDs, often in exchange for streaming licenses. Given that Netflix signed one with Disney recently, I'd suspect this was the culprit. Netflix follows Disney's "vault" model for the major titles, and in exchange they can stream all the direct-to-video and lower-budget films all the time.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    6. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Steward started that show making a GOOD wage but now hew is making an obscene wage.

      Jon Stewart didn't start that show at all. Craig Kilborn was the original host, back when it was actually watchable.

    7. Re:He's right. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      It's not the talent, it's the camera crews, it's the writing, the production, the locations, the permits, etc.

      I know there are lots of wonderful films that are made for relatively cheap, but that doesn't mean that it's still not cheap AND the production aspect is still a huge pain in the ass.

      Netflix is producing their own new content, but it's not on the scale of competition against Comcast compared to what Viacom's putting out.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    8. Re:He's right. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      uh

      You do know that there are many other costs that go into making a film other than the actors right? The reason why actors get paid so much is that compared to the rest of the production, their outlays are pretty small.

      That still doesn't make the production any less difficult either. You make it sound like you could just throw a couple of decent cameras out there, shoot for a few hours in a few weeks and have a film.

      It's not that simple. Takes, retakes, edits, filming permits, taxes, etc.

      Sure, the industry needs a shakeup, but it's not in production values, and the current way that films are produced isn't wrong either; it's that what gets green lit needs to change.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    9. Re:He's right. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Producing content is an expensive and painful business.

      HBO is a money machine. So are the networks.

      There's no good reason not to try to take that business away from the cable companies.

    10. Re:He's right. by smelch · · Score: 1

      I thought it went without saying that content people want to see is expensive, not what you happen to like that is clearly not commercially viable for a reason (nobody wants to see it).

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    11. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I working with Charlie Sheen the expensive part or the painful part or both?

    12. Re:He's right. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      For the Disney crowd, "accidentally broken" is probably an inevitability, not a conspiracy theory.

      Given that most adult Disney fans tend to be collectors, those grabbing older Disney discs from Netflix are probably trying to satiate children on long trips, etc.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    13. Re:He's right. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Uh Yes I do and I seem to know a hell of a lot more about it than you, unless you have a lot of physical experience on movie sets like I do. how many years did you work in the movie industry?

      My name is in the credits for 3 Count them 3 movies that were released from 20th century fox. Yes I worked as an assistant grip for a while in the 90's. I know all that goes on as I saw it for 2 years straight. There is a crapload of waste and a lot of people getting paid very little for doing nothing. 90% of the people on set are not needed. The studio would charge it's self for catering and location shooting on a studio soundstage.

      Let's add to that that I helped recently on a major movie shot in Grand Rapids, MI this last year. They had a $290,000 RV for Bruce Willis that he NEVER SET FOOT IN. They had handlers and special people for him that were not needed.

      I know how the industry works very well, I know how a lot of unions are sucking the teat of the movie industry. how the executives that do nothing suck the other teat, and how there is tons of money wasted.

      Also did you not even bother to look at the links I posted? I gave 3 live and real examples of proof that it does NOT take a lot of money to produce content.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:He's right. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      So? I don't care where you've worked. Experts are wrong ALL THE TIME. Experts with years of experience were on the Deep Water Horizon rig.

      Even if you get the average budget down from let's say $20 million to $500k, that's still a lot of money, and you're still not addressing the point that putting together a film or a tv show is still hard work for the production team. Sure the software and hardware might be easier to come by, but that still doesn't eliminate all of that hard creative stuff. You know, writing, directing, acting, cinematography, sound, scoring...

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    15. Re:He's right. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      My whole point here is, is that even if the costs are low, for Netflix it makes very little sense for them to bear not only the costs but the force of effort to produce content, because that is a huge effort. Not just producing the film, but also running the scripts through legal, getting MPAA rating, getting the film into the hands of a distributor, etc.

      Besides, if you've got a film that's going to gross $100 million over it's life time, why not throw a little bit more coin to the actors, unions, directors, producers, cinematographers, etc?

      Besides, Bruce Willis is a pretty bad example. Kevin Smith is one of many who've got really bad shit to say about guys like Bruce.

      On the other end, if you're a good guy and a decent director, you could get talent like Matt Damon and pay them scale when in other films they'd be pulling bigger numbers just to work with you(Again, Kevin Smith's Dogma is a testament to this; huge names, all working for scale; most of whom have worked with him since or said good things about him).

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    16. Re:He's right. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Also, I'd hate to work for you ever.

