I hate to tell you, but it is by the hand of government (and ours is a corporatist government) that monopolies are created, not by competition. Frankly, AT&T should've gobbled up T-mobile, because they will not survive much longer unless they merge with another company. They are giving up great deals for consumers right now to inflate their growth numbers to make them a more attractive buyout, not because they are already doing well. Government should stand down and get out of the protectionism racket and let real competition winnow out the weak companies and allow market forces to play out. When companies become too big and unresponsive, people act by seeking alternatives and pouring their money into smaller, more responsive start ups. It's the story of IBM and Apple all over. Let people vote with their wallets.
I stress this is NOT a political comment so please no political retorts: IMHO there is a need for a little of both freedom and some regulations, and I admit it is hard to get the balance right. If 'governments' i.e. we the people, 'get out of the way' entirely with no rules or protection from monopolies and a conglomerate manages to obtain a total monopoly, how do we vote with our wallets then? ... This assuming the product is a necessity, otherwise the answer is obvious. It is not as if most corporate entities give a damn about we the people and our well-being.
I stress this is NOT a political comment so please no political retorts: IMHO there is a need for a little of both freedom and some regulations, and I admit it is hard to get the balance right. If 'governments' i.e. we the people, 'get out of the way' entirely with no rules or protection from monopolies and a conglomerate manages to obtain a total monopoly, how do we vote with our wallets then? ... This assuming the product is a necessity, otherwise the answer is obvious. It is not as if most corporate entities give a damn about we the people and our well-being.
A corporation cares about profitability. A well-run corporation listens to their customers because happy customers make for greater long-term profitability. A monopoly cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the protection of law to suppress competition. Without external forces preventing competition, monopoly positions simply cannot last.
Perhaps in order to get this through the DoJ, Comcast has to agree to some form of a la carte pricing. DoJ makes companies that want to make a massive consolidation divest parts of their business all the time. This would create a massive decline in competition, so let's just hope we end up getting some sort of new choice out of this bid. After all, it is just a bid and not a shoe-in that the DoJ will approve it.
I hate to tell you, but it is by the hand of government (and ours is a corporatist government) that monopolies are created, not by competition. Frankly, AT&T should've gobbled up T-mobile, because they will not survive much longer unless they merge with another company. They are giving up great deals for consumers right now to inflate their growth numbers to make them a more attractive buyout, not because they are already doing well. Government should stand down and get out of the protectionism racket and let real competition winnow out the weak companies and allow market forces to play out. When companies become too big and unresponsive, people act by seeking alternatives and pouring their money into smaller, more responsive start ups. It's the story of IBM and Apple all over. Let people vote with their wallets.
I don't disagree with anything that you have said.
However, there is one HUGE thing that you are overlooking in both of these instances. Both in the AT&T and T-Mobile instance and in this instance the government is already involved. In the cell industry it is the government that parcels out the wireless frequency.
In this instance the government(s) basically create monopolies by limiting cable operators and phone operators in each market. This thus limits the competition for internet providers. In other words, again, you or I could not just decide to start up a cable company.
Because of this, these industries are already tied to the government and essentially removed or sheltered from truly free market forces. Thus, in these instances it is paramount that the government act to regulate them.
Give me a break. I have no problem with a modest amount of consolidation, but I want access to competing tech equally. I can't get Verizon FIOS because of monopoly contracts by Comcast in Eastern WA, but they can continue to eat up their competition? Eff them.
So glad at least I have DISH or DirecTV and CenturyLink [who needs to make a FIOS option equivalent sooner rather than later].
you can not get FIOS because VZ does not feel your area has enough disposable income. VZ is only targeting markets which the high concentration of high income earners. I live in the North Easy the home territory of VZ and they pass up neighborhood on one side of the road to install on the over side of the road which people who make more money. They are not interesting in the people who want basic services.
Why on Earth would Apple even partner up with a cable co? Hulu I could see but hard line? Nah, everything will be cellular soon enough- cable companies will die out in a decade (including remote cities once LTEA goes live).
Simple, TW already has agreement in place with all the content owners, so apple does not have to do a separate deal, and get content after the fact like Netflix and Hulu do. All Apple is doing is providing the user experience and TW will provide access to all the real time content.
A corporation cares about profitability. A well-run corporation listens to their customers because happy customers make for greater long-term profitability. A monopoly cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the protection of law to suppress competition. Without external forces preventing competition, monopoly positions simply cannot last.
