Net Neutrality: How will the new policies against net neutrality work for the Safe Network?

Considering that a blocked network will likely be suffocated regardless of the payment model, I would suggest attempts to prevent blocking are concentrated on first.

Safe net has been designed to withstand and adapt to attempts to block it. I am pretty certain that its traffic already looks pretty generic and I’m sure more work can/will go into this area. I would appreciate a comment from @maidsafe on this, as it would be good to understand specifics. There were pretty big debates about this in the past, specific to Rust modules to disguise the data.

Safe net has a goal to blast through the great firewall of China. If it can do that, surely that sets the bar rather high?

Is this 100% true? I would love to hear confirmation from the team. If it is, then really this is largely a moot point - ISPs cannot be trusted with private SSL keys, so interrogating contents would be futile (unless they cripple the encryption strength, but crime will escalate if they do).

1 Like

David has said this. But in essence encrypted packets are similar if they are https (one form) or another application encrypted packet (NNTP encrypted say). They have the packet header and encrypted payload. https when using the better https is a header and encrypted payload.

The real need is not in that the individual packets are in the same form as https but for patterns when intense DPI is being used. DPI for encrypted https only works if the encryption does not encrypt the whole payload. Remember DPI on encrypted packets is greatly hampered since the DPI cannot read port# or domain name or anything else in the payload unless the browser is using the lesser encryption. SAFE is fully encrypted so DPI cannot distinguish it from fully encrypted https, so DPI has to use very expensive (CPU + time) methods to see what the traffic maybe and this is not good for ISPs as its often more expensive than just assuming what it is by the IP address the packet is going to.

Look for obscuration


Thanks for reply and link.

Yes, from packet sniffing in the past, I can attest to encrypted traffic all looking like gibberish. I suppose my question is more about it looking indistinguishable from regular https traffic.

I suppose at https is a protocol which can be used peer to peer or client to server, any pattern monitoring/matching for safe net traffic is going to be pretty much impossible. If they, say, only allowed encrypted traffic to specific servers, they could probably be less specific, but that leaves all sorts of data vulnerable and would surely never be desirable be legislators.

Considering we have numerous encryption protocols, all with different transmission characteristics, it would seem incredulous to think ISPs could block with precision. Even with fancy comms pattern monitoring, safe net could emulate another accredited pattern.

1 Like

What I’m concerned about is the ISPs having the ability to block traffic to systems such as SAFE. If the ISPs have their way would that mean peer to peer mesh networking could eventually pickup adoption?

As @piluso pointed a few months ago, one possible way to distinguish our traffic from regular https is that there is no cryptographic handshake before establishing the connection.

I still am wondering if the ports we use can be an issue or not ( see above link ) : I suppose a nasty ISP could decide that anything that doesn’t go to 443 should be throttled down.


Is safe net alone in not performing the handshake though? While standard client/server https web requests are surely one of the most common forms of encrypted traffic, there will be many other less common applications which behave more like safe net (i.e. any app which uses custom encryption for transit, other established non-https protocol transit, etc).

So, while we may be able to say it won’t look exactly like https traffic (without some feigning), it may be indistinguishable from other encrypted data transit techniques. That would make it a lot harder to identify specific safe net packets from the others. Moreover, safe net could mutate to mimic others too if needed.


I gather you are referring to the USA here, as there is no change to the rest of the world.

They have to know what traffic is SAFE traffic and that is what they won’t be sure of. And to scatter gun blocking of packets they suspect will be suicide for the ISP, especially at the political level. Its not china and the voters will complain when their streaming is intercepted and blocked. Or their email to family is blocked when its encrypted. All they can really do is slow down traffic not going to the big companies who pay for the “fast lanes”

That is what I meant by expensive DPI and still very much imprecise. Also there will be a handshake since that is part pf the TCP/IP protocol which is being used for the encrypted packets. So I doubt even that would work.

EDIT: as @Traktion says there are a number of other encrypted traffic that does not use the crypto handshake like https.

There is no reason SAFE could not use port 443 too.


I think one of the main reasons they want to crack down on neutrality now in the US is the want to turn up the lie on petrol and war in Iran. Petrol has been killing the global economy, in particular the useful non parasitic economy, since at least 1950 and will make it unworkable if allowed to continue and do so for economic reasons.

