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.
It's not that easy. Sometimes granting a monopoly is vital in getting something built. Building out and maintaining a network is a huge expense that companies are reluctant to take on without a guarantee that they'll recover that cost. You wouldn't build a apartment complex and then allow someone else to rent out the apartments and collect the rent. You built it knowing that 100% of the tenants will be paying you rent.
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
Thanks, I am not sure it helps understand why 'laws are required to protect monopolies' as suggested in the post I was confused by though. Also why he stated 'a monopoly is doomed to fail without such protection'.
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?
External forces = Laws/regulations
If that does not answer your question, please be more specific with the question.
I wouldn't need Google glass to see where you post since you seem to do it incessantly on this site and probably a dozen more 24/7/365. How many forums do you have 30,000 or more posts by now? Unfortunately I have yet to read any of value and instead have grown accustomed to thread-jacking, or personal attacks which are your specialty and are usually nothing more of value than background noise.
Although the landscape appears bleak their are pockets of resistance like the municipal owned and run fiber optic network which delivers the fastest internet in the county in Chattanooga, TN. They used the power lines to deliver their fiber network. This will not be an option in many states due to contracts with power companies and other hurdles but fiber networks in conjunction with power companies might one day offer some competition to cable monopolies.
My condolences for Time-Warner customers. I hear they suck, but nobody could possibly generate as much suck as Comcast. They will nickel and dime you. They will lie about their prices. They will randomly increase your bill. And they will smile while they do it. One of my homes has FiOS service so I told Comcast to go screw themselves after they overcharged me by about $400 over a three month period and refused to go back and fix their mistake. Unfortunately, my other home has no alternatives so I am stuck with their overpriced, crappy service.
True, but in most cases it's very hard to accomplish.
Not at all. Electrical distribution (and even cable companies) is a good example.
Essentially, these would be situations when a monopoly (or something close to it) is the most efficient organizational form. This is could happen in highly capital-intensive businesses, especially in smaller markets/geographies.
These cable pipes that come into our homes are owned by the people. Just like when AT&T was broken up, so should Comcast. These pipes should be open to all ISP competitors who wish to compete. This AppleTV app will mean nothing because you will have to subscribe to Comcast and also to their ISP to receive this content.
Not at all. Electrical distribution (and even cable companies) is a good example.
Essentially, these would be situations when a monopoly (or something close to it) is the most efficient organizational form. This is could happen in highly capital-intensive businesses, especially in smaller markets/geographies.
I didn't know those were called natural monopolies. I learned something new, thanks.
Apple, meet content creators. Content creators, meet Apple. Why do we need anything else in between? Make a new sitcom, put the season up on iTunes to watch. No network. If it's well-reviewed/good show people will pay for the season. How about a new, legitimate news channel? Subscription based on iTunes. There has to be demand for something other than the spin Fox/MSNBC spew out daily. 3rd party creates new news channel like CNN, not on a network, but exclusively on AAPL TV by subscription only. Apple doesn't create or back any of this financially - much like App Store revenue comes in from subscribers and AAPL takes cut/% like App Store. Why would AAPL think it needs cable companies like TWC. AAPL should provide a platform for original programming of all kinds to come directly to them. Long-term that would be disruptive.
My condolences for Time-Warner customers. I hear they suck, but nobody could possibly generate as much suck as Comcast. They will nickel and dime you. They will lie about their prices. They will randomly increase your bill. And they will smile while they do it. One of my homes has FiOS service so I told Comcast to go screw themselves after they overcharged me by about $400 over a three month period and refused to go back and fix their mistake. Unfortunately, my other home has no alternatives so I am stuck with their overpriced, crappy service.
Apple, meet content creators. Content creators, meet Apple. Why do we need anything else in between? Make a new sitcom, put the season up on iTunes to watch. No network. If it's well-reviewed/good show people will pay for the season.
How about a new, legitimate news channel? Subscription based on iTunes. There has to be demand for something other than the spin Fox/MSNBC spew out daily. 3rd party creates new news channel like CNN, not on a network, but exclusively on AAPL TV by subscription only.
