Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Internet United States Government

Taking The Profit Out Of Killing 'Net Neutrality' ( 257

Robert Cringely has a plan to ensure that internet providers will never profit from the end of net neutrality: We are being depended upon to act like sheep -- Internet browsing sheep, if such exist -- and without a plan that's exactly what we'll be. The key to my plan is that this is a rare instance where consumers are not alone. There are just as many or more huge companies that would prefer to keep Net Neutrality as those that oppose it... Those companies in favor of Net Neutrality obviously include the big streamers like Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube and a bunch of others. They also includes nearly every big Internet concern including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft. Those are some pretty big friends to have on your side -- our side...

So I suggest we all join ZeroTier (ZT), a thriving networking startup operating in Irvine, California. There are other companies like it but I just think ZeroTier is presently the best. ZeroTier is a very sophisticated Virtual Private Network (VPN) company that has created a Software Defined Network that goes beyond what normal VPNs are capable of. To your computer or almost any other networked device (even your smart phone), ZT looks like an Ethernet port, whether your device has Ethernet or not. Through that virtual Ethernet port you connect to a virtual IPv6 Local Area Network that's as big as the Internet itself, though the only users on this overlay network are ZT members.

The trick is to get all those big companies that are pro-Net Neutrality to join ZT. The most it will cost even Netflix is $750 per month, which is probably less than the company spends on salad bars in their Los Gatos HQ. Embracing ZT doesn't mean rejecting the regular Internet. Netflix can still be reached the old fashion way. I just want them to add a presence on ZT, too... What the ISPs won't like about this plan is that ZT traffic can't be read to determine what rules or pricing to apply. They could throttle it all down, but throttling that much traffic isn't really practical.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Taking The Profit Out Of Killing 'Net Neutrality'

Comments Filter:
  • Here's the link... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ) <`' `at' `'> on Sunday November 26, 2017 @07:56AM (#55624059) Homepage ZT [] that was so thoughtfully removed in the summary.

    • by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @09:58AM (#55624415)

      ZT traffic can't be read to determine what rules or pricing to apply

      There's no need to read ZT traffic. There's no need to apply rules or pricing. They will just block all of it. 100% guaranteed.

      If you think that Comcast/AT&T/Verizon,, give a shit, you haven't been paying attention.

      • A better plan (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Rather than everyone joining a universal VPN, which as the parent mentioned they could just block, here is my proposal.

        If you have a reasonable state, have the legislature create net neutrality rules in the state. All packets within the state must obey network neutrality. For the most part, this will take care of the problem within the state, as the Internet routes around the bullshit. You might need to have the state encourage a few key nodes to be located within the state as well.

        This is not a 100% sol

        • Re:A better plan (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TFAFalcon ( 1839122 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @10:50AM (#55624535)

          The ISP will just route all traffic 10m across the border and throttle it there.

        • That is similar to municipal fiber which will come with a significant amount of other advantages. But that, too, is often drowned in the quagmire of big ISPs paying off politicians. That also impacts current providers in some markets. For example, the capitol of NY is free of fiber because local and state politicians have personal and financial ties to Comcast. That is apparently enough to keep Verizon out and provide Comcast with a local monopoly. Comcast's copper just can't provide what fiber to the home
        • Re:A better plan (Score:5, Informative)

          by Aereus ( 1042228 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @03:38PM (#55625715)

          Which is why Verizon et al are also petitioning to pass a federal law that prevents states from passing state laws to protect privacy/neutrality. Because internet is "inherently interstate"... you heard it right, they're looking to both claim they don't deserve Title2 and that they are interstate and shouldn't be able to be regulated by states either.

        • If you have a reasonable state...

          ...I found the flaw in your plan.

        • I have an even better plan: To deal with net neutrality issues, everyone should buy $mycompany's stuff. Buy $mycompany's stuff. That will fix net neutrality issues.

          Well, for me anyway, I'll have enough money to buy all the bandwidth I need. Scaling it up is left as a homework exercise.

      • The real problem is the lack of competition. In areas where there is plenty of competition, you can find good internet providers (for example, Sonic). It's only when the competition is kept out that there is a problem.
      • The reality is that nowadays a LOT of workers use VPN's form home to do work, so no ISP can realistically block VPN traffic.

        ISP's blocking this or that is everyone's worst fear of having no NN but every time an ISP has tried for any content (even torrents) they have quickly reversed course.

