> Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly. Cabl

> Having the rights to a show is not having a monopoly, as we're talking about them. If not every single cable company in the world is somehow a monopoly. Cable companies don't generally produce content. In the case of the ones that do (like Comcast, after their acquisitions), they've absolutely used their content for anti-competitive purposes. This is exactly what Amazon has done with Prime...tried to leverage it to support their less established products. And it's exactly what Google is doing with YouTube. Amazon is getting the same treatment they've given others. > You can watch other shows. And you can watch other user-uploaded videos. There's plenty of other sites that host user-generated videos. > YouTube has an effective monopoly on internet videos. Almost ALL user generated videos, apart from few niches. This is just incorrect. YouTube is the biggest, but it's nowhere near "almost all" videos. As I said before, the numbers I've seen are around 1/3 of the watched hours are on platforms other than YouTube with Facebook being the biggest. > Amazon, on the other hand, have plenty of competition. From Walmart to eBay. In videos there's Hulu and Netflix and Now TV, etc. Hulu and Netflix don't manufacture streaming devices like FireTV. Walmart and eBay don't stream video or sell their own devices. Google and Apple are the only competitors relevant to this discussion since they're the only ones that compete on multiple products. And all three have artificially limited their cloud services to lock consumers into their platforms. All three should be reined in. But acting like Amazon is somehow the helpless victim in all this is just hypocritical. They're getting the same treatment they've given Google and Apple.