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."

11 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.