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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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 didnât know that. I thought EU laws protected net neutrality. Bad news.
2 Likes
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 ânet neutralityâ 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 ânet neutralityâ 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 ânet neutralityâ. Like much legislation, just read the name to find out the exact opposite of what the bill or regulation actually does.
4 Likes
Itâs not about weight and size, itâs 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.
6 Likes
Hereâs 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 Comcastâs 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 consumersâ throats? There is an inherent and structural conflict of interest. Why donât I see the FTC/FCC calling for ISPs to divest their content distributing businesses and operate solely as ISPs? Oh yes, because whereâs the profit in that?
3 Likes
And forcing everyone to pay for higher speeds than they require is an extortionary subsidy. (okay, thatâs 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 ânet neutralityâ 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. Itâs a mess.
Therefore the situation is virtually unsolvable without circumventing the possibility of monopoly regulation, rather than lobbying for a better use of it.
Thatâs why we need the SAFE Network. Again, I commend all to
4 Likes
The Day Obama Nationalized the Internet⌠and you didnât even notice.
Net Neutrality = Wolf in sheepâs clothing
The name part seems like itâs something good, then see how it accually plays out.
Put aside political differences and read this article
3 Likes
Well I would prefer if this didnât turn into a political topic butâŚ
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.
if they say theyâre gonna block p2p and specific services, then donât use their services, if they say they donât in the contract and then they do, now u can sue their asses
this way isps that give u more access will survive and control freaks will be wiped out
I used to live in iran, believe me government control of the Internet is never a good thing
What happens when a government becomes corrupt and also controls everything
then weâre all fu**ed
2 Likes
This isnât quite the situation as I see it. I get that there is an element of this, but what concerns people is I think being offered bundled affordable services: package X, Y, or Z etc similar to cable TV (in the UK at least). And that only the well off will be able to afford decent levels of service across the whole spectrum.
I understand this is what happens in Mexico already with Internet, you pay for access to this or that âbundleâ of websites inclusively (the usual suspects: Facebook, Twitter, Google) and then pay higher rates for anything outside. I have that in my mobile data - fixed amount per month, but I pay about twelve times the price if I go over my allowance. That effectively means I, and the vast majority of people can only afford the bundled services.
But at least Iâm not restricted in what I can access within my bundle. Thatâs whatâs coming to the USA now.
So to provide an analogy at the other extreme, I see your non-neutral postal service as allowing you to send to popular areas at a fixed monthly fee. But only those areas chosen by the service providers, and only up to your bundled number of letters and parcels of certain weights, according to the deals theyâve struck with transport and delivery companies, and the areas which make a profit for them. So hard luck if you occasionally want to send letters to somewhere not covered by your subscription package, or which service providers just donât want to deliver to because they donât want to invest in that area etc. And if you need to go above your allowance, expect to pay a heavy premium, if you can even afford it.
Another analogy is electricity. To optimise their profits companies might like to offer you bundles: A) washing machine, TV and three small power devices in any one day, all for a fixed monthly rate, or B) washing machine, laptop and three low per devices in any one day⌠etc. Bonkers eh. Well thatâs what Iâm afraid is going to happen in the USA (to Internet, not electricity 
) . Possibly not immediately, but I think thatâs the direction of travel from now on.
Yes, you are right that it means some people are paying for things they donât use, but this is the reality of much of life - not just economic transactions. Some walk a lot. Some drive planet destroying gas guzzlers. Nobody accounts for those costs in detail.
It isnât possible to make everything prefectly accounted for, and IMO you get better outcomes when you donât try to do that in extremis.
The are many examples of that. In the UK we are only just starting to think about the value of unpaid carers for example. Many people do things that have value for society, but are not rewarded for it - women have been exploited this way forever, and are still struggling to get out of that cultural legacy. Etc.
I donât accept the why should I pay more so X can watch Netflix all day point, because it addresses only one small aspect of this greater economy. Some of those people no doubt do things or pay for things that others get cheaper or free etc. Itâs easy to make arguments of that kind without considering the whole, or indeed the very real cost of depriving the many (the less well off vastly outnumber the better off) of decent basic services that will ultimately benefit everyone if everyone has them on an equal access basis (food, shelter, education, health, knowledge/information, transport etc).
