
The Invisible War for the Open Internet - bootload
https://medium.freecodecamp.com/inside-the-invisible-war-for-the-open-internet-dd31a29a3f08
======
quincyla
Author here. I just realized someone had submitted this to HN. I spent a lot
of time researching and writing this article, and am excited to read any
feedback you may have.

Also, here's how you can contact the FCC directly:

1-888-225-5322

press 1, then 4, then 2, then 0 say that you wish to file comments concerning
the FCC Chairman’s plan to end net neutrality

Or on the web:

[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express)
Under Proceedings, enter 14-28 and 17-108

Suggested script:

It's my understanding that the FCC Chairman intends to reverse net neutrality
rules and put big Internet Service Providers in charge of the internet. I am
firmly against this action. I believe that these ISPs will operate solely in
their own interests and not in the interests of what is best for the American
public. In the past 10 years, broadband companies have been guilty of:
deliberately throttling internet traffic, squeezing customers with arbitrary
data caps, misleading consumers about the meaning of “unlimited” internet,
giving privileged treatment to companies they own, strong-arming cities to
prevent them from giving their residents high-speed internet, and avoiding
real competition at all costs. Consumers, small businesses, and all Americans
deserve an open internet. So to restate my position: I am against the
chairman's plan to reverse the net neutrality rules. I believe doing so will
destroy a vital engine for innovation, growth, and communication.

This information is taken from this thread on Reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_ho...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_how_to_contact_the_fcc_with_your_thoughts/)

~~~
austincheney
To be clear, and I do agree with you, that net neutrality is only half the
problem. You hint on this very directly several times, but don't actually
acknowledge this out right.

There are two warring trusts here, and both are equally evil in that they will
abuse you as much as they can. On one hand there is the distribution problem,
which is the ISP monopoly. With the recently media fallout around rolling back
ISP data collection some of the big ISPs have openly promised to not resell
this collected data... but if they own their own advertising networks they
have less incentive to.

On the other side there is the content provider mega-states, which actually
bigger and scarier than the ISPs. As your facts indicate the top 8 apps in the
Apple app store come from Google and Facebook. Using their ad networks they
can track your browsing habits as a third party service on second party sites,
which means they know who you are even when you have no account with them or
are logged out.

Remember the fallout of SOPA. SOPA scared the shit out of social media. If
that law passed then social media would actually have to police the content of
user submissions without motivation from multi-billion dollar law suits.

On one hand the ISP army is kind of evil in that they force their authority
upon the public and the public is often powerless to do anything about it. The
benefit of that is that they don't have to be dishonest about it, which is
some level of transparency... even if still an aura of corruption.

The content provider side is scarier to me, because they can only gain wealth
and influence if users lend it to them... and for convenience most users
absolutely give up their privacy. They often don't need the same super-power
lobby force the ISPs need if they can convenience their users to scream loudly
enough together.

Fortunately, they are each the solution to the other's problems. If you
believe the content providers are the greater evil then prioritize
distribution and diversify your content sources. If you believe distribution
(the ISPs) to be the greater problem then consolidate your content consumption
and receive it through alternate providers.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Fortunately, they are each the solution to the other's problems.

No, they aren't, because the major ISPs are also significant content providers
and are trying to use their positions as ISPs to promote their own content-
provision businesses. Unless you view "solving" the existence of incumbent
large content providers as something that is done by making the oligopoly of
ISPs _also_ the oligopoly of content, the ISPs are not offering a solution to
anything, just the same problem you are describing, intensified, with their
own faces replacing the incumbent dominant content providers.

~~~
austincheney
> the ISPs are not offering a solution to anything

Of course they won't offer anything to you that is not immediately in their
commercial interest. You have to take the initiative to use what they provide
in a way that does what you need.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does
what you need."

