The End of Net Neutrality = the Beginning of the Fragmented Web
The internet as we know it today is the result of years of technological evolution. Now we have the hardware and the benefit of hindsight to make creating networks much easier than it was the first time around. I am suggesting that once NN is dead, alternative networks of free information exchange are going to start popping up. The internet will fragment as necessary for free information exchange.
When discussing this ideas, people often get hung up on infrastructure. Remember that Puerto Rico is enjoying wireless internet infrastructure right now.
And keep in mind that a computer network does not need to support high speed communication to be a valid means of exchanging free ideas- which is what is really at stake with NN.
96 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadI think the global players will just serve content from outside the US (they've all got datacenters in the EU anyway).
https://euobserver.com/creative/27859 (from 2009)
> This approach is backed by the European Commission, which argues that if consumers feel their content is somehow being compromised, they will switch to other providers.
So if anyone comes up with free-market will invisibly push for NN argument, slap them with this and see how they respond ;-)
this is a file sharing p2p based on artificial incentives that is extremely inefficient and runs on top of an assumed network.
it is actually akin to removing net neutrality from internet caches! "want you content cached, pay with this cryptocoin"
As great as IPFS is, it won’t help if the price for general-purpose internet skyrockets. Access to YouTube, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter will continue to have competitive prices, but the rates for out-of-band networking like IPFS and VPNs may skyrocket without the average consumer even noticing.
I think tools like IPFS will always need something like host names. Content-addressability helps you access the data once you have the address, but how can you know the latest ID of the thing you are looking for? In the IPFS world, you’d use IPNS (interplanetary name service) for this, but I’m not sure how it actually works in a distributed fashion.
The only solution to this is to organize and fight for NN in legislation at this point. All of these alternative internet systems are a complete waste of time until someone tells me how they're going to get around traffic shaping at the backbone level. There's not going to be a continent-wide wireless mesh network either.
I know regulations can be anathema to many HN readers, but if there was ever a justification for one, it's the 2015 Open Internet Order.
But that doesn't mean nothing was lost, or that some huge chunk of human potential wasn't sacrificed. In that regard, for the people who see how things could have been, the predictions of doom were accurate.
For the rest, you're right. It's just like how we can't calculate the "huge chunk of human potential" we missed out on as a result of decreased competition and investment since the regulation was created in 2015. All we can do is guess. Who knows--maybe we would have had the Enterprise!
Do you have any other colorful ways of "crying wolf?"
We're already one foot in the dystopia, I'm afraid. Decentralization of these services can't come fast enough.
[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_u...
https://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-af...
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-...
These network operators are easily swayed by organizations willing to wave money at them. With the repeal everyone expects this kind of behavior to return, and extend as ISP's come up with more creative ways to leverage their networks for financial gain. I don't think anyone would mind, if the results were better networks, but the telecom industry in the US has repeatedly demonstrated that their absolute last priority when it comes to spending their profits is network upgrades. Literally everything else comes first.
We've had net neutrality as FCC policy with different enforcement mechanisms (changing based on court actions closing off the earlier approaches) continuosly since 2004. What 25 year period are you talking about?
I don't think they would allow that.
I think there are ISP options that net neutrality prohibits which are worth exploring for some people, and if repealing net neutrality benefits decentralization or creates a radical shift in the Internet design instead, I won't consider that a catastrophic outcome.
Fragmentation, in this context, is the negative connotation of the word decentralization.
You clearly don't understand how any of this works. Not having NN is much closer to what you're describing, as it will stop new competitors from being able to compete, because the big guys can pay to always be faster/cheaper/more accessible/free.
The understanding that is so often missed here, is that Google and Netflix are large enough that ISPs want to negotiate those arrangements individually, because it's a significant part of their business. None of their competitors, none of the startups, even make a blip on the radar of an ISP.
If ISPs start billing websites, they will be sending out bills to two companies, and only those two companies.
Also, this is Netflix caring, today: https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
Like what? Any examples? Also the word "innovation" is not an example, even if it's the example I hear most. "You can't possibly understand because it's complicated" isn't an example either. If not I'm fine with the status quo.
I really hate the current speed tiering model used by most landline providers, because it means ISPs have the capacity available but are intentionally reducing your service quality because you haven't paid them enough to justify providing the best quality they can offer.
I understand why Google and Netflix would be strongly against something like that though, it reduces their customer base for YouTube and Netflix.
Please explain how.
What about the next level up, the ISP? Doesn't repealing NN favor those giant centralized entities such as AT&T and Comcast?