      A show like the daily show attracts millions per episode in advertising revenue. Jon's not only the host, he's also the head writer and executive producer. You don't think the guy who's sticking his neck out 4 nights a week doesn't deserve a nice slice of that? Jeez. What a tightwad. Who else should get that money? Executives at Viacom who had nothing to do with the show other than not cancel it that particular week? Guys who would consider guys like Jon and Stephen, "Fly over people?" Give me a break.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    17. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My name is in the credits for 3 Count them 3 movies

      Well tell us what those movies are so we can count them dumbass.

  16. There can be only NONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like they're insisting there can be only NONE. If customers can't get what they want from the cable company themselves or indirectly from streaming services (where the creators still get royalties, though it's probably less than what cable pays) then what's left? Bittorrent. Telling paying customers, "No, we won't sell it to you through that service either," is just a way to tell customers to not be customers.

  17. Netflix has made one of the classic blunders! by straponego · · Score: 1

    Never provide a media service that delivers what the customers want without a huge hassle or outrageous prices. Customers must be bled for every last cent!

    Netflix is an efficient use of available technology in the United States; therefore it must be annihilated.

  18. Rouse? by Suffering+Bastard · · Score: 1

    If Reed wishes to avoid an all out confrontation with the cable and content providers, it would make sense that he would speak out against doing so. However, that doesn't mean he isn't still planning on competing. The more he can appear tame and docile, the more cunning the surprise attack will be when he finally unsheathes his weapon. If you give the lion a wide berth and a calm gaze as you circle him, eventually the lion will relax and be unprepared for a lunge from behind.

    --
    "Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
    - Deep Thought
    1. Re:Rouse? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      If you give the lion a wide berth and a calm gaze as you circle him, eventually the lion will relax and be unprepared for a lunge from behind.

      Are you mad? The male interprets eye contact as a challenge, the females hunt when hungry regardless of your levels of exuded calm (or lack thereof!)

      (Posting from South Africa, where I once had my car break down and got surrounded by a pride of lions).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:Rouse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I am quite mad. Thanks for the reminder.

      Cheers.

  19. And he's right too by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

    Netflix subscribers: 23 million
    Cable TV subscribers: 100 million

    Who do you think content producers are going to side with (NBC/Comcast type mergers aside) if push comes to shove? It's just a matter of numbers.

    Kind of ironic that the relatively recent push to get TV shows out on DVD as quickly as possible, as well as getting all the old shows out, is probably one of the leading causes of the decline in cable TV. This is what really allowed Netflix, especially Netflix Streaming, to take off. How many of you would be subscribing to Netflix Streaming if it were only movies, and not TV shows as well? I doubt I would; and I guarantee you I'd still be subscribing to Cox.

    Networks got a huge profit boost when DVD sales started coming in, but in the long run it may end up doing them more harm than good.

    1. Re:And he's right too by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      At this point, there's a good argument that buying cable subscriptions is far from cost-effective.

      Monthly cable subscription: About $45 a month, or $540 a year.
      5 seasons worth of DVDs for the show I enjoy: $500.

      Intangible advantages:
      Cable - I can see the most recent shows, so long as I stick to the network's schedule or remember to record it in advance or organize some sort of recording system such as TiVo.
      DVDs - I can watch what I actually like whenever I want, without commercials, for less money. And if I don't like 'em anymore, I may be able to sell off the DVDs to somebody else, recouping some of the cost of buying them in the first place.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:And he's right too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's almost nothing on tv worth watching. you mean people aren't subscribed to streaming mostly for the movies?

    3. Re:And he's right too by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many of those cable subscribers are like me. I never watch television. In the last five years the only reason I ever fired up the TV is to watch a DVD I bought before streaming services became available or as a first-pass bit of troubleshooting when my internet connection stopped working. Where I live if you go with cable for internet you get basic cable television for free.

  20. Very smart by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Netflix to Cable: "We're not quite ready to take you out...yet. So we'll leave you alone for now. When we DO decide to take you on, it will be too late for you."

    Way to go Netflix, you are playing the game very well. I'm betting on Netflix in this battle.

  21. He's on Microsoft's Board by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    How much boat-rocking could you expect from such a guy?

    1. Re:He's on Microsoft's Board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally pointless Microsoft bash. Thanks for not changing, Slashdot.

