11 ms·
Net Neutrality will die, so let’s take the profit out of killing it
- AdmiralAsshat 9y agoThis would be a better article if it didn't read like an advertisement for ZeroTier. It could easily be replaced with a generic recommendation to use a VPN at all times (which I already do), and the end-result would be the same.
- brad0 9y agoI agree, though I got the feeling that ZT is superior over VPN because of the IPv6 metanet. If you use just a regular VPN then the traffic at the other side of the VPN will still be slow.
- api 9y agoI'm the founder of ZeroTier and just saw this article. I've spoken to Bob a few times in the past and while we appreciate the mention there wasn't any coordination. (We'd have timed it to not be right before a holiday. :) I think what he's arguing is that fully encrypted p2p overlay networks would be the next step beyond privacy VPNs, and would be more powerful. Basically if we "encrypt all the things" then ISPs will only see opaque encrypted traffic and will be unable to effectively implement really fine-grained traffic prioritization/de-prioritization. What he suggests would be possible. People and services could join public ZeroTier networks and you'd have this flat "meta-Internet" where everything was encrypted and all traffic looked the same. I don't think this is a silver bullet. ISPs can still make deals with big players like Netflix, Google, Facebook, etc. and offer them at a higher speed on the "clearnet." Other traffic would be relegated to the "other" category that would be slow-laned on non-premium plans. This applies to more conventional privacy VPNs and anything else just as much as it applies to ZeroTier.
- pjc50 9y agoI think there's a fundamental technical problem here. ISPs theoretically provide you with the shortest, least congested route. Overlay networks either go straight to the same destination (subject to the same throttling), or bounce off some other host for privacy laundering. Then you're dependent on that host to have a good connection to Netflix instead. It's always going to be worse than going direct.
- api 9y agoMostly agreed. The only real hope is to more substantially disrupt the ISP market.
- ovrdrv3 9y agoCompletely unrelated: EPIC username!
- api 9y agoIt's actually my initials: Adam Paul Ierymenko First and last initials are AI.
- jack9 9y ago> then ISPs will only see opaque encrypted traffic and will be unable to effectively implement really fine-grained traffic prioritization/de-prioritization Is there any doubt that no-tolerance of encrypted traffic will be baked into their ToS with proprietary encryption becoming the standard between the bundled endpoints?
- sporkologist 9y ago> Basically if we "encrypt all the things" then ISPs will only see opaque encrypted traffic and will be unable to effectively implement really fine-grained traffic prioritization/de-prioritization. Wouldn't the ISP's default in that case be to de-prioritize all opaque encrypted traffic?
- mnw21cam 9y agoSo, the problem I can see with this is that (by my understanding) ZeroTier will naturally try to set up a direct connection between the two communicating endpoints, encapsulated in whatever encryption. This means that all the NetFlix traffic will still be originating from NetFlix IP addresses. Therefore, even though the content is encrypted and non-inspectable, it can still be identified as NetFlix, and throttled.
- rajadigopula 9y agoMakes sense. The only hope left is a "Hero ISP" who voluntarily decides to not participate in the prioritization.
- crabasa 9y agoThis analysis collapses because the OP fails to realize that the big players (FB, Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc) don't benefit from net neutrality nearly as much as the long tail of sites and services. ISPs know that an internet service without FB is worthless, so they're motivated to work out deals and create bundles. It used to be ESPN and HBO, now it's Google and Netflix.
- raverbashing 9y ago> realize that the big players don't benefit from net neutrality Yeah, the big players don't realize this is stupid. Who says they won't get fleeced by the ISPs? Having your business rely on a monopolist that could antagonize you will most likely backfire. "Oh but they are the incumbents" who do you think is easier to extort, the small startup or the bigger company? I hope Fb is charged for all their auto play videos
- tbrock 9y agoThis argument doesn’t make any sense. The isps would just deprioritize the zero tier traffic so you couldn’t use it effectively. It’s only faster because of how things work today. Nobody would care about being able to watch Netflix via zero tier if it’s faster to watch without it (which the isps would most certainly ensure). I also think it’s nieve to assume that large tech companies want neutrality. Sure, companies publicly say that they are for it but if they could pay to prevent new competitors (without the same capital resources) from challenging them it’s my hunch that they’d gladly do so. They aren’t on our side.
- himom 9y agoWhat are you smoking? Google (YouTube), Netflix, Facebook, etc. wants access to as many eyeballs (and their bandwidth) as possible. Having either them or their eyeballs having to pay for access eats into their profits.
- edoceo 9y agoPay-for-access would allow Google et al to keep your eyeballs, while blocking competitors who want your eyeballs.
- putlake 9y agotbrock is right. When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. In fact, this loss of net neutrality would have been less dangerous if ISPs were just pipes trying to make more money rather than also being content companies.