The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide
to you. That includes the ability to give you what _they_ need you to use
instead of what _you_ need. So, you can't just use what they provide for your
needs. The main article showed the ISP's and mediums before them repeatedly
did this. There's no reason to trust they won't do it again as they're already
scheming on us. The Comcast cap was a recent example I personally had to fight
where they were faking my data usage counting up bandwidth when the computers
weren't on and wifi was unplugged.

Nah, open, decentralized, and bazaar is the best model for the Internet
because that's what gave us all the great things that the Prodigies,
Compuserves, MA Bell's, etc didn't.

~~~
austincheney
> The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide
> to you.

That is not completely accurate. They are not content provides or censors...
at least not directly. Some of the major ISPs do own ad networks and so can
prioritize advertising distribution in a way that others down stream cannot.
They can also irregularly throttle access to content using criteria of their
choosing, which isn't completely censorship but is absolutely the slippery
slope.

Net neutrality is beneficial and important, but the ISPs aren't the ones you
should be most fearful of in these regards.

~~~
nickpsecurity
" They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. "

They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced
that in the past just to save bandwidth costs. Then there's the content side.
So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have
control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in
practice. A key middleman who might help you out or harm you instead of being
impartial.

~~~
austincheney
> They are if they determine what content you can get.

Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard
anyone make with regard to net neutrality.

> So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have
> control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor
> in practice.

No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly
they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your
argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard
> anyone make with regard to net neutrality.

Blocking -- not throttling or prioritization -- was the issue in the
_original_ net neutrality action (the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case) and
the threat of ISPs blocking unwelcome content and applications has always been
one of the core focuses of FCC net neutrality policy while they were pursuing
it.

~~~
austincheney
I think you are talking about this: [https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-
sued-ov/](https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/)

The word "blocking" is used in the article by the plaintiff, but the actual
issue at hand was throttling that the plaintiff perceived as blocked traffic.
Even then the lawsuit wasn't about throttling either, but fraudulent
advertising.

~~~
dragonwriter
Blocking was an issue in the discussion, and its been an express concern (and
directly, and separately from throttling and prioritization, been addressed in
regulation) in each iteration of the FCC's Open Internet rules, which have all
addressed both blocking of lawful _content_ and blocking of lawful
_applications_.

The idea that the ability of the ISPs to censor has not previously been an
issue in the neutrality debate is utterly wrong; its been a central concern
identified and addressed in _each_ public draft and issued version of the
FCC's net neutrality rules.

------
nebabyte
> This isn’t capitalism — it’s corporatism. Capitalism is messy. It’s
> wasteful. But it’s much healthier in the long run for society as a whole
> than central planning and government trying to pick the winners.

> Capitalism allows for small businesses to enter and actually stand a chance.
> Corporatism makes it impossible.

What you're calling "corporatism" is simply "late stage capitalism". As long
as you continue to buy into the delusion that your almoghty dollar will make
you a multimillionaire someday, you empower those who have the actual machines
of finance under lock and key to act as the new monarchs of your world.

~~~
studentrob
You act like a full scale revolution is the only solution and that this would
somehow redistribute wealth. I really doubt it. If done all at once, there'd
be a power vacuum that someone would come into.

I think we can support last-mile competition or regulation, and educate people
about why net neutrality is important. That's our job as technologists.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _You act like a full scale revolution is the only solution and that this
> would somehow redistribute wealth._

Where did that come from? I didn't read that in the above comment.

Unless you have this idea that to get to socialism one has to undergo a bloody
revolution? Nope. One just have to set up taxes properly and pump up public
services.

~~~
studentrob
I inferred it from previous similar discussions about "late stage capitalism".

"Late stage" implies people think we should get rid of capitalism _soon_. I
don't see that happening. I don't want full-on communism / socialism , as it's
been demonstrated to be a failed incentive for countries to both grow
innovation and to defend themselves against the far-right-leaning societies in
the world.

Maybe once we're all connected and communicating more effectively, we can stop
building armies. I don't think we're there yet.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Well, if you'll allow me this oversimplification, this is a spectrum. There
are degrees of capitalism and socialism, and which you call which largely
depends on your upbringing.

For instance, many US citizens here in HN would say France is a Socialist
country. But we're neither a command economy nor a dictatorship (yet). We just
put more money in public services (most notably health care and education).
Some countries redistribute even more, and they're still quite far from full
blown communism.