  22. I'd partner by slapout · · Score: 1

    If I was a cable provider, I'd be looking to partner with Netflix. Netflix seems to have figured out video on demand, so I would have them be the official VOD provider for my customers. Netflix would just be an added service on my customers' bills. I'd get a cut every month. And my customers would get the most popular VOD provider.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:I'd partner by Surt · · Score: 1

      Netflix is charging a flat rate for VOD, while the cable companies want to charge by the view, particularly for their own content. It will be an enormous revenue hit when they give that up, so that is a step they will never willingly take.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:I'd partner by Americano · · Score: 1

      They should do this, but the problem is, then they don't get to charge you $4-10 for streaming a single movie on demand - they'd get a buck or two a month from Netflix per subscriber, and it'd probably be a net loss for them, because:

      1) They don't have access to data about the viewing habits of VOD viewers, since they're just providing the pipes to connect your tv to netflix's servers;
      2) They probably make more money off selling the movies for $4-10 per view, since there's a lot of people without a set-top box that's got netflix installed still;

      This fight will likely have to be fought between the cable companies on one side and Video Streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple on the other. Amazon and Apple might not love each other much, but I suspect they'd much rather compete with each other than compete with a bunch of cable/dsl providers who can simply say "Sorry, we're downgrading the priority of your streaming video services over our networks." Until the ISPs get bound by net neutrality rules, there's always going to be this sort of issue looming over the heads of streaming/rental services.

    3. Re:I'd partner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to ensure customers use this product, you could throttle other services creating a crappy experience. *THUMBS UP*

  23. seems like a prudent choice by bl8n8r · · Score: 0

    Rule #1 when going up against the mafiaa is to not go up against the mafiaa.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  24. BEND over netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you done now with comments like that. AND when you htink that cable and dsl ISPS are just becoming what you are ...and whining its users fault......for everything including a kitchen sink. YOU should just fold now go away.

    Can i trust you all with somehting......Canadian's are thinking of a summer strike against UBB.....think what 2 million times 60$ wold cost them per month let alone up to the 21 million we now have....3-4 months a that can affect change when O'Leary the share holder realizes WHO THE REAL GOD DAMN BOSS IS.

    WE THE PEOPLE.

  25. Re:Yay, Osama's dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess some of the mods are into fondling infants. Doesn't it strike anyone as hypocritical that one government agency hunts down child predators (FBI) while another hires them?

  26. New Peanuts movies? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Movies continue to be made for peanuts

    I don't remember any new feature films based on Peanuts since Bon Voyage in 1980.

    Movies continue to be made for peanuts

    Got any tips? (Requirement 1: English language.)

    1. Re:New Peanuts movies? by Surt · · Score: 1
      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:New Peanuts movies? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Here, try this one.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:New Peanuts movies? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Sicko. Posting links to peanut snuff films on slashdot. This is a family venue!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:New Peanuts movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clerks?

  27. Coward by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    I guess maybe you're right, but if he did stand up and force the telecoms hand, it might expose a few more people to the truth of what's really going on.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    1. Re:Coward by robot256 · · Score: 1

      It takes an awful lot of awareness-raising martyrs before anything gets done. Netflix is too big and too important to throw under the bus.

      If the cable companies force Netflix out of business and Netflix tells all their disappointed customers, "Look what those bastards did to us!", how many people are going to believe that it was really the cable companies' fault and not some bad decision in the single company? If, on the other hand, there are multiple companies that all get squeezed at once, it will be much more obvious that the cable companies are not merely the scapegoat of an ill-tempered CEO. Not only obvious to members of the public, but also members of Congress, who despite the stereotype are more likely to move en masse for a group of companies than a single one.

  28. ditch the cable by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    Here's the thing about cable TV:

    It's really expensive for the content that most people actually watch.

    If you have a good ATSC receiver, you get a SIGNIFICANTLY better looking (less compressed) picture off the antenna for free than you do off the cable for large bucks.

    Netflix is, what, $4.99 a month for unlimited streaming, which is not an "introductory offer" that's going to triple in 6 months, and Roku boxes are about $100, a one-time cost, not the monthly rental that the cable companies want you to pay.

    "Triple play" packages are not really a very good deal. Minimal phone and internet is less than half the cost of the total package, and you're not paying for content you're not watching. Consider, even HBO and Showtime original series eventually make it onto DVD, and become available on Netflix.

    Even with the "triple" discount, our cost went from $135/month to $60/month just by dropping cable and returning the two set-top boxes. Now, they'll tell you that you're paying a (slightly) higher price for phone and internet, but the important thing is that your total bill is down by more than 50%. In a down economy, that's increasingly important.

    Get a phone base station that'll pair with your cell, (about $60) and you can even drop the land line and buy internet service only.

    Even if netflix gets extinguished, those red boxes at the supermarket are good enough for a significant number of people.