- notyourday 9y ago> When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. See Netflix and VZ PNIs saga a few years ago for proof. > Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. No, Netflix is not interested in NN - see it paying for VZ transit to just VZ, i.e. buying access. Long time ago, in a galaxy far away there was a CTO ran company that fought for NN well before it was fashionable. The company's name was AboveNet and CTO's name was Dave Rand. The company carried a large percentage of the Internet traffic at the time and he would still play hardball with the likes of Sprint, DT, UUNET/MCI worldcom etc. From that point on not a single company that claimed or currently claims to be supporter of NN has not even tried to put its money where its mouth is. [Edit: after the downvotes ] Really? Google is your friend. http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speeds/ http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speed... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-packets-being-dropped-every-day-because-verizon-wants-more-money/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netfl... http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-verizon-for-direct-connections-1201166187/ http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-v... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level3-proves-that-verizon-is-absolutely-to-blame-netflix-congestion-using-verizons-own-data.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level... [Another edit: since some people would point that they called it peering ] Paying transit rates to access only routes originated by the AS group of VZ is not peering - it is transit.
- mcv 9y agoI don't see how handing one company a monopoly over all internet traffic is going to be better in the long run. What the US needs, is competition. Monopolists can afford to screw their customers, competitors in an open, transparent market can't. Let ISPs advertise that their connection to Youtube/Netflix/etc is not throttled like it is with Comcast/etc, and chances are many people will switch.
- lordCarbonFiber 9y agoExcept that isn't an option for the overwhelming majority of people. Odds are you have one choice for broadband, maybe a choice for dsl, and that's about it. Competition cannot occur without low (or ideally 0) entrance costs. The investment required to lay cable, let along bother to run your ISP, is such that there will never an open market.
- TDL 9y agoLaying cable isn't the only way to deliver internet service. Wireless ISPs are a thing.
- untog 9y agoYes, they're a thing. A shitty thing. Wireless ISPs would immediately collapse if they had to serve the amount of Netflix traffic wired internet connections use in an evening. They simply aren't a viable alternative for the population at large.
- TDL 9y agoYou might want to check out Webpass, which is now owned by Google Fiber. They can and do deliver high speed internet. Webpass specifically targets dense population centers.
- himom 9y agoDense population centers are the easiest to cover and already have the most choices. Furthermore, Google Fiber has a history, like most Google municipal projects, of failing to finish and then languishing. They never finished deploying to Starbucks, and what was deployed was still slow. Also, Mountain View Google WiFi, a wireless repeater mesh, was horrible, useless and poorly maintained.
- devon_m 9y agoWrite your representatives and ask them to repeal the FCC
- evo_9 9y agoThis problem is never going to go away as long as ISP are private companies. Think what would happen if your power/utility company was driven by profit and not solely to provide a critical service. Internet access should be de-privitized, the free market isn't going to fix this ever and this battle is going to just going to repeat itself every 6-12 months until they win.
- JoshTriplett 9y agoBecause we should trust government to provide Internet access? That would certainly make it far easier to monitor. And instead of fixing the problem that not everyone has a choice of ISPs, that would ensure that no one has a choice of ISPs, so when the one ISP that exists is terrible there's no recourse. I do think it might make sense to treat fiber as infrastructure, so that we could then have numerous competing ISPs everywhere that just need to light up the fiber that's already there. That seems like an improvement.
- QAPereo 9y agoHow could we be more comprehensively monitored than what ISP’s and the NSA are willing and able to do?
- maxxxxx 9y agoI wonder how MVNOs for cell phone services came to be. There you have multiple companies competing while using the bigger networks. I would like to see the same for ISPs where Comcast would rent their infrastructure to other companies that then can compete with different plans. 1
- tengbretson 9y agoI'm still waiting for someone to come up with a compelling reason that it should be illegal for me to buy a "Facebook Only" internet service.
- westbywest 9y agoThe reasoning I understand is that it enables the sort of monopolistic practices that historically have been restricted. Offering $20/mo "Facebook only" or $10/mo "Just email for Grandma" plans has providers competing more on what destinations they (don't) restrict in their Internet access, and less on actual speed/latency of the service. Larger providers could then roll out near-$0/mo "Email-only" plans at below cost, specifically to squeeze out the smaller providers previously trying to eek by on their equivalent $10 plans, and then retire those plans once competition is gone. Selling at below cost to kill competition is predatory pricing, which has spawned antitrust claims in the past in other markets.
- dawnbreez 9y agoIf we allow you to buy "facebook-only" service which only serves FB, Twitter, and related services...what happens to Gnusocial, which isn't on that list? By permitting discrimination by content, you are implicitly allowing an ISP to cripple services at their discretion. Perhaps a better example: would it be fair for Comcast to cut any connection to AT&T or Time Warner's sites?
