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.
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.
...to ZT that was so thoughtfully removed in the summary.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
The internet is not for sale by any pseudo owner. Fuck them. This is the commons and we can control it if we organize.
This approach (tunneling traffic to avoid the ISP slow lane) is too simple for a reason- it is trivial for the carriers, or anyone with simple flow data, to detect tunneled/VPN traffic and then route it prejudicially (even if the carrier cannot read the encrypted payload). Itâ(TM)s what PRC and other totalitarian regimes have been doing for years : penalizing tunneled traffic by default.
..from Zero Tier, because it "promotes cyberattacks." What do you do then?
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.
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.
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.
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?
There is not information here, no news, nothing funny just a blatant add for a company with a really expensive and really dubious sounding VPN. I view slashdot as my source of all news that is not fake. What went wrong here. @cowboy_neil - we need answers.
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.
I see people on social media saying "I pay for da interwebz, I'll do whatever I want and oh btw, I'll do it at the full speed I was 'sold.'" A lot of these are people that should know better, who should know that they were never sold a package with a QoS agreement with the ISP. The reason you can afford 75mbps+ at a rate that is supportable on a few bucks above minimum wage is precisely that "up to $Xmbps" in the contract and the other stipulations that make it clear they can impose QoS policies to give the best service to the most people. Turns out streaming 4k NetFlix to 1% of their users might not fit that description.
Thanksgiving morning, I tried to download an update to IntelliJ which is about 500MB of data. My FiOS connection was slow probably because my neighborhood, which is pretty large, were all home streaming NetFlix, Hulu, etc. waiting for Thanksgiving dinner. Anything I tried to download over an ordinary HTTP connection was slow, but NetFlix was just fine for my kids... So as far as I know, I was on the losing end of bandwidth prioritization.
To me this wailing that streaming users might be discriminated against is like hybrid drivers complaining that they might face additional alternative taxes to cover the fact that their cars put the same wear on the roads, but don't fund it properly through the gas tax. It may not be fair, but those shared resources (private or public) are not elastic. It costs money to maintain them and keep the same level of service as usage patterns change.
They damn well CAN throttle that much traffic. AT&T, Comcast, and the rest of the big ISPs all dream of the days of yore when there was AOL, CompuServe, and GEnie. Nothing but a few walled gardens, and the paying customers lived inside and almost never ventured out.
THAT is what they want, and how they will throttle. Comcast vs non-Comcast traffic is how it will be played. They'll prioritize THEIR VoIP over companies like Vonage, implicitly harming competition. Want NetFlix? Well, Xfinity Streaming is just like Netflix, but faster and cheaper!
These companies desperately do not want to become only transport providers, or dumb pipes. The money is in the content -- what the roads lead to, not the roads themselves. The ISPs was the return of the Company Town, where they own the roads AND the stores, and a big toll gate leading out of town.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Notice how full access costs pretty much the same under both "net neutrality" and "no net neutrality"
That illustration is of course flawed. There's no way it would cost the same, because all that specific example pricing would do is reduce revenue.
Sure, maybe the *average* user monthly fee wil lbe the same, but guarantee over the long run the per-user rate would increase, with them pointing to useless entry tiers as a way to say they are providing an affordable option.
Without net neutrality, Netflix and Netflix users need to pay slightly more on average, but others need to pay slightly less.
The cellular providers already have an answer to that, it's called indiscriminate throttling and caps based on amount of data transferred. You are a light user, fine, 2GB/month should more than cover you. It's not like 5GB/month of netflix is more or less expensive of 5 GB/month of youtube, and yet that is the sort of distinction being asked for. It's to get their pound of flesh from the internet companies and to enable complex plans that make for slicker marketing (it's really hard to advertise the rather boring reality of being a dumb pipe).
The worrying part is that the ISPs get to pick the winners and losers. I have a new internet streaming service, tough, Netflix has paid to be 'the' preferred streaming provider, creating a tough barrier of entry to the market.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
So now they control and monitor all the traffic instead? I can switch ISP's, but if services all use the same VPN, I would still be screwed not matter what if they decided to collect data or they get hacked and someone else does it or if they get DDoSed or if there's malware to contend with. Those that stay informed need to stop compromising and thinking it's ok for non-technical people to pick the easier option just so they can go further down the third-party reliance rabbit hole. It's being done because it's a royal pain in the ass to explain the importance of taking more control of your computing experience and because of that neglect and profit minded article submissions, we are greatly paying for it. Plus, if you're already smart enough to take precautions, a VPN over a VPN might not work out so well. Netflix already prevents video playback if it detects you are using VPN.
Rather than everyone joining a universal VPN, which as the parent mentioned they could just block, here is my proposal.
If you have a reasonable state, have the legislature create net neutrality rules in the state. All packets within the state must obey network neutrality. For the most part, this will take care of the problem within the state, as the Internet routes around the bullshit. You might need to have the state encourage a few key nodes to be located within the state as well.