    Cable TV is becoming this century's AOL. More and more people are realizing it's a crappy high priced service for shlubs who don't realize that all you really need from them is an internet connection. I think this is why Comcast is trying to leverage their current capital (as did AOL) and branch out now, before the inevitable collapse comes.

    Frontier, the company that took over Fios from Verizon in our area, is getting out of the cable TV business. Comcast comes by about twice a month to remind us of that and try to get us to switch, so we can keep our cable TV. But we've already dropped it, and we suspect Frontier has seen the handwriting on the wall.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:ditch the cable by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Get a phone base station that'll pair with your cell, (about $60)

      Please post a link where I can buy this $60 device.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    2. Re:ditch the cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use localphone.com VOIP for phone - $3 a month for three numbers (2 in the US, 1 in the UK that routes to my US cell phone) and 0.9c a minute for all calls to US / UK numbers - I pay about $60 a year for the lot. Add netflix for $11 (inc home DVD for the odd thing things not on streaming) and I'm all set.

      I physically can't watch TV with adverts anymore. If Netflix died I think I'd head back to bittorrent.

    3. Re:ditch the cable by roc97007 · · Score: 1
      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:ditch the cable by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I think you're not including internet access, but point is valid. You don't need cable, and you don't really need phone either. A data connection does everything.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:ditch the cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run some SMATV type cable plants and I take 8VSB OTA programming, stat mux it into QAM256 modulators and re-transmit to my customers. There is absolutely no loss of picture quality. If anything, it improves because the QAM256 signals are kept consistent to each home. Some people have large stands of trees between them and the OTA towers which would give them a lot of cliff-effect type signal degradation if they used an antenna.

      Regardless, it is impossible not to notice the effect that netflix is having. More and more people are demanding more and more bandwidth to support streaming video. It costs a lot of money actually to put in the infrastructure to support all this bandwidth demand. People want the bandwidth, and they think it should be free. Meanwhile netflix is raking in all the revenue stream and riding on my plant without sending me half a nickel. Then I have other customers that are running home businesses, working out of call centers via VoIP, and they are all pissed because their call quality goes down thanks to the spikes in bandwidth caused by my streaming video customers. Yes, I can and have done as much as possible to QoS my network, but I can't QoS the internet end to end.

      My plants were built 8 to 10 years ago. Still paying interest on the loans to the bank for all the infrastructure costs!
      I have a low-split plant with return path below 50MHz and forward path reliable to 750MHz. I can only do so many analog and digital channels with that. If I move to a mid-split plant, then I have to swap out TONS of gear in the field ($$$). That will give me better upstream performance which in turn will allow people to get the most of the downstream channels I have. Problem is now I lose a big chunk of my forward path. I could switch to ALL digital QAM based channels, but this would require a large portion of my customers to lose their picture unless they ran out and bought QAM capable tuners, plus the analog broadcast is in my contract. Trying to develop my own set top box solution is prohibitively expensive. Buying one built by others is more expensive, but faster solution. Regardless, things change so fast it will be obsolete in no time. People are dropping any premium content and going with MINIMUM they can + internet (so they can watch using their Roku). So my cost per unit household goes UP since I am losing customers, and whatever little profit was left doesn't justify the cost of the modulators in my headends. I can't win.

      DirecTV and DisH are taking a big portion of whatever profit I might have had left over, meanwhile I am running around "repairing/replacing" damaged cable plant that moronic homeowners routinely cut up (CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!!!!). The plant they cut up with their shovels brings so much ingress noise into the plant that I am routinely out dividing & conquering my plant hunting down the noise. 10% of the noise is in my drops typically, 85% or more comes from inside the home!. Rotten surge strips that morons bought at RadioShack are #1 source of ingress. So I am busy running around installing HPF filters to fight the problems these people create for themselves. (all of those will have to be replaced if moving from a low to a mid split)

      Yeah, I am the evil rich guy (hardly!). You people that think you really have a clue should be forced to run a cable plant one day, AND pay for it to be built and maintain it.

      I think the Netflix CEO is right in tempering his attitude. There are a lot of cable operators that wouldn't shed a tear if he got hit by a bus on his way to sunday school.

    6. Re:ditch the cable by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Spend a little more and get this. Note the higher review scores. It seemed totally superfluous to me until I had one, but I've found it's surprisingly convenient to drop my cell phone in its charger when I get home and have handsets all over the house, each of which has much better speaker quality than my cell.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    7. Re:ditch the cable by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Those look like POTS phones, I don't see how that system can interface with a cell phone?