        Personally, I am pretty sure that if you use a service like this your traffic is almost certain to be collected by the government (as they would probably capture a lot of juicy material to hold over people). So I've alwa

        • Personally, I am pretty sure that if you use a service like this your traffic is almost certain to be collected by the government (as they would probably capture a lot of juicy material to hold over people). So I've always seen it as a choice as to whole you want knowing what you do with your connection - an ISP or the government. I know which I trust less (yes, even over Comcast).

          You are daft if you still don't think the NSA is recording everything you do. They may not look at it, but they have it.

        • Of course they would never "block" VPN access. Instead, they will create a service called "XFinity Business Premium!" and charge an extra $20 a month for the privilege to use VPN. They'll even throw in some worthless security software and explain how your data will be given extra special priority over other traffic. Naturally, if you DON'T purchase this service, VPN access will work like molasses.
          • they will create a service called "XFinity Business Premium!" and charge an extra $20 a month

            You say they will but right now Comcast is in fact advertising on Twitter that they will block/limit/throttle nothing.

            Again, every time some ISP has tried anything like this they quickly backed off.

            Comcast MAY put forth new options to provide QOS guarantees around some types of traffic but it will not mean limiting normal traffic for people that do not subscribe to those services.

      • by Creepy ( 93888 )

        You're not thinking about this from the right angle - they will never block this website. Why? Because they'd need a good reason or they will be sued by the government. Meanwhile, it is vastly more profitable to throttle them and demand money. They could even throw in extra fees for lost advertising dollars because that company takes away their targeted advertising power. The ISP is entirely in power here to make whatever demands it wants to, and the ISPs don't want to block sites, they want to extort them.

    • by Xyrus ( 755017 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @11:36AM (#55624729) Journal

      They're posting this crap on a tech site, and they expect people to actually buy into it?

      This is advertising bullshit. There is nothing about ZT that would prevent ISPs from throttling the shit out of it, or banning the traffic altogether. That's assuming that ZT would even have the capacity to deal with the traffic in the first place, which they don't.

      It doesn't matter what kind of gateway you're running. ISPs can throttle/block any point of entry they want without net neutrality. If you run over their lines, they can bend you over and no amount of of garbage like this will help.

    • Nice thought Cringely, but if Netflix used ZeroTier, somebody is going to pay more than $750 per month just for the electricity to power the switches that carry their traffic.

    • Here's another link [], in case the first one doesn't work.

  • Lol... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TFlan91 ( 2615727 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:04AM (#55624079)

    Running away from walled gardens to another walled garden is not a solution to the net neutrality problem and certainly doesn't "take the profit out" of it. It just moves that profit to another company. /vertisement.

    • Re:Lol... (Score:5, Informative)

      by MtHuurne ( 602934 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:41AM (#55624149) Homepage

      I only had a quick look at ZeroTier, but it doesn't seem to be a walled garden. It's a peer-to-peer network and their business model is to make money from support and closed-source licensing, while the software is available to the public under GPL.

      • I only had a quick look at ZeroTier, but it doesn't seem to be a walled garden. It's a peer-to-peer network and their business model is to make money from support

        So they want to be the gatekeepers of the internet to protect us from the gatekeepers of the internet, and they will only fail in such a way as to generate a support request when they are failing to meet payroll? That doesn't sound like a win to me.

      • by ezdiy ( 2717051 )
        The issue with zerotier is that its code is "preconfigured" to use their servers (ie its hardcoded everywhere), and they advertise (spam?) very aggresively (last year on HN). So instead of repeating it, here goes what others said: []

        Naive ideas like zerotier depend on central "tracker" nodes, not the torrent kind, but more like DNS. Sure, you can run DNS alt roots, but nobody will use those, because DNS isn't federated, DNS authority is a hiearchy.

        People should know be
    • Re:Lol... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:59AM (#55624197)

      Running away from walled gardens to another walled garden is not a solution to the net neutrality problem and certainly doesn't "take the profit out" of it. It just moves that profit to another company. /vertisement.

      Yeah, I'm kind of not seeing how this is a solution. The FCC wants to make a multi-tiered Internet, where you pay more to get the data you want. With this... you pay more to get what you want.

      That's even assuming it doesn't just get throttled into oblivion. Or worse, bought by Comcast or AT&T.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Solandri ( 704621 )
        These guys sorta but don't completely get what the problem is. The key difference with their idea is that presumably you'd have a choice of multiple VPN companies you could subscribe with. That provides competition, which keeps the VPN companies honest. If you find out your VPN is throttling certain traffic or spying on your browsing, you can simply cancel and switch to a different VPN provider.

