dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
24
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again

said by pnh102:

The problem here is not the pay tv providers, but rather with the content creators themselves. They would be the ones who need to make the first move, in this case, offer their content to Apple TV and others for a reduced price.

The problem is they have no incentive to do this, as pay tv providers (and their customers) pay content providers even when they do not watch this content.

Also keep in mind that over the past 15 years, the number of available pay tv providers available to most given residential customers has increased. Most people can get pay TV from at least one cable company, both satellite companies and sometimes a telephone company, or any combination thereof. But even with this, service prices still continue to go up.

That is because the real oligopoly power rests with the big 7 content companies. They control almost all content and it is they who set the prices.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate
quote:
The Walt Disney Company is America's largest media conglomerate in terms of revenue, with News Corporation, Time Warner, CBS Corporation and Viacom completing the top 5. Other major players are NBCUniversal, and Sony



»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cros···g_Six.22

--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
I'd argue that even with say, 20 or more major content companies, each one of those companies has a "monopoly" on its product. For example, if you want to watch "Pawn Stars" you can only get that from the company that owns The History Channel. No other content company could (legally) sell you access to "Pawn Stars."
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.

LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1
said by pnh102:

I'd argue that even with say, 20 or more major content companies, each one of those companies has a "monopoly" on its product. For example, if you want to watch "Pawn Stars" you can only get that from the company that owns The History Channel. No other content company could (legally) sell you access to "Pawn Stars."

you are misusing the term "monopoly".


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by LucasLee:

you are misusing the term "monopoly".

A monopoly is defined as a market in which there is one source for a product or service.

If I want to watch a current episode of Pawn Stars, I have to go through the History Channel to get it. I can't go to any other (legitimate) channel.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


LightS
Premium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX
Err... I wouldn't consider a TV show the product/service. I would consider The History Channel itself the product..

LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1
reply to pnh102
that's like saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones. when the market under discussion would actually be 'smartphones', and the iPhone is simply one competing option.

if you were to look around, i'm certain you could find a show equivalent to Pawn Stars from a different network.

there are many other content providers offering other tv shows of various quality, and that is the market within which Pawn Stars exists. so unless the owners of Pawn Stars own all low rent garbage tv shows, then there is no monopoly.