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    8. Re:ditch the cable by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Typically the base station supports bluetooth pairing with a cell phone. I don't see that feature in that item, though.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  29. Don't be afraid of large cable companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the rise of Internet video casts anyone can produce and distribute content. Who needs cable companies? Netflix is the future.

    Cable companies can take their insane craptastic pricing and crappy lineups and follow the dinosaurs to extinction.

  30. How do I shot wiring? by tepples · · Score: 1

    In your poorly wired city? yes.

    Then how do you recommend making a city no longer poorly wired? Or instead, do you recommend moving your family to another city?

    1. Re:How do I shot wiring? by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      moving, definitely!

    2. Re:How do I shot wiring? by tepples · · Score: 1

      How much does moving cost, in general?

  31. LOL, they won IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I canceled cable recently. My primary reason is there is no reason why I am spending $70/mth to have 98% of content I do not want to watch, where as there is always something to watch on Netflix, even if it is slightly out of date.

    Between that and the fact I can buy/rent content from Apple TV and a slew of equivalent services, I think the cable companies are in serious need to rethink their strategy moving forward.

    Of course Netflix does not want to openly target the cable companies. These are still billion dollar monopolies that have a history of not playing fairly, why anger the giants. The reality, however, is that these giants are naive and arrogant and companies like Netflix will win in the long run even if they try not to compete.

  32. How Much? by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    The only relevant question in business. Mr. Hastings says that he will not sell out, which means his price is very high. However, there is too much money out there hunting too few deals like this, and Netflix's position is too valuable to remain a wildcard. Somebody will make him an offer he cannot refuse. The only question is, "How much?" Investors want to know.

    1. Re:How Much? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If he sells out to a cable giant, Netflix will be dead. Then Netflix2 will replace it. The only loser will be the cable giant.

  33. And why not? by killdashnine · · Score: 1

    I've recently had a great discussion with a representative from my Cable company about reducing my bill. Paraphrasing, cutting the TV part of my service actually ends up costing me MORE. Makes sense when you just want to keep bilking customers for crap. With Netflix, Hulu Plus, and other services there's no real need for hundreds of channels of garbage.

  34. Re:Bandwidth by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    If Google rolled out a small fiber-to-the-curb network and charged a REASONABLE price they could expose the chicanery of our non-providers. It sickens me to see the monetary restriction of technology, particularly when we are in the midst of such a financial decline. I reckon our Fearless Leaders will help the monopolists keep us down until all of our third-world competitors have achieved parity, then they can control (bring down) wages with total impunity. I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy, but it's getting harder and harder to say it isn't.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  35. Wait... by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    The two things to get from this article are that Netflix doesn't feel like it's in a position to take on cable and that it is rapidly growing. So just wait for it to have a few more years of exponential growth and then it'll get more aggressive.

  36. NOOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix is the way television is supposed to be. The only thing they need is cleaned-up UI and a larger purchasing budget.

  37. not so much, Adam Smith predicted such by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Adam Smith, along with most of the pther pioneers of classical economics, were well aware of the problems of monopoly and of anti-competetive collusion between firms. Moreover, most western nations have all sorts of anti-trust legislation on the books.

    You have to turn to the Austrians (Hayek, etc.), and to a lesser extent the Chicagoans (Friedman, tc.) to get the sort of pure laissez-faire capitalism that suggests that trusts, monopolies and the like would not form--or at least be less likely to form--in a purely free market. While such theories are pretty popular with certain groups such as the Tea Party movement in the US, I don't know how much currency they actually have in the realm of policy makers and their economic advisors.

  38. You aren't supposed to by hellfire · · Score: 1

    Who said you were supposed to trust your "congresscritter"? If they promised something and didn't follow up you are supposed to vote for someone who you agree with who will keep promises. It's called being active in your government and it's what you are supposed to do in a democracy. It's better than letting the cable companies hire thousands of lobbyists to bribe and manipulate your congresscritter while you sit at home watching American Idol on your way too expensive cable feed. We don't have that because we don't have enough people in the US who do just that.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:You aren't supposed to by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Who said you were supposed to trust your "congresscritter"?

      Not me!

      If they promised something and didn't follow up you are supposed to vote for someone who you agree with who will keep promises.

      I can only vote for people actually on the ballot, though, and they are all, without exception, level 60 fuckheads, and they seem to raise the level cap each election cycle.

      It's called being active in your government and it's what you are supposed to do in a democracy.

      Been there, done that, got the little "I voted" sticker. Didn't work. Things still fell apart. The center not only did not hold, it vanished in a deadly smog of Left and Right ideological hoo ha.

