03-28-2013, 11:52 PM
They don't have to focus on efficiency when profits are high. No company has to. Comcast went looking for ways to spend some cash, not save it.
Comcast's status as a "natural monopoly" (i.e. a business with high fixed costs that is granted an exclusive customer base as compensation) disappeared many years and several mergers ago. Since then, they've made so much money they bought a major content provider, NBC -- not a mere "cable channel" but one with its own network of affiliates belonging to a competing delivery method: broadcasting.
**************
You can define monopoly however you like the target service to appear. A pro sports franchise has the monopoly for pro sports within that sport unless you'd just rather spend your "sports dollars" outside of that sport and go bowling instead. So if you don't want their service they aren't a monopoly!
Similarly, Comcast isn't a monopoly ISP in Philadelphia where Verizon DSL or FiOS is available. But if you don't like Verizon you only have one other player because the satellite companies can't compete on performance.
The Philly case here claimed Comcast swapped some territory (presumably with Verizon?) in order to maintain some kind of control (and therefore, prices). The judges got glassy-eyed trying to make sense of it and told everyone to go home. As I said, I don't fault the Supreme Court here.
Comcast's status as a "natural monopoly" (i.e. a business with high fixed costs that is granted an exclusive customer base as compensation) disappeared many years and several mergers ago. Since then, they've made so much money they bought a major content provider, NBC -- not a mere "cable channel" but one with its own network of affiliates belonging to a competing delivery method: broadcasting.
**************
You can define monopoly however you like the target service to appear. A pro sports franchise has the monopoly for pro sports within that sport unless you'd just rather spend your "sports dollars" outside of that sport and go bowling instead. So if you don't want their service they aren't a monopoly!
Similarly, Comcast isn't a monopoly ISP in Philadelphia where Verizon DSL or FiOS is available. But if you don't like Verizon you only have one other player because the satellite companies can't compete on performance.
The Philly case here claimed Comcast swapped some territory (presumably with Verizon?) in order to maintain some kind of control (and therefore, prices). The judges got glassy-eyed trying to make sense of it and told everyone to go home. As I said, I don't fault the Supreme Court here.