Whenever thereâs reasonably equal access, and without the significant overhead of trying to account for everything in detail, services tend to be better overall and society as a whole tends to be better off. Thatâs partly because the well off, who tend to have the most power to decide what gets done well and what doesnât, have a stake in those same services and so will help defend and improve them rather than cut, cut cut or exploit them for profit. And also because if everyone is a bit better off, everything tends to get better overall because we can all do a better job when weâre OK rather than struggling.
When you try to create âperfectâ markets those services polarise and the basic level of service, and often the overall service gets worse. Weâve seen this over the last thirty years in UK in several of the areas I mention.
So to me the USA has taken a backward step by removing net neutrality. Parts of the USA are already comparable to third world countries in things like infant mortality (Alabama), so from here this seems to be further slipping down the slope of kleptocracy. Unfortunately the UK seems to be going with you on all these issues.
We will though both be able to compare the USA (and possibly UK after Brexit) with the EU who will not follow this path. Net neutrality is currently assured in the EU and it would be very difficult to reverse it. In fact the EU is going in the other direction, breaking down barriers and ensuring services are both free in a market sense, and regulated to be widely accessible across the EEA (Single Market etc).
5 Likes
Was under impression that EU but not UK had stronger legal and physical protections than the US on neutrality and privacy. Also battle is not over in court, with electorate, with market and with hactivists. That last group I guessing will teach the lesson of SAFE that having servers (ISPs) and countless central points of failure is going forward a non starter. In fact everyone of their toll booths will be a centralized point of failure.
Non censorship is always going to be a higher value than economic profit for incidental actors. Anything else converts people into property. A national highway a commons is infinitely preferable to a system of toll roads, even with the trade offs in domain issues.
If we canât even be sure of competition the trade of ffor monopoly status should be conversion to non/not for profit.
Property issue is such nonsense. Just like with petrol. They argue they have a right to profit from petrol which they claim is their property in an exagerated sense. We say you are fool gamblers that were paid off ages ago and now fell on your own sword for being stupid enough to invest in it long after you were paid off and long after it begain creating real debts that will inevitably be charged to you. But most of all get clear that out of self defense we will put you in the ground over your so called properties externalities be they political or otherwise.
Censorship is how you strip people of rights, it is intolerable act of agression. Citing profit and appealing to greed and typical stupid orange/amber mythic arguements on market religion is just a huge aggravation.
Doubt the Trump admin will last another 6 months, think there is a real possibility of another general election, canât have another round of criminal idiots in power as with the Bush admin- their petrol mongering brought on 07 as petrol collapsed on schedule again but this time it was more than the tribute of petrol derivatives could insure. But main reasons they want censorship likely has to do with the economic truth of petrol coming out. Think of another industry that need a trillion a year or more in direct state subsidies to stay afloat because of sub threashold ultra low economic efficiency and 6x that when externalities are factored in. It started to fail in the 1950s. The whole point of it is enslaving hollowing out failure which is why they push hydrogen which as a petrol derivative (the scam of it) is the only thing with a lower economic efficiency and is actually more polluting. The see treadmilling unsustainability as a feature the way a drug pusher sees side effects (including) addiction that sell more drugs.
1 Like
Wow, Mark! Your post almost spurred a very detailed, tangent-filled response to address different aspects relating to what you said.
To get as simply to the point as possible, it boils down to the need for SAFE and other related tech changing the dynamics of how interact.
Iâm not anti-government so much as more certain from experience that it is often corrupted to do the opposite of what it seems to be doing, because it is after all, itself the truest monoply power.
Iâm for breaking up the monopoly, not by trying to use government power to break itself up. Thatâs pretty much never worked, and for good reason. All else is holding actions, and Iâm pretty sure there is not a right answer within the current framework. The framework we use to think about all of this stuff will change as we get a more universal, less coopt-able medium like SAFE. Itâs not that there SHOULD be choice. Itâs that choice IS, at all levels, all the time. SAFE will help us realize the practical truth of this. Thatâs why Iâm such a fan of where weâre going here.
2 Likes
Thanks John. I agree very much with this. Iâm not sure Iâm as skeptical about government as you, but then I donât live in the USA 
and things are heading in that direction so I am probably less happy with it (but because it is going away from the things that I highlighted as better in my response). Weâre definitely on the same page in wanting to improve both sides of this I think: government effectiveness and accountability, corporate monopoly and control, and the links between the two which end up dis-empowering and exploiting people.
