10 ms·
> Why should it be bad for consumers. Usually more competition results in higher quality products and service for consumers; and usually, more conglomeration r
by whatislovecraft 8y ago
> Why should it be bad for consumers.
Usually more competition results in higher quality products and service for consumers; and usually, more conglomeration results in less incentive for the service to improve and therefore lowers the quality for the consumer.
> If show X is only available on service Y, and you don't agree, don't watch it.
This is not how society works. When things get big and popular, their existence pervades through society and all people are affected, not just those who purchase the service or product directly.
> It's mindless entertainment anyway.
This is surely a logical fallacy. Not only is it not likely true, you are dismissing the valid concerns of a person by belittling the importance of the topic itself.
- tabtab 8y agoIndeed! It's rare a merger results in more choice and better service. If you have less competitors, there is less incentive to be competitive, meaning you can step on customers without penalty: they can't go anywhere, and the one "other guy" is probably also playing the same oligopoly game, giving you a choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Why is the government usually inefficient? Because they have no competition. If a corporation's competitors go away, they become more government-like. Sometimes they are even worse than gov't because they can get profit by being deceptive, while gov't employees generally have no monetary incentive to earn a profit. The gov't workers may be indifferent to "customers", but have little reason to rip them off. For example, any extra fees collected don't go to a given gov't employee because fee incentive programs are not allowed. But customer sign-on bonuses are common at telecoms. I can tell you personal stories of "ghost fees" appearing on my telecom bill.