Apple doesn't create or back any of this financially - much like App Store revenue comes in from subscribers and AAPL takes cut/% like App Store.
Why would AAPL think it needs cable companies like TWC. AAPL should provide a platform for original programming of all kinds to come directly to them. Long-term that would be disruptive.
Most content creators don't have enough money to produce an entire season of a show they're pushing, and the shows that do get created on a shoestring budget look like they were cheaply produced and are rarely successful. The few shows that do achieve success are bought out by a network. Just look at Strike Back and how the production value went up on the seasons produced by Cinemax.
Because it's all about content and power over content, not the 'cable'
[quote name="AjbDtc826" url="/t/162030/comcast-to-purchase-time-
warner-cable-future-apple-tv-partnership-uncertain#post_2471434"]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).[/quote]
Comments
It's not that easy. Sometimes granting a monopoly is vital in getting something built. Building out and maintaining a network is a huge expense that companies are reluctant to take on without a guarantee that they'll recover that cost. You wouldn't build a apartment complex and then allow someone else to rent out the apartments and collect the rent. You built it knowing that 100% of the tenants will be paying you rent.
Thanks, I am not sure it helps understand why 'laws are required to protect monopolies' as suggested in the post I was confused by though. Also why he stated 'a monopoly is doomed to fail without such protection'.
External forces = Laws/regulations
If that does not answer your question, please be more specific with the question.
“Glass, tell me when gwmac posts.”
“Glass, shatter.”
I wouldn't need Google glass to see where you post since you seem to do it incessantly on this site and probably a dozen more 24/7/365. How many forums do you have 30,000 or more posts by now? Unfortunately I have yet to read any of value and instead have grown accustomed to thread-jacking, or personal attacks which are your specialty and are usually nothing more of value than background noise.
Although the landscape appears bleak their are pockets of resistance like the municipal owned and run fiber optic network which delivers the fastest internet in the county in Chattanooga, TN. They used the power lines to deliver their fiber network. This will not be an option in many states due to contracts with power companies and other hurdles but fiber networks in conjunction with power companies might one day offer some competition to cable monopolies.
http://chattanoogagig.com
I reread your post five times before hitting quote. Just to make sure.
But that’s exactly what the title itself says…
Do you live on this forum?
Scary, but true.
In other words a true monopoly isn't gained/earned, it's granted.
External forces = Laws/regulations
If that does not answer your question, please be more specific with the question.
In other words a true monopoly isn't gained/earned, it's granted.
You can have natural monopolies.
True, but in most cases it's very hard to accomplish.
True, but in most cases it's very hard to accomplish.
Not at all. Electrical distribution (and even cable companies) is a good example.
Essentially, these would be situations when a monopoly (or something close to it) is the most efficient organizational form. This is could happen in highly capital-intensive businesses, especially in smaller markets/geographies.
A quick Google search does show that TWC owns Home Box Office.
I didn't know those were called natural monopolies. I learned something new, thanks.
You're confusing Time Warner Cable with Time Warner Inc. TWC has been a separate company since 2009, it's TWI that owns HBO.
How about a new, legitimate news channel? Subscription based on iTunes. There has to be demand for something other than the spin Fox/MSNBC spew out daily. 3rd party creates new news channel like CNN, not on a network, but exclusively on AAPL TV by subscription only.
Apple doesn't create or back any of this financially - much like App Store revenue comes in from subscribers and AAPL takes cut/% like App Store.
Why would AAPL think it needs cable companies like TWC. AAPL should provide a platform for original programming of all kinds to come directly to them. Long-term that would be disruptive.
You should take them to small-claims court.
Most content creators don't have enough money to produce an entire season of a show they're pushing, and the shows that do get created on a shoestring budget look like they were cheaply produced and are rarely successful. The few shows that do achieve success are bought out by a network. Just look at Strike Back and how the production value went up on the seasons produced by Cinemax.
[quote name="AjbDtc826" url="/t/162030/comcast-to-purchase-time-
warner-cable-future-apple-tv-partnership-uncertain#post_2471434"]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).[/quote]