3 Likes
Trump even said neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine Part II. What that means is he actually wants highest bidder law or money as law. These are people who believe that people with money should be able to use it to coerce and control other people. Bush said it too. He wanted to elevate the power of capital to bring back shoe shine boys etc. More than anything they believe in the great chain of being and some people having a right to exploit other people.
This is a people as property model. They think anything else is injustice because they might have to wipe their own behinds otherwise. This is what the American Civil war was about.
Establishing and acting on some people being better then other people is the most important thing in the world to them. They believe in a pecking order and protecting it and establishing it through the contest of history ( best liar contest) this is what they are all about.
So @fergish
-
Should there be a right to exploit?
-
If yes should it be based on money?
When you get behind Libertarian black lies about the commons (people who canât pay for clean air shouldnât have it and donât deserve itâŚ) this is all it comes down to. These liars believe the answer to both 1 and 2 is a resounding yes. There are other people who are like: you are 6 feet under because you fell on your own sword and feel this without much remorse. I belong to that group.
Someone walking around with a serial killerâs mentality or level of ethical development and brandishing money needs the commons know as as a prison cell. We just have to find a more efficient and effective way of criminalizing them, and part of that is seeing through the Libertarian smoke screen. Want to go Libertarian Socialist fine, but straight Libertarian with money added- thatâs just a criminal begging for a jail cell. All the abstractions about truely unfettered markets never having been tried are just that. They do no believe or accept their own beautiful and vital non coercion assertion at the center of their system. You can tell this because of the narcissism in any good that might benefit another being infeasible because somehow it will always be costing them money, even if its the kind they never earned or never would earn in the first place.
1 Like
In the short term, programmers are clever. If ISPs try to slow down certain traffic, people will try to make their packets harder to identify or harder to slow down in a cat and mouse, predator and prey cycle ⌠ie. evolution. I would say SAFEnet is the best mutation so far, although I havenât seen mention of any use of ssh in addition to httpsâŚ
Based on previous comments, I figure this wonât be a popular comment with respect to net neutrality⌠but Iâll mention it anyhow. The âotherâ American perspective with respect to ISPs is that itâs their business, their pipes, their servers, and they can do what they want with them. If they donât do a good job, someone else will come along who can do things better. MAIDSafe and SAFEnet is just such a group trying do it better. As long as regulations arenât passed to kill opportunities for this kind of development you can get together with some friends and build your own network with your own policy/performance in order to entice lazy consumers (like myself) to give you money which you can then choose to give to charity, or go on vacation. Iâm in the northeast USA, and happy to have a decent internet connection for a semi-affordable price without having to send my own wires down the road or launch my own satellite. I would say the biggest problem in the US infrastructure is a lack of competition, and that adding more regulation will not fix the underlying problem. Excessive regulations have contributed to the monopoly and lack of technological improvements, while it appears that anti-trust laws put in place to protect free market principles havenât really been enforced in recent years. Consider the arguments of someone more eloquent than myself. (Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?)
I would say this just highlights the fundamental problems with the physical design of the internet that we need to overcome technologically and innovate around. The benefit is that technological change is a lot easier than legal change; and that computer science or engineering is usually more focused on effective logic, technical efficiency or performance, rather than emotions or ideology (minus the religious wars of linux vs. windows). The hardware issues will eventually need to be addressed by way of mesh networks or some other system/technology, or maybe just better wireless networks within the current paradigm to spur competition. Although it appears to be more difficult to get performance out of a system like that right now that if you have centralized servers in control of the data. I think the progression of the internet we are witnessing is going in the right direction. If SAFEnet can overcome the software issues with current internet protocols, it will also build a better âfree marketâ hardware infrastructure in tandem. This is part of the genius of the SAFEnet philosophy.
6 Likes
Yes, but its not USA style net neutrality. In AU we have protections that stop ISPs inserting data into our packets. Anyhow https stops them doing that anyhow without MITM attacks by the ISP
2 Likes
look at the likes, itâs quite the opposite. I also think here are more libertarians than non-libertarians, Safecoin eg isnât taxable. So all safecoin/SAFEnet supporters should be at least somewhat libertarian.
ps: sorry for bad english 