03-24-2014, 02:37 PM | #1 |
occasional author
Posts: 2,314
Karma: 2064403292
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wandering God's glorious hills, valleys and plains.
Device: A Franklin BI (before Internet) was the first. I still have it.
|
The Apple-TV nut of Steve Jobs - Not yet cracked!!
The Daily Ticker, Yahoo
Apple's talks with Comcast reveal that Apple is no closer to "cracking" TV Apple (AAPL) is in talks with Comcast (CMCSA) about a new TV-over-Internet service, The Wall Street Journal reports. "The service would allow Apple to replace the cable TV set-top box and, thanks to a special deal with Comcast, provide streaming TV services with better performance than most video-streaming services like Netflix can currently offer. Apple wants to control the customer relationship and get a cut of Comcast's subscriber fees..." It is readily seen that the Apple-TV nut Steve Jobs spoke of cracking is still way up high in the tree. Read on-- |
03-24-2014, 08:38 PM | #2 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,068
Karma: 23867385
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
|
Roku has already done something like this with TWC. Of course, Roku competes on price and is still spending venture capital. Is that what Apple wants to compete with? The proposed deal really plays loose with concessions Comcast made in acquiring NBC/Universal. Even talk of this should have the FCC looking carefully at the proposed Comcast/TWC deal. I don't think this happens...ever.
I'd like to see the FCC break up Comcast as they did with AT&T. No company should be allowed to monopolize content and delivery in any single market. Comcast should be split into Comcast ISP and Comcast Entertainment. Let CI sell bandwidth to all comers while CE competes with the comers. Of course such a breakup would find a lot of politicians looking for second jobs to make up for lost revenue. |
03-25-2014, 12:58 AM | #3 | |
monkey on the fringe
Posts: 45,477
Karma: 158151390
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle Metro
Device: Moto E6, Echo Show
|
Quote:
|
|
03-25-2014, 06:01 AM | #4 |
Addict
Posts: 239
Karma: 1664052
Join Date: Mar 2011
Device: Kindle 4NT
|
As long as Dish and DirecTV keep beaming their signals onto US soil, there's not much hope of a cable company being a true monopoly.
|
03-25-2014, 07:31 AM | #5 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
Quote:
Antitrust law is about more than market share. It is in fact about anti-consumer behavior. The cablecos do in fact pose a consumer problem because of their throttling practices: with Netflix and other TV-alternative services making up the bulk of consumer internet bandwidth consumption, the cablecos have control over the service quality of their competitors, which is why Apple has been trying to tilt the table in their favor through backroom deals to grease their entry into the market. A familiar tactic, no? The cablecos in general, and Comcast in particular, are under enough net neutrality pressure that the kind of deal Apple needs to enter the business this late in the game is unlikely until the merger is complete and probably beyond. |
|
03-25-2014, 01:57 PM | #6 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,032
Karma: 52740263
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New England
Device: PW 1, 2, 3, Voyage, Oasis 2 & 3, Fires, Aura HD, iPad
|
Quote:
Shari |
|
03-25-2014, 03:18 PM | #7 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,068
Karma: 23867385
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
|
The thing is, Comcast is television plus internet plus phone. I would be OK with this except that they use a technique called bundling to block market access. If they had a national price plan, that would be one thing, but they sell internet access and throw in television in some markets while selling television and throwing in internet access in others. When Aereo offered content to ISPs, Comcast went to Congress and the Courts with wallet wide open.
When I installed my antenna, I intended to continue to use Comcast as my ISP, "You may as well get basic cable -- it's only a few dollars more a month." A phone call later I had a new ISP -- twice the bandwidth at half the price with the rate guaranteed for life. Since that company is in business five years later, how can anyone believe Comcast is not using their monopoly power to gouge the consumer? |
03-26-2014, 05:14 AM | #8 | |
Addict
Posts: 239
Karma: 1664052
Join Date: Mar 2011
Device: Kindle 4NT
|
Quote:
In the short run, Comcast may be able to take advantage of their market position. But they will create an incentive for competitors to enter those markets, and if enough people switch to a different service, they'll find their practices to be against their best interests and change them. Any time there is a developing market, which Internet-delivered television definitely is, there are periods of adjustment and growth. Nobody needs television, and nobody needs it to be streamed to their home. It is a luxury good, and doubly so when we're talking about Internet-delivered video. And luxury goods often go through periods of high prices before they become commodities. We might as well be arguing the price of yachts. |
|
03-26-2014, 06:22 AM | #9 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,068
Karma: 23867385
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
|
In theory, this is nice. In reality, monopoly exists. That's why there are antitrust laws. In the case of cable, the monopoly was created to mitigate risks associated with investing in infrastructure. This monopoly was tempered with concessions to the public good. Over the generations, the risks have disappeared, concessions have evaporated, and the internet happened. Cable industry consolidation and 'bundling' have, for the most part left the largest providers without competition. Where market forces have created competitors, the cable industry has used litigation and bribery to tamp it out. The consequence -- higher prices, less innovation, and little choice.
