Slashdot Mirror


Taking The Profit Out Of Killing 'Net Neutrality' (cringely.com)

Robert Cringely has a plan to ensure that internet providers will never profit from the end of net neutrality: We are being depended upon to act like sheep -- Internet browsing sheep, if such exist -- and without a plan that's exactly what we'll be. The key to my plan is that this is a rare instance where consumers are not alone. There are just as many or more huge companies that would prefer to keep Net Neutrality as those that oppose it... Those companies in favor of Net Neutrality obviously include the big streamers like Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube and a bunch of others. They also includes nearly every big Internet concern including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft. Those are some pretty big friends to have on your side -- our side...

So I suggest we all join ZeroTier (ZT), a thriving networking startup operating in Irvine, California. There are other companies like it but I just think ZeroTier is presently the best. ZeroTier is a very sophisticated Virtual Private Network (VPN) company that has created a Software Defined Network that goes beyond what normal VPNs are capable of. To your computer or almost any other networked device (even your smart phone), ZT looks like an Ethernet port, whether your device has Ethernet or not. Through that virtual Ethernet port you connect to a virtual IPv6 Local Area Network that's as big as the Internet itself, though the only users on this overlay network are ZT members.

The trick is to get all those big companies that are pro-Net Neutrality to join ZT. The most it will cost even Netflix is $750 per month, which is probably less than the company spends on salad bars in their Los Gatos HQ. Embracing ZT doesn't mean rejecting the regular Internet. Netflix can still be reached the old fashion way. I just want them to add a presence on ZT, too... What the ISPs won't like about this plan is that ZT traffic can't be read to determine what rules or pricing to apply. They could throttle it all down, but throttling that much traffic isn't really practical.

20 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Lol... by TFlan91 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Running away from walled gardens to another walled garden is not a solution to the net neutrality problem and certainly doesn't "take the profit out" of it. It just moves that profit to another company. /vertisement.

    1. Re:Lol... by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Running away from walled gardens to another walled garden is not a solution to the net neutrality problem and certainly doesn't "take the profit out" of it. It just moves that profit to another company. /vertisement.

      Yeah, I'm kind of not seeing how this is a solution. The FCC wants to make a multi-tiered Internet, where you pay more to get the data you want. With this... you pay more to get what you want.

      That's even assuming it doesn't just get throttled into oblivion. Or worse, bought by Comcast or AT&T.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    2. Re:Lol... by Solandri · · Score: 1, Insightful

      These guys sorta but don't completely get what the problem is. The key difference with their idea is that presumably you'd have a choice of multiple VPN companies you could subscribe with. That provides competition, which keeps the VPN companies honest. If you find out your VPN is throttling certain traffic or spying on your browsing, you can simply cancel and switch to a different VPN provider.

      See, the problem isn't that ISPs are trying to throttle Internet traffic unless the website pays a toll (making them the very definition of an Internet troll). The fundamental problem is that the ISPs have a local monopoly. Their customers are unable to switch to a different ISP no matter how crappy their service is. The moment you introduce competition, the problem vanishes. Any ISP which tries to throttle Netflix because it didn't pay their toll is shooting themselves in the foot. Their customers notice Netflix isn't working right, but their neighbor reports it's working just fine for them. So they cancel service with the troll ISP, and switch to their neighbor's ISP. Problem solved, no net neutrality needed. The only reason ISPs like Comcast and Verizon can get away with being a troll is because they have a service monopoly - they're essentially holding their customers hostage from access by the rest of the Internet.

      So ask yourself - why do these ISPs have a local monopoly? The local government gave them the monopoly. Net neutrality is trying to solve a problem caused by government regulation, with more government regulation. You don't need more government regulation to fix this. You simply need to remove the original regulation which caused the problem - allow multiple ISPs to provide service so there's competition.

      If the local government is worried about unsightly masses of wires on the telephone poles due to there being two dozen cable companies providing TV and Internet service, then they simply have to do what's done for electricity and natural gas utility service. Designate one company to install and maintain the wires or pipes, but prohibit them from selling what travels through those wires or pipes. Then allow anyone else to sell electricity, gas, TV, or Internet over those wires/pipes by paying the maintenance company a fixed transport fee. All providers pay the same rate, so the only difference will be the quality of service they can provide at the lowest price.

