One Step Closer to a Closed Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#61

Post by Jtsummers » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:38 PM UTC

orthecreedence wrote: post #4

I want to say this first: I love net neutrality and I support it 100%. That said, I think this battle will go on forever until either - We have a decentralized network anybody can plug into without ISPs (mesh net) or - Cities build their own fiber infrastructure (or 4G towers for rural areas) and rent it out to companies. Cable/DSL become a thing of the past, and you connect via radio/public wifi/direct fiber. This b…

A third option: Standard net, but everything end-to-end encrypted including what protocol is being used. If this information can't be discerned (easily), then priority cannot be given or taken away for any given data, only for certain data sources/destinations. If two computers (could be mobile devices, PC, server, doesn't matter) have an encrypted channel connecting them then anything could be transmitted across that channel without anyone but the endpoints knowing what it is.

Now, all this traffic could be slowed. But if it becomes near ubiquitous, then only source/destination would be useful for determining throttling/accelerating data.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#62

Post by Jtsummers » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:39 PM UTC

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #43

When I worked in the DoD contracting space there were rules handed down that outlines what browser(s) and version(s) you MUST use due to security concerns. It was always Firefox. This may be an insanely stupid idea, but, as sort of a thought experiment: what would the fallout be if, say, Mozilla changed their license on Firefox to disallow the usage of their browser by government representatives and associated contra…

None. DoD doesn't require Firefox, Chrome, or IE. But the base install is typically IE only with the option to install Firefox or Chrome upon request.

If anything, it'd hurt Firefox's market share, but would have no impact on the government beyond not being able to use it. Especially these days with sites making themselves Chrome-first like the damned IE-only sites from 20 years ago.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#63

Post by orthecreedence » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:39 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #51

ianai wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, for one, vote for the mesh network.

The lag time, and probably bandwidth, on a mesh, especially a wifi one, makes it unacceptable for many uses.

This is what I figured as well, but I also wonder if that's just because the devices we use haven't been built for this.

In other words, if public interest shifted to some kind of mesh network, perhaps the devices could be improved enough to support the load.

That said, I don't know much about mesh networking at all, the routing methods it uses, or if it's even possible to support what I'm talking about.

It also has to contend with the existing, established infrastructure so probably won't see many large investments any time soon.

I still think it would be a decent alternative to what we have now if it could overcome bandwidth/latency limitations.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#64

Post by a2decrow » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

bogomipz wrote: post #49

a2decrow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this forces non-US Americans to use US IT company services less, there are less angles the US government can use to spy on the rest of the world. Plus, data protection laws in other countries (especially European ones) are far more restrictive. I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet. Just like we don't care about pretty much anything else that's happening in t…

>"I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet. Just like we don't care about pretty much anything else that's happening in the US." The "US internet" is the same internet that has allowed Google, Youtube, FB et al to flourish. Do you not use any those? Didn't all of those presuppose an open internet? Can you really divorce Silicon Valley from you refer to as the "US i…

You do realize that not all technology originates in the US, yeah? The US isn't the center of the world. You don't have a monopoly on technology or IT and in fact, most of it wasn't even conceived in the US or by US inventors.

You need to get off your high horse about "US-America being the greatest country in the world" because it's not.

And to answer your question, no, I don't use Google, nor Youtube and especially not Facebook. I go out of my way to explicitly block them all to protect my privacy.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#65

Post by Sargos » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #43

When I worked in the DoD contracting space there were rules handed down that outlines what browser(s) and version(s) you MUST use due to security concerns. It was always Firefox. This may be an insanely stupid idea, but, as sort of a thought experiment: what would the fallout be if, say, Mozilla changed their license on Firefox to disallow the usage of their browser by government representatives and associated contra…

At this point they would just switch to Edge if they haven't already. It's secure and can also be locked down more by network policy.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#66

Post by orthecreedence » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

nulagrithom wrote: post #44

mulletbum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the country and have this right now. 100mb for $50 or 1000mb for $100.

Where I'm at in the US, we have a Public Utility District that's "owned" by the city (top position is an elected position too). They've run fiber everywhere and leased it to local ISPs. I can get gigabit for under $90/mo. Lowest tier is 100x10 for under $50. One of our local ISPs even built a real nice wireless mesh network with a fiber "backbone". You can get low-latency 35x2 service way up in the hills of nowhere.…

Comcast HATES this one US city!

(Sorry, had to) What area do you live in? I've heard of cities trying to do things like this and ISPs clamping down and suing the city to stop any sort of public infrastructure. I'd be interested to read about if/how the people in your area had to deal with this.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#67

Post by pixelbill » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

Where I live (United States, rural area) there is no choice in cable internet service. We have one provider (PenTeleData) who charges $60 a month for 25mbit, though you'd be lucky to ever see that full 2.5 MB/sec.

Because of the lack of competition, their customer service is absolutely abysmal as well. They don't care how their customers are treated because we have no viable alternative. We've had our internet turned off (and were charged to turn it back on) because we were allegedly downloading movies. We've had our internet go out and the service tech said it would take a MONTH to come out and take a look at it (at first he said there were NO appointments, like at all, but when pressed he gave the month time frame).

Our corporate world is shitty, and it's getting shittier every day.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#68

Post by Jtsummers » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

subterfudge4 wrote: post #56

Is there any evidence anywhere that non-neutral net actually makes money for ISPs ?

In what way would it not? ISPs could leave everything as it is, and there'd be no change. But without net neutrality they will have the ability to extort cough, sorry, "request" that companies and (potentially) customers pay them extra for prioritizing certain content. They'll also have the ability to deprioritize content, potentially costing companies that don't pay (why I call it extortion) customers. If Comcast does this to Netflix (deprioritizes) then Comcast can drive customers to their own VOD services. If Netflix doesn't pay, Netflix loses customers, Comcast gains customers. If Netflix does pay, Netflix retains customers, Comcast gains money.

Either way, Comcast is better off. The primary issue is that ISPs are not just ISPs. They have many services which compete with 3rd party providers (some big, some small) and their market position will allow them to abuse the hell out of both customers and other service providers.

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#69

Post by falcolas » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

a2decrow wrote: post #59

falcolas wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at least at currently, the "US Internet" includes IANA, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, Verisign and a majority of the root DNS servers... Changes made to the "US Internet" are going to absolutely affect the wider world right now.

I fail to see how this affects IANA or root DNS servers in any way (not to mention that IANA can be replaced by a non-US entity if it really comes down to that). As for those companies, they'll work the same way as before outside the US internet. Regrettably, because the world would be a better place without them.

This was a direct response to the commennt "I don't think there's any reason for us non-US-Americans to care at all about the US internet."

This change doesn't directly affect IANA, etc, but it will likely have knock-on effects which hurt everyone.

"IANA can be replaced by a non-US entity" - This would, IMO, signal the end of the internet. "Look up www.google.com" "which one?"

Re: One Step Closer to a Closed Internet

#70

Post by claytonjy » Thu, May 18, 2017, 7:46 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #42

Google and Facebook's silence on net neutrality is deafening. It makes no sense. Are they thinking they'll be able to pay for access to the customers that their competitors won't be able to afford?

I'd wager that's exactly what they're thinking. This hurts consumers, it hurts potentially-but-not-yet-big tech companies, and it even hurts currently-established players in the short term, but on a not-too-long time horizon it cements the big players' near-monopolistic positions in their respective markets. What's $50mm/yr in "fast lane" payments to ISP's when it prevents others from disrupting your multi-trillion-dollar tech conglomerate?