~~~
studentrob
I agree it is a spectrum and that we may have different perceptions of each
other's positions on the spectrum. That can alter how we describe them.

"Late stage capitalism", to me, implies that someone feels that capitalism is
about to, or should, collapse. Plus, he mentioned "buying into the dollar". I
really don't know how you're supposed to avoid that. If you're born into some
country, you use their money. Even "buying into bitcoin" benefits early
adopters more than the later ones. There really is no escaping "working your
way up". Even being born to a wealthy family doesn't guarantee happiness or
success.

If you interpret "late stage capitalism" and the other comments differently,
I'm happy to hear your perspective. Perhaps I have the wrong idea.

I still consider France to operate in a capitalist nature along with most of
the rest of the world, it just has more elements of socialism baked in. I
absolutely don't think of France as communist, lol, but I'm sure some
Americans do.

Perhaps capitalism is a bad word in France. I don't know. It's simply a
matter-of-fact, to me, that many humans require a monetary incentive to do the
kinds of work we do today, and that this is best achieved by having voting
rights and the freedom to profit from new businesses.

~~~
Nomentatus
"Late stage capitalism" is a technical term with a specific meaning. It's from
Marxism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism)

~~~
studentrob
I think my issue with it, as that wiki article states, is that it's prophetic.
Nobody knows how long this state will last, so, applying a time metric makes
it unscientific.

~~~
Nomentatus
Yup, Marx is unscientific. Always was.

------
studentrob
How can we translate this for laypeople? This was my attempt,

> Imagine your existing water utility divided its offerings into "regular
> water" and "super clean water". You'd think, wait, isn't my tap water
> already clean? And you'd be right.

> Swap "regular water" for "faster internet to specific websites" and you get
> the lobbyists' argument for killing net neutrality. It would produce slow
> internet to websites that don't pay up, effectively allowing ISPs to earn
> money two times for the same product, and elbowing smaller content producers
> out of the internet

Improvements welcome. I think it could be more succinct.

~~~
theprop
Try this: imagine the government put up a fence in front of everyone's house
and they let poor people in fine, but charged rich people to get in through
the fence. That's the basic idea for ISPs...they want to charge Google,
Facebook, etc. money. They're already charging Netflix (Verizon forced them to
pay or they would throttle them).

There is NO CHANCE that ISPs will actually invest in two technically different
products like regular/super clean water! That's just how ISPs want paint the
debate, that they want the right to invest in "better technology", but the
bottleneck is the last mile and the chances that Verizon will lay 2 different
cables to your house is exactly zero! The requirement for prejudicial packet
routing to deliver things like HD video is a non-starter, Netflix when it's
not getting throttled is already delivers great hi-def video in the current
non-prejudicial packet-based internet.

It is really pure "extortion"...at least in my view and a clear case of
necessary government intervention to insure fair market behavior (e.g. ISPs
can only charge consumers, not web services, for internet service).

~~~
studentrob
Thanks for your ideas! Points about bottleneck at the last mile and Verizon
not offering to lay more cabling to your house are good

I realize that ISPs want to paint the debate as separate products. I wanted to
use their language in my description so that people can interpret their words
alongside mine.

If you're constantly making different points and not addressing your
opponents', I feel the listener will walk away with a 50/50 chance of agreeing
with you, probably choosing to follow their political party.

If you offer some translation, maybe we can get some meaningful discussion
about it.

Regarding charging rich people to enter the fence. I feel that would only help
convince the general public that net neutrality benefits big companies. Google
and Facebook, forgive me if you work there, are teetering on not being
perceived as evil mega corporations with access to all our data. Naming them
as a victim doesn't do much to win over the public.

------
transposed
“Those are some lovely data packets you’ve got there. It sure would be a shame
if they got lost on their way to your users.”

There were a lot of good quotes from the article, but this one struck me as
particularly apt. I saw something on tumblr today about how "net neutrality"
just doesn't resonate with people - and it's true - I tried striking up
conversation about this and some people didn't even know what I was talking
about.

