Two
rationales supporting the Comcast acquisition of Time Warner don’t make sense
to me.
First Comcast touts the existence of
Netflix, Hulu and Google as ample evidence that content competition exists. Of course the two sources of content mentioned reach end
users primarily via last mile broadband providers like Comcast. Goggle Fiber serves three metropolitan areas and is nothing more than a test and demonstration project that Gigabit fiber is commercially and technically viable.
Would Comcast meddle with Netflix
traffic, say to tilt the competitive playing field in favor of Comcast’s pay
per view options? Why would it, particularly if in a two-sided
market total revenues might decline if Comcast were to retard broadband
demand? So Comcast would have no
incentive to throttle traffic and otherwise mess with the traffic of content
competitors who need its network to reach end users.
Does this rationale pass the smell
test? Was Comcast merely “experimenting”
with network management techniques when it previously meddled with peer-to-peer
traffic? Why are retail broadband
carriers demanding surcharge payments from Netflix on top of the transit payments
they receive from Content Distribution Networks like Level 3, plus the end user
subscriptions that have three digit margins?
Absent a four year network
neutrality commitment as part of its acquisition of NBC, profit maximizing
Comcast surely would try to squeeze every last dollar, particularly from
competitors who need its downstream delivery.
Remember what Ann and Gordon told us: “Greed is good.”
Second, Comcast asserts that
because it does not compete with Time Warner, no one should worry about lost
competition and consumer welfare. Would
not a more concentrated cable television market have even less likelihood that
some operator somewhere would experiment with new pricing models, e.g.,
offering ala carte channel access in lieu of bloated channel bundles? Isn’t it
easier for Comcast to reduce the broadband value proposition by capping
download allotments and upselling higher amounts, or agreeing not to debit the
now single digit Gigabyte allotment in exchange for a surcharge paid by content
sources? Note that AT&T Wireless announced such a "toll free data” option just a few weeks ago.
Bottom line: Comcast may not
compete with Time Warner, but a bigger Comcast makes it more likely that the
company can claw back consumer welfare gains and reduce the value proposition
of both cable television and broadband subscriptions without significant customer churn.
No comments:
Post a Comment