
The Internet Should Be a Public Good - borkborkbork
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/internet-public-dns-privatization-icann-netflix/
======
tptacek
This rosey view of the public-funded Internet ignores the reality of the
network at the time. As recently as the mid-1990s, the entire Internet could
_netsplit_ , like a badly-run IRC network; there was a run of a couple days
where commercial sites (like Ripco, my first ISP) couldn't reach any .EDU
sites.

Telecom companies like Comcast and Verizon "own" the backbone because they
built it. Not just the backhaul connections they install at enormous expense,
not just the hundreds of millions of dollars of switches and routers, but the
very peering centers and agreements that allow different networks to
interoperate. Had UUNet been forbidden from building "private" backbones,
they'd have simply built a new IP network, and we'd all be using that instead.

~~~
gioele
> Telecom companies like Comcast and Verizon "own" the backbone because they
> built it.

In Europe most of the backbone has been built by state-run public companies
with public money. Only with the wave of privatization in the 90s the EU
backbone has become privately owned (for various weird definitions of
"privately owned").

However. When the backbone was publicly owned the "broadband" of the time
(ISDN) was available to most of the population, including those living outside
the big cities and in rural zones. 20 years later the current broadband
(fiber) is available only in selected metropolies. The rest is delegate to
"market failure" (official term of the trade).

Seeing networks are public infrastructures puts things under a different
light. Water, gas, phones and electricity are available everywhere, even where
it makes no economic sense, because it makes _human_ sense. Why can't we treat
computers networks (access to information) the same? We have been doing it for
40 or so years before the privatizations. After 20 years, why can't we call
this privatization experiment failed and go back to the previous state of
affairs?

~~~
tptacek
If you want your Internet service to be as responsive to customers as your gas
and electric service is today, I supposed you could declare the experiment
"failed". As I pointed out, I'm happier with an Internet I can watch movies
and make phone calls on than I am with the one that repeatedly netsplit in the
90s.

Incidentally: ISDN was widely available everywhere where there were modern
phone-switching networks, because they required very minimal upstream
equipment to handle. Essentially, if you had already 5 years ago run copper to
a Northern Telecom head unit, you'd basically already deployed ISDN. Every
local ISP in the US was able to jam a couple PRIs into some Ascend boxes to
provide ISDN just as soon as those boxes were available.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare ISDN to last-mile technologies that
require new cables and new block-by-block termination equipment to install.

~~~
borkborkbork
Comparing the internet you have in 2016 to the internet that existed in the
1990's is a bit unfair, don't you think? The idea that _only_ markets are
capable of delivering innovations or necessary services to the public is
debatable.

For example, the U.S. government, through DARPA, created countless valuable
networking innovations that private companies, such as AT&T, didn't want to
touch even when given the opportunity.

~~~
tptacek
I think if you read the comment carefully you'll see I'm not simply saying
"the 'public' EU backbone provided rural ISDN", but rather that I'm making a
more subtle point than that, about the nature of ISDN.

There's a reason an ISDN BRI provides the rate it does, and a reason why each
of its B-channels is 64k: the digital phone network was already channelized
that way.

~~~
borkborkbork
Actually I was replying to your original comment before you edited. The idea
that a publicly run internet would not have been able to produce the
innovations necessary for Netflix is debatable and betrays a certain political
persuasion on your part.

~~~
tptacek
No, it doesn't. You've fallen victim to the fundamental attribution fallacy,
and it's led you to generate a rude remark.

------
okket
Most relevant Internet bodies are noncommercial organisations, like ICANN,
IETF, RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, AFNIC, LACNIC, the various Internet exchanges
(xxCIX), some DNS registrars are noncommercial too. But someone has to run the
actual cables, manage customers, host servers, etc.