This is not a 100% solution, but technically this is only affecting traffic in a state, so should not be subject to the FCC whining. At the very least it could get to court.
You could possibly combine the VPN approach such that the traffic between states in the network neutrality compact VPN all the packets between their states, so the bastards at the boarders have the choice between sending the packet or not since they have no information to prioritize on.
Of course red states would still be hosed. It is a pity I live in one..
They can say they like the current "net neutrality" because like all bills there are exceptions in the current "net neutrality" bill. Special conditions, special tax deductions, special FCC wink wink nod nod provisions, intended bureaucracy, etc. that allow big companies to skirt the law and still be in compliance with the law all while screwing over the little guy. If it truly was about "net neutrality" it would be a single bill, a few sentences, ..."all network traffic that travels on backbone carriers will be treated equally. Failure to comply is a felony for all board members and corporate executives including vice presidents of the guilty party. Mandatory sentencing for each offense shall not be less than 10 years in federal prison with no possibility of parole."
The current bill is full of BS. Anyone that is for it and loves it in it's current form is an idiot, hasn't read the current bill and finalized provisions. You know the one's that where written a year later and are being revised to this day. The one's that were allowed because of words like, "The Secretary shall determine...". These simple words corrupt the original intent of ANY bill by allowing any Administration to change federal law to their liking or their donors liking. These are the same people that believe Bill Gates wants to be taxed more as he stated on the Weirdie Rose show. In that case again they don't understand he would position all of his money and his foundation's money ahead of time to insure he would be taxed less. Why? Because like the current "net neutrality" bill, there will be lobbyists insuring the big dogs including the congresscritters get their "fair" share.
Wake up people. As long as there are provisions in any bill that say things like "The Secretary shall determine..." you will never get neutral anything. Congress as abdicated it's responsibility by using the above terms to act tough during a debate, "So and so is against this, or for this, blah blah blah, I'm the real champion for the little guy, blah blah blah", then after a bill is passed, it is perverted by both parties to serve themselves and their donors, all while patting each other on the back.
I dare you to find a single bill that doesn't have terms in them like the above. Understand how far the corruption goes. I know some you won't even try because it might hurt your precious cognitive dissonance. Run to your safe space commies.
Perhaps a more practical way to kill the profit from the ISPs is to reduce our dependence on them. If we all spent less time in front of a screen, went outside more, and engaged in hobbies then we can watch the ISPs bleed as no one uses their branded shit.
I call it "don't feed the trolls," and it works like this. The moment an ISP starts throttling someone, this coalition of content providers blacklist that ISP. Anyone on that ISP gets a black screen telling them what's going on and contact their ISP to stop the throttling. No paid fast lanes, just the black screen.
This will work because which ISP wants to be the first one to lose Netflix, Facebook, Google, and so on?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
It's true that Hulu doesn't allow VPNs, but for a different, and potentially subtle (to some) reason. Some of their content agreements are likely region locked. Want to watch TV shows in the US market? Must come from an IP address that some third party company they contract with believes was recently physically located in the US. There are all kinds of problems with this, but it's not really about net neutrality. It's about content providers wishing to control who can access which media after how much delay and at what price. Call it content neutrality possibly?
As an owner of a small ISP, it's remarkably difficult to get all of the various third party "geo IP" type services to correctly categorize your IPs. And if you are using any type of carrier grade NAT, fuggidaboutit. Sorry for the topic creep.
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
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.
Then consider the irony of this guy talking about profits and corruption.
Regardless, the solution is not VPNs but rather last mile competition. It is what it has been from the start and it will continue to be that.
Look at the trouble Google Fiber is having getting Right of Way to the poles. If one of the largest and best capitalized and most politically connected corporations in the history of the planet is having a hard time... what chance does the small guy have?
The corruption is evident. its mostly state and city corruption but its consistent and national.
Either that gets dealt with... or the entire discussion is just hot air.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Any plan that starts with "we all" with respect to the entire nation may as well stop right there. "We" probably didn't read your article to in the first place, and most of the "we" who did will stop caring as soon as they realize it takes more than one or two clicks worth of effort, never mind when it costs money.
Its the same reason why you'll never prevent climate change by suggesting people drive less.. even if they agree with you, they simply won't do it. They'll excuse themselves for one reason or another or they'll decide that their personal contribution isn't enough to matter or so on.
If you want a significant number of people to follow your plan, you have to make it worth their immediate while. Or alternately, enforce an immediate punishment when they fail to follow the plan. Being immediate is the big thing though -- people are just way too good at finding excuses if the pros and cons are too vague or too far in the future.
Fuck no. Just because they want the same thing NOW does not mean they are on our side. They are on their side and for NOW it might be that we want the same thing, but do not confuse that for being on the same side.
The fact that it would make a difference is what is fucked up. The government should be on the side of the people. It should be "Is this good for the people or not? OK, it is not" and that should be the end of it REGARDLESS of wich company want what.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.