
To Save Net Neutrality, We Must Build Our Own Internet - cardamomo
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x4y8a/net-neutrality-fcc-community-networks
======
tbabb
No. To save the internet, we have to make the most gigantic stink the world
has seen since the Trump election.

The solution is not "give up and let this pass, and then quietly try to work
around it." It's "make the people in power pay DEARLY for their
transgressions."

~~~
AndyMcConachie
Let's be clear on something. "The Internet" doesn't care how Americans go
about ruining their economy by prioritizing certain network traffic. As a
Dutchie my Internet is largely unaffected by the FCC.

If anything the FCC rejecting net neutrality may be a boon for investment in
EU startups and might actually benefit the EU tech sector. So go right ahead
and take a crap on yourself America.

But let's be clear that the FCC has nothing to do with "The Internet". They're
strictly an American affliction.

~~~
akerro
>As a Dutchie my Internet is largely unaffected by the FCC.

You can't be more wrong. Since Netflix, Amazon, youporn, imgur, reddit will be
affected by this and they will have to pay more to keep their bandwidth on the
same level as now, or slower by only 10% (hey, they could slow down their
network links by 60%, but since they pay 20M per year, its slower by only
10%!) you as the end, you the end consumer will have to pay for this more. It
doesn't matter where you live, as long as you use any of US internet services,
you will pay for this more, sooner or later.

~~~
noncoml
His Internet will still not be affected.

The Internet is not just Facebook, reddit, google, youporn and Netflix or the
dozen or so popular companies.

~~~
Fredej
Not to mention that most of those have servers in the EU which will not be
affected by this. Sure they could raise prices there, but since this would
just subsidize US costs a local competitor would have a competitive advantage.

What this non-Net Neutrality does is largely saying "if you want to build an
internet-based startup the US may not be the place for you".

------
rdtsc
> A future in which ISPs are owned by local governments, small businesses,
> nonprofit community groups, and the people they serve are the path forward
> and the only realistic way of ending big telecom’s stranglehold on America.

I'd like that. These day internet access is more like a utility. It helps
people telecommute, do banking, grocery shopping even, pay bills, etc. If
municipalities can handle providing water and sewage they should be lay some
cable or provide a wireless solution in a more rural area.

At least there should be some provision where the big telecom companies cannot
go around suing and bullying municipalities. Maybe have a Federal ban on
states banning municipal ISPs.

If Verizon or Comcast want to come in and sell super-premium FIOS packages
with fast transfer rates, they should be able to, but they shouldn't be able
to squash or fight against the municipal internet.

The free market competition among the providers is just not happening and will
probably never happen in a lot of areas. It has been enough years already,
fiber technology is here, wireless as well, but hasn't helped enough. Time to
stop pretending and using it as an excuse.

~~~
betterunix2
"The free market competition among the providers is just not happening and
will probably never happen in a lot of areas."

Actually, we know exactly how to create a competitive market: line sharing
rules. We used to have line sharing requirements for DSL and there were dozens
of competing services in most cities. The situation we face today is the
result of those rules being eliminated during the Bush administration.

~~~
mirimir
Right. Line sharing works for electricity.

When I first used DSL, I could choose among many ISPs. All delivered through
the same legacy copper.

------
notacoward
I'm in favor of network neutrality myself. My main criticism is that it
doesn't go _far enough_ , in that it only requires neutrality from network
providers to content providers but not vice versa or like-to-like. But I do
have a serious question for other supporters.

How can so many of those who are usually anti-regulatory "free market"
extremists _also_ be so strongly in favor of this regulation?

