I thought it appropriate to emphasize that there will be no possibility of competition at the network level. The DOJ decision ensures this, since each consortium of MSOs are now united by ownership of their respective networks.
If the TWX-AOL merger goes through and AOL renames RR, AOL BB, then there will be competition at the network level. You'd have to say the decree guarantees the merger will be blocked. That would be anti-competitive.
DOJ has given their approval for oligopoly control of the network level
That's the de facto status now, but the physical network is not as narrowly defined as you are assuming. There are other players not in cable which can deliver cable BB equivalent.
( I assume with the understanding that their will be competition at the "eyeball" level). We can be sure the MSOs will continue to upgrade their distribution networks, as well as their respective connectivity networks, because now investment = income = profits is assured.
How about replacing "assured" with "possible". Isn't this a given anyway?
Soon there will be fierce competition at the level of excite and aol and whoever else is out there at the "click me" level.
This is what Jerko claimed or at least was fearful of, but I don't see the head-to-head. It's there no doubt, but the market is too sparse and nascent to be directly felt.
Isn't this what always happens in monopoly capital? i.e. Fierce competition at the brand level.
I don't know what you mean by "monopoly capital". According to definition a business monopoly has little or no competition.
The networks are and will continue to be the cash cow for the MSOs.
They aren't all that lucrative. They are better than most other MSO business initiatives. This should change remarkably in the future, but first, we need competitive access. By that I mean people should be able to choose whichever ISP they wish and ISPs should be able to choose whichever network distribution service provider (NDSP) and carrier that is available and effective for them.
The networks provide the valued added "things" that the MSOs distribute. Therefore, the emphasis for ATHM investors should not be in determining who ends up owning RR, that is irrelevant.
I thought that was mostly already decided. Att gets some subs from their okayed merger with UMG but they must divest the RR portion which will probably end up owned by MSFT, CPQ, TWX, XYZ, ABC, you know, something simple and fully gerrymandered. But remember MSFT has a stake in Att, and X owns Y and...
RR is of no value to AT&T, it is just a name (did someone else say brand?) so it provides no leverage (leverage for what?).
I think GBarr meant the non-RR portion of subs that torpedo AOL. |