- DubiousPusher 9y agoYeah, cause that's what's going to happen. Remember the heydays of cable TV when you could pay for just what you wanted!?
- tengbretson 9y agoYes. If only we'd made it illegal for cable companies to sell cable packages back then.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
- gervase 9y agoThe assumption that they won't simply block VPNs "because China does that" seems naive. "VPNs are only used by {pirates|terrorists|pedophiles|etc}!" could easily be deployed as a smokescreen for this change. And, if you have a valid work use case, simply get the "Enterprise" package for your home network, where the exorbitant cost is covered by your employer!
- VectorLock 9y agoI think its more simply a matter of them everything everything slow/inaccessible unless you buy the _advanced video_ package that includes Netflix, Hulu, YouTube" Which service tier is going to include the ZT VPN option? And what if you're NOT a tech worker who has an employer to cover the "Enterprise VPN" tier? Good luck with that.
- agumonkey 9y agoLet's kill it by having semi local wireless mesh networks. That would be enough for basic web (mail, irc, average website).
- spilk 9y agousing whose spectrum?
- LyndsySimon 9y agoFor me, this article brings to mind a statement that Rand Paul maid several years ago. I thought I'd reference it here for others to consider as well. 05/2011: "Paul: 'Right to health care' is slavery" https://www.politico.com/story/2011/05/paul-right-to-health-care-is-slavery-054769 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/05/paul-right-to-health-... > “With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. You are going to enslave not only me but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants, the nurses. … You are basically saying you believe in slavery,” said Paul (R-Ky.), who is an ophthalmologist. 10/2017: "The Problem of Doctors' Salaries" - https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-salaries-pay-disparities-000557 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-sal... > Policymakers have a number of tools to use to introduce more competition, weaken the doctors’ cartel and get their pay more in line with counterparts elsewhere.
- SteveNuts 9y agoDid you mean to comment on this post?
- amsheehan 9y agoOr... on any post? Because...It was crazy when Rand Paul said it, and crazier when you say it.
- Frondo 9y ago(Of course doctors in countries with socialized medicine are paid. No one's compelled to do the work--they choose to do it and are compensated.)
- pySSK 9y agoI wish he had explored this concept more: > The concept of Net Neutrality is bound in the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are common carriers like the phone company. Phone companies like to claim they have no knowledge of — and therefore no responsibility for — the words that are carried over their phone lines. They serve Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Russian Embassy alike — just as long as both pay their phone bills. Tony Soprano and Tony Stark are the same in phone company eyes. And this is true of the Internet, too, at least for the next month or so, because the FCC under President Obama declared Internet Service to be a common carrier. That’s about to change, and with it the requirement that all Internet bits be treated equally. People who are willing to pay more will soon get measurably quicker Internet service. And big bandwidth users like Amazon and Netflix will have to pay more to avoid having their signals slowed down. If the ISPs suddenly become not common carriers, do they then become responsible for all the content? If that is the case, then we can make non-net neutrality really expensive for them.
- lowbloodsugar 9y agoThat was my thought. Are they losing the protection that common carriers get, or are they getting all the protection without any of the obligations?
- mundo 9y ago> If the ISPs suddenly become not common carriers, do they then become responsible for all the content? No, "common carrier" is an overloaded concept that implies some responsibility for the thing being carried in other contexts (e.g. maritime shipping) but does not imply what you're suggesting in this one. Remember, US ISPs were not classified as common carriers until mid-2015.
- amaranth 9y agoDSL started life considered a common carrier, it wasn't until 2005 it was reclassified, to match a previous decision that cable internet wasn't a common carrier.
- amaranth 9y ago
- sanqui 9y agoI immediately thought of cjdns[1] being used to implement this idea. Dos anybody know how ZeroTier compares to it? [1] https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns
- xj9 9y agowhy ZT tho? like, you could accomplish the same type of overlay system using i2p. there's performance issues to work out to be sure, but if its literally impossible to tell who is talking to who it gets a lot harder for isps to control anything.
- cmurf 9y agoISPs want to turn the internet into TV. You tell us what sites you want to visit and we'll tell you what that will cost. How far can the ISPs go before Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, just offer an always on VPN service to get around the ISP's blacklisting of sites you haven't paid to visit? Android on Nexus and Pixel phones has a wifi assistant that secures the connection when you're connected to public wifi; which kinda sounds like an automatically initiated VPN.
- jacknews 9y agoSo the answer is to for everyone to use a VPN? That won't happen. It seems to me that if the ISPs are no longer common carriers, then they are able to choose what content they transmit. That choice must surely come with responsibility, and they are therefore responsible for the content they transmit. I suggest another way to remove their profits; flood them with illegal content and sue.