~~~
markdown
In my country, mobile service providers (Vodafone, Digicel, Connect) all have
_very_ popular packages like "Sign up for this data plan for $6 and get free
unlimited access to Facebook and Instagram.

Anyone trying to push net neutrality here would have a hard time getting the
masses on board once told they'd have to give up "free" social media.

~~~
intended
Which country is this ?

~~~
markdown
Fiji

~~~
r3bl
...and Serbia. And Bosnia. And Montenegro. And Croatia. And I'm like 70%
certain that I've seen similar billboards in Poland as well a couple of months
ago, but can't confirm it.

------
75dvtwin
I do not think anybody wants ISPs to be in charge of internet. However, I also
believe, that most do not want USA FCC to be in charge of internet either.

Arguing for a benefit, without clearly identifying the strategic negatives, is
intellectually dishonest.

Perhaps, it is with the help of these types of arguments, is how some
monopolies and dictatorships are built out.

Here is an example of the discussion analyzing some arguments of the validity
of FCC reach:

    
    
      "This Comment argues that requiring ISPs to filter pirated material is within the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction pursuant to Title I of the Communications Act,'1 but only so long as the targeted activity has a detrimental impact on network activity."
    
    

[http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...](http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=uclf)
pp. 535-538

I would argue, that it is the power of consumer choice to obfuscate his/her
usage of internet (and, protecting companies that help with that) -- should be
the goal.

Rather than, giving FCC the authority to regulate ISPs or consumer usage of
the internet, via the ISPs.

I do want to mention that I appreciated some (but not all) analogies used by
the author. I liked this one especially.

    
    
      "Not only did Western Union back Hayes’ campaign financially, it also used its unique position as the information backbone for espionage purposes. "
    

It reminded me, in just recent history, of how the previous (2008-2016) US
president used US (and, probably, UK's) foreign intelligence services to
target the opposition of his foreign policies, and the people's choice of the
next president.

I also liked the analogy of TV and facebook, I fully agree -- Facebook is
working hard on creating a 'walled garden' of information dissemination, and
digital identity of every individual. And they would love to cut out the
'amateur hobbyists'.

~~~
Jaymoon85
I agree. Nobody is considering the problems an FCC-regulated internet brings
to the table. With the exception of the telegram and cinema (those controlled
by Western Union and Hollywood), the feds regulate the telephone, radio, and
television. The internet is just the latest thing government bureaucrats want
control over.

> With the fate of a major Internet policy in the balance, Pai's proposal may
> lend momentum to U.S. lawmakers who have proposed replacing the current FCC
> rules with congressional legislation. Republican members of Congress have
> said they are ready to craft a bill that enshrines some of the existing
> regulations permanently into law. But that effort is expected to stall
> without support from Democrats, such as Sens. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) and
> Ron Wyden (Ore.) who argue the FCC can and should regulate ISPs more
> heavily. [1]

In regards to Facebook, Twitter, etc. creating their own modern walled
gardens, let them. They'll soon see the demise that others have, 10-20 years
ago.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/04/26...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/04/26/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-undo-its-own-net-neutrality-
rules/)

------
bamboozled
Maybe losing the current web wouldn't be that bad, it's largely become a
centralised, tracking and surveillance tool for mass marketing and used for
spying on citizens. One gets the feeling that any significant level of
"openness" died a long time ago.

It's not that it's useless, but a fresh start might not be the worst outcome.

~~~
myowncrapulence
This is exactly why an entirely encrypted internet would be desirable. ISP's
won't be able to track or throttle since they won't know who's connecting to
what.