 __* This is their theory, not necessarily mine __* Internet service is a
market. In theory, without network-neutrality regulation, providers _can_
charge extra for certain services but market forces will limit how bad that
can get. You can't charge for something that people won't buy. Customers will
go to competitors who offer what they think are more favorable terms,
including competitors who claim no limits at all (even if the promises are
misleading or impossible to keep). This already happens in other countries.
People post the price sheets as support for network neutrality regulation, but
those same price sheets are also evidence that lack of such regulation does
_not_ mean the end of the internet as we know it. As long as the content
differentiation is explicit and subject to consumer choice, not behind-the-
scenes discrimination, there should be no problem. __* Now, back to my own
thoughts __*

If somebody believes (as I do not) that markets are fully capable of
regulating themselves in all necessary ways, why would they support regulation
in this one case? Is it just because this particular regulation is seen as
benefiting them personally? Is it because their "free market" beliefs are
really pro-corporate beliefs, and network neutrality as currently defined
benefits the corporations they like at the expense of the corporations they
don't? Can anybody provide a convincing alternative free-market justification
for network neutrality?

~~~
jrs235
>How can so many of those who are usually anti-regulatory "free market"
extremists also be so strongly in favor of this regulation?

Because in the US, network providers (at least the last mile providers; those
charging end consumers) are local monopolies. Most people in the US have one
legit high speed internet option, a few have two. There is little competition
and the barriers to entry for new comers is very high (cost of obtaining
easements and running cable to every house). In situations like this,
monopolies are to be regulated.

~~~
wfo
Every time a monopoly arises, that is the market telling you the most
efficient way to produce the good is with a single centrally planned
organization, and that competition is not possible or effective.

A monopoly is the market's way of saying an industry/service should be
nationalized.

~~~
humanrebar
> A monopoly is the market's way of saying an industry/service should be
> nationalized.

The U.S. doesn't have a nationally run garbage service. Police departments
aren't national. There is no national toll authority.

~~~
jedharris
So yeah, publify not nationalize. But the argument is clear. Not going to
resist the rationality of the market, after all.

Wonder why there’s no standard term for “publify”? Let’s change that!

~~~
humanrebar
But there still is a market. Cities compete against each other and that keeps
them honest. If a city neglects it's police force, it faces demographic
consequences. And if citizens are hurt by poor policing, they have other
cities to choose. These properties are not true to the same degree in national
issues.

------
voycey
Decentralising the Internet is the only way we are going to be able to stop
corporations from lobbying (aka bribing) the government to make decisions in
their favour.

Check out [https://substratum.net/](https://substratum.net/) \- they have an
idea to do just that. As our computers get more and more powerful then there
is no reason why we cant distribute more of what forces the internet to be
centralised, if no one controls it then it can be free and open (which also
raises a whole new set of problems but one step at a time!)

~~~
pmilot
Unless I'm misunderstanding it, the Substratum project you've linked is
attempting to implement a decentralized WEB, not a decentralized INTERNET.
From what I gather, Substratum would still be running on the same internet
backbone, and be subject to the same consequences if Net Neutrality is
repelled.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Hypothetically a project like substratum could include internet bandwidth
itself as another resource which is rewarded with substratum.

~~~
pyvpx
the whole reason "net neutrality" is even a thing in the United States is
because how one is able to _access_ internet bandwidth. it's an duopoly _at
best_ and the majority have exactly ONE option for broadband internet access.

without an access network (be that copper, fiber, or radio) internet bandwidth
can't be delivered. the choke point is the modem.

access networks are a natural monopoly and infrastructure to support an access
network MUST be regulated like one in order for "market solutions" to prevail.

but ATT, it's descendants, and the CableCo's have spent tens of millions on
lobbying efforts to make sure that never, ever happens.

------
gigama
I don't quite buy this suggestion. ISPs would easily be able to identify and
block VPN traffic running over their lines. The best action here is to act
while there is still time to change course.

Another pressure point besides contacting your gov representatives (or
visiting their offices in person!) is to contact Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and
let them know that you, your friends and family will cancel contracts and
boycott their services if they continue to support Pai and his dangerous
agenda.

What he is proposing would be like giving your telephone company discretionary
control over which calls they let in or out and relegating the rest to busy
signals.

