Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtx | Hacker News Reader

Startups asking for more regulation, very hypocritical of them. I understand need for regulation in mobile internet as it is a limited resource.

View on HN

As a well-known start-up founder I know likes to say, to paraphrase:

I like regulations because they're guidelines that help us operate in the best interests of ourselves and the public. And they prevent our competitors from acting immorally or dangerously to get a business advantage (which might force us to have to take either make the same immoral/dangerous moves or shut down).

Bad regulations are bad, of course, but regulations empower businesses when applied correctly.

Thats the problem, we have limited control on people making those regulations. So as a compromise less regulation is always better.

You have more control over your government than you have over Uber or AirBnB -- especially if you're not a customer of either of those businesses. The government is (ideally) merely a voice of all of the people.

Transportation and housing (for example) are parts of the critical infrastructure of a community. Allowing decisions about those things to be made entirely by the (relatively wealthy and mono-cultural) owners and customers of those businesses is unfair to the other people affected by those businesses. Hence regulation.

Which, again: There are bad and stupid regulations. Of course. But regulations are useful tools, overall.

True, however we don't live in an ideal world. We need to take our society into consideration. Where Rich have more say in the government. This can be remedied by government having less say in my life.

> We need to take our society into consideration. Where Rich have more say in the government.

These two ideas are at odds. The rich are doing fine for themselves. The people we need to go out of our way to make sure we're helping is the less wealthy and the less powerful. That's whom the government should be advocating for.

But in balance. Businesses need to be allowed to flourish, as well.

And, by the way, you benefit greatly by having the government have a say in your life.

[Edit: I believe I misinterpreted the bit of text I quoted from you. Apologies on that. But my general comment stands.]

That's certainly not true if the disempowering of government only occurs in those areas of government where the rich are pushing for it because of how it constrains their power.

It might not be true generally, either, say if the advantage wealth provides outside of government is greater than the advantage it provides in government. That rich have disproportionate influence in government doesn't mean they don't have even more disproportionate influence outside of it.

Less regulation is not a compromise at all, it was the goal you started out with.

Have you considered the root cause as to why the "people making those regulations" seem to be compromised? What do you know about the influence of big money in government?

How is asking for a free market hypocritical? Most U.S. households have a single broadband option and the large ISPs have already demonstrated that they are willing to abuse their network control to attack services like Netflix when their own services aren't competitive.

Internet service is one of those areas where you can only free up one market by limiting another. You create an even playing ground for internet companies and users by heavily regulating ISPs.

I'm not a fan of either side to be honest - I think efforts should be made to make it easier to enter the ISP market so that competition and consumer choice forces competition between ISPs to provide the best service.

What market is being limited in a natural monopoly? “Market” is commonly used with the implication that multiple sellers exist and the buyer can choose any or none, all of which is unlike the ISP situation for millions of people.

What I think makes the most sense is going back to what we had with DSL: require the owner of the cable to the house to provide access at cost, allowing competition for the higher level services.

ISPs aren't a natural monopoly - trunk cables are. I can see a good case for having those be federally owned and managed if they aren't at the moment - I can't really speak to the US situation at that level because I'm from the UK and most cables are owned by BT who lease access to other ISPs.

Net neutrality isn't free market. I am not saying it's bad -- but I am saying that a private ISP being forced to do something isn't free market at all.

Net neutrality is a solution to the wrong problem. The real problem is lack of real ISP competition in many areas. If there were actually a free market with ISPs, then consumers could pick the service that delivers data in a way that is pleasing to them.

Please read up on the difference between a free person and a free market. A market is free when all participants (both buyers and sellers) have equal power. Large businesses and corporations skew that balance because of their size, so regulation is a necessity to ensure that free market.

Care to explain why this is hypocritical and why there shouldn't be any regulation around non-mobile internet?

I believe ISPs should be able to offer services as they wish. Same as Uber with Taxi regulations, Amazon with sales tax and BnB with hotel regulations. Demand for more government regulation from one of the main proponents of free market is weird.

We should make easier for people to start ISPs. Not add more regulation and increase barriers.

However, let's be clear, some of those calling for more "free market" actually don't want more free market at all -- they want more government regulation and control. A free market, by definition, is a market definite by minimal regulation and the ease of entry and exit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com