Hacker News Reader

Comment by byuu | Hacker News Reader

The most useful analogy I've seen is the "ala carte internet" one.

"Get Facebook, Twitter, and Google for just $9.99/mo!"

"Add on the video package and get Netflix and Hulu for only $24.99/mo more!"

"News junkie? Get BBC, NY Times, CNN for $7.99/mo."

The reality is of course much more nuanced than that (what's more likely is we'll see these sites being offered bandwidth cap exemptions and faster loading; not outright blocks if you don't pay up), but it conveys the message in a easy-to-digest fashion for the lay person. They're used to this already with their cable packages.

Example: http://i.imgur.com/rL33yEm.jpg

View on HN

Optus in Australia offers "free social" including Facebook and Twitter. For most normal people, network neutrality takes that away (that's how the big players will spin it).

Keep in mind, Wikipedia benefits from non-neutral networks in some developing countries where Wikipedia doesn't count towards the bandwidth cap.

It's a pretty complicated world.

It's easy and cheap to offer some salad on the house for PR, while you're peddling your other crap when they're already through the door.

Wikipedia is only on offer for (disingenous) good will.

For the average person paying 60 bucks a month for internet today while only using Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, and Netflix, this sounds like a great deal.

Until they want to click on a Facebook news article (or a Instagram image in Twitter or a GroupOn link in GMail) and Access Denied message.

Which will accelerate the move Facebook, Twitter, etc are already making to rehost all that content on their own servers to provide an "integrated experience" for their users.

True, but turning the internet into a series of homogeneous "integrated experiences" isn't a good thing.

Those fees are on top of the $60/month for internet. Regular internet of course being limited to 512kbps and 1GB/month ($25 per each additional gigabyte).

It's coming too, because it is a great deal for ISPs (more money! Huge kickbacks for the senior management!), and a great deal for megacorp incumbent media companies who don't have to worry about any of those pesky upstarts screwing up their monopolistic business models. No more Netflix like services appearing and eating your lunch, you can effectively cut them off at the ISP.

Exactly the problem.

Right, there are plenty of people who would be happy with basically Facebook and Gmail alone. And the cable companies will be more than happy to extract $40-$60 a month from granny that uses maybe 1GB of bandwidth from those two sites at best.

This puts say, Hacker News, in a very bad position.

As well as any new startup that wants to compete against the major players with billions of dollars.

Already there are people strong-armed into AT&T's DirecTV Now, which is zero-rated on AT&T's wireless network. With the pitiful bandwidth caps on mobile data, how can Netflix possibly compete with that?

PSA: if you realize that reality "puts you in a bad position", take that as a hint to reconsider your position.

Yeah, you should just roll over and die so Time Warner/Comcast/Viacom/etc... bottom line isn't threatened in any way no matter how lousy and overpriced their product is. Geez, the nerve of some people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com