When Wal-mart built a new store where my parents live, they built the store between existing retailers and the Massachusetts border so that their store is the first retailer people coming from that sales tax state into sales tax free New Hampshire would encounter. Wal-mart improved the roads leading to the facility -- adding lanes and lights. Imagine if Wal-mart reserved the new lanes for traffic to their store. Imagine if Wal-mart controlled the lights in a way that restricted traffic past their store. Imagine if Wal-mart charged a toll to those traveling past their store. Some might bear the tax and traffic to teach Wal-mart a lesson, but most would shop at Wal-mart. That is what Comcast has done. I don't want to create another monster to deal with the cable industry. I don't want to put Comcast out of business. I just want to make sure they do not put everyone else out of business. Since Comcast is a publicly held company, the best way to do that is to simply outlaw bundling of transport and media. Quote:
|
|
03-26-2014, 08:42 AM | #10 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
Quote:
In times past the broadcast networks were forbidden from owning the shows they broadcast. That lasted for decades and while the elimination of the rule hasn't turned the networks into one studio channels, they all have become outlets for their parent studios and sibling networks. (ABC Sports was once an industry powerhouse on its own but is now just an outlet for ESPN product.) On the cable side, the Comcast/TWC merger is happening because TimeWarner decided they wanted out of content distribution to focus on content creation and ownership. Comcast buying TWC suggests they want to grow their distribution arm as big as possible before cutting NBC/Universal free, probably as a "concession" to the feds. Over time, the combination of content and distribution under one roof has been losing its value so the split is inevitable, whether voluntary or mandated. The road ahead is clear to all: TV becomes just another internet service. The chief obstacle, though, is the bundled subscription model that sells 500 channels to subscribers who only want ten. Consumers want ala carte service but everybody upstream fears what it will mean to their cozy little businesses. Much like book publishing, tech disruption of TV means gains for consumers but losses for the middlemen and the middlemen are still in command in TV. But the tide of disruption can't be held back forever. The pressure is building. Apple is but one of a dozen players looking to do IP TV and they are, if anything, behind the curve compared to Microsoft, Sony, Roku, Netflix, Amazon, Verizon, and Hulu among others who already own significant chunks of the TV over IP market; beacheads from which they hope to expand once the roadblock of cableco obstructionisn goes away. It's coming and fairly soon. 2020 at the latest, 2015 at the earliest. Just don't expect to save much money in the near term. BTW, the next tech disruption after that is Movie Theaters. |
|
03-26-2014, 08:51 AM | #11 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
Here's a sign of where things are headed and how fast:
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/21/why-ver...ng-on-comcast/ Last edited by fjtorres; 03-26-2014 at 08:53 AM. |
03-26-2014, 10:00 AM | #12 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,195
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
Quote:
I'm afraid that your analogy is a bit off. Comcast doesn't restrict traffic or charge a toll. Even with all the hysteria over Comcast throttling netflix traffic, it turned out that the issue wasn't Comcast throttling traffic, but rather the basic architecture of the internet, which doesn't give priority to any specific traffic and which sometimes routes traffic through congested nodes rather than uncongested nodes. The solution that Comcast and Netflix worked out was Comcast establishing a direct connection to Netflix for their customers rather than depending on the normal internet routing. |
|
03-26-2014, 10:32 AM | #13 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 1,068
Karma: 23867385
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think the analogy stands up. |
||
03-26-2014, 11:37 AM | #14 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
Quote:
A google search for Comcast throttling will find hundres of reports. Comcast was also called on the carpet by the FCC for selective throttling of streaming applications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling If you pay for a specific bandwidth level but can't use all of it because of throttling, you are effectively paying a higher rate for the service you do receive which is the same thing as a tax. And a non-trivial one at that. |
|
03-27-2014, 10:34 PM | #15 |
doofus
Posts: 2,520
Karma: 13036221
Join Date: Sep 2010
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kindle Voyage
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Well, looks like the Steve Jobs Bio is priced like other Apple products. | kennyc | General Discussions | 85 | 10-31-2011 04:20 AM |
Steve Jobs has passed | kindlekitten | Lounge | 2 | 10-05-2011 08:01 PM |
Steve Jobs Resigns as CEO of Apple | kjk | News | 136 | 08-29-2011 06:42 PM |
Steve Jobs Resigns as Apple CEO | Batman Jr. | Apple Devices | 5 | 08-24-2011 08:28 PM |
Steve Jobs leaving apple? | jocampo | News | 23 | 01-20-2011 10:49 AM |