Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

> 1. Massive monopolies which essentially control 95% of all tech (google, facebook, amazon, microsoft, apple, etc)

Many years ago your list wouldn't have included facebook, it would have included myspace. If FB was required to make a deal with every ISP in the US, do you think they would have been able to grow? Ditto for Google and Amazon.

> 2. An internet where every consumer assumes everything should be free.

I don't see how this is the fault of net neutrality. In fact, it's completely unrelated. We can have net neutrality and pay for content, many people do, viz Hulu, Netflix, iTunes Store, &c.

> 3. An internet where there's only enough room for a handfull of players in each market globally i.e. if you have a "project-management app" there will not be a successfull one for each country much less hundreds for each country.

I have no idea what you mean or how this is related.

> 4. Huge barriers of entry for any new player into many of the markets (no one can even begin competing with google search for less than 20 million).

It's easier to do that than it is to make a deal with every ISP in the US. I really have no idea how this isn't doublethink.




" If FB was required to make a deal with every ISP in the US, do you think they would have been able to grow"

It would be much more difficult obviously. But it would also have been much more difficult for myspace in the first place and if they got too big the the gov't could easily split them up. There might be many such companies providing facebook-like services in such a scenario. Maybe not, but its not something I've heard anyone discuss.

"I don't see how this is the fault of net neutrality. In fact, it's completely unrelated"

I don't know if that's a fact. If ISPs could charge for particular services, consumers might be more aware that in order to get a certain service like translation or search or ordering a pizza they need to pay some % per month for it making them more apt to purchase other services. Again I don't know if this would be the case but its something I'd like to see someone look into.

"It's easier to do that than it is to make a deal with every ISP in the US".

Why would I necessarily need to make a deal with every ISP. For most products I think you probably don't really care or need to be everywhere in the USA especially when starting out.


> But it would also have been much more difficult for myspace in the first place and if they got too big the the gov't could easily split them up.

Please elaborate. How would ending net neutrality help the government easily split up myspace?

> If ISPs could charge for particular services

Then they would, and don't be surprised if they kept the lion's share of the profits, not giving much if anything to startups. Without net neutrality, ISPs could say "we're allowing you startups the privilege of being available through us, so don't expect any money from us"

> Why would I necessarily need to make a deal with every ISP. For most products I think you probably don't really care or need to be everywhere in the USA especially when starting out.

Ok but you initially said "no one can even begin competing with google search for less than 20 million" and guess what - that fact would not go away if you removed net neutrality. In fact, it would get even worse. You would need way more than 20 million, because now you also would have to pay the ISPs.


Let's say your idea has merit.

How do you compete against competing services owned by ISPs?

If your alternative is that ISP are prohibited from owning content producers, you're the only one pushing that plan.

The only serious alternative being offered is that the invisible hand will deal with all the problems.


"How do you compete against competing services owned by ISPs?"

Good question. I guess you wouldn't need to as long as the ISP market is competitive. You might go to another competitor and convince them your product is good or your product can help/augment the service they are currently providing.

The invisible hand would be really interesting to watch there.


> I guess you wouldn't need to as long as the ISP market is competitive

How would it be competitive? If my ISP released its own Netflix and throttled my connection to Netflix to the point where Netflix seemed extremely slow but my ISP's version of Netflix was super fast, there would be no competition. My ISP would dominate.

> You might go to another competitor and convince them your product is good or your product can help/augment the service they are currently providing.

Do you mean go to another ISP? There aren't that many consumer ISPs around, so what happens when they've all made a deal with someone's Netflix, and a new company wants to revolutionize/reinvent their own Netflix? Now it's even harder for them to do so, because the existing players already have contracts to make themselves very fast and everyone else very slow.

Currently, this stuff can't happen (legally) due to NN, but if you remove NN, you enable this stuff, and you prevent new competition from coming up.


The point is that NN would be less important if there were more consumer ISPs around. Specifically if consumers had more choice.

I should note that competition amongst ISPs wouldn't do much to prevent zero-rating, which is still problematically anti-competitive.


Well, NN also helps make it easier for new ISPs to compete. If there is good content (netflix) that is not owned or exclusive to other ISPs then it is much easier to launch your own ISP.


I believe that almost the entire barrier to entry for ISPs is the last mile. Network Neutrality does very little to remove that barrier.


> I guess you wouldn't need to as long as the ISP market is competitive.

But it's not.


Market forces do very little against zero-rating. It's not anti-consumer so users see little need to switch. It is very much anti-competitive though.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: