1. Introduction
Network Neutrality is an uprising social dilemma regarding the equality of content and users of the Internet. The debates regarding network neutrality have been exploding and thus become another fierce political issue that requires immediate attention, in order to calm the immediate situation. Network Neutrality is currently supported by majority of consumers, tech companies, and equal right’s advocates; opposition consists of Internet Service Providers(ISPs) and media distributors(writers, producers, etc). By supporting Network Neutrality, the consumers are given an equal amount of freedom to access the internet, where the Internet Service Providers are given little to no power over what their consumers utilize, and the consumers
…show more content…
Google has appeared to be fighting for a greater cause with their recent blackout google doodle and their recently introduced “#FreeAndOpen” initiative, however the reality is they are fighting for net neutrality due to the possibility of another company gaining the competitive advantage over them due to partnerships with ISPs (Yahoo offers co-branted services with AT&T and Verizon). By blocking out unknown possibilities and new legislation regarding their market they are able to firmly hold their position without too many unexpected outcomes. This type of selfishness is very apparent as they appeared to have gone against their original stance on network neutrality 5 years ago, when they had supported Verizon to abolish network neutrality rules against cellular networks. Netflix on the other hand is also taking many marketing tricks to persuade the current populace, by appealing to the emotion of internet users by appearing to be the victim of ISP abuse. For example when Netflix accused Verizon and Comcast of slowing traffic to their site in mid-2014. It is also apparent that Netflix is supporting Network Neutrality to stop competitors such as Comcast’s Xfinity online streaming service from taking an unfair competitive advantage. Therefore resulting in an incentive for tech corporates too produce propaganda and appeal to internet
When we think of those skilled in the art of rhetoric, we often jump to those we know are trying to convince us of something, like politicians, salesmen, lawyers, etc. We do not always consider corporate CEOs part of that group though Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, would have us believing another thing. On March 20th, 2014, Hastings published an article titled “Internet Tolls And The Case For Strong Net Neutrality” on Netflix’s official blog. Just under a month before the blog was posted, Netflix settled a deal paying Comcast, America’s largest cable and Internet service provider (ISP), for faster and more reliable service to Comcast’s subscribers (Cohen and Wyatt). These “internet tolls” go against the culture of net neutrality in America, which in its essence is when no piece of information is prioritized over another on broadband networks. Hastings took to their blog to advocate for net neutrality and against abusive ISPs. Whether he was conscious of his rhetorical finesse or not, he wrote quite convincingly thus turning this blog into an excellent rhetorical artifact. Reed Hastings’ blog post aims to convince American Internet consumers that strong net neutrality is important by appealing to their values of choice, frugality and empathy while simultaneously making ISPs seem ill intentioned and Netflix seem honorable.
Although the net neutrality debate didn’t come into the spot light so long ago, it has sparked controversy in the communications world. This concept provides a positive impact to the consumers, competition and network owners/internet service providers. It broadens the aspect of equality, which the open Internet was first based on. The profound effects on the aforementioned players provide a supported purpose to regulate the notion of net neutrality.
...n argued that by Goggle’s agreement to collaborate with the Chinese government in censoring the Internet and in its advertisement market they are violating their “don’t be evil” motto (Intelligence2, 2008). Nevertheless I agree with Esther Dyson, Jim Harper, and Jeff Jarvis that while such actions have occurred Google seeks to improve the information of people throughout the world. Google is willingly to sacrifice its interests, in this case its reputation, for the over all good of the world upholding its don’t be evil motto.
A recent and hotly debated topic among businesses, politicians, and internet users in the United States is that of net neutrality. With the rise of the internet over the past few decades, laws and regulations have struggled to keep up with the ever changing environment. As such, the problem of whether net neutrality should be enforced, and to what extent, has been a dividing issue. This problem has come into the public’s attention recently due to infringements and controversy surrounding policies by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In the following paragraphs, I plan to first define the concept of net neutrality, related topics which are crucial for an informed ethical discussion of the topic, and also related cases in which net neutrality
Tim Wu is known as “the father of Net Neutrality” for first coining the term “Net Neutrality”. He is a professor at Columbia Law School and the director of the Poliak Center at Columbia Journalism School. He commonly talks about other topics such as copyright, private power and free speech. Wu believes that net neutrality can prevent companies and carriers to offer “special” treatment to one specific provider instead of another. According to Wu, Net Neutrality benefits anyone in some way and believes that Internet transparency is critical because carriers fail to tell what services they provide for the user. At the core of Net neutrality, there is a free speech principle. It allows speakers and innovators to reach people that they would not
ISPs, including ATT, express concern about the proposed rules of Net Neutrality that would prohibit it from slowing competitors’ web traffic or accessing content (Shatz). By not allowing the ability for ISPs to regulate its network and the bandwidth that moves through it, it can cause a variety of problems that un...