~~~
gregmac
Or your ISP would just MITM everything and provide their own CA you must
accept to use their service.

------
syphilis2
FCC chairman Pai has been very public about revoking Title II status. You can
read his wolf in sheep's clothing speech from last week:

[https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-
inte...](https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-internet-
regulation)

It's a disappointment after Wheeler, but entirely expected, to see Pai
fighting against net neutrality. I suggest reading the response by
commissioners Clyburn and FTC commissioner McSweeny:

[https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-cmmr-clyburn-ftc-cmmr-
mcswe...](https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-cmmr-clyburn-ftc-cmmr-mcsweeny-
joint-statement-open-internet)

[https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/headlines](https://www.fcc.gov/news-
events/headlines)

------
AndyMcConachie
To be clear this is less about the Internet and more about the USA. I doubt
Internet users in other countries should really care about net neutrality in
the USA. If anything, once the FCC ruins the Internet for Americans other
countries will take pride in being less like the USA and strengthening their
net neutrality legislation. Similarly to how health care discourse in EU
countries often cites the USA as the bad example to avoid.

------
ohthehugemanate
I like the irony that this well researched and thought out article is
published on medium.

~~~
niftich
There is no irony here.

Today, with net neutrality, the author can choose to publish on Medium, where
some publishers and readers congregate for particular types of content, and
anyone on the Internet who wants to read Medium can, without having to buy
into a price-discriminated tier to escape beyond the home-turf vertical.

In the future, will you be able to say the same?

~~~
nebabyte
There absolutely is. Medium is in that "one of X top sites" while blogs would
be in the long tail.

"Without having to buy X" just means you've yet learned nothing of the past.
"Without having to buy" is just internet.org and (potentially, ultimately) a
good tagline for trial subscriptions of zero rated content.

It's not the money (or "free" gratis) that matters, it's the control (or
"free" libre).

People continuing to fundamentally not understand the rationale of controlling
your own tech will be the single biggest contributor to "efforts to save the
internet" failing, if you ask me.

~~~
niftich
Due to network effects and the 'discovery' problem, content on the Web will
likely continue to need content silos and content aggregators to expand reach.
This alone isn't a problem -- or maybe it is, depending on your point-of-view,
but isn't equivalent to the issues raised in the parent post.

Equal access to pipes regardless of the nature of transmitted content -- net
neutrality, or as you phrase, the _libre_ aspect is a necessary prerequisite
for mass-market and indie content to both have a chance to thrive -- and not
just your home ISP's preferred partners.

I get what you're saying, but both of them matter: the point is to get the
same playing field, and not sidestep it with either a lower or higher price --
either zero-rating, or by charging more for a broader range of access.

------
0xcde4c3db
That timeline of Google ads in Part 3 is pretty damning. Not of Google
specifically, but of the whole push for "native advertising". This also ties
in with "engagement" measures like autoplay-by-default on YouTube and "next
article" popups on news sites. It's all about maximizing appropriation of
users' attention.

------
spectrum1234
My main gripe with Net Neutrality is simple economics. For almost any good or
service you can pay for different tiers of quality.

Why should the internet not be this way too? If the answer is because its a
monopoly I would have to disagree.

~~~
cookiecaper
I think that there's a tech bubble around this issue. In my experience, most
normal people happily trade internet speed for discounts. In fact, I've found
that people are more likely to be suspicious of those seeking high internet
speeds than sympathetic.

I am willing to bet that if someone offered an internet package that included
full speeds for Facebook, Wikipedia, and 30 YouTube videos for $5 /mo, and
then 20% speed for everything else, it'd do really well.

Interestingly, this is a really a question about keeping the internet a free
market. Just as a local boutique retailer would not be happy about the
shopping center charging customers $1 per store they entered, small
publishers, as usual, will be the people harmed by a non-neutral internet.

