3 ms·

Something about this idea sits uncomfortably with me. I also just had an idea / thought experiment based on your idea. We think of net neutrality as being for

Something about this idea sits uncomfortably with me. I also just had an idea / thought experiment based on your idea. We think of net neutrality as being for carriers and ISPs, but you could see it applied to a publicly accessible DNS service too. These DNS service providers are just as much part of the core service of the Internet as anyone else. It’s not a huge leap to require that those who operate a publicly accessible DNS service are bound by the same spirit of the regulations: that the infrastructure must not discriminate based on who is using it. It’s different to operating a discriminatory firewall. DNS is a cacheable public service with bad consequences if poisonous data ends up in the system. Fiddling with DNS like this doesn’t seem like a good idea. Too much weird and bad stuff could go wrong. Another analogy would be to the use of encryption on amateur radio. It seems like an innocuously good idea, but the radio waves were held open in public trust for public use. If you let them be used for a different (though arguably a more useful purpose) then the resource ends up being degraded. Also along these lines of thought [begin irony mode]: FCC fines for DNS wildcard abuse / usage.

inopinatus 6y ago
Principled neutrality is fine for acceptable use. There’s no moral quandary in closing the door to abusers.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  Isn't that the argument that providers make for wanting to meter usage? I.e. video streamers, torrenters and netflix and the like are 'abusing' the network by using a disproportionate amount of their capacity / bandwidth? I guess my point is that "abuse" in this sense is pretty subjective.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Not really, those things are easy to contrast. Network providers have always been comfortable blackholing DoS routes, and it’s never been controversial. That’s clearly distinct from those wanting to double-dip on transport revenues for routine traffic. The difference is in whether both endpoints want the traffic, not whether (or on what basis) the enabling infrastructure wants to bear it.
- ttwinder 6y ago
  > There’s no moral quandary in closing the door to abusers Doesn't necessarily apply to this conversation, but the moral mistake that people (and societies) frequently make is underestimating the nuance that should be exercised when identifying others as abusers.

inopinatus 6y ago

Principled neutrality is fine for acceptable use. There’s no moral quandary in closing the door to abusers.

zdragnar 6y ago
Isn't that the argument that providers make for wanting to meter usage? I.e. video streamers, torrenters and netflix and the like are 'abusing' the network by using a disproportionate amount of their capacity / bandwidth? I guess my point is that "abuse" in this sense is pretty subjective.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Not really, those things are easy to contrast. Network providers have always been comfortable blackholing DoS routes, and it’s never been controversial. That’s clearly distinct from those wanting to double-dip on transport revenues for routine traffic. The difference is in whether both endpoints want the traffic, not whether (or on what basis) the enabling infrastructure wants to bear it.
ttwinder 6y ago
> There’s no moral quandary in closing the door to abusers Doesn't necessarily apply to this conversation, but the moral mistake that people (and societies) frequently make is underestimating the nuance that should be exercised when identifying others as abusers.