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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.