4 ms·

While its legal vertical integration is equally evil. It ends up creating Oligopoly. Ones a few player becomes big enough, competition cannot rise.

pitaj 10y ago
Why would competition be unable to rise?
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  Because Time Warner's competition needs to rely on AT&T's network to deliver their content.
  - drieddust 10y ago
    A big player with deep pockets can also make it a losing game for new player even if they can find alternate channels to reach consumer.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    To deliver their content to some of their customers. AT&T only controls ~30% of mobile and a lot less than 30% of the landline ISP market. Google and Apple control much more of the market via handset OS's. And we let them control media on their devices. And after Net Neutrality, it's not even legal to discriminate against competitors traffic.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    To deliver their content to some of their customers. AT&T only controls ~30% of mobile and a lot less than 30% of the landline ISP market. Google and Apple control much more of the market via handset OS's. And we let them control media on their devices. And after Net Neutrality, it's not even legal to discriminate against competitors traffic.
- pavs 10y ago
  Starting an ISP is insanely expensive and needs long (10-15 years) wait before you start seeing any profit, if at all.
oldmanjay 10y ago
Mind clarifying the evil here? The word has a much stronger definition than seems suitable in this situation.
- trengrj 10y ago
  The combination of content providers and ISPs is deeply worrying from a net neutrality perspective. Evil is a strong word but imagine a future where ISPs chop and charge your for your data like cable and try to keep you looking at "their" content.
  - drieddust 10y ago
    That is their plan pretty much.ISP are feeling cheated for no good reason. They think while they invest in upgrading the infrastructure to support the higher bandwidth demand, content provider keeps Lion's. They want to control of that revenue stream. In UK I recently asked for an upgrade of bandwidth for which they don't have to change anything since lines are already there, I still had to sign a new 12 month contract despite being a long term customer. Did I had an option? Not really because only they all have similar terms. There is so few of them that customer don't really have a choice. Vertical integration looks consumer friendly in short term only. In long term it just kills innovation and competition and screws up user.
    - pavs 10y ago
      I agree with you on ISPs having control over the content is a bad idea. But I also urge you to consider that the pressure on lower price from customers and government regulators are a real pain. There is a reason why ISP sector doesn't have a lot of competition (some of it has to do with strong-arming by existing market leaders in countries like the US) because it requires an insane amount of investment on infrastructure that constantly needs to be upgraded and maintaining last mile fibre can be a major pain in the ass (and expensive). Most ISPs don't start to see a return on their investment 10-15 years after the fact. There seems to be a lot of misconception about ISPs in general. I am an ISP owner and I wrote a small rant a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691465
mathattack 10y ago
Oligopoly is about horizontal integration not vertical. If there are 2 phone companies instead of 10, that's worse for consumers. The general history of content and pipes vertical mergers has been good for customers but bad for the acquiring shareholders. (Look at AOL Time Warner for example)

pitaj 10y ago

Why would competition be unable to rise?

ajmurmann 10y ago
Because Time Warner's competition needs to rely on AT&T's network to deliver their content.
- drieddust 10y ago
  A big player with deep pockets can also make it a losing game for new player even if they can find alternate channels to reach consumer.
- rhino369 10y ago
  To deliver their content to some of their customers. AT&T only controls ~30% of mobile and a lot less than 30% of the landline ISP market. Google and Apple control much more of the market via handset OS's. And we let them control media on their devices. And after Net Neutrality, it's not even legal to discriminate against competitors traffic.
- rhino369 10y ago
  To deliver their content to some of their customers. AT&T only controls ~30% of mobile and a lot less than 30% of the landline ISP market. Google and Apple control much more of the market via handset OS's. And we let them control media on their devices. And after Net Neutrality, it's not even legal to discriminate against competitors traffic.
pavs 10y ago
Starting an ISP is insanely expensive and needs long (10-15 years) wait before you start seeing any profit, if at all.

oldmanjay 10y ago

Mind clarifying the evil here? The word has a much stronger definition than seems suitable in this situation.

trengrj 10y ago
The combination of content providers and ISPs is deeply worrying from a net neutrality perspective. Evil is a strong word but imagine a future where ISPs chop and charge your for your data like cable and try to keep you looking at "their" content.
- drieddust 10y ago
  That is their plan pretty much.ISP are feeling cheated for no good reason. They think while they invest in upgrading the infrastructure to support the higher bandwidth demand, content provider keeps Lion's. They want to control of that revenue stream. In UK I recently asked for an upgrade of bandwidth for which they don't have to change anything since lines are already there, I still had to sign a new 12 month contract despite being a long term customer. Did I had an option? Not really because only they all have similar terms. There is so few of them that customer don't really have a choice. Vertical integration looks consumer friendly in short term only. In long term it just kills innovation and competition and screws up user.
  - pavs 10y ago
    I agree with you on ISPs having control over the content is a bad idea. But I also urge you to consider that the pressure on lower price from customers and government regulators are a real pain. There is a reason why ISP sector doesn't have a lot of competition (some of it has to do with strong-arming by existing market leaders in countries like the US) because it requires an insane amount of investment on infrastructure that constantly needs to be upgraded and maintaining last mile fibre can be a major pain in the ass (and expensive). Most ISPs don't start to see a return on their investment 10-15 years after the fact. There seems to be a lot of misconception about ISPs in general. I am an ISP owner and I wrote a small rant a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691465

mathattack 10y ago

Oligopoly is about horizontal integration not vertical. If there are 2 phone companies instead of 10, that's worse for consumers. The general history of content and pipes vertical mergers has been good for customers but bad for the acquiring shareholders. (Look at AOL Time Warner for example)