I'd say the Internet has a very good balance between commercial interests and
the noncommercial "public good". So good in fact, that some very restrictive
governments choose to opt out and create nationwide intranets (China, Iran,
...)

~~~
badsock
In BC, Canada the provision of electricity and water are by
provincial/municipal governments, have very similiar requirements in terms of
running wires/pipes, and in my experience have delivered much better services.

They don't constantly try to gouge me. I've had to call their support lines
maybe a few times my entire life (as opposed to many tens of times for
telcos). And I really don't see how sending bits could be more difficult than
delivering high voltage or pressurized water.

~~~
zdw
This is exactly right.

Most services that lend themselves to a natural monopoly (because most people
only really need one power/water/phone/internet line to their house/business)
should be implemented as a publicly run infrastructure with value added ISP's
on the end.

The current vertical integration of internet providers impedes any new
competition.

Arguing for integration is like saying that all roads should be owned by the
"Road Company" that also happens to be the "Car Company" and you can only use
an expensive car you bought from them on their road.

~~~
wonder_er
> The current vertical integration of internet providers impedes any new
> competition

Wouldn't the government owning the service be the ultimate impediment to new
competition?

I'm not defending ISPs, but lets not too quickly throw them under the bus.

Also, your casual throw-away comment:

> Most services that lend themselves to a natural monopoly ... should be
> implemented as a publicly run infrastructure

Requires the government forcibly taking over quite a few large companies.

That's a weighty request, and would be exactly the opposite of what we should
want to see in the world.

~~~
damptowel
> Requires the government forcibly taking over quite a few large companies.
> That's a weighty request, and would be exactly the opposite of what we
> should want to see in the world.

Yet this is exactly what happened in developed countries in the 20th century,
now many of these are again privatized with the predictable loss of efficiency
and increased bureaucracy (supporting frameworks, arbitrage, watchdogs,
etc...).

In my country the privatization of public transit and energy companies has
been a total disaster. I remember when I could get things done without being
pingponged between 12 different parties, things that used to take a day now
take weeks.

------
Kalium
> In return, the government demanded nothing: no compensation, and no
> constraints or conditions over how the Internet would take shape.

This isn't true. The US gov can and has put its thumb on the scale and used
its position in the past. The .xxx TLD springs to mind.

As is so often true, Jacobin ignores history as experienced by the rest of us
in favor of their preferred narrative.

------
jachin
Maybe this is nip-picky, but I don't think the author knows what "public good"
actually is.

I'm referring to economic definition of "public good" which is quite
interesting, if you aren't familiar with it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good)

I don't think there's another definition. Is there?

Maybe the author didn't pick the title, but he misused the term in the article
too.

------
wyager
Internet is a public good => government claims general regulatory powers over
what goes through the Internet.

No thank you.

~~~
falcolas
As compared to a private company claiming regulatory powers with no oversight?

If Facebook owns the internet, Facebook decides what is on the internet.

If icann owns domain registration with no regulation, icann decides who gets a
domain (as well as the power to strip domains from their current owners).

And who can stop them? Some other company offering competing root DNS servers?
I don't see how that could ever work. For better or worse, the internet
operates strongly on the concept of a central root authority. Root DNS
servers. Root Certificates. Centralized distribution of IPs.

If those central authorities have no regulation or oversight, they can and
will shape the internet to their whims.

~~~
wyager
Why in the world do you think DNS is the issue? If you're worried about that,
look at Namecoin. This is a solved problem.

The issue is that the government, given sufficient regulatory power, will
start doing things like banning porn or "extreme" political views. This is not
hypothetical; it has already happened in the UK.

~~~
falcolas
Let me paraphrase your own comment in response.

The issue is that the corporations, given no regulation, will start doing
things like banning porn or "extreme" political views. This is not
hypothetical; it has already happened on Facebook.

Censorship is not purely the domain of the government. At least there are
checks and balances on a government's power (as ineffectual and slow as they
may be); save for the morals of a company's leadership team, there are no
checks or balances on a corporations actions without regulation.

> look at Namecoin. This is a solved problem.

Most excellent. How do I give my mother a namecoin domain and have her visit
their webpages? If it involves "download X from namecoin.org", you're already
in trouble, since that's already relying on DNS. If we get past that, and the
namecoin wallet needs to bootstrap itself - does it also use DNS? If it
involves changing system configurations, period, it also won't work, since
I've taught my mother to never to do that (she lacks the technical knowledge
to add nuance to the restriction).