I have read this several times and I must be missing something. Isn't the definition of a monopoly where said entity the only supplier of a particular commodity. If so I don't follow your statement: "A monopoly cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the protection of law to suppress competition. Without external forces preventing competition, monopoly positions simply cannot last." I am not disagreeing, I simply don't understand, can you explain this?
you can not get FIOS because VZ does not feel your area has enough disposable income. VZ is only targeting markets which the high concentration of high income earners. I live in the North Easy the home territory of VZ and they pass up neighborhood on one side of the road to install on the over side of the road which people who make more money. They are not interesting in the people who want basic services.
I say this all sort of with mixed feelings being an entrepreneur ...
Obviously we humans should only live in centralized cities so businesses can sell to us more profitably. Just wait till FedEx, UPS do the same, perhaps electricity and emergency services next?
This reminds me, as a student in England, one of my many summer vacation jobs was working for a statistics company. We had to ride trains all over rural northern England (great job eh?) and count passengers getting on and off the train in all these small and most times beautiful little rural stations. I has assumed this was for the tourism board or something like that. I later learned the data was used by the powers that be so they could close all the lines that were not profitable. Sadly many of the lines closed were some of the most picturesque runs in Britain.
I hate to tell you, but it is by the hand of government (and ours is a corporatist government) that monopolies are created, not by competition. Frankly, AT&T should've gobbled up T-mobile, because they will not survive much longer unless they merge with another company. They are giving up great deals for consumers right now to inflate their growth numbers to make them a more attractive buyout, not because they are already doing well. Government should stand down and get out of the protectionism racket and let real competition winnow out the weak companies and allow market forces to play out. When companies become too big and unresponsive, people act by seeking alternatives and pouring their money into smaller, more responsive start ups. It's the story of IBM and Apple all over. Let people vote with their wallets.
Hate to tell you, but we still have the documented history of monopolies in the pre-Sherman Antitrust Act days. It's ludicrous to suggest that the "invisible hand" of consumer purchasing habits are sufficient by themselves to prevent monopolies from occurring in many industries.
Your use of T-Mobile is also not appropriate for your point, as there's no evidence whatsoever that they are struggling in the market. The reason they are attractive is because they remain small enough to be an affordable acquisition for other players, not because they have a fundamental business problem.
Thankfully, the days of blanket laissez faire economic policies are long dead and no longer palatable to all but the most extreme economic positions.
I have read this several times and I must be missing something. Isn't the definition of a monopoly where said entity the only supplier of a particular commodity. If so I don't follow your statement: "A monopoly cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the protection of law to suppress competition. Without external forces preventing competition, monopoly positions simply cannot last." I am not disagreeing, I simply don't understand, can you explain this?
The comments aren't opposed. Monopolies are when one is the only, or at least vastly dominant provider of something. And aren't evil in and of themselves. Apple had a monologue on tablets for a while, totally legally since the other players just hadn't released what they had announced.
But in this case, these monopolies are due in a great part to laws that say there isn't to be overlap in providers of services. Ie you can't have two cable companies operating in the same geographic area. Same with cable internet even. Even here in LA I can pick time warner or EarthLink powered by time warner. So not really a choice. It would be illegal for someone like Apple to come in and offer cable internet. They could do fiber, etc if someone isn't offering it but not cable
I must say I'm sick of hearing all these "if Steve was around he would've solved this comments". Sorry, television is a whole different animal than music. Also, when Steve told Walter Isaacson he "cracked it" we don't know what he meant (or if it wasn't just Steve's RDF). It could have meant just a better UI to more easily navigate across content providers. Anyway this idea that if Steve were still around Apple TV would have ala carte programming on it right now is fantasy land.
Comments
It still needs approval by the pertinent government agency. It isn't a done deal by far.
I stress this is NOT a political comment so please no political retorts: IMHO there is a need for a little of both freedom and some regulations, and I admit it is hard to get the balance right. If 'governments' i.e. we the people, 'get out of the way' entirely with no rules or protection from monopolies and a conglomerate manages to obtain a total monopoly, how do we vote with our wallets then? ... This assuming the product is a necessity, otherwise the answer is obvious. It is not as if most corporate entities give a damn about we the people and our well-being.
They haven't, and my guess is that they won't.
A corporation cares about profitability. A well-run corporation listens to their customers because happy customers make for greater long-term profitability. A monopoly cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the protection of law to suppress competition. Without external forces preventing competition, monopoly positions simply cannot last.
Apple should bid for TWC.
They still would only be allowed to deliver content to customers within TWC's footprint. DirecTV or Dish Network would be a smarter purchase.
Simple - TWC owns a bunch of content providers including HBO.
Time Warner Cable most assuredly does not own HBO.
Yes, not since 2009. TWC is now a discrete entity from Time Warner Inc.