        See, the problem isn't that ISPs are trying to throttle Internet traffic unless the website pays a toll (mak
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Narcocide ( 102829 )

          You just basically claimed that we don't need existing net neutrality regulations then described a solution that consists primarily of exactly that. They really brainwashed you good. I suggest you see a professional. Seriously. Wake the fuck up.

    • It also won't save anyone from abuses that are anti-network neutrality.

      The most likely scenarios are not full blocks, but "We give you 256kbps access to the Internet, but if X pays Y, we'll make Z's sites available to you at 1Gbps.

      That could look like "Pay $10 an extra month and get smooth Youtube video!" or "Hey, Google, if you pay us $1M a year, we'll let our customers access Youtube unthrottled."

      This "workaround" will do fuck all to prevent that from happening. Your VPN connection will continue

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:05AM (#55624083)

    The internet is not for sale by any pseudo owner. Fuck them. This is the commons and we can control it if we organize.

  • see PRC dude (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:09AM (#55624091)

    This approach (tunneling traffic to avoid the ISP slow lane) is too simple for a reason- it is trivial for the carriers, or anyone with simple flow data, to detect tunneled/VPN traffic and then route it prejudicially (even if the carrier cannot read the encrypted payload). Itâ(TM)s what PRC and other totalitarian regimes have been doing for years : penalizing tunneled traffic by default.

  • by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:18AM (#55624105)

    ..from Zero Tier, because it "promotes cyberattacks." What do you do then?

  • Not practical? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TFAFalcon ( 1839122 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:20AM (#55624109)

    Why woudn't throttling this be practical? If the ISPs are free to throttle everything else, and they don't mind their customers suffering, why would they stop at a VPN, especially a VPN that is meant to stop throttling. In fact they can throttle it much more than any other type of content, since it just means that the users will stop using it and switch back to accessing their content directly.

    • Re:Not practical? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by silas_moeckel ( 234313 ) <silas@dsminc-c[ ].com ['orp' in gap]> on Sunday November 26, 2017 @09:53AM (#55624401) Homepage

      It's actually more practical to throttle everything other than their approved content from a technical standpoint. Whitelisting your golden IP ranges is rather easy.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "Why wouldn't throttling this be practical?"
      A big telco buys the best deep packet inspection at the time and that equipment had limitations given the need for speed and what the private sector wanted to pay. Its fast but can only look for a few sets of information.
      A file checksum for US law enforcement on every movie, picture, file that has to be found and tracked in real time for US law enforcement.
      Any p2p use.
      Fast deep packet inspection thats in use only finds network things that are very differe
      • You still didn't explain why throttling would be a problem.
        The ISP doesn't need to know who you are trying to communicate with to throttle the communication. They can just throttle everything EXCEPT the things they can identify and have been 'compensated' for.

        • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Re "They can just throttle everything EXCEPT the things they can identify and have been 'compensated' for."
          New VPN networks can look like other trusted and protected networks when detected in the middle of another network in real time.
          A telco would have to investigate the origin and destination of every suspected VPN user.
          Find the network that responds like a VPN? Slow it.
          Thats a lot of interesting requests been pushed around the world from one telco trying to detect a skilled set of changing VPN ser
          • A monopolistic ISP can still throttle everything it can't identify. They can slow everything they can't positively identify as someone who is paying their extortion money. And their reputation does not matter if there is no effective competition. Are their customers going to go without internet access?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:24AM (#55624117)

    Yeah, lets solve this buy paying ZT a ransom instead of AT&T or Verizon.
    No, I don't think so. This is just a (very) thinly veiled ad for yet another company trying to make a profit off providing access to services people are already paying for.

    • by Junta ( 36770 )

      paying ZT a ransom instead of AT&T or Verizon.

      In this case it's paying ZT *and* AT&T or Verizon a ransom. Which easily illustrates *why* this is utter crap, the owner of the wire still has supreme veto power, so all a solution like ZT can do is give you warm fuzzies.

  • by MtHuurne ( 602934 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:38AM (#55624141) Homepage

    What the ISPs won't like about this plan is that ZT traffic can't be read to determine what rules or pricing to apply. They could throttle it all down, but throttling that much traffic isn't really practical.

    If they can throttle popular destinations like NetFlix, or protocols like BitTorrent, why wouldn't throttling a VPN be practical?

    Once all the video companies are on ZT, followed by social media and search, (don’t forget gaming!), that’s probably 80 percent of all Internet bandwidth.