~~~
colejohnson66
> Another pressure point besides contacting your gov representatives (or
> visiting their offices in person!) is to contact Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and
> let them know that you, your friends and family will cancel contracts and
> boycott their services if they continue to support Pai and his dangerous
> agenda.

The rep on the line might not even know what you’d be going on about and would
just cancel your line without relaying the message.

~~~
gigama
Then take it as an opportunity to patiently explain the issue to them. Perhaps
they do not realize they are working for the Dark Side. And perhaps your
explanation will enable them to understand similar calls from other customers.

------
libraryatnight
the nihilism that's infected HN is so disheartening. we're so screwed if this
is what the conversation looks like on a forum for technologist entrepreneurs.
Everything from, "protests don't matter," to "eh, it's not my country."

This place used to be interesting. "Hacker" news, not really. "Grumpy
programmers by trade" news fits better.

~~~
craftyguy
When is the last time a protest stopped determined politicians/policy makers?
_Maybe_ the 1970s? These days, protests are a dime a dozen, and are only
convincing to the protestors and no one else.

------
EGreg
How about a decentralized internet software that works on local wifi and mesh
networking and only needs to send its signals to the cloud when absolutely
necessary?

Watch this video to see what I mean:

[https://qbix.com/blog/index.php/2017/08/the-future-of-
decent...](https://qbix.com/blog/index.php/2017/08/the-future-of-
decentralization/)

And this architecture:

[https://github.com/Qbix/architecture/wiki/Internet-2.0](https://github.com/Qbix/architecture/wiki/Internet-2.0)

~~~
voycey
[https://substratum.net/](https://substratum.net/) << these are doing exactly
that

~~~
awgneo
Shill much? There are tons of projects like this doing the same thing and
you've already plugged this once.

~~~
voycey
I posted it here as an off the cuff remark then decided it deserved a full
comment?

------
drewcon
All revolution aside...

I wonder if this might actually be the kick out of the nest for services like
Starry need.

[https://starry.com](https://starry.com)

Out helplessness on the choice side of internet service is almost entirely a
function of paying to run wires under roads. Remove the wires and...

Has seemed liked a nice to have most days...but now... negates the need for
physical infrastructure to develop a network. The market could actually work
as intended.

------
xellisx
I would love to create my own neighborhood wired network, but up front cost
would be a problem, and I don't think my neighbors care that much.

~~~
zanedb
Definitely true. Supposedly Motherboard will be publishing some guides on
this, so I'll have to wait and see how helpful those are.

~~~
xellisx
I keep seeing stuff about using VPNs, but that be throttled easily. Wireless
is just a mess and just that much more insecure/unreliable.

------
thisisit
When I was reading this, I was reminded of a company - Blockstream.

These guys are have a satellites which broadcasts bitcoin blockchain:
[https://blockstream.com/satellite/](https://blockstream.com/satellite/)

I can be wrong but I wonder - what might be the impact of a non-neutral
internet on cryptocurrencies?

Obviously any impact will depend on how much of bitcoin or any
cryptocurrencies volumes are from US. I tried to look it up and found this
page:
[https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins](https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins)

------
djmetzle
I have a proposition: You know how Tor works? Onion routing? Send traffic
encrypted multiple times through a list of nodes before exiting at an edge?

What if everyone sent their traffic back and forth to eachother. One hop,
encrypted, and then forwarded. Just like Tor, but a single hop. Not
anonymized, just peer-to-peer distributed.

If everyone did that (build it into browsers) the internet would function
_full-mesh_. I mean, that's how IP works, right? Full mesh, peer-to-peer?

Hey ISPs! Good luck filtering on the entire internet.