I'm sure the big players are enthralled by the idea that their competitors
will soon have an _even harder_ time accessing alternatives, as if it wasn't
difficult enough with a rabid copyright regime and restrictive network access.
IMO, the only reason tech incumbents oppose net non-neutrality is because
they're worried that Comcast will use it as a kludge to stymie the growth of
their platforms as media platforms (which Comcast et al are _desperate_ to do,
because cordcutting is eviscerating the cable industry).

It's too bad that the mainstream conservative party in the US has interpreted
"free markets" and "competition" to mean making the startup environment
extremely difficult for the little guy.

~~~
intended
And this article correctly highlighted an issue with the new tech firms, once
the old guard of CEOs dies, and the current crop of techies take charge.
Imagine google run by someone who came out of the uber school of thought,

------
DonbunEf7
I have seen these five steps before, in a dream. They are chaos, discord,
confusion, bureaucracy, and the aftermath. Discordians stand vindicated.

------
hartator
I am for paying a neutral gateway to Internet. However, I don't get why we
should forbid Facebook to give access for free but only to their services if
they want to.

------
afriend4lyfe
If the big ISPs started throttling data and putting up walled gardens, what
would stop competitors from entering the market to offer the "net neutral"
flavor of internet we're used to?

Some communities are already banding together to start their own ISPs. I'm not
familiar with how they deal with the "last mile" infrastructure challenge. But
if it only took a big investment up front then that begs the question why did
Google Fiber fail? Lack of community support?

If net neutrality was as valuable to us as we make it out to be, then what
would stop local grassroots efforts from installing their own community-based
ISPs in response to losing it?

~~~
topranks
In most of Europe competition in last mile networks is enforced by law and
ISPs don't have nearly the scope for all this nefarious stuff. If they
block/throttle or charge premiums you can just go to one of their competitors.

This is because the companies who own all the last mile networks (mostly
former state monopolies,) are legally compelled to wholesale that last mile
access.

~~~
studentrob
Wow, that was really forward thinking of places that do this. Can you cite
some speeds and costs?

We should push for this in high density areas of the US. Not just beg a
federal agency not to roll back net neutrality, which, under Trump, they may
be able to do without losing much popularity.

~~~
topranks
Well it was also _possible_ as most European companies had state-run telephone
monopolies into the 1980s. And when they were privatised the government's were
in a position to impose rules on the newly created private companies - namely
that they had to sell local access to competitors.

As the US govt. didn't own AT&T, not the Baby Bells, nor today's Verizon &
AT&T, the situation is a bit different.

The irony that the US has a much worse situation because there is so much less
competition (despite it being the home of capatalism).

In terms of speed I know Ireland (where I am,) and the UK can both get you
VDSL2+ service (so like up to 80Mb) on copper pair from numerous suppliers.
One service slow access to netflix? Go to another.

~~~
studentrob
> The irony that the US has a much worse situation because there is so much
> less competition (despite it being the home of capatalism).

Yup, pretty interesting stuff. In some ways we're more free; in others, more
restricted.

------
roesel
This is insanely wordy. I would appreciate a TL;DR;

~~~
_nalply
Each communication technology tends to cycle through phases: Invention,
pioneering, commercialisation, lock-down and obsolescence: telegram,
telephone, radio, cinema, TV, etc. Internet is in the lock-down phase if net
neutrality is not enforced. Without net neutrality providers can split the
Internet into channels and make bundles out of channels, like this: Base
Internet $29.95 plus International sites $5 plus news $5, and so on. This way
they can make more money. However this will force out the long tail (niche
content) and force us into walled gardens and in the future even get us an
Internet as locked-down as China's. This is not capitalism, but corporatism.
We should fight the lock-down by donating to specific non-profits, educate
about the open Internet, contact representatives and share the article.

Perhaps one should make a tl;dr out of this?

~~~
louithethrid
TL;DR now costs extra, because im some important pipe-part of the thread
stack, and demand money to squeeze it down further.

