Hacker News Reader

Comment by xeromal | Hacker News Reader

FYI, this isn't the internet Time Warner. This is the entertainment Time Warner. The internet Time Warner is run by Spectrum these days.

View on HN

Does that really matter? Just because it isn't becoming an Internet monopoly, it's still a content+distribution mega-corp that can squeeze its competitors and limit options for consumers.

It matters when ~50% of the comments are talking about net neutrality and Time Warner Cable hasn't existed for more than two years.

It also seems to matter as a diversionary tactic, employed to curtail discussion of the dearth of meaningful competition in broadband.

And it ignores that TWC was acquired by another ISP, meaning that sale, whenever it happened, also curtailed broadband competition.

On top of all that, with the end of NN, AT&T can preferentially shove TWX content in your face, and force you to pay extra to consume someone else's.

That is absolutely relevant, and it's disingenuous, at best, to suggest otherwise.

Is there actually a market for things like CNN? It seems that CNN being shoved in your face is kind of its thing.

I mean as opposed to, say, Netflix or Hulu.

AT&T can, under the present legal regime, perfectly legitimately say, "Here's all this 'free' content for you. You'll have to subscribe to the 'Not Our Content' package to access those other services..."

But, sure. Let's run with your example: imagine you had an ISP who let you read Fox News for free, but charged you to visit CNN.

What if they fired everybody at CNN!? :D <3

Is this the HN position, AT&T: charge us for your content ?

> On top of all that, with the end of NN, AT&T can preferentially shove TWX content in your face, and force you to pay extra to consume someone else's.

Will they though? I don’t recall such a thing happening prior to NN. It always seems that people’s fantasies about what can happen without NN are worse than what will (or did).

Remember when AT&T blocked FaceTime because it competed with their own product?

I do.

AT&T blocked FaceTime because they were afraid that thier crappy overburdened network couldn’t handle the load. [1]

But for some reason, they weren’t worried about other video chatting apps - for instance you could use Yahoo Messenger at the time. What competing app did AT&T have?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/atandt-l...

This is a major net neutrality issue.

AT&T can now say all of time warner's content is free for mobile devices. Major blow to their competitors.

They are already doing that with DirecTVNow.

Sounds pro-consumer to me. Whats the big deal? It will just force the other providers to up their game and offer their own freebies.

Great if you like the provider's content. Quite bad if you like any content not owned by one of the few Internet providers, who can't offer such freebies.

Everyone agrees we are moving towards a world of platforms. Each big platform holder will buy or ally with an isp and smaller content owners will pay 30% rev to use those platforms, just like today with google play store, app store, steam (for games), etc. thats reality, why be a luddite about it?

Since ATT has to eat the costs of providing this service I don't see how it's necessarily a problem.

Monopolies on content don't really matter because media properties aren't fungible. It's not like you can shop around for the best Avengers movie or that Justice League is a substitute.

I agree with you about distribution but it's hard to argue that there aren't lots of competing distribution channels for content.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com