Also, bear in mind, ISPs are a tiny threat compared to Google. None of the ISPs we're talking about have a scope outscaling the United States, but Google is a global threat that has the influence and power to bully individual countries into compliance with what they want. Suffice to say, the ISPs are not the giant entity here, relatively speaking.
ISPs can and should be fought by the FTC when they engage in unfair business practices or collusion. Ajit Pai's plan includes granting the FTC additional authority to do just that.
Also, we've already started to see wireless home Internet plans in the 4G space, and that's likely to continue to grow when 5G launches. A lot of households are mobile only at this point, which presents a very different avenue of competition. I have and will always have a wired landline, but the wireless competition with wireline providers will likely help keep things moving on a competition front.
The idea that an ISP could just arbitrarily block a given site without being paid a fee and without getting sued to oblivion is silly. Most of what Netflix and stuff is upset about is being asked to pay for specific peering agreements, which is, IMHO, perfectly fine. If Netflix wants optimized networking just for them, they may have to pay extra for it.
From the summary items listed here[1], NN explicitly bans blocking of websites.
If NN is repealed, wouldn't that make it legal? And if it is legal, wouldn't that make any lawsuits against it frovolous?
[1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534...
We have existing laws that, appropriately applied by regulations, already would prohibit an ISP from barring access to a competitor's content services.
The media landscape's merging and anti-competitiveness started way back in the Clinton years and textbook revolving doors continued right up to Trump with Tom Wheeler being a textbook regulated becoming a regulator.
Nothing changed with Trump. He's just not (and probably not capable of) making an increased effort to reduce the permanence of power among money elites.
Having his personal net worth reduced pre vs post election as opposed to an increase for Clinton and Obama is probably as big a step in the right direction in favor of net neutrality than anything. A proper publicly funded election for the legislature is the next ultimate solution that will solve all this. The next best possibility is a self-funded election. An elite-funded election which is the state of the US is the worst option and the root cause of this.
No, it was well underway in the early 1980s; I think it started in the 1970s. The impact it was having on reporting was already a major discussion point before Clinton was elected.
Campaign donations and lobbying are a systematic problem, but laying the blame there and only there ignores the fact that there there are degrees of complicitness within a corrupt system, as well as degrees of the impact imposed by the corruption itself. Ultimately only one side of the aisle seems so eager to get in bed with ISPs to destroy the internet, to deny climate change in support of their fossil fuel benefactors, and to dismantle the healthcare system for the benefit of the rich.
Also, ask yourself which party supports citizen United, and which party obstructed any progress on legislative efforts to address it?
Getting the oppressed to self-drain oxygen by subdividing everyone into every which way to stop conversation about their self interest is the success the elites are seeking. The only meaningful distinction in today's america's social struggles is the class distinction between the common and the elite.
The (CNN approved) examples you're giving are right. Though there are tons of non corporate news reported 'republican' things democrats have more success doing like making Bush elite tax cuts permanent, more wars of invasion, banking deregulation, social security privatization.
> but laying the blame there and only there ignores the fact that there there are degrees of complicitness within a corrupt system, as well as degrees of the impact imposed by the corruption itself
Sounds circular. Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant. Can you rephrase?
"The only way to fix anything is to fix everything" is deeply intellectually lazy and allows you to disengage from any politics until it meets your idealised standard of what politics should be. Lets you feel great while you achieve absolutely nothing. We can all do better than that.
> You admit that the OP was correct that things were different under the Obama administration
What are you referring to?
> "The only way to fix anything is to fix everything"
What are you referring to? I'm saying let's fix the problem instead of being dragged into beating each other over unrelated bikeshedding while the beneficiaries of the problem continue to benefit. How did that translate into "The only way to fix anything is to fix everything"?
you really think he's not milking the presidency for cash?
>Donald J. Trump Verified account
>@realDonaldTrump
>Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...
And as a non-American, this still terrifies me, because the U.S. is the nucleus that holds the web together. It's darn near impossible to overstate how much decisions in the U.S. will impact the whole world.
This is not an issue that a free market can solve, because when it comes to main lines that connect the whole Web, it's practically a monopoly of the big boys. It's their sandbox.
Net Neutrality hid the consequences of this from us by forcing them to play nice. Scrap it and they have way too much power.
Hopefully the silver lining in this is this will result in more wireless ISPs popping up since they can bypass the incumbent wired phone/cable providers.
https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
Unfortunately, ISPs such as Comcast have already perverted this model and demanded Netflix to pay up for access to their network despite throwing in free hardware and peering.
https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t...
