Even with new, tougher Title II based net neutrality rules, Comcast remains a huge threat to Internet video, argues Dish Networks. "Even if the net neutrality rules are upheld in court, there are innumerable ways that Comcast-Time Warner could sabotage over-the-top," Jeff Blum, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Dish Network Corp told attendees of a conference call this week. "And over-the-top is a reality. It’s something that is good for consumers." Licensing is the biggest weapon for a larger Comcast, argues Blum. "For example, Comcast-Time Warner [could say], 'OK, Discovery, you want carriage on Comcast-Time Warner -- our 30 million homes -- we'll give it to you, but you can’t grant the following over-the-top rights to Netflix or Sony or Dish,' " Blum said.
Those are some nice packets you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to those packets. Give me some money and I'll make sure nothing does.
Those are some nice packets you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to those packets. Give me some money and I'll make sure nothing does.
Comcast should divest itself from NBC and any content producer / owner before a merger with another company is considered.
Any provider which also is a content producer has an inherent conflict of interest.
As to Comcast being a threat to streaming data after our new FCC rule, what a shocking, unexpected surprise .... NOT!
It's called vertical integration and many companies do it in all industries. Are you suggesting that all companies who vertically integrate divest upstream and downstream companies they own?
Not all as not all industries have such singular services that can be "held" over people's heads.
But for this, Yes they should not be able to own the transport, service, content and the product rights that determine who else can transport and at what cost.
Personally I believe one of the best things we as a nation can do for all of this is to make the transport (network) separate from the service (ISP, TV) and those separate from the content (Shows).
It certainly would not be the first time a company rolled out another company to take on a business they can't have because of laws or regulations or they simply didnt want to be a part of it anymore.
The entire accounting firm industry did it with their "Consulting firms" as the regulations called for them to separate.
Edit: You can label utilities that are for the public good as "social" programs all you want. But some industries simply require it to function as such because of what the industry and market is. The wire-lined cable plant is certainly one of those industries whether you like it or not and whether you want to admit it or not.
I'll never admit it. If someone took the risk to acquire the resources needed to build out a network then no government agency has the right to dictate to that individual (or corporation) what they can or cannot do with that network.
You are sadly mistaken if you dont think they can be "forced" into divesting.
Don't even get me started on the BS of "If someone took the risk to acquire the resources needed to build out a network". I'll tell you what. They return all the billions in "incentives" they have received over the decades they have been in operation and I will let you call it theirs.
Those are some nice packets you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to those packets. Give me some money and I'll make sure nothing does.
Reminds me of this old Monty Python sketch - Netflix vs. Comcast British Army vs. the Mafia:
The Clayton Antitrust Act, passed in 1914, proscribes certain additional activities that had been discovered to fall outside the scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For example, the Clayton Act added certain practices to the list of impermissible activities:
price discrimination between different purchasers, if such discrimination tends to create a monopoly exclusive dealing agreements tying arrangements mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce market competition.
And none of it prevents Comcast from refusing to carry a channel if the channel's owner won't grant exclusive regional rights to distribute it to justify the carriage cost and putting it on the channel grid, forcing content producers to choose between Netflix, homebrew OTT, cable, or other distribution medium for their new content.
If networks that do content creation go over the cable companies' heads through OTT means, it weakens their position when negotiating carriage fees.
How Comcast could dictate what happens in areas it doesn't provide service. What right do they have to tell Disney for example who they sell rights to?