Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VC Pitches in a Year or Two

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: VC Pitches in a Year or Two

#61

Post by snowwrestler »

rayiner wrote: post #53
legutierr wrote: post #32

I think the pertinent question now is whether the FCC rewrites its rules to classify ISPs as common carriers. It seems to me, given the local monopoly or duopoly that the vast majority of ISPs enjoy, that this is an obvious move. But I have heard it barely discussed, which is distressing.

It's not an obvious move. Being classified as a common carrier carries a ton of baggage. The common carrier regulations are very much 1970's-style oppressive regulation, complete with extra taxes for providing service to rural subscribers, regulatory oversight of every business decision, etc. The FCC didn't want to impose that burden on ISPs in 1996, and they don't want to do it now. As an aside, it's amusing to me h…

I don't think the rural telephone surcharge is a necessary component of common carrier. For example railroads are all common carriers and they are under no duty to run rail lines to every single community in the U.S.

My understanding of common carrier is that is simply mandates that the provider must publish a single public rate card with objective criteria for the rates, and then charge everyone equally by those criteria. It's to prevent UPS (which I believe is regulated as a common carrier) from taking extra money from Amazon to slow down or lose shipments from Walmart.

Re: VC Pitches in a Year or Two

#62

Post by avighnay »

The blog places its argument on the basis that data plan cost is going to be high. Would this be the case in the future? What if data plan costs are that negligible that it does not matter?

Secondly, compare this to TV networks, consumers watch TV and pay for them too, a part of the cost is subsidized by advertisers who are willing to pay the network to reach the audience. The consumers are in that network only because of the content, remove the content providers or reduce the quality of the content then the consumer vanishes. An empty network is worth nothing.

Would telcos, not harm themselves and their whole data plan business by attempting to charge the content providers (Google et al) and would the content providers 'advertising model' margins justify paying out to the telcos just to get through their infrastructure?

Re: VC Pitches in a Year or Two

#63

Post by prostoalex »

nightpool wrote: post #36
Grue3 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enterpreneur: I plan to launch an encyclopedia that people can edit, and it's better than Wikipedia VC: Well, since Wikimedia Foundation has already convinces telcos to provide their data for free ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships ), we are passing. Now wait a goddamn minute. This doesn't make any sense. The alternative is even worse: no free access to Wikipedia. Is this what you're arguing fo…

The difference is Wikimedia doesn't pay for this benefit, the telcos are doing it because they support Wikimedia's mission. Any company with a similar mission and better execution has a chance of talking the telcos into a similar deal. The argument is that the paid types of mobile partnerships add another cost onto the already high barrier to entry into the market. This supports monopolistic practices by these compan…

> The difference is Wikimedia doesn't pay for this benefit,

In some markets Facebook, Twitter or YouTube don't pay for this benefit either - the free data deal runs as a free trial for limited time with the hope of converting you into a paid data customer.

> the telcos are doing it because they support Wikimedia's mission.

Maybe. Or in markets where data packages are still not widespread (even in smartphone era), using Wikipedia, Twitter or Facebook allows the telco to showcase the benefits of buying a data plan.

Re: VC Pitches in a Year or Two

#64

Post by ericb »

exelius wrote: post #52

Most VCs would pass on these ideas regardless. They're all in mature, saturated markets. One of the signs of a mature, saturated market is that the incumbents have taken great lengths to create barriers to entry that are very high. This is a discouraging thing for VC investment because it increases the chances that a new entrant will fail. Besides, you've had to pay for access for years. The big difference is that be…

And if pay to play had been in place when Google debuted against Lycos/Altavista? If we were stuck with that old search tech today, we'd be suffering.

Re: VC Pitches in a Year or Two

#65

Post by [deleted] »

nightpool wrote: post #36
Grue3 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enterpreneur: I plan to launch an encyclopedia that people can edit, and it's better than Wikipedia VC: Well, since Wikimedia Foundation has already convinces telcos to provide their data for free ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships ), we are passing. Now wait a goddamn minute. This doesn't make any sense. The alternative is even worse: no free access to Wikipedia. Is this what you're arguing fo…

The difference is Wikimedia doesn't pay for this benefit, the telcos are doing it because they support Wikimedia's mission. Any company with a similar mission and better execution has a chance of talking the telcos into a similar deal. The argument is that the paid types of mobile partnerships add another cost onto the already high barrier to entry into the market. This supports monopolistic practices by these compan…

[deleted]

Re: VC Pitches in a Year or Two

#66

Post by prostoalex »

legutierr wrote: post #32

I think the pertinent question now is whether the FCC rewrites its rules to classify ISPs as common carriers. It seems to me, given the local monopoly or duopoly that the vast majority of ISPs enjoy, that this is an obvious move. But I have heard it barely discussed, which is distressing.

With classic ISPs, not just anybody can start digging trenches and lay fiber.

With wireless, pretty much anybody can start renting the space from cell towers and resell their wireless capacity.

Re: VC Pitches in a Year or Two

#68

Post by rayiner »

snowwrestler wrote: post #61
rayiner wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an obvious move. Being classified as a common carrier carries a ton of baggage. The common carrier regulations are very much 1970's-style oppressive regulation, complete with extra taxes for providing service to rural subscribers, regulatory oversight of every business decision, etc. The FCC didn't want to impose that burden on ISPs in 1996, and they don't want to do it now. As an aside, it's amusing to me h…

I don't think the rural telephone surcharge is a necessary component of common carrier. For example railroads are all common carriers and they are under no duty to run rail lines to every single community in the U.S. My understanding of common carrier is that is simply mandates that the provider must publish a single public rate card with objective criteria for the rates, and then charge everyone equally by those cri…

The relevant sense of "common carrier" in this context is as a classification in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's a detailed set of regulations applicable to telephone companies. Classifying ISPs as "common carriers" would not just implicate all of those regulations, but implicate one of the animating principles of phone service under the Telecom Act of 1996, which is universal service.

"Common carrier" is also a classification for various services under common law, but that's not what the recent D.C. Circuit opinion was about. Those involve not formal regulations, but certain rights and liabilities under common law, which differ depending on the particular kind of service.

Re: VC Pitches in a Year or Two

#69

Post by prostoalex »

josefresco wrote: post #25
zxcvvcxz wrote: post #16

Not the point of the article, but is anyone else annoyed by these "entrepreneur-sounding" ideas? I'm so sick of low-tech, solve-first-world-problem ideas and conflating that with entrepreneurship. If I were the VC, I'd tell them to get the fuck out, and it'd have nothing to do with Telcos.

You missed the point. The author was choosing startup ideas that compete with entrenched entities that are also potentially data-intensive. I don't think the ideas themselves were supposed to be judged, just that they fit a loose model of ideas that would be almost impossible to fund/execute without net neutrality.

He's right in the sense that all ideas were copying something out of big companies' playbook and were a hard sell to consumers who were sensitive to mobile data pricing.

What if the idea was around instant video conferencing with on-demand doctor or a lawyer? Would interested parties still be concerned about the (additional) cost of a data plan?

Post reply on HN