from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is Amazon “dumping” streaming video and should it be prevented?

by danblick on 12/11/17, 12:18 AM with 11 comments

From my understanding, Amazon doesn't currently make money off its Amazon Instant Video service.

Cheap, high quality streaming TV like this probably hurts (1) traditional TV channels, (2) online competitors like Netflix, and (3) any new companies trying to enter the online streaming market. On the other hand, consumers ought to be happy that their consumption is being subsidized (for now).

Is it fair to call this behavior "dumping"? At what point does "dumping" lead to anti-trust action by the government?

  • by twobyfour on 12/11/17, 10:54 AM

    And Uber is dumping taxi services by selling them below cost (subsidized by VC) to undermine the competition. Nobody's even tried going after them from that angle.

    The US government, at least, basically doesn't enforce anti-trust regulations any more. And even if it did, the current administration's philosophy essentially doesn't include the enforcement of ANY regulations against businesses for the public good.

  • by jgowdy on 12/11/17, 4:41 PM

    There’s a fine line here between dumping, bundling, and loss leading. Amazon bundles video with a Prime subscription. Not all customers under that promotion have to be profitable, and not all of them have to be profitable in the same way (based on usage pattern and the associated costs). Loss leading is also a legitimate technique to drive customers into the funnel for up sales.

    For this to be properly considered dumping, Amazon would have to be intentionally putting price pressure on Netflix and Hulu by under pricing their offering significantly.

  • by aidenn0 on 12/11/17, 7:04 AM

    IANAL, but in the US, this is one of the hardest anti-trust cases to make.

    See e.g.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_State...

  • by freeone3000 on 12/11/17, 4:56 PM

    It doesn't hurt #2 because, at least in the past, Netflix was actually cheaper than prime. It's still cheaper month-to-month.

    Moreover, due to copyright and the existing streaming deals, any new companies trying to enter the online market will be selling a different product package. They'll have different shows, essentially selling a different service. It's not as if PBS or FoodNetwork have been "dumping" their video streaming services as a detriment to Netflix.

  • by jotjotzzz on 12/12/17, 3:37 PM

    No. If Amazon expects to sell their hardware, such as the Amazon Fire TVs, Echo, and their tablets -- they heavily market these services on those hardware and it is part of their benefits proposition. Now that YouTube is no longer on the Echo and on their tablets, they better keep it alive. It's also partly subsidized via Prime subscription.

  • by cjbprime on 12/11/17, 2:12 AM

    Isn't it part of a Prime subscription?