Google has threatened to go nuclear over net neutrality and open up their dark fiber network should things get ugly. Google has more fiber than most any one single company in the us and could be a legitimate threat should comwarner try to call their bluff. I have a feeling google would win that fight
There is no use for Google to participate in long-haul wholesale. There is a lot of supply there. The real issue is last mile, where consumers have no choice.
But the rules just changed. It remains to be seen what those guys will do. But I agree that the last-mile competition, or lack of it is far more important.
Really? The last time I checked, the cost for fiber optic back-haul was ridiculous! I need to get some new quotes within the next few months, though- we shall see.
I would love to see Google enter that fight instead of trying to regulate their competition away. Not because I'm that anti regulation, but because I don't appreciate the irony of Silicon Valley always bitching about regulation, but then demanding that the government create an artificial reality where owning the pipes doesn't give you a natural competitive advantage.
Would you appreciate it if one supermarket bought all the food and then price gouged you 100 dollars for meat?
I don't see how a monopoly helps anyone but the corporation, and even then just in dollars today. Strangling the entire market doesn't help anyone in the long run.
I'm not denying the antitrust concern of the union. I'm pointing out the hipocrisy of certain generally anti-regulation Silicon Valley companies trying to use antitrust law to preserve the viability of their role as middlemen. At the end of the day, Netflix's business model is inherently fragile. Amazon is somewhat better positioned, because they at least provide the upstream infrastructure. I think they know they need to play the last mile game, just as they're exploring doing on the physical goods side with drones and special deals with USPS.
I know. That's why Amazon is better positioned. They at least own the upstream infrastructure. Netflix is utterly dependent on three other industries, but is itself pretty easily replaceable. The had a first mover advantage in getting favorable content licensing deals before anyone thought it would matter, but that's fading fast as those deals are renegotiated. And its value add is totally fungible. People care about the content and will happily use another provider if they have the content. Netflix' foray into original content is an existential move.
Except it's not really that dependent on Amazon - there are nearly perfect substitutes for every AWS service.
Comcast is different because it already operates as a monopoly in many areas, and it's trying to change the rules so that it can leverage that monopoly, to the detriment of everyone but themselves, and there's not really anything that anyone but the regulators can do about it.
I wonder if torrent/p2p would be a viable business model for Netflix. Think about it : they have a massive install base inside comcast where they can run programs and on most such programs they can run code, and store data.
P2P isn't a good architecture for something like that. You pull data from a leaf node, through the core network, back to another leaf node, traversing the relatively slow last mile coax part of the network twice. Meanwhile, a relatively small number of movies and shows will dominate the demand, which Comcast can easily cache near the edges of its network. There is a reason Netflix is vying to get equipment in those spots.
Actually, they wouldn't arbitrarily price their products that way. Companies engage in a little thing called price discrimination. The only difference in a monopoly is that you are the sole price leader. That doesn't mean you can arbitrarily set the price high. Most cable companies have monopolies thru license in municipalities.
Somehow that doesn't work this way. In israel monopolies and price gouging of food is pretty common(not 100X, but maybe 2x), and i haven't seen no violent acts.
You'll get your stores raided if you control and gouge something like food and water though, possibly ending with a head in a grocery cart. Police might even help.
Cable has a bit more leeway with the crowd I'd imagine, though there'd still definitely be consequences. Just not as dramatic consequences. I'd hope people protest gouged cable prices peacefully.
If utility natural monopolies weren't regulated they wouldn't exist because local governments wouldn't allow them to dig up roads to put in their infrastructure.
Comcast has a huge advantage owning the pipes into my house, but they squander it. Rather than provide services, they become highway robbers on their own toll road. Comcast could have been netflix, akamai and so much more years ago. So tell me how they don't have advantage?
> Comcast could have been netflix
Netflix offers incredible value. Don't you think it's irrational for Comcast to offer up this value at the expense of their own profits when they are not being threatened? They are going to milk it for as long as they can.
Milking it is not a rational choice, expected but not rational. Comcast should have make the Roku, but due to a fixation on the analog cable infrastructure they did not. The amount of analog bandwidth they devote on their networks to digital traffic is a ridiculously small percentage of their capacity.
Comcast should have created the caching infrastructure that Akamai did. Comcast should have implemented cloud backup services. They have the capability to have 50+ Mbps from the customer to their datacenters. This is freak'n huge.
Why didn't comcast create a colo system so that providers could get as close as possible to the customer?
No, Comcast will go down with the Titanic with all of their riches. They have squandered more than they have protected.
