4 ms·

No one is claiming there is a monopoly. The vertical integration between content producers and distributors means that pricing is based off exclusivity rather t

No one is claiming there is a monopoly. The vertical integration between content producers and distributors means that pricing is based off exclusivity rather than the fair market value of the service and goods being provided. We claim to live in a market-driven economy, so we should put rules in place that live up to those values.

scarface74 4y ago
A market driven economy means there is plenty of competition between Netflix, Disney, Peacock+, AppleTV, Amazon PrimeTV, Paramount+, Discovery+/HBO Max etc to deliver content that can convince people to pay.
- andrepd 4y ago
  But there is less competition that if you break up vertical monopolies of content+distribution, that's the point. Content producers must compete on content, and distributors must compete on distribution.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So the government should step in because there is not enough competition with eight+ streaming services? They are already competing to get content deals from producers and studios. How is it a “monopoly” when there are more than half a dozen players. A “vertical monopoly” is another HN fiction. Are all game console makers a “monopoly”? Shouid the local TV stations not be allowed to produce news only on their channels? Should ESPN not be allowed to produce “ESPN Tonight”? Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows? Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content.
    - e63f67dd-065b 4y ago
      > So the government should step in because there is not enough competition with eight+ streaming services? They are already competing to get content deals from producers and studios. You're missing the point. The proposal is to split competition in the single integrated market of content+distribution into two separate markets, one for content and a separate one for distribution. The point is that by bundling the two of them together you're reducing competition, because just by simple mathematics there are fewer companies capable of both compared to companies that specialise in one. Content production is a hard industry, so is distribution. > Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows? The proposal is that distributors will have to split their business into two independent businesses. If there's a local news channel, then it gets split into a local news producer and a general distributor that also distributes other things. The internet has already done that for the most part though, it used to be that newspapers were the exclusive distributors and thus could maintain a local monopoly on local news. The internet swept that away and now anybody could get local news from anywhere else on earth. The linked article is lamenting that the trend is reversing, such that distributors are once again the same people as the content producers. > Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content. That's a strawman. Nobody's saying it should extend past TV, please debate the idea on its own merits.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        > That's a strawman. Nobody's saying it should extend past TV, please debate the idea on its own merits. Yes, because it’s utterly stupid when you think about it and say that no content distributor should be able to fund the production of their own content. No one wants to be a commodity and that doesn’t make sense any market to not have something to differentiate your product. Streaming content and being a pipe is the definition of “undifferentiated heavy lifting”. Both Netflix and Disney run on AWS infrastructure and now anyone with the money can throw money at a company like BAMTech to set up the infrastructure. Then you just have a monopoly on who actually carries the traffic. What’s to stop AWS, Azurs or GCP from just offering their own streaming service and undercutting the competition? In other words, what you suggest now leads to a monopsony - where you have many sellers of content and a few buyers with more power and it would lead to consolidation. Currently if a producer wants to create a show, he can negotiate with 9 different sellers. Look no further than music distribution, you have basically two major players in music streaming - Spotify and Apple Music - and it’s a shitty business to be in as a standalone business

scarface74 4y ago

A market driven economy means there is plenty of competition between Netflix, Disney, Peacock+, AppleTV, Amazon PrimeTV, Paramount+, Discovery+/HBO Max etc to deliver content that can convince people to pay.

andrepd 4y ago
But there is less competition that if you break up vertical monopolies of content+distribution, that's the point. Content producers must compete on content, and distributors must compete on distribution.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So the government should step in because there is not enough competition with eight+ streaming services? They are already competing to get content deals from producers and studios. How is it a “monopoly” when there are more than half a dozen players. A “vertical monopoly” is another HN fiction. Are all game console makers a “monopoly”? Shouid the local TV stations not be allowed to produce news only on their channels? Should ESPN not be allowed to produce “ESPN Tonight”? Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows? Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content.
  - e63f67dd-065b 4y ago
    > So the government should step in because there is not enough competition with eight+ streaming services? They are already competing to get content deals from producers and studios. You're missing the point. The proposal is to split competition in the single integrated market of content+distribution into two separate markets, one for content and a separate one for distribution. The point is that by bundling the two of them together you're reducing competition, because just by simple mathematics there are fewer companies capable of both compared to companies that specialise in one. Content production is a hard industry, so is distribution. > Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows? The proposal is that distributors will have to split their business into two independent businesses. If there's a local news channel, then it gets split into a local news producer and a general distributor that also distributes other things. The internet has already done that for the most part though, it used to be that newspapers were the exclusive distributors and thus could maintain a local monopoly on local news. The internet swept that away and now anybody could get local news from anywhere else on earth. The linked article is lamenting that the trend is reversing, such that distributors are once again the same people as the content producers. > Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content. That's a strawman. Nobody's saying it should extend past TV, please debate the idea on its own merits.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      > That's a strawman. Nobody's saying it should extend past TV, please debate the idea on its own merits. Yes, because it’s utterly stupid when you think about it and say that no content distributor should be able to fund the production of their own content. No one wants to be a commodity and that doesn’t make sense any market to not have something to differentiate your product. Streaming content and being a pipe is the definition of “undifferentiated heavy lifting”. Both Netflix and Disney run on AWS infrastructure and now anyone with the money can throw money at a company like BAMTech to set up the infrastructure. Then you just have a monopoly on who actually carries the traffic. What’s to stop AWS, Azurs or GCP from just offering their own streaming service and undercutting the competition? In other words, what you suggest now leads to a monopsony - where you have many sellers of content and a few buyers with more power and it would lead to consolidation. Currently if a producer wants to create a show, he can negotiate with 9 different sellers. Look no further than music distribution, you have basically two major players in music streaming - Spotify and Apple Music - and it’s a shitty business to be in as a standalone business