5 ms·

> It seems like everybody assumes you're on a big fat broadband pipe now and nobody else matters. This is intentional. The powers that be have an interest in m

> It seems like everybody assumes you're on a big fat broadband pipe now and nobody else matters. This is intentional. The powers that be have an interest in moving everyone to faster networks, and they effectively control all new web standards, and so build their protocols to force the apps to require faster, bigger pipes. This way they are never to blame for the new requirements, yet they get the intended benefits of fatter pipes: the ability to shove more crap down your throat. It's possible to cache static binary assets using encrypted connections, but I am not aware of a single RFC that seriously suggests its adoption. It is also to the advantage of the powers that be (who have the financial means to do this) to simply move content distribution closer to the users. As the powers that be don't provide internet services over satellite or microwave, they do not consider them when defining the standards.

jjrh 9y ago
Not sure who "The powers that be" are, but anyone can propose and contribute to IETF standards. They are called "Request for Comment" for a reason.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Almost positively that answer is Google. Notice they are behind multiple of the new protocols here (HTTP/2 and QUIC), and are used as an example how bundling DOH with an existing major player can prevent blocking DNS. Google is effectively the actual determiner of Internet standards. As the article notes, Google implemented QUIC on their servers and their browsers, and therefore, 7% of Internet traffic is already QUIC-based, despite it not being officially accepted at this point. This is essentially the same as what happened with SPDY at the time. As Google controls both the primary source of Internet traffic (up to 35-40% of all Internet traffic, depending who you ask, and a browser share in the what 65% range), Google can implement any new protocol it wants, and everyone else needs to support it or be left out. Arguably, the IETF is no longer the controlling organization here: Google is. Should the IETF not approve Google's proposals, Google will continue to use them, and everyone else will continue to need to support them. As the parent notes, Google both essentially determines these standards, and has an interested in faster networks so they can shove fatter payloads down the pipe. This is in part due to the ability to implement pervasive tracking, and of course, they operate a lot of content distribution products like YouTube. Note that every method here that makes it harder for governments to censor and ISPs to prioritize also makes it harder for people to detect, inspect, and filter out Google's pervasive surveillance.
  - ohazi 9y ago
    While everything you state here is correct, and is clearly of serious concern, my view is that the general public doesn't really have the capacity to fight both of these battles at once. Right now, I'm convinced we need Google's help to make it harder for governments and ISPs to censor and prioritize. After that, we'll deal with Google.
    - marcosdumay 9y ago
      Corporations and governments are not two entities you can divide for conquering.
      - ohazi 9y ago
        I agree with you, and it feels dirty, but we're going to end up with neither if we don't start with one. If you have a better idea that can even plausibly attempt to get both, I'm all ears.
        marcosdumay 9y ago
        I have no better idea, but it's a problematic plan. If you go with this, you will be surprised by underground deals that will stop that division, and will very likely mislead you. The good part is that it focus on fixing the government. That's the correct entity to fix.
    - taavi013 9y ago
      As of today Google with it's BBR + QUIC + Chrome combo and Facebook with their Zero protocol, combined with their extensive data center network can get much better end user experience than any other service provider regardless of any government. We can talk about network neutrality whatever we want - but these companies have built technological capabilities to have "little bit bigger share". So, probably after some time it is too late to deal with Google:)
      - discoursism 9y ago
hellbanner 9y ago
Who are the powers that be that benefit from fatter pipes + content distribution?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15908810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15908810
benjaminl 9y ago
Then you will greatly relieved to hear that as of 2010 all major browsers cache content delivered over HTTPS. https://stackoverflow.com/a/174485/262789 https://stackoverflow.com/a/174485/262789
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
  I assume they were referring to intermediate caching, not client side caching.
  - benjaminl 9y ago
    If that is the case, then the GGP is asking for something that would be a huge privacy leak.
cmurf 9y ago
Content creators make this assumption way more than any other party. Webpage bloat is already several years past qualifying as obscenely bloated, new words need to be used to describe it today.
sarah180 9y ago
There's a technical reason for this. The Internet2 project spent a lot of time and effort working on things like prioritized traffic to deal with congested links. They found that it was easier and more cost effective to just add more bandwidth than it was to design and roll out protocols that would deal with a lack of bandwidth. For more info, read this: https://www.webcitation.org/5shCiXna8 https://www.webcitation.org/5shCiXna8 A noteworthy quote: > In those few places where network upgrades are not practical, QoS deployment is usually even harder (due to the high cost of QoS-capable routers and clueful network engineers). In the very few cases where the demand, the money, and the clue are present, but the bandwidth is lacking, ad hoc approaches that prioritize one or two important applications over a single congested link often work well. In this climate, the case for a global, interdomain Premium service is dubious. "Premium service" in this document refers, basically, to an upgraded Internet with additional rules to provide quality of service for congested links. (I'm not personally claiming that all these conclusions are correct and that they still apply today, just that there's some backstory here.)
- wmf 9y ago
  I think more bandwidth is better in every case except geostationary satellites due to their unavoidable latency. And in theory those satellites are going to be obsoleted by LEO ISPs.
osrec 9y ago
I don't understand the down votes on your comment. I think a lot of what you're saying makes sense.
srj 9y ago
What about these new protocols is antagonistic towards satellite/microwave endpoints? If anything I'd think the 0-rtt support would help.