- how the network would respond to degraded connectivity.
- which protocol is more resilient? bitcoin, ethereum, etc.
Yes, all other things being equal. But if the ISP owns a video streaming service, all other things aren't equal. Bytes from their own service bring them more revenue.
> I firmly believe that the reason most ISPs want to be able to throttle isn't some nefarious plan to prioritise friendly providers, but simply to advertise more bandwidth than they have
This would also be nefarious.
"We said we can deliver X but we can't, so let's selectively degrade our service to make it seem like we can" is a nefarious plan.
An honest plan would be to advertise "up to X Mbps, minimum of Y Mbps, charges prorated by available speed" and deliver on it.
The end of the world it is not, and the hyperbole is at an alltime absurd level.
As for access, 5 years, LTE 5, Viasat3/4 will provide coverage around the world. FCC guidelines for internet access at the pole will go into communities to allow the breaking up of limited choice ISP for some communities. Google fiber and Facebook internet already helped promote the change.
> "We eliminate the formal complaint procedures because the informal complaint procedure, in conjunction with other redress options including consumer protection laws, will sufficiently protect consumers.
> Additionally, we eliminate the position of Open Internet Ombudsperson because the staff from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau—other than the Ombudsperson—have been performing the Ombudsperson functions envisioned by the Title II Order.
> We also eliminate the issuance of enforcement advisory opinions, because enforcement advisory opinions do not diminish regulatory uncertainty, particularly for small providers. Instead, they add costs and uncertain timelines since there is no specific timeframe within which to act, which can also inhibit innovation."
Also, I don't think any other "consumer protection" ever upheld the idea that ISPs shouldn't be nickle and diming consumers by splitting the internet into service packages, like what's happening in Portugal.
The net neutrality rules were those consumer protections, and the ones the ISPs wanted most to eliminate.
Oh, and as a bonus, they also eliminated the rules that said there shouldn't be any interconnection fees - like the stuff that got Verizon and Comcast to drastically slow-down Netflix and YouTube the last time around (before net neutrality passed), until the two companies had to pay up.
> "We believe that applying Title II to Internet traffic exchange arrangements was unnecessary and is likely to inhibit competition and innovation. We find that freeing Internet traffic exchange arrangements from burdensome government regulation, and allowing market forces to discipline this emerging market is the better course. Indeed, the cost of Internet transit fell over 99 percent on a cost-per-megabit basis from 2005 to 2015.
Google and Netflix didn't fight the net neutrality repeal this time around because they thought they were safe. I think they will regret not fighting the repeal very soon.
Just to add one more point: many of us are now bound by forced arbitration agreements with our ISPs. That more or less eliminates the courts as an option for class or individual action. It's convenient that Pai glossed over this little fact.
That means we're stuck with the FTC, and only the FTC. And if they don't do anything for you, that's too bad.
This will be devastating, mark my words.
No, they aren't. Unless the FTC v. AT&T 9th Circuit decision gets reversed, they can't do anything in this area, unless the FCC also reverses the Title II classification of telephone service, since that decision blocks much FTC action involving firms that are common carriers, even when the action concerns non-common-carrier operations of the firm. And many ISPs are telcos that would be protected from FTC regulation by that ruling.
https://hackaday.com/2017/11/18/becoming-your-own-isp-just-f...
Anyone remember Hotline? it was sort of like a last-gasp implementation of BBS culture across IP for a time when the web was small but heavily curated, and people needed a simple, user-friendly, but unregulated channel to exchange content in private, though from what I remember a lot of that inevitably ended up being porn and other stuff which you now get on the dark web. It was not unlike Facebook in terms of the actual UX (eg easy to send text, very limited markup options), but distributed and client-centric.
Nothing would make me happier than a resurgence of Usenet, or a deployment of the web annotation protocol (anyone know of activity in this area?) that was scriptable and could allow federations of affinity groups to cooperatively filter and trackback bullshit on the web, as a step towards the eventual realization of the Infosphere.
this ^^ a thousand times. the frequent focus on streaming media in the discussion about net neutrality is disconcerting, to me. I've previously gotten pushback for looking down my nose at the gems of modern creative storytelling, but I still think the collective human experience would be better served seeking fewer unidirectional modes of entertainment / more cooperative & collaborative types of entertainment for ourselves.
taking this opportunity to plug https://scuttlebutt.nz which is where I get the majority of my social media these days.