So (unsurprisingly) Trump lackey Chairman Pai and his GOP backed minions have voted to repeal net neutrality.

The launch of the SAFE network can’t come soon enough. A revolution is coming. Let them eat Pai.


Land of the (not so) free.

1 Like

Elite Internet

SAFE is the answer to this article, wish we could capitalize on this decision, through clever marketing coordination with net-neutrality. Seems like a lost opportunity.


This is one of the main reasons I want safe to succeed so much, to take the power and knowledge away from these greedy megalomaniacs. The sooner the better.


In Portugal, where there are currently no net neutrality rules enforced, this kind of data privileging is already the norm. ISPs there sell plans to access select bundles of websites; others can be accessed only at slow speeds or for additional money.

I didn’t know that. I thought EU laws protected net neutrality. Bad news.


Trigger warning: This post may offend those who are thinking emotionally. Others may engage in rational analysis as to whether the assertion is true or not.

There seems to be a general sentiment that “net neutrality” as represented by the regulations is a good thing. This is not an open and shut conclusion. A good analogy is to compare mail delivery. Should there be mail neutrality? Everybody pays the same whether a letter or 50 pound box.

One person reads lots of blogs, articles and print news, maybe a bit of youtube.

Another consumes wall-to-wall Netflix.

Should both pay a sum of somewhere in between, for the average? Seems to me that that is Netflix being subsidized by the blog reader.

That is “net neutrality” as it was put forward in regulations in the US in the last few years, which regulations have been reversed. The regulations ensured ever increasing regulatory compliance burdens which favor larger companies and thus a consolidation of service providers who are happy to pay the extra to be quit of the leaner, cheaper competitors.

Cheers for the fall of “net neutrality”. Like much legislation, just read the name to find out the exact opposite of what the bill or regulation actually does.


It’s not about weight and size, it’s about paying for a data package, and useing that data to do with it what I want, without anyone telling me what I need to see. Slower speeds will equal censorship. This means more corporate infomation bubbles to keep us in the dark.

On the other hand, this net neutrality decision is already going to court, and will probably be decided by congress, which the Dems will likely take back by the time it gets there, thus back to the on going argument.


Here’s just one of the many problems: vertical integration. The very same companies that would be deciding how much to charge are the same companies that stand to benefit by targeting competing content distributors. For example, Comcast can set tiered/discriminatory pricing as an ISP. Comcast is also a purveyor of content as a cable company. It is in Comcast’s express interest to charge Netflix a higher rate, knowing that the cost will pass through to consumers. We all know that cable companies/ISPs have been searching for ways to reverse the cord-cutting trend that the option to adopt services like Netflix catalyzed. What better way for ISPs to preserve their ability to continue ramming bundled services down consumers’ throats? There is an inherent and structural conflict of interest. Why don’t I see the FTC/FCC calling for ISPs to divest their content distributing businesses and operate solely as ISPs? Oh yes, because where’s the profit in that?


And forcing everyone to pay for higher speeds than they require is an extortionary subsidy. (okay, that’s inflammatory rhetoric, but arguably true.) But point taken. In an environment already largely controlled by special interests, though, why is it those exact vested interests that are largely arguing for “net neutrality” implementation? I propose the possibility that, in the long run at least, it strongly favors their economic interests.

Yes that is just one of many problems, mostly caused by monopoly regulating powers, which allow regulatory and legislative capture by the very interests that are supposed to be regulated. It’s a mess.

Therefore the situation is virtually unsolvable without circumventing the possibility of monopoly regulation, rather than lobbying for a better use of it.
That’s why we need the SAFE Network. Again, I commend all to


The Day Obama Nationalized the Internet… and you didn’t even notice.
Net Neutrality = Wolf in sheep’s clothing
The name part seems like it’s something good, then see how it accually plays out.

Put aside political differences and read this article


Well I would prefer if this didn’t turn into a political topic but…
Do you realize that with net neutrality gone isp are legally allowed to block every non white listed ip. Effectively killing safe network? What argument you can say against net neutrality except they will not do it?
I am not even from US but
Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.
This is nothing short of conspiracy theories.
Well even if it is real, isps are now legally allowed to throttle Netflix so they can take revenge I guess.