    3. Re:Lol... by Narcocide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You just basically claimed that we don't need existing net neutrality regulations then described a solution that consists primarily of exactly that. They really brainwashed you good. I suggest you see a professional. Seriously. Wake the fuck up.

  2. If not Zerotier, we will band together somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The internet is not for sale by any pseudo owner. Fuck them. This is the commons and we can control it if we organize.

    1. Re:If not Zerotier, we will band together somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slow down there, Adam Smith... Who are you calling "parasites"?

      I remember HUNDREDS of billions of dollars being paid over the last couple decades in the forms of grants and tax breaks to those poor, over-taxed corporations for upgrades and service that was never delivered. What about all of the government subsidies and funding that paved the way for the Internet, computers, etc?

      Want to know what happens when a country socializes the risky research and infrastructure and then privatizes the profits? Look around, Captain Conservative.

  3. Not practical? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why woudn't throttling this be practical? If the ISPs are free to throttle everything else, and they don't mind their customers suffering, why would they stop at a VPN, especially a VPN that is meant to stop throttling. In fact they can throttle it much more than any other type of content, since it just means that the users will stop using it and switch back to accessing their content directly.

    1. Re:Not practical? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's actually more practical to throttle everything other than their approved content from a technical standpoint. Whitelisting your golden IP ranges is rather easy.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  4. HAHAHAHAHA wtf is this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, lets solve this buy paying ZT a ransom instead of AT&T or Verizon.
    No, I don't think so. This is just a (very) thinly veiled ad for yet another company trying to make a profit off providing access to services people are already paying for.

  5. Several practical issues by MtHuurne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the ISPs won't like about this plan is that ZT traffic can't be read to determine what rules or pricing to apply. They could throttle it all down, but throttling that much traffic isn't really practical.

    If they can throttle popular destinations like NetFlix, or protocols like BitTorrent, why wouldn't throttling a VPN be practical?

    Once all the video companies are on ZT, followed by social media and search, (don’t forget gaming!), that’s probably 80 percent of all Internet bandwidth.

    For fast-paced games, low latency is very important and any kind of additional layer will add latency.

  6. Right... by jouassou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So everyone in the country should send their traffic through a single VPN? How does that scale to 300m citizens, and what will stop the VPN company from throttling webpages that don't pay their internet baksheesh?

    1. Re:Right... by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So everyone in the country should send their traffic through a single VPN? How does that scale to 300m citizens, and what will stop the VPN company from throttling webpages that don't pay their internet baksheesh?

      300 million citizens? Give me a break. 250 million of those citizens can't even fucking spell VPN, and they certainly don't give a shit about Net Neutrality.

      These are the same citizens who will happily shell out an extra $10 per month for the "premium" internet tier just to feed their social media addiction. Those against Net Neutrality know this.

      The masses proved long ago that ignorance is bliss. Don't expect them to start caring anytime soon.

  7. Ethernet is a PHY spec by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Somebody doesn't know what Ethernet is apparently. I don't know what Cringely was trying to say, but nothing upstream knows about or cares if your system connects via Ethernet, WiFi, ATM, Token Ring, or IPoAC. Ah ... this explains it ...

    "The sex symbol, airplane enthusiast and adventurer continues to write about personal computers and has an active consulting business in Silicon Valley, selling his cybersoul to the highest bidder." - [Emphasis Added]

    After seeing this, he should really drop the "L" from his last name.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  8. Sigh by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) Blatant slashvertisement. Seriously. Stop it.
    2) "They could throttle it all down, but throttling that much traffic isn't really practical."

    If they can throttle the entirety of the Internet, except Netflix, they can certainly throttle all of ZT too.

  9. No, the FCC doesn't "want" that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The FCC wants to roll back imperial fiat which should have been legislated properly. The FCC also doesn't want to have to regulate ISPs as common carriers, because that's an incredibly expensive piece of work. Your internet is no different with the rollback of this fake "network neutrality" then it was for the 8 years Obama was in office and it was okay. And, for the record, nothing about this "network neutrality" prevented anything you feared happening to the internet. It would only have changed the words that ISPs use to throttle traffic. Instead of "throttling Netflix" they would just "throttle encrpted video playback" but still could have given preference to their data which is a live stream.