      It's better than letting the cable companies hire thousands of lobbyists to bribe and manipulate your congresscritter while you sit at home watching American Idol on your way too expensive cable feed.

      I got rid of cable. And the American Idol meme is really fucking old, dude. It's not my thing, but I know many intelligent people who are entertained by American Idol. It's just a show with singing. This whole "American Idol = teh stoopid" is just embarrassing geek bullshit.

    2. Re:You aren't supposed to by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      my congresscritter has been representing this district since I was 4 years old, I will be 33 this month...

      The world changes, but dinosaurs are still trying to make policy.

  39. Netflix ISP Colocation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any reason Netflix can't get some colocation deal with the large ISPs? Netflix adds some clear new small fee to their existing prices for users wanting to log in via specific service providers.

  40. BZZZZT wrong by TopSpin · · Score: 1

    The legacy services have successfully stifled à la carte for decades. ESPN costs a basic cable subscriber $4/month in the US and I couldn't enumerate the ESPN channels on my service if you put a blowtorch to me. Netflix is the first credible example of à la carte service. The legacy services refuse to provide what that market wants so the market is abandoning them.

    What will Netflix do as it continues to obviate cable/satellite subscriptions? Ban new customers? Confrontation with the legacy services is inevitable. It is inevitable. Prepare for it. Win it. Or go home, because if you're not willing to deal with it you're not qualified for the position.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  41. So replace them. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Cable company infrastructure is getting old, and their business and customer-service practices are shit.

    If Netflix is making a lot of cash, no better way to use it than to roll out a nationwide to-the-home fiber network to deliver Internet service including of course full-bore Netflix product.

    Then Netflix will be big.

  42. Annihilationism by tepples · · Score: 2

    I believe that what I would call my "soul" is an emergent phenomenon arising from the highly complex biochemical and electrochemical reactions in my brain. If my soul is decoupled from my brain it immediately ceases to exist

    Which is not entirely unlike annihilationist belief systems such as that of Jehovah's Witnesses: the soul dies with the body.

    1. Re:Annihilationism by KlomDark · · Score: 2

      Do not try to find the soul — that's impossible.

      Instead, only try to realize the truth: there is no soul.

    2. Re:Annihilationism by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Wait, I though it was in the creamy center!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  43. The influence of big TV news on elections by tepples · · Score: 1

    In a democracy everyone gets one vote. In a corporation only a few people with money really matter.

    In a representative democracy, only the corporations that choose the candidates matter.

  44. Re:Cable doesn't want to admit its VOD is less rob by peragrin · · Score: 1

    an contract with verizon not to roll out FIOS so verizon can. however Verizon won't do it for many areas.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  45. Chicken Co-op by tepples · · Score: 1

    If "the free market" was allowed to decide, no areas outside major cities would have telephones or internet services. Unless they were willing to pay the thousands of dollars to run all the phone/cable lines to their house.

    Imagine if you will a cartoon world where anthropomorphic chickens live in a village out in the middle of nowhere, not unlike the setting of Animal Crossing video games. Say a bunch of them want modern conveniences such as Internet access. They could pool their money and form a chicken co-op to spread those thousands of dollars for the last mile across multiple families of chickens.

    1. Re:Chicken Co-op by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Yeah becasue getting groups of strangers who have nothing in common but a geographic location to agree and decide how to spend thousands of dollars in collective money seems like it wouldn't cause any problems at all. Ever lived in a rural area? Just being able to talk on my grandmother's party line telephone was challenging enough at times.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  46. is it time to tell the government what to do by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    people need to tell their reps that it was a mistake to allow media companies into the isp market. they should be broken apart. no more sony+anyisp or warnerbrothers+anyisp. imho, the best time to call your congress_dumbass is the year before the election and once a month until the polls close.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  47. True, exclusive rights in land are artificial by tepples · · Score: 2

    The barriers to entry are entirely artificial, by mandate of local governments

    The barriers to entry are exclusive rights in land. How is a new utility supposed to dig under non-subscribers' land to reach subscribers? True, exclusive rights in land are artificial, just like any other exclusive right since the dawn of government, but they're so enshrined in tradition that any practical solution would need to work around them.

    "comcast offers a superior broadband service that I find to be worth the money"

    Comcast's service is superior to having to live next door to the startup ISP because non-subscribers won't let the startup ISP pull fiber or copper across their land.

  48. The fight isn't with the Cable companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fight isn't with the cable companies. It's with the content providers. Cable and Satellite costs so much because of how much they get charged to carry networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and all the channels they own. Cable companies make don't make money off TV anymore.