I hate to tell you, but it is by the hand of government (and ours is a corporatist government) that monopolies are created, not by competition. Frankly, AT&T should've gobbled up T-mobile, because they will not survive much longer unless they merge with another company. They are giving up great deals for consumers right now to inflate their growth numbers to make them a more attractive buyout, not because they are already doing well. Government should stand down and get out of the protectionism racket and let real competition winnow out the weak companies and allow market forces to play out. When companies become too big and unresponsive, people act by seeking alternatives and pouring their money into smaller, more responsive start ups. It's the story of IBM and Apple all over. Let people vote with their wallets.
I don't disagree with anything that you have said.
However, there is one HUGE thing that you are overlooking in both of these instances. Both in the AT&T and T-Mobile instance and in this instance the government is already involved. In the cell industry it is the government that parcels out the wireless frequency.
In this instance the government(s) basically create monopolies by limiting cable operators and phone operators in each market. This thus limits the competition for internet providers. In other words, again, you or I could not just decide to start up a cable company.
Because of this, these industries are already tied to the government and essentially removed or sheltered from truly free market forces. Thus, in these instances it is paramount that the government act to regulate them.
Give me a break. I have no problem with a modest amount of consolidation, but I want access to competing tech equally. I can't get Verizon FIOS because of monopoly contracts by Comcast in Eastern WA, but they can continue to eat up their competition? Eff them.
So glad at least I have DISH or DirecTV and CenturyLink [who needs to make a FIOS option equivalent sooner rather than later].
you can not get FIOS because VZ does not feel your area has enough disposable income. VZ is only targeting markets which the high concentration of high income earners. I live in the North Easy the home territory of VZ and they pass up neighborhood on one side of the road to install on the over side of the road which people who make more money. They are not interesting in the people who want basic services.
Why on Earth would Apple even partner up with a cable co? Hulu I could see but hard line? Nah, everything will be cellular soon enough- cable companies will die out in a decade (including remote cities once LTEA goes live).
Simple, TW already has agreement in place with all the content owners, so apple does not have to do a separate deal, and get content after the fact like Netflix and Hulu do. All Apple is doing is providing the user experience and TW will provide access to all the real time content.
I have read this several times and I must be missing something. Isn't the definition of a monopoly where said entity the only supplier of a particular commodity. If so I don't follow your statement: "A monopoly cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires the protection of law to suppress competition. Without external forces preventing competition, monopoly positions simply cannot last." I am not disagreeing, I simply don't understand, can you explain this?
I say this all sort of with mixed feelings being an entrepreneur ...
Obviously we humans should only live in centralized cities so businesses can sell to us more profitably. Just wait till FedEx, UPS do the same, perhaps electricity and emergency services next?
This reminds me, as a student in England, one of my many summer vacation jobs was working for a statistics company. We had to ride trains all over rural northern England (great job eh?) and count passengers getting on and off the train in all these small and most times beautiful little rural stations. I has assumed this was for the tourism board or something like that. I later learned the data was used by the powers that be so they could close all the lines that were not profitable. Sadly many of the lines closed were some of the most picturesque runs in Britain.
Nope. TIme Warner Inc does. Not the same as Time Warner Cable
I hate to tell you, but it is by the hand of government (and ours is a corporatist government) that monopolies are created, not by competition. Frankly, AT&T should've gobbled up T-mobile, because they will not survive much longer unless they merge with another company. They are giving up great deals for consumers right now to inflate their growth numbers to make them a more attractive buyout, not because they are already doing well. Government should stand down and get out of the protectionism racket and let real competition winnow out the weak companies and allow market forces to play out. When companies become too big and unresponsive, people act by seeking alternatives and pouring their money into smaller, more responsive start ups. It's the story of IBM and Apple all over. Let people vote with their wallets.
Hate to tell you, but we still have the documented history of monopolies in the pre-Sherman Antitrust Act days. It's ludicrous to suggest that the "invisible hand" of consumer purchasing habits are sufficient by themselves to prevent monopolies from occurring in many industries.
Your use of T-Mobile is also not appropriate for your point, as there's no evidence whatsoever that they are struggling in the market. The reason they are attractive is because they remain small enough to be an affordable acquisition for other players, not because they have a fundamental business problem.
Thankfully, the days of blanket laissez faire economic policies are long dead and no longer palatable to all but the most extreme economic positions.
The comments aren't opposed. Monopolies are when one is the only, or at least vastly dominant provider of something. And aren't evil in and of themselves. Apple had a monologue on tablets for a while, totally legally since the other players just hadn't released what they had announced.
But in this case, these monopolies are due in a great part to laws that say there isn't to be overlap in providers of services. Ie you can't have two cable companies operating in the same geographic area. Same with cable internet even. Even here in LA I can pick time warner or EarthLink powered by time warner. So not really a choice. It would be illegal for someone like Apple to come in and offer cable internet. They could do fiber, etc if someone isn't offering it but not cable