Hacker News Reader

Comment by griffinheart | Hacker News Reader

I used to think the same but a little thought exercise proved me wrong, if you ask the question: what happens if the general datacap goes down, even maybe to 0?

I'm from Portugal and the different telcos/ISP's don't see others offering this product as a chance to offer a better product they see it as a missed chance to get more while giving less so they don't compete they collude.

And this is just looking at it as a consumer. If I was trying to break the market with a new video service I'm pretty sure that favoring Youtube puts it in an unfair advantage.

View on HN

> what happens if the general datacap goes down, even maybe to 0?

Then I get a subscription with a bigger data cap.

The big problem with a lack of Net Neutrality is when there's a lack of competition and ISPs use their monopoly over their users as a product with which to strongarm the web services I want to use out of extra money. As long as they keep treating us as the customers and not the product, and make it clear what I'm paying for and what I'm getting for that, and I have to option to switch to a competitor that's more in line with what I want, then I'm fine.

It's true that favoring Youtube gives it an unfair advantage, but that's not as big a problem as treating paying customers as products.

>The big problem with a lack of Net Neutrality is when there's a lack of competition

You just summed up the exact situation in the US. Most areas have a giant ISP and some smaller ISPs serving more limited areas. There's effectively no choice for consumers though, since many of the smaller ISPs have to use infrastructure of the local ISP monopoly to deliver service.

Well, that's indeed a big problem, and very big reason why Net Neutrality is important. I live in Netherland and I have half a dozen broadband providers to choose from, including one that strongly believes in freedom of information, so I'm fine without legally mandated Net Neutrality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com