~~~
dest
I guess they would put all P2P traffic on the low priority lane. Some part of
the people would try the fast lane, because the slow one is too slow and they
do not care enough about NN. In the end the P2P people would lose.

~~~
curtisblaine
And that's precisely why Europe will be affected too. I'm thinking of
distributed systems, like ipfs or tor, that would be impacted as a whole by
slow p2p traffic.

------
Nokinside
On Last mile in copper or fiber networks becomes easily a market failure due
to large capital cost.

In many European countries (Finland for example) the last mile is divided by
law into two services cable providers and internet provider. It can be the
same, but other ISP's can get into business by making deal with the customer
and renting the network. There are regulations for the maximum price of the
rent.

~~~
chx
Israel implemented this long ago. Check
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Israel)

> Every ADSL or cable Internet user has to pay separately to the
> infrastructure provider and to the ISP, due to competition laws.

When I was there in 2007, I needed to struggle with getting PPTP and L2TP
going on Linux. It was quite interesting! Now of course that's done by routers
and you have wifi.

------
awalton
As much as I love the idea of locally building network infrastructure and
making it a true commonly owned system... it doesn't work for rural areas. As
soon as you hit the city limits, it's no longer the city's problem.

We gave hundreds of billions of dollars to AT&T/Verizon to build
infrastructure for everyone, and they took that money and told their
shareholders "look how well we scammed the US!"

What we should do is go back to those companies, tell them they've failed and
owe us it back plus interest, and use that money _at a federal level_ to build
an internet backbone for every single US citizen, period - like the Federal
Highway Administration, but for broadband.

But, alas, the GOP will start screaming "Socialism" and that will never
happen...

------
indubitable
The somewhat ironic thing is that this is literally _the_ core reason for the
ideology of government being more hands off. Bad behavior enables competition.
Google Fiber is an interesting case study. There are indeed major barriers to
entry to competition in telecoms, both financial and regulatory, yet Google
managed to overcome them in a variety of areas. However, after 6 years in
business they only managed to obtain 0.07 million television subscribers and
0.45 million broadband subscribers. They've put all expansion plans on hold
and have been downsizing current operations.

The reasons for their failure are complex ( _for instance they discovered that
in poorer regions, families were inexplicably not even willing to sign up for
the free option - they responded with grants for digital literacy_ ) but the
fundamental problem is simply that they didn't get anywhere near the
marketshare they expected. So thus in spite of what every inclining would lead
us to believe, people didn't really feel incentivized enough to go through the
hassle of moving away from Time Warner/Comcast.

The masses move like molasses. And people only really feel incentivized to
change things when actions against them become particularly onerous. I think
we should not really make this sort of 'onery' unlawful, but instead embrace
the positive change such negative actions can foster. Make companies consider
not only profit, but ethics and consequences of unethical activity. The recent
events with EA are a similar example. There are no real regulations in video
games and so you ended up with EA turning a major franchise title into a
burdensome 'fee-to-pay' style game and it _finally_ resulted in real action
from the consumers. Now people want to try to get laws stopping companies from
including loot crates. In other words stopping companies from engaging in
behavior that actually gets the masses to do the one thing that gets actual
change from companies - speak with their wallet.

Granted, this is uncomfortable given the monopolistic nature of Comcast/Time
Warner. If no competition does emerge then instead you're getting screwed by
the one and only real option you have for service. But as I think this article
is showing, so long as companies know they can get the marketshare - options
will emerge. The one major condition on all this is that companies must also
be allowed to fail, regardless of any possible consequences. 'Too big to fail'
means 'too big to ever be held accountable' which, in turn, means 'too big to
exist.'

------
rmason
I've met some of these people and they were very inspiring to me. Detroit has
become a leader in mesh networking they have helped setup mesh networks in the
US and overseas.

If we want faster net connections that cost less they've shown us the path.

------
danetch
You can argue all this mess is about not enforcing trust laws in the first
place

------
Feniks
NN will always be under constant threat. My own country had it all enshrined
in law only to be overruled by Brussels.

You're fighting against an entire industry who will stop at nothing to expand
profits.

~~~
danetch
Brussel actually enforces nn.

