4 ms·

Comcast is publicly traded. And it behaves closer to a utility more than anything else.

by yarou 10y ago

dimino 10y ago
In content production? No, it's not a utility. The ISP? Yeah, sure whatever. Not on the table right now, though. We're talking about NBCUniversal's content library. This is basically saying the US government should take over the movie making business. Why?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The point is to make it painful for the ISP (or meaningful parent) to own the content company, so it sure is on the table. Requiring divestiture is a frequent thing in mergers, it is not nationalization.
- yarou 10y ago
  When you are talking about "Comcast" as a business entity, those are one and the same. Comcast has a natural monopoly because of its utility status, and a result of those network effects, can enjoy a free distribution network. You don't think that should be regulated? Edit: autocorrect fail
  - strange_quark 10y ago
    Not NBCUniversal. Why should it? Would you be ok with forcing Netflix or HBO to license their content for $0 as the parent suggested?
adventured 10y ago
The parent comment likely meant private as in non-government (I doubt they were unaware Comcast is publicly traded). Being traded on a stock index has nothing to do with that, you're still wholly owned by private shareholders. Property rights don't vaporize just because you do an IPO. By current law Comcast is not in fact a utility - they offer a utility product that is regulated by the FCC, there's a critical difference between those two concepts.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I'm proposing regulating the meaningful operator of the ISP business and saying that they are not allowed to set a price for customers of their content business. If they want to sell off the content business, I expect they would still get the market price for their property. The point is to enjoin the cable company from leveraging content to make competitive offerings less attractive.
  - dimino 10y ago
    This has nothing to do with the ISP arm of Comcast, and everything to do with you wanting content without paying for it.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      I really don't understand how you got that idea. I really don't. I just don't want a corporate entity that owns an ISP to be allowed to own content production companies. You're riding a ballistic missile (rather than making a leap) to get to me wanting to get content without paying for it.
      - dimino 10y ago
        And I don't want the next two Avatar movies to get made, but I'm not the one advocating we get the US government to enforce such a thing. It makes zero sense for the US government to get involved in this deal.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        If Comcast wants to give up limited liability, then fine, they can do whatever they want. An implicit part of my argument is that the government is already involved, there are plenty of regulations that Comcast benefits from.
        dimino 10y ago

Comcast is publicly traded. And it behaves closer to a utility more than anything else.

by yarou 10y ago

Comcast is publicly traded. And it behaves closer to a utility more than anything else.

In content production? No, it's not a utility. The ISP? Yeah, sure whatever. Not on the table right now, though. We're talking about NBCUniversal's content library. This is basically saying the US government should take over the movie making business. Why?

maxerickson 10y ago
The point is to make it painful for the ISP (or meaningful parent) to own the content company, so it sure is on the table. Requiring divestiture is a frequent thing in mergers, it is not nationalization.
yarou 10y ago
When you are talking about "Comcast" as a business entity, those are one and the same. Comcast has a natural monopoly because of its utility status, and a result of those network effects, can enjoy a free distribution network. You don't think that should be regulated? Edit: autocorrect fail
- strange_quark 10y ago
  Not NBCUniversal. Why should it? Would you be ok with forcing Netflix or HBO to license their content for $0 as the parent suggested?

adventured 10y ago

The parent comment likely meant private as in non-government (I doubt they were unaware Comcast is publicly traded). Being traded on a stock index has nothing to do with that, you're still wholly owned by private shareholders. Property rights don't vaporize just because you do an IPO. By current law Comcast is not in fact a utility - they offer a utility product that is regulated by the FCC, there's a critical difference between those two concepts.

maxerickson 10y ago
I'm proposing regulating the meaningful operator of the ISP business and saying that they are not allowed to set a price for customers of their content business. If they want to sell off the content business, I expect they would still get the market price for their property. The point is to enjoin the cable company from leveraging content to make competitive offerings less attractive.
- dimino 10y ago
  This has nothing to do with the ISP arm of Comcast, and everything to do with you wanting content without paying for it.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I really don't understand how you got that idea. I really don't. I just don't want a corporate entity that owns an ISP to be allowed to own content production companies. You're riding a ballistic missile (rather than making a leap) to get to me wanting to get content without paying for it.
    - dimino 10y ago
      And I don't want the next two Avatar movies to get made, but I'm not the one advocating we get the US government to enforce such a thing. It makes zero sense for the US government to get involved in this deal.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        If Comcast wants to give up limited liability, then fine, they can do whatever they want. An implicit part of my argument is that the government is already involved, there are plenty of regulations that Comcast benefits from.
        dimino 10y ago