    Netflix is cheap right only because the content providers are selling their content to them cheaply. That will change if Netflix get's too big. It will kill them because they have no back up source of revenue if their costs get to high. Cable can always fall back to internet and phone service. Netflix can't.

  49. I heart Netflix just the way it is by serutan · · Score: 1

    This might be a brief golden age of Netflix, like the brief golden age of Napster, but I hope not. I couldn't care less that the TV shows and movies I'm watching are a couple years old. There's more than enough material to fill up the time I have for television, and it's blissfully commercial-free. A couple months ago I cut off my cable service because I wasn't watching it anymore. I dread the day when Hastings decides he needs to insert commercials into programs to pay for new ventures that don't make as much profit. The idea of original Netflix programming makes me think scarily back to MTV's first game shows. But I like Hastings' philosophy of staying niche instead of trying to conquer the world. Please, Reed, you're rich enough already and your service totally RULES! Keep thinking niche and don't ruin a good thing.

  50. They don't need to by OneFix · · Score: 1

    Their customers will do it for them. Netflix doesn't need to "fight" the cable companies. Once they have enough that their customers want to watch their content, their customers will demand fair treatment.

  51. Fiber to the Curb, Welcome to the 90's by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    I love the fact that it has taken over 15 years to get fiber rolled out to select communities in the US.

    In the mid-90's I had Fiber to the Curb with a coax cable. The local phone company, NBTel (Now Aliant), rolled out an experimental fiber optic network called Vibe. It was nice having 1.5Mb up and down at a time when mose people were lucky to get 256K DSL. When I moved to the Boston area a few years later, I went from having a decent Internet connection to having to use Comcast.

    I keep hoping that FIOS will be delivered to my city, but at this point Verizon has deployed it to the suburbs, ignoring the cities. So I'm not holding my breath. I'm just going to have to move as I doubt that deployment will happen within the next 5 years.

    David

    1. Re:Fiber to the Curb, Welcome to the 90's by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Verizon is only deploying it to Verizon phone areas, and even that is slowing down with some talk of changing to FTTC instead of FTTH in order to cut costs. Whenever I'm looking for a new place to move, I first look at available Internet connectivity. Among the top things that I look for is FiOS. I've not yet had a chance to move to such a place, but I hope to be able to do so in the near future.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  52. That's just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't buy from GE. You'll buy from their competitor, the board members of which will be ex GE employees.

    That's really clever! How did ex-GE employees get on the boards of Toshiba, Siemens, and so on?

  53. "Just sue 'em" is not a useful answer by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Easy, just sue the cable company for fraud if they do choke it off.

    And by the time the wheels of justice have spun, Netflix would very likely be out of business. Lawsuits take years to accomplish and it's not uncommon for the injured party to go bankrupt before a verdict can be rendered.

    1. Re:"Just sue 'em" is not a useful answer by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 1

      Lawsuits take years to accomplish and it's not uncommon for the injured party to go bankrupt before a verdict can be rendered.

      Yeah, just look at SCO! [ducks]

  54. Privately Funded FIOS by SonofSmog · · Score: 1

    Uh Verizon has spent 23 billion dollars building up their FTTH Network. That was before any (broadband stimulus) Federal Tax incentives, and there were no incentives at my local city level to speak of. At any rate, whatever breaks there may have been are a drop in the bucket when compared to the massive amount spent building the network. Oh! And if you are talking about the rights to install fiber from the utility companies own pole to my house, then SURE I gave them permission. After all they were supplying me with an 3K installation for free. Don't get me started on who owns the land the poles are on, because, again, it's usually private property and utility companies pay the owners an easement. Stick that in your commie pipe and smoke it!

    1. Re:Privately Funded FIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "3K installation for free"? You seem to have missed out the units there, so 3000 what? Cents or bits? It surely wouldn't be dollars unless you happened to be a fortunate beta tester because they actually want to make their money back from you and it wouldn't be free it would be subsidised by your monthly subscription.

    2. Re:Privately Funded FIOS by SonofSmog · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's slowly being paid off by my monthly subscription. But since I wasn't under any sort of contract I could have cancelled any, and left them on the hook for the investment they already made.

    3. Re:Privately Funded FIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still doubt it costs them $3k to hook you up, seems like a rather long payback time especially if you take into account the overheads of providing you service.

