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

I think my viewpoint here is more devil's advocate because I'm not entire sure I believe it myself. But it seems like a possibility so I wanted to share:

One thing to consider here is the large juggernauts in the tech industry would actually benefit to this type of legislation. Let's say Comcast adds a fee to get priority access. Google, Apple, Microsoft; pretty much all of the existing and large-enough companies would likely be able to pay for it without much issue. While this would cut into their profits to some degree it makes the bar much, much higher for competition to come into their space.

If competition springs up it'll likely not grow as fast in an environment with many paying for special access so the tech companies could buy them at a likely cheaper price if they see them. Alternatively this may help kill existing competition like Spotify who has razor thin (or negative, I can't remember) margins so they wouldn't be able to compete.

Aside from a, likely very small, cut into profits there isn't much down side for any of the big tech companies. Are we sure they will want to band together?




All three of those companies survive off acquisitions. They rely on small independent companies taking a risk and doing the hard work, and when they find the diamond-in-the-rough, they get snapped up and brought under the corporate umbrella.

This legislation dries up the well. No small companies to buy = no progress.


In this environment, they wouldn't need acquisitions. Progress isn't necessary for profit.


Ah yes, that little loophole.


> No small companies to buy = no progress.

Which is perfectly fine for incumbents.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: