4 ms·

You are probably a little bit ignorant of how the internet works to make this comment. The big players are already peering with residential ISPs. That means the

You are probably a little bit ignorant of how the internet works to make this comment. The big players are already peering with residential ISPs. That means there's a fiber line that connects Google to Comcast, to use an example. They pay for these arrangements. The little guys have to use transit. They don't have enough clout or money to peer. Without net neutrality, ISPs could start severely degrading those connections. And there's nothing TLS can do to stop that.

extra88 9y ago
Yes. Comcast and other big ISPs think you belong to them, that other businesses should pay to get to you, despite the fact that you, the ISPs actual customer, already paid so you can get to those businesses and they can get to you. And yes, TLS doesn't conceal the domain names from your ISP and that's all they need to pick winners and losers. It can somewhat conceal different kinds of connection (e.g. peer-to-peer protocols like BitTorrent) but those aren't hard to spot through traffic analysis and Ajit Pai explicitly thinks ISPs should be able to block them, as Comcast was doing to BitTorrent traffic.
visarga 9y ago
Users need to get directly involved in protecting the content they desire. In the long run we need a cross between TOR and bittorrent to create a distributed cache to avoid throttling. Local "metropolitan" bandwidth is very fast, hard drives have expanded 10x in 10 years. An alternative is to use WiFi mesh networks.
- brian-armstrong 9y ago
  What makes you think this peer-to-peer network wouldn't be throttled?
  - visarga 9y ago
    It has many peers. Even if it's throttled on each one, they could distribute the load.
    - kd0amg 9y ago
      How much of that load is carried by Comcast-approved hosts?
      - visarga 9y ago
        It will be a cat-and-mouse game.
        kd0amg 9y ago
        All Comcast has to do is not whitelist any of your peers.
- 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
  "a cross between TOR and bittorrent to create a distributed cache to avoid throttling" That arguably describes Freenet, which I think actually predates both Tor and BitTorrent. It's languished in semi-obscurity for a variety of reasons: performance issues, a dearth of popular content, the possibility that your node caches illegal/unsavory data (this is implied by its approach to resisting censorship, which has been harshly criticized but which has no established alternative besides abandoning censorship-resistance as a goal)...

extra88 9y ago

Yes. Comcast and other big ISPs think you belong to them, that other businesses should pay to get to you, despite the fact that you, the ISPs actual customer, already paid so you can get to those businesses and they can get to you. And yes, TLS doesn't conceal the domain names from your ISP and that's all they need to pick winners and losers. It can somewhat conceal different kinds of connection (e.g. peer-to-peer protocols like BitTorrent) but those aren't hard to spot through traffic analysis and Ajit Pai explicitly thinks ISPs should be able to block them, as Comcast was doing to BitTorrent traffic.

visarga 9y ago

Users need to get directly involved in protecting the content they desire. In the long run we need a cross between TOR and bittorrent to create a distributed cache to avoid throttling. Local "metropolitan" bandwidth is very fast, hard drives have expanded 10x in 10 years. An alternative is to use WiFi mesh networks.

brian-armstrong 9y ago
What makes you think this peer-to-peer network wouldn't be throttled?
- visarga 9y ago
  It has many peers. Even if it's throttled on each one, they could distribute the load.
  - kd0amg 9y ago
    How much of that load is carried by Comcast-approved hosts?
    - visarga 9y ago
      It will be a cat-and-mouse game.
      - kd0amg 9y ago
        All Comcast has to do is not whitelist any of your peers.
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
"a cross between TOR and bittorrent to create a distributed cache to avoid throttling" That arguably describes Freenet, which I think actually predates both Tor and BitTorrent. It's languished in semi-obscurity for a variety of reasons: performance issues, a dearth of popular content, the possibility that your node caches illegal/unsavory data (this is implied by its approach to resisting censorship, which has been harshly criticized but which has no established alternative besides abandoning censorship-resistance as a goal)...