Reading the article, “Your Television is Ringing” got me thinking about my distaste for Comcast over the years. I’ve always considered Comcast’s corporation to be a monopoly in the Seattle area because they are really the only prominent cable company service in the unless you chose to go with satellite. However, I was reluctant to make the switch for the very same reasons that the article stresses; the importance and benefits of convergence. If I were to chose a satellite provider not only would my bill be higher but I would also have to find a separate service for internet and phone services. Comcast’s bundled services, however, provide a single bill from a distinct provider and always have lower prices when you choose to sign up for more then one service.
When companies continue to buy out one another and eliminate the competition I always initially pegged this convergence as an unfair monopoly. The bigger and better company taking out the little guy. I never sought out exactly how convergence affects the consumers, and especially not positive benefits. However, after reading the article it appears that in many instances (but not all) convergence not only positively affects the business itself but provides positive benefits for consumers as well.
On the flip side, the rush to converge can create many problems especially when the consumers have no demand for such convergence. When convergence includes bundles and discount pricing it proves very successful. But when companies are convergence for untold future advances individuals arent as willing to jump on the band-wagon.
In what ways will convergence reshape technology?
Why is it that other countries (France, Italy) are less inclined to adapt to convergence?
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
