|reply to IowaCowboy |
Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable
You sound like the European ISPs that want companies such as Google to pay for their network upgrades..
The user chooses what they use their data for. Here in the US of A, that's almost breaching net neutrality...
Netflix already has to pay for their own bandwidth costs. The only way Comcast, etc. would get $$ from Netflix is if they had direct peering in a datacenter and it went straight onto Comcasts network. Do they already do this? Hell if I know. Either way, it's not up to Netflix to pay for Comcasts stuff.
While I think the concept of Netflix is a good idea, I just think they should play fair competition with cable and not be the reason for the hundreds of thousands of cord cutters every quarter. What I am also saying is they should have to adhere to the same regulations as cable such as the public access requirements and community programming. What I don't think is fair that cable has a lot of regulations and Netflix has none. And cable employs people who live in your community, Netflix probably has their servers overseas.
I subscribe to cable, and always will.
Final thought: either deregulate cable or make IP video services adhere to the same regulations as broadcasters and cable providers. What I don't like is Netflix's ability to seriously undercut traditional TV providers that own infrastructure.
Comcast charges more if you have Internet only to make up for the lost TV revenue. Comcast still has the same labor and cable plant costs if you are an HSI only subscriber or subscribe to their Xfinity Triple Play Complete (their highest level of service) although the programming costs vary based on the number of subscribers of that channel.
I think our opinion regarding Netflix differs though - I personally like Netflix (even though I'm not a subscriber anymore) because it's different. I could care less how much it costs - I like that there are options, that you can stream movies on demand, and no ads.
As far as that goes - Netflix is not a cable ISP. They entered this business to provide IPTV & frankly, they're doing a good job.
Also - It's pure greed IMO by the ISP. They made contracts with content providers - if everybody cuts cable, who's fault is that if they lose revenue? Not the consumer, that's the ISP. They then need to figure out a way to recover their subscribers. If they can't, they deserve to not be a provider any longer.
|reply to IowaCowboy |
It is similar to the Internet radio vs. broadcast radio battle. One has few regulations, the other has considerable regulations. It won't change anytime soon, probably never. The older technologies were supposed to serve the community. The newer ones have no such obligations.
|reply to LightS |
It is the content owner's fault more than the cable operator/ISP's. The content owners make the rules. Operators can't do anything about it. Cable operators would like for their rates not to go up as much as their consumers, but that's not an option when content owners want double and sometimes as much as 5 times what their previous contract required.
said by silbaco:Cable operators certainly have an option in that case: stop carrying the content.
Cable operators would like for their rates not to go up as much as their consumers, but that's not an option when content owners want double and sometimes as much as 5 times what their previous contract required.
The only reason they don't opt for this is because they know they can push their increased costs onto the backs of their subscribers. It's less risky for them to pass on a cost plus make a little more profit under the guise of "Sorry, but we're held captive; what can we do?" than it is to take a stand and tell the content producers to go take a hike.