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."

6 of 366 comments (clear)

  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: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.
  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: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/
  5. 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.
  6. 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.