Roads cost money to build and money to maintain. If distribution was "essentially free" cable companies would not have a strangle hold on the market because any upstart could go lay their own essentially free cable. Or build and launch their own essentially free satellite. Sure, the initial cost is much greater than the cost of running the thing, but that's not the definition of free. Government grants, some of which I expect are for cable companies to lay cable in the boondocks, do not change the calculation. Subsidized is also not the definition of free.
Oh, so government paying for it doesn't change the cost of the calculation? Okay. You make statements like this and want to have a serious argument about the economics of the situation? Come on.
This, again, is basic economics. There is a reason why the government builds things like roads--because they have a high cost, but essentially unlimited use. The definition is literally called "public good". The reason more companies don't do this is because the grants to build this were a one time thing--they were free to build, once. After they were built, there is unlimited exploitation of the product. Hence public good.
Giving a public good to a private entity allows for artificial profits to be made--considering said private entity would never have been able to accrue the capital to control the public good without government assistance (Because said control would have cost them too much in terms of competition) This automatically creates a barrier against competition, because the initial entry is so high and the established company is making 'free" profits, with high margins, which means any competition would be bought up or shut down by them. This is why the government controls things like roads.
Seriously, read about the tragedy of the commons, lighthouse principles--anything. I'm not just making this up, it really is very basic economics.
You did say no one is exploiting demand. I quoted you. You have since edited it out of your post, but feel free to look at my quote.
The first post, every follow up post mentioned you're starting to see a small exploitation in the field, but given the margins, the current exploitation is tiny, it's most certainly artificial. And the price of content is also artificial, hence refuting your "fair" market price.
Government grants (Above) changed the landscape of distribution, creating an artificial price point in the market--it's really that simple.
You misunderstood my comparison. It wasn't about profit potential. As I said early in this thread, margins are completely irrelevant to the legality and morality of illegal downloading.
No, they aren't irrelevant. The only reason they exist at such an extreme rate is due to the unfair market practices the companies employ, using lobbying power and duopolies to control distribution. This has ripple effects outside of price, such as delivery schedules--multiple people in this thread have posted that unless you have the service through the cable company, you're shit out of luck in terms of watching most content for a least a few months.
That's slowly changing, but the cable companies are doing everything in their power to stop it (Read northerners post, it's a good one). Why? Because those margins they are raking in are an artificial (Not "fair" market) construct and they don't want to give them up. And that artificial construct only exists BECAUSE they got rid of the governments power in the field AFTER exploiting the government for their power to start with.
The result is piracy. I don't find the person who steals from the bank robber any more or less reprehensible than the robber himself. It's that simple. I regard what these media companies are doing as illegal (And really, a lot of it is, they simply pay the fines.)--so why would I care that people pirate from them?
Again, you are not understanding or not paying attention. I do not feel sorry for the cable companies - that's what "I'm no fan of the cable companies . . ." was meant to convey. I'm not sure how to make it clearer, but I'll try. I do not like the cable/ISP/media companies and I do not feel sorry for them. My lack of sympathy for pirates and my feelings towards the media companies are separate, albeit related, issues.
The media companies have take more money from you than the pirates. 10 years ago, I could at least say they served a function--but in the last 10 years, their obstruction of the internet, their collusion, their FCC violations have sapped billions of this economy--they've wrought far, far more destruction than the pirates have.
I guess I just find it odd that you post no sympathy for the little pirates, when it's the larger pirates going after them?