~~~
Zenka
The EU enforces a less strict interpretation of NN. The Netherlands stricter
law was therefore overruled with a softer version.

This came to light when the ACM (The Dutch FCC if you will) fined T-Mobile for
applying a zero rating on music streaming. T-Mobile argues in court they are
allowed to do so by EU rule. The Judge agreed.

[https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2017/04/t-mobile-
netherlan...](https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2017/04/t-mobile-netherlands-
scores-zero-rating-win-court)

~~~
tpxl
As far as I know country law can be more strict than EU law, is that not so?
In that case, the stricter law could not have been overruled with EU laws.

------
jarcoal
My ISP is a local mom-and-pop shop that is using fixed point wireless, which
seems like a great solution because it doesn’t require digging up pavement,
massively reducing startup costs.

------
haliax
This isn't a solution by any stretch but I am curious, what's the stop me
using a VPN provider (or an EC2 tunnel, etc) and tunneling all my traffic to
prevent slowdowns?

Yes, the ISP _could_ throttle anything they don't recognize, but that seems
incredibly risky, given that VPNs are used widely across enterprises in the
US, and degrading people's work internet seems like a really terrible idea...

~~~
HugoDaniel
That could work on the "slow" option. The thing is that they will make money
by forcing you to pay for what you want to see (not by forcing you to pay in
their "everything" package).

Say you buy their "netflix" package. Then you won't even be able to turn on
your VPN because you will only be allowed to watch netflix.

Now here is the deal: this kind of business model they are forcing does not
work on the current switching model of the internet (but does on the
phone/tv), because you can circumvent it down on the stack. Either by setting
up a fake netflix server and/or forcing the routing table on your own machine,
or some other kind of weird tunneling/workaround with packets to a supposed
netflix server. Net neutrality is a hoax.

~~~
droidist2
But doesn't the ISP know what the Netflix servers' IP addresses are? How could
you fake a Netflix server?

------
frik
During dotCom era there was a Internet2 project. I remember PR statements
dubbing it as the "new internet", replacing an decades old network with new
infrastructure and modern protocols. It seems Internet2 project is still
around, but pivoted a bit.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2)

------
apple4ever
No, we shouldn’t save Net Neutrality. To save the internet, we must end it and
realize it’s the best way to destroy the free and open internet.

------
chx
Not wanting to tout my own horn but
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15760556](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15760556)
I posted this exact thing as an answer to the developments yesterday.

------
m3kw9
You own internet will eventually be regulated if enough critical services
creeps on it, the you could be back to square one

------
omon
If we could easily build our own internet then there would be no need to
regulate the internet at all.

------
mparramon
guifi.net is already doing it in Catalonia and other parts of Europe:

[https://guifi.net/en/node/2413/view/map](https://guifi.net/en/node/2413/view/map)

------
jhoechtl
Isn't IPFS already there to fill that need?

[https://ipfs.io/](https://ipfs.io/)

~~~
beardog
You're getting the web confused with the net. Decentralizing the application
layer is different from decentralizing the physical infrastructure, which is
what is needed to maintain net neutrality.

~~~
curtisblaine
Yep, I think that ipfs, being peer to peer, would be actually negatively
affected by p2p traffic being in the slower lane. Globally.

------
debt
Sneakernet

------
featherverse
Rather than "build our own" we should take back what used to belongs to us in
the first place.

They say there's a shortage of qualified I.T. people. If you work for telecoms
who support a non-neutral internet, then quit. Go on strike. Work only for
companies who support Net Neutrality.

Kill the enemy using free market capitalism.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
> "take back what used to belongs to us in the first place"

Could you elaborate about how we used to be the owners of the ISPs?

Are you referring to the use of eminent domain laws to lay cable?

~~~
droidist2
I think they mean the internet in general, built originally by the US
government.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
ARPANET infrastructure became redundant and obsolete after private entites
made better and faster backbone links, and so was decommissioned in 1990.