    4. Re:Privately Funded FIOS by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Uh Verizon has spent 23 billion dollars building up their FTTH Network. That was before any (broadband stimulus) Federal Tax incentives

      Oh, Verizon had FTTH in the mid 90s before we gave them (and the other telecoms) billions in tax revenue that was (supposed) to be spent on getting fiber to the home? Wow, they were way ahead of their game.

      Stick that in your commie pipe and smoke it!

      Did you pump your fist after typing that for doing such a good job of pwning the GP?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  55. Armageton cable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well then whats to stop them from starting it to get rid of you.

  56. use missed the subtlety by taharvey · · Score: 1

    Haven't Got Service Yet, and don't want it
        Comcast: "We want your money. Please sign-up for service."
        ME: "Fuck you." (hangs-up on comcast sales idiot)

        Government: "We want your money next year for your services."
        ME: "Fuck you." ( Leaves country to another country )."

    Has Received Services, and won't pay
        Comcast: "We want your money. You haven't paid in a year."
        ME: "Fuck you."
        Comcast: We are disconnecting your service and going to have a judge throw you in jail if you don't pay.

        Government: "We want your money for last years taxes."
        ME: "Fuck you.""
        Government: "We are going to disconnect your citizen services by throwing you in prison."

  57. lobby dollars by jclaer · · Score: 1

    Go to Wikipedia and search for "lobbying by industry".
    You'll see the "communications industry" spends more money on politicians than the energy industry (which adds together all of oil, nuclear, and coal). Darn right he doesn't want to battle with them!

  58. Strategery by bloobamator · · Score: 1

    I think Netflix is planning to do exactly what they claim they're not going to do. It's common practice for companies to make deceptive public statements regarding corporate strategy.

    Perhaps not in the short-term, but down the road when conditions are more favorable, when the net is more neutral and the pace of cable revenue decline begins to accelerate, then Netflix will pounce and crush the cable companies. And I for one welcome in advance our future media overlords.

    I already ditched cable. Netflix rocks. Hulu is OK but not quite really good yet. And everything else I want to see I can stream directly from the content providers' websites. It won't be long. Soon it will be time to short the cable companies.

    --
    "Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
  59. Comcast's competition is dial-up and satellite by tepples · · Score: 1


    In which area are dial-up and satellite unavailable? Sure, it's only 0.05 Mbps compared to Comcast's 6 Mbps, and WildBlue and HughesNet have caps completely unsuited for Netflix use, but one can still use dial-up or satellite to rent DVDs and BDs by mail from Netflix. Otherwise, see Rockoon's post about Comcast providing "a superior broadband service that I find to be worth the money."
    </devils-advocate>

  60. XFinity preferential treatment? by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    I have a real issue wondering how Comcast can legally say, "we wont place the cap on our own stuff" but all the other non-comcast content we will apply the cap. Comcast has every right to build their own video streaming services but why do they have the right to place preferential treatment on that service for the sheer motivation of trying to force people or make people feel forced to use their own video streaming services? If XFinity isnt doing as well as you would like then as a company thats the risk of doing business. The question should be asked: "Why does a cable operator also offer internet service"? should this even happen? should it be broken up? Why cant each municipality be the last mile and maintain the infrastructure between that last mile and the pipes running between the next municipality? Should cable operators be forced to have common carrier status if they try to build their own competing service that attempts to wall-in their customers like the old days of AOL?

    1. Re:XFinity preferential treatment? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      I have a real issue wondering how Comcast can legally say, "we wont place the cap on our own stuff" but all the other non-comcast content we will apply the cap. Comcast has every right to build their own video streaming services but why do they have the right to place preferential treatment on that service for the sheer motivation of trying to force people or make people feel forced to use their own video streaming services?

      You've just described the case that motivates the interest in net neutrality laws.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  61. Netflix is all you need. by ThinkDrink · · Score: 1

    Personally using netflix I could cut my cable right now and be okay with it, the selection is huge. but I can also see huge obstacles before they can become the way to go past cable.

  62. Hating cable is on my resume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched with mixed emotion last night, the final episode of Stargate Universe. Yeah, I know...many slashdotters broke out the party hats and Asti Spumanti to celebrate its demise but I for one enjoyed the show. It was one of the bright spots that filled the hours between work shifts. Between AMC going over a year between seasons of Breaking Bad and SyFy cancelling decent programming and replacing it with ghost reality shows and wrestling, I decided cable was a waste. I retained my Roadrunner internet connection, Donald Trumped my cable service and now watch my preferred television programs and movies via fastpasstv.

    Not only will I not subscribe to such drivel, I won't subject myself to the inane commercials and PSA's. I pretty much get what I want, when I want it and for the price of my Internet connection.