jjrh 9y ago

Not sure who "The powers that be" are, but anyone can propose and contribute to IETF standards. They are called "Request for Comment" for a reason.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Almost positively that answer is Google. Notice they are behind multiple of the new protocols here (HTTP/2 and QUIC), and are used as an example how bundling DOH with an existing major player can prevent blocking DNS. Google is effectively the actual determiner of Internet standards. As the article notes, Google implemented QUIC on their servers and their browsers, and therefore, 7% of Internet traffic is already QUIC-based, despite it not being officially accepted at this point. This is essentially the same as what happened with SPDY at the time. As Google controls both the primary source of Internet traffic (up to 35-40% of all Internet traffic, depending who you ask, and a browser share in the what 65% range), Google can implement any new protocol it wants, and everyone else needs to support it or be left out. Arguably, the IETF is no longer the controlling organization here: Google is. Should the IETF not approve Google's proposals, Google will continue to use them, and everyone else will continue to need to support them. As the parent notes, Google both essentially determines these standards, and has an interested in faster networks so they can shove fatter payloads down the pipe. This is in part due to the ability to implement pervasive tracking, and of course, they operate a lot of content distribution products like YouTube. Note that every method here that makes it harder for governments to censor and ISPs to prioritize also makes it harder for people to detect, inspect, and filter out Google's pervasive surveillance.
- ohazi 9y ago
  While everything you state here is correct, and is clearly of serious concern, my view is that the general public doesn't really have the capacity to fight both of these battles at once. Right now, I'm convinced we need Google's help to make it harder for governments and ISPs to censor and prioritize. After that, we'll deal with Google.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Corporations and governments are not two entities you can divide for conquering.
    - ohazi 9y ago
      I agree with you, and it feels dirty, but we're going to end up with neither if we don't start with one. If you have a better idea that can even plausibly attempt to get both, I'm all ears.
      - marcosdumay 9y ago
        I have no better idea, but it's a problematic plan. If you go with this, you will be surprised by underground deals that will stop that division, and will very likely mislead you. The good part is that it focus on fixing the government. That's the correct entity to fix.
  - taavi013 9y ago
    As of today Google with it's BBR + QUIC + Chrome combo and Facebook with their Zero protocol, combined with their extensive data center network can get much better end user experience than any other service provider regardless of any government. We can talk about network neutrality whatever we want - but these companies have built technological capabilities to have "little bit bigger share". So, probably after some time it is too late to deal with Google:)
    - discoursism 9y ago

hellbanner 9y ago

Who are the powers that be that benefit from fatter pipes + content distribution?

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15908810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15908810

benjaminl 9y ago

Then you will greatly relieved to hear that as of 2010 all major browsers cache content delivered over HTTPS. https://stackoverflow.com/a/174485/262789 https://stackoverflow.com/a/174485/262789

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
I assume they were referring to intermediate caching, not client side caching.
- benjaminl 9y ago
  If that is the case, then the GGP is asking for something that would be a huge privacy leak.

cmurf 9y ago

Content creators make this assumption way more than any other party. Webpage bloat is already several years past qualifying as obscenely bloated, new words need to be used to describe it today.

sarah180 9y ago

There's a technical reason for this. The Internet2 project spent a lot of time and effort working on things like prioritized traffic to deal with congested links. They found that it was easier and more cost effective to just add more bandwidth than it was to design and roll out protocols that would deal with a lack of bandwidth. For more info, read this: https://www.webcitation.org/5shCiXna8 https://www.webcitation.org/5shCiXna8 A noteworthy quote: > In those few places where network upgrades are not practical, QoS deployment is usually even harder (due to the high cost of QoS-capable routers and clueful network engineers). In the very few cases where the demand, the money, and the clue are present, but the bandwidth is lacking, ad hoc approaches that prioritize one or two important applications over a single congested link often work well. In this climate, the case for a global, interdomain Premium service is dubious. "Premium service" in this document refers, basically, to an upgraded Internet with additional rules to provide quality of service for congested links. (I'm not personally claiming that all these conclusions are correct and that they still apply today, just that there's some backstory here.)

wmf 9y ago
I think more bandwidth is better in every case except geostationary satellites due to their unavoidable latency. And in theory those satellites are going to be obsoleted by LEO ISPs.

osrec 9y ago

I don't understand the down votes on your comment. I think a lot of what you're saying makes sense.

srj 9y ago

What about these new protocols is antagonistic towards satellite/microwave endpoints? If anything I'd think the 0-rtt support would help.