|reply to Chubbysumo |
Re: I wonder
said by Chubbysumo:No, it's not the same thing. Viacom may have exclusive control over, say, Comedy Central, but that's no different than, say, Apple having total control over, say, the iPhone. It's their product. Other companies can, and do, come in with competing offerings. Fox News started because Murdoch though CNN was too liberally biased. said by FFH: said by baineschile:
Why the distributors dont gather forces (DirectTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast) and just say to Viacom "hey, this is the price we are going to give you, if you dont take it then you cant broadcast on any of us".
Because if they got together as a group to decide that, they would be breaking the law.
Isnt Viacom breaking the law by using their powers of a monopoly and content owner to cut access to DTVs customers? Isnt that showing that they are a monopoly and are abusing their powers as a monopoly(to a point where they are now showing they need more regulation)
The argument could then be made that there are no other alternatives - what's the alternative to say Comedy Central? That's an invalid argument. Companies aren't obligated to exist to provide you with a specific product or service. Meaning, a competing offering to Comedy Central doesn't HAVE to exist. If it does... great. If it doesn't, then the question is - why? If it turns out that Viacom is engaging in unfair practices to keep another such channel, a competing channel, from seeing the light of day... that would be illegal. But just because one doesn't exist, doesn't mean that Viacom is doing anything illegal here. In other words - Viacom doesn't have a monopoly. There are other content providers out there. Any one of them are free to offer up content that directly competes with what Viacom offers.