4 ms·

This depends on what you mean by regulation. If you're talking about net neutrality, then it's wrong to assume regulation will benefit rentseakers. That's a mat

This depends on what you mean by regulation. If you're talking about net neutrality, then it's wrong to assume regulation will benefit rentseakers. That's a matter of protecting freedom of speech from corporate infringement. If you're talking about regulating social media interactions... that's more complicated. I don't see a good way to stop people from spreading fake news, propaganda, etc without abolishing free speech legislation like the first amendment of the US Constitution. There may be a way to curtail privacy invasions via legislation, but that's highly unlikely to happen since the government itself is collecting data gathered by Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
I would much rather a decentralized global meshnet replace traditional telecommunication networks than Net Neutrality be used to manage those networks. I could easily imagine regulations like Net Neutrality inhibiting the development of a global meshnet infrastucture.
- falcrist 8y ago
  I too would like to live in a magical fairy land where all of my dreams came true. Since I don't believe in magic, I'm forced to think in terms of real world implications. A centralized structure with a dedicated backbone will always be more efficient than any kind of mesh net. Additionally, such a structure requires a critical mass of people to operate. Since people don't want to be the infrastructure when they could be a client and have much more bandwidth, that alone sinks the whole deal. If you're not convinced, consider the fact that the incumbent providers will fight such a structure at the legislative level as well as trying to undercut its userbase. Also, net neutrality rules, as established in the US in 2015 were pretty straightforward. They wouldn't inhibit a meshnet, meshnet clients likely do not fall under the definition of ISP, and in fact such rules would probably be necessary to it's effective operation. Remember, they were based on three simple rules: "ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services", "ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users", and "ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users." So back in reality-land, there won't be any meshnet to compete with the current internet for the foreseeable future. If you value freedom of speech and free movement of information online, I strongly suggest you support the rules outlined above. EDIT: It's also worth noting that such a meshnet would solve none of the issues raised by Sir Tim.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>Remember, they were based on three simple rules: "ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services", "ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users", and "ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users." Regulations are always more complex than their supporters intend. Implementation requires additional rules for compelling compliance, and those additional ancillary rules become a hindrance to bottom-up innovation.
    - falcrist 8y ago
      Those ancillary rules were mostly exceptions due to forbearance... not additional restrictions. I don't see how forbearance was a hindrance to innovation. Maybe you'd like to explain it to me.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        Generally speaking, regulations require a registration/approval process to facilitate enforcement. Participation in that industry then becomes encumbered by the requirement to go through that process, which is bureaucratic red tape that inhibits innovation.
        falcrist 8y ago
        Yes, but that doesn't apply in this case, since the regulations don't add to the approval process. The regulatory structure is there to provide legal support in case of major infractions by ISPs. Even monitoring is done by 3rd parties. There is no established connection between this kind of regulatory structure and innovation or investment. Monitoring of major ISPs didn't show a significant pattern of increased or deceased investment. AT&T spent less. Verizon spent more. Some minor ISPs reduced investment and even petitioned to remove the rules. Others expanded service more under the rules than they had before.
        8y ago

CryptoPunk 8y ago

I would much rather a decentralized global meshnet replace traditional telecommunication networks than Net Neutrality be used to manage those networks. I could easily imagine regulations like Net Neutrality inhibiting the development of a global meshnet infrastucture.

falcrist 8y ago
I too would like to live in a magical fairy land where all of my dreams came true. Since I don't believe in magic, I'm forced to think in terms of real world implications. A centralized structure with a dedicated backbone will always be more efficient than any kind of mesh net. Additionally, such a structure requires a critical mass of people to operate. Since people don't want to be the infrastructure when they could be a client and have much more bandwidth, that alone sinks the whole deal. If you're not convinced, consider the fact that the incumbent providers will fight such a structure at the legislative level as well as trying to undercut its userbase. Also, net neutrality rules, as established in the US in 2015 were pretty straightforward. They wouldn't inhibit a meshnet, meshnet clients likely do not fall under the definition of ISP, and in fact such rules would probably be necessary to it's effective operation. Remember, they were based on three simple rules: "ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services", "ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users", and "ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users." So back in reality-land, there won't be any meshnet to compete with the current internet for the foreseeable future. If you value freedom of speech and free movement of information online, I strongly suggest you support the rules outlined above. EDIT: It's also worth noting that such a meshnet would solve none of the issues raised by Sir Tim.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>Remember, they were based on three simple rules: "ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services", "ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users", and "ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users." Regulations are always more complex than their supporters intend. Implementation requires additional rules for compelling compliance, and those additional ancillary rules become a hindrance to bottom-up innovation.
  - falcrist 8y ago
    Those ancillary rules were mostly exceptions due to forbearance... not additional restrictions. I don't see how forbearance was a hindrance to innovation. Maybe you'd like to explain it to me.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      Generally speaking, regulations require a registration/approval process to facilitate enforcement. Participation in that industry then becomes encumbered by the requirement to go through that process, which is bureaucratic red tape that inhibits innovation.
      - falcrist 8y ago
        Yes, but that doesn't apply in this case, since the regulations don't add to the approval process. The regulatory structure is there to provide legal support in case of major infractions by ISPs. Even monitoring is done by 3rd parties. There is no established connection between this kind of regulatory structure and innovation or investment. Monitoring of major ISPs didn't show a significant pattern of increased or deceased investment. AT&T spent less. Verizon spent more. Some minor ISPs reduced investment and even petitioned to remove the rules. Others expanded service more under the rules than they had before.
        8y ago