    For fast-paced games, low latency is very important and any kind of additional layer will add latency.

    • by tgeek ( 941867 )

      If they can throttle popular destinations like NetFlix, or protocols like BitTorrent, why wouldn't throttling a VPN be practical?

      It's practical, but not desirable. Throttling a VPN is an all-or-nothing proposition - you throttle all traffic on that flow or none of it.

      • by mark-t ( 151149 )
        What makes you think that an ISP would care if they throttled all of it?
        • by tgeek ( 941867 )
          The free market -- where it exists (primarily in wireless). If we (I work for a large cell provider) were to throttle every VPN connection, we'd lose customers in droves.
          • by mark-t ( 151149 )

            To whom, exactly? Not everyone has a choice in which broadband ISPs are available.

            Or they could just fall back to dialup and get the same effective speed anyways.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "why wouldn't throttling a VPN be practical?"
      A VPN network can alter its origin, ports, ip ranges, encryption again and again.
      Is it a paying bank under that code? p2p? A US consumer trying to escape been slowed by their own US telco?
      A telco then has to re work its entire network to hunt down and slow encryption that could be paying banks, gov, contractors, p2p, a skilled new consumer VPN network
      What can a telco do then to uncover creative and advanced new VPN use?
      Send requests to the origin com
  • Right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jouassou ( 1854178 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:40AM (#55624145)
    So everyone in the country should send their traffic through a single VPN? How does that scale to 300m citizens, and what will stop the VPN company from throttling webpages that don't pay their internet baksheesh?
    • Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @09:41AM (#55624359)

      So everyone in the country should send their traffic through a single VPN? How does that scale to 300m citizens, and what will stop the VPN company from throttling webpages that don't pay their internet baksheesh?

      300 million citizens? Give me a break. 250 million of those citizens can't even fucking spell VPN, and they certainly don't give a shit about Net Neutrality.

      These are the same citizens who will happily shell out an extra $10 per month for the "premium" internet tier just to feed their social media addiction. Those against Net Neutrality know this.

      The masses proved long ago that ignorance is bliss. Don't expect them to start caring anytime soon.

  • Somebody doesn't know what Ethernet is apparently. I don't know what Cringely was trying to say, but nothing upstream knows about or cares if your system connects via Ethernet, WiFi, ATM, Token Ring, or IPoAC []. Ah ... this explains it ...

    "The sex symbol, airplane enthusiast and adventurer continues to write about personal computers and has an active consulting business in Silicon Valley, selling his cybersoul to the highest bidder." - [Emphasis Added]

    After seeing this, he should really drop the "L" fro
  • by cullenfluffyjennings ( 138377 ) <> on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:43AM (#55624159) Homepage

    There is not information here, no news, nothing funny just a blatant add for a company with a really expensive and really dubious sounding VPN. I view slashdot as my source of all news that is not fake. What went wrong here. @cowboy_neil - we need answers.

    • by c ( 8461 )

      "Robert Cringely" are the key words. This idiot has a long, long history of trolling slashdot. My working theory is that he keeps finding backdoors in the article submission code because I can't imagine even the dumbest slashdot editor (it's a low bar, I know) hitting accept on his garbage.

  • Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ledow ( 319597 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:46AM (#55624169) Homepage

    1) Blatant slashvertisement. Seriously. Stop it.
    2) "They could throttle it all down, but throttling that much traffic isn't really practical."

    If they can throttle the entirety of the Internet, except Netflix, they can certainly throttle all of ZT too.

  • No, really, Just No.

    1) This approach just puts all the eggs into one easily taxed basket.
    2) Does NOTHING to combat last mile access issues, which is the real thorn in the side here (The same people that control the last mile, and thus prevent competition in their blocks, are the very same people behind wanting to murder net neutrality. They will just deny you access to this service over their network/refuse a peer relationship with them/charge you a shitload of money if they detect packets for this network

  • by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @09:18AM (#55624287)

    I see people on social media saying "I pay for da interwebz, I'll do whatever I want and oh btw, I'll do it at the full speed I was 'sold.'" A lot of these are people that should know better, who should know that they were never sold a package with a QoS agreement with the ISP. The reason you can afford 75mbps+ at a rate that is supportable on a few bucks above minimum wage is precisely that "up to $Xmbps" in the contract and the other stipulations that make it clear they can impose QoS policies to give the best service to the most people. Turns out streaming 4k NetFlix to 1% of their users might not fit that description.