~~~
wyager
ISPs could have already tried to ban porn, but they haven't.

Facebook isn't an ISP. Just because a single company has content restrictions
doesn't mean every company in the world will do the same.

Namecoin doesn't need DNS to bootstrap. Why would you need to download
something? Do you need to download a DNS client for your grandmother? If such
a system becomes adopted, OSs include it in the background, like DNS. If you
can't be bothered to read the namecoin paper, look at the great success of
products like Google DNS. Nothing fancy, but an excellent privately run DNS.

~~~
falcolas
> ISPs could have already tried to ban porn, but they haven't.

Yes, they have. For one example when AOL was both an ISP and service provider,
you bet your butt they blocked porn and objectionable speech.

> Facebook isn't an ISP.

I'm not sure I agree with this - the Free Basics program sure quacks like an
ISP duck.

> Just because a single company has content restrictions doesn't mean every
> company in the world will do the same.

With no legal restrictions, what stops them?

> OSs include it in the background, like DNS.

I'm of the opinion that this describes a future that will never exist.
Microsoft, Apple, and Linux distros have no compelling reason to include
namecoin support by default, and likely never will. Especially since there is
limited to no support for failover or localization of name->IP lookups. Even
the lack of support for legal disputes over trademarked domains (for example,
does amazon.bit actually go to the same location as Amazon.com) would scare
off any for-profit company.

> Namecoin doesn't need DNS to bootstrap.

I missed that namecoin uses a number of fixed IPs as seeds for bootstrapping
into the blockchain, so DNS control matters less there (well, once you have
the software, that is). Of course, IPs are also distributed by a centralized
authority, and routing information for IPs can be ignored by ISPs, so it's a
mistake to assume the IPs will _never_ change.

~~~
wyager
>With no legal restrictions, what stops them?

You tell me. Most ISPs never had content restrictions, even though they could
have.

>and likely never will.

You're probably right, but the point is they could if the need was there.

------
notliketherest
The internet already is a public good.

~~~
SteveNuts
How so?

------
wonder_er
From the article:

> It’s precisely the insulation from market forces that enables government to
> finance the long-term scientific labor that ends up producing many of the
> most profitable inventions.

It's this insulation that allows the government to waste billions and
trillions on everything.

Innovation requires smart people and money. Neither of which the government
can provide except by taking from the population as a whole. Therefore, the
government is entirely unnecessary in the process, and usually quite
counterproductive.

~~~
wfo
Sure, I'd characterize the creation of the internet as a "waste" as well, I
say while typing a message on it. Similarly the social security and medicare
that allows our grandparents to continue to live without bankrupting us, or
forcing us to watch them die. Similarly the healthcare that stops poor people
from dying on the street or robbing/killing you and your family out of
desperation, and the police that protect your wealth, and the roads you drove
on to get to work today, and the regulatory bodies that ensured your car isn't
an explosive deathtrap and that you didn't keel over and die this afternoon
from the meat in the sandwich you ate for lunch. All wastes.

Almost all valuable research cannot be supported by a profit motive; it does
not pay off in any reasonable timeline. It is always done by a group with a
huge amount of money to waste, like Google, AT&T in the past, the U.S.
government. The market is as terrible at creating new and relevant research as
it is at creating art. It is an optimization machine that finds local maxima
and it is very good at that.

The government is literally made of smart people and money.

~~~
wonder_er
> Almost all valuable research cannot be supported by a profit motive

I disagree entirely. _Only_ a profit motive can support valuable research.

We obviously see the world differently, but would probably get along just
great if we were spending time together, so - help me understand your
perspectives a bit better.

What book or author would you recommend, who makes a strong case for your
point of view? I'll give it a read.

Thanks!

