| DonFerrari said: Regulation is considered an entry barrier among Porter Forces... regulation represents a cost and possibility to limit the number of competitors. There is a problem when you do 1-1 analysis instead of scope; yes the other streaming services were at disavantage on that ISP. But customer could go to other ISPs and streaming looking to the best option to him, and other ISPs could have other deals. Whenever you raise the price (or fail to lower it) you open yourself to have your competitor getting over you. That is another of the forces of Porter... when you look to even a market that is almost monopolistic as the console makers, Sony opened itself to X360. And X1 opened to PS4. So over time those practices get someone to see an opportunity and offer ilimited service for the price of the ones that limit, or full access for price of the ones that fragment. Because if the company that fragment or limit is abusing on profit it won't be that hard for the opponent to offer those and still profit. |
I could move to a part of the country that has access to that isp... It's not that simple in practice. Since the cable network and phone lines are privately owned other ISPs can't simply offer you a better deal.
We as gamers don't like money hatting, buying exclusives and keeping content from others. So why would we be for getting rid of net neutrality. It will be the day that I both need Bell and Rogers for ISPs to get access to the different services I want. It's shitty enough as it is, restricting certain shows to certain streaming services, now lets restrict certain streaming services to certain isps!
