On May 2, 2016, at 9:19 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Who cares about other congloms? We are talking about the content owners of
other content, not other congloms.
If ESPN or HBO want to get in on some new Comcast OTT service bundle, which
uses the neutral Internet and is not confined to Comcast infrastructure,
neither Cox nor anyone else have anything to say about it. But of course, Cox
can do likewise.
2. They already have a major portion of the market.. The FCC
imposed constraints when they purchased NBC. Both the FCC and
the DOJ are unlikely to allow them to compete for subscribers in
other geographic areas.
That is highly doubtful, Craig, although I'll agree that it seems to take the
FCC an awful long time to get past thinking in terms of the old MVPD model.
The FCC has not put any barriers on national footprints for Amazon, Netflix,
Sling TV, Hulu, or anyone else. We are talking about the (potential new) OTT
side of the business, NOT the broadband infrastructure side, NOT the legacy
MVPD side either.
3. They cannot offer broadband outside their service footprint.
??? You mean, whereas Netflix can?
Whatever. The MVPD oligopoly is thriving...
Yup. We've come a long way from a handful of broadcast channels.
Like the FCC, Craig, you have to get past thinking in legacy terms. It's not
a matter of number of channels available. We are past the 1970s era thinking.
This is about no constraints on sources of content. No monopolistic head-end
that a given household is beholden to. And that is in part thanks to Title II
Internet neutrality, and in part thanks to the two-way nature of IP.