    You got suckered.

    1. Re:No, the FCC doesn't "want" that by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Engaging an anonymous coward because it's a slow Sunday.

      The FCC wants to roll back imperial fiat which should have been legislated properly.

      What's an "imperial fiat"? Is that some sort of Italian car driven by an Emperor? Or are those just words that don't convey meaning, but you think they sound educated? Like "paradigm shift". Also, the FCC was empowered to pass the rules it did, just as the current regime is empowered to declare those older ones void. None of this is a matter of overreach, no matter what the current board's leadership claims.

      The FCC also doesn't want to have to regulate ISPs as common carriers, because that's an incredibly expensive piece of work.

      Odd. Regulation is remarkably easy and inexpensive given a} the regulations are already published, and b} this kind of regulation doesn't require any actual effort on the FCC's part until one of the mega-ISPs decides to try to weasel those regulations for "value-added-services", a.k.a. more profit. And even then, it's a fairly simple matter of passing a decision.

      This isn't like regulating the alcohol industry, where you actually need people to go out and try to get bartenders to serve under-agers and the like.

      Your internet is no different with the rollback of this fake "network neutrality" then it was for the 8 years Obama was in office and it was okay. And, for the record, nothing about this "network neutrality" prevented anything you feared happening to the internet.

      What alternate-history universe are you from? In ours, several ISPs were on the brink of, and beyond the brink of anti-consumer actions. The most obvious example was double-dipping, demanding additional payments from Netflix. "It would be a terrible shame if something happened to your pretty packets as they traverse our network." Consumers were already paying for their bandwidth... for the ISP to obtain, transport, and deliver the packets that were requested. If consumers contract for #Mbps and a monthly cap of #Gb of data, they've paid for those bytes' transit, and that they come from a source with deep pockets shouldn't matter.

      It would only have changed the words that ISPs use to throttle traffic. Instead of "throttling Netflix" they would just "throttle encrpted video playback" but still could have given preference to their data which is a live stream.

      How about they don't throttle anything because they've been paid to deliver the packets already? Just a thought. Also, the main purpose behind network neutrality.

      You got suckered.

      Well, there's an assumption. Turns out I don't live in the country getting suckered. I just know that crap flows downhill.

      But here's the biggest sign that you're off your rocker: if the network neutrality regulations were ineffective, why would the FCC under Ajit Pai be so incredibly zealous about repealing them? It should be easy to earn voter happiness by bowing to the public pressure and saying "fine, let them keep their placebo regulation." Right. Because it's not a placebo. It's very much protecting the public from more predatory practices than the massively-profitable ISPs are already undertaking.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  10. Re:A better plan by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The ISP will just route all traffic 10m across the border and throttle it there.

  11. Re:Here's the link... by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're posting this crap on a tech site, and they expect people to actually buy into it?

    This is advertising bullshit. There is nothing about ZT that would prevent ISPs from throttling the shit out of it, or banning the traffic altogether. That's assuming that ZT would even have the capacity to deal with the traffic in the first place, which they don't.

    It doesn't matter what kind of gateway you're running. ISPs can throttle/block any point of entry they want without net neutrality. If you run over their lines, they can bend you over and no amount of of garbage like this will help.

    --
    ~X~
  12. What the FCC aims to kill is a neutrality impostor by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the FCC proposes to end in December isn't network neutrality; it never was. It's an impostor masquerading as network neutrality because some influential wonk put that label on it and legions of ignorant fools propagated it.

    Meet the real network neutrality: citizens owning the very same physical network that they use. It's time for eminent domain to be applied against that network and get rid of this chatty impostor once and for all.

  13. Re:A better plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is a solution which allows for a competition of ISPs - open local loop. When I lived in Sweden I could choose from between at least 10 ISPs - all running through the same Fiber to the Apartment. There is one thing that the EU does better than the US and that is maintaining a competitive market and protection of the the consumers interests.