Net neutrality was the big talk towards the end of 2017. Taking away net neutrality would cause chaos in my opinion. Making schools and other organizations pay to use technology only discourages them from doing so which is a major step backwards in such a technological point in time. The world is constantly creating new ways to implement technology to our everyday lives and charging us to do so is not a step in the right direction. Saying that getting rid of net neutrality will do away with discrimination is absurd. Discrimination was around way before the internet was but instead we once again have one political party trying to undermine the other by playing the victim. I do agree that it isn’t right that such huge corporations such as
§ There are a large number of substitute products. Netflix is in the business of providing personal entertainment at an affordable cost. Since any other form of entertainment is considered a substitute, Netflix?s industry is in direct competition with all other forms of entertainment, whether it be reading, physical exercise, regular television, etc. If trends in popular culture move away from those related to movies, revenues may be affected.
As the firm moves forward, top managers must pay attention to staying unique to sustain a competitive advantage. Netflix does not own their content, nor do they have any tangible assets. Netflix is a part of a broad range of network users. As technology continues to grow exponentially, Netflix will have to be readily adaptive to change and innovation. Technology never stops growing and evolving, therefore, Netflix’s business platform should never stop growing and evolving. At the same time, they must be careful to remain user friendly and customer centric by keeping the technology at a level where users will not have to obtain a certain set of technological skill sets.
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. This, in a simpler definition, means that there is no bias whatsoever on any platform when it comes to using the internet. For example, if Comcast™ were to choose Netflix™ over Hulu™ then that would be unfair to the people that prefer Hulu™, therefore, Comcast™ would lose customers while crippling their business. While Comcast™ is doing this they are turning into a biased platform, the opposite set of rules for net neutrality.
...a remarkable opportunity to grow in the industry and lead as an innovative provider, Netflix has much opportunity to satisfy its customers and maintain their attention with their revolutionary business growth (Martala, 2009). Their success goes beyond their product. As stated, it is a combination of their culture of high performance drivers and fosters the “freedom and responsibility” mindset (Elliott, 2010). Because of their innovation and gradual entry into the market, Netflix has the competitive advantage to add layers of products for growth for years to come. Currently, Netflix has the competitive advantage to increase price and retain their current customer base. Even more beneficial, is the opportunity to attract additional subscribers with their new features. To end this, combining their products, price, culture, and strategic plan makes Netflix innovative.
Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix headquartered in Los Gatos, CA, began the company’s operations in 1997 after receiving an enormous late charge from a movie rental he returned long overdue. However, Hastings had the desire to be different than traditional movie outlets; whereas, customers had to drive to the location, pay a certain amount for each movie they rented, and were given a deadline in which to return the movie. Instead of using a method established by other video markets “to attract customers to a retail location, Netflix offered home delivery of DVDs through the mail” which eventually led to a booming business towards streaming forms of entertainment (Shih, Kaufman, & Spinola, 2009, p. 3). Today, Netflix exists along with several competitors; however, offers the most streaming content available for viewing, and continues to grow its subscriber base both domestically and globally. Although, direct and indirect competitors, acquisition costs, and several barriers present a financial threat for Netflix, the company has managed to grow with the acclamation of partnerships, expand to international territories, and vastly increase its price in shares of stock.
The idea inspired Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph, and then they founded Netflix in Scotts Valley, California in 1997 (Netflix, 2014). The company comes into play by developing a subscription-based streaming platform for movies and television shows. Unlike the traditional movie rental businesses such as Blockbuster and Redbox, Netflix’s innovation offers service via Internet, and it does not have any physical stores but instead delivers DVDs through postal mail in the U.S. Since then, Netflix has become the world’s leading internet television network with constant growth of customers to over 48 millions members in more than 40 countries in the North America, Europe, and the Latin America (Netflix, 2014). In this analysis, the main focus is examining the current market environment for Netflix. It identifies the type of market structure that Netflix is currently competing. The analysis also expands on the competitions, product differentiation, pricing strategy, and measuring the level of easy entry-and-exit.
There is strong competition with other companies that offer video streaming at no extra charge. Additionally, Netflix and its competitors are attempting to enter the digital world. Digitally offering television shows is an area of competition that has previously been controlled by
In this paper, I would like to analyze Netflix’s distinctive strategies based on their competitive advantage and how it covers from its strategy mistakes in the high threat industry as well as give some viable suggestion for the future development of the company.