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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.