    Thanksgiving morning, I tried to download an update to IntelliJ which is about 500MB of data. My FiOS connection was slow probably because my neighborhood, which is pretty large, were all home streaming NetFlix, Hulu, etc. waiting for Thanksgiving dinner. Anything I tried to download over an ordinary HTTP connection was slow, but NetFlix was just fine for my kids... So as far as I know, I was on the losing end of bandwidth prioritization.

    To me this wailing that streaming users might be discriminated against is like hybrid drivers complaining that they might face additional alternative taxes to cover the fact that their cars put the same wear on the roads, but don't fund it properly through the gas tax. It may not be fair, but those shared resources (private or public) are not elastic. It costs money to maintain them and keep the same level of service as usage patterns change.

  • The Good Old Days (Score:4, Informative)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @09:42AM (#55624365) Journal

    They damn well CAN throttle that much traffic. AT&T, Comcast, and the rest of the big ISPs all dream of the days of yore when there was AOL, CompuServe, and GEnie. Nothing but a few walled gardens, and the paying customers lived inside and almost never ventured out.

    THAT is what they want, and how they will throttle. Comcast vs non-Comcast traffic is how it will be played. They'll prioritize THEIR VoIP over companies like Vonage, implicitly harming competition. Want NetFlix? Well, Xfinity Streaming is just like Netflix, but faster and cheaper!

    These companies desperately do not want to become only transport providers, or dumb pipes. The money is in the content -- what the roads lead to, not the roads themselves. The ISPs was the return of the Company Town, where they own the roads AND the stores, and a big toll gate leading out of town.

  • This is not a solution, this is paying more for a new unproven service with an opportunistic ad.

    First of all, Netflix or other services joining it is just wishful thinking. Come back when you have the vast majority of them already paying for it. This isn't how things works out there, throwing low prices thinking these companies will fish - you have to go directly at them and make a business proposition. If you didn't bother to even do that, how can you think people will buy it?
    Pay us and the services will c

  • The idea is sound but, as is too often the case, Big Telecom will lobby to make these kinds of VPNs illegal or restrict them. When something is about to cut into their profit margin, the likes of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are not above using the courts to get their way or lobbying for laws favorable to them.
  • by TheOuterLinux ( 4778741 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @10:23AM (#55624475)
    So now they control and monitor all the traffic instead? I can switch ISP's, but if services all use the same VPN, I would still be screwed not matter what if they decided to collect data or they get hacked and someone else does it or if they get DDoSed or if there's malware to contend with. Those that stay informed need to stop compromising and thinking it's ok for non-technical people to pick the easier option just so they can go further down the third-party reliance rabbit hole. It's being done because it's a royal pain in the ass to explain the importance of taking more control of your computing experience and because of that neglect and profit minded article submissions, we are greatly paying for it. Plus, if you're already smart enough to take precautions, a VPN over a VPN might not work out so well. Netflix already prevents video playback if it detects you are using VPN.
  • Activating a VPN does little to nothing to solve the throttling issue. The throttling is done against the upstream services, at the routing or "network layer", where the ISP's organize connections to local hosts. Simply making that connection from another host in a preferred region leaves the connections to that remote region sill simply leave the remote region throttled, as well, especially if this "single solution" VPN solution is detectable at the routers or firewalls and can be preferentially throttled

  • I'd be intetested to hear what ideas those big players might come up with. If ad money and tracking should suffer I expect even ideas including hardware, finance and politics may be considered well within fair play. Drone and balloon meshes, a Youtube VPN, PACs to remove incumbents, federal lawsuits and hostile takeovers are all potential tools for such juggernauts. It just has to hit their bottom line, so they can then turn around and do the same favor for Pai's crowd. There should be people already wargam

  • by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @11:28AM (#55624703)
    Perhaps a more practical way to kill the profit from the ISPs is to reduce our dependence on them. If we all spent less time in front of a screen, went outside more, and engaged in hobbies then we can watch the ISPs bleed as no one uses their branded shit.
  • by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @11:35AM (#55624727) Journal

    I call it "don't feed the trolls," and it works like this. The moment an ISP starts throttling someone, this coalition of content providers blacklist that ISP. Anyone on that ISP gets a black screen telling them what's going on and contact their ISP to stop the throttling. No paid fast lanes, just the black screen.

    This will work because which ISP wants to be the first one to lose Netflix, Facebook, Google, and so on?

  • The theory behind this "revolt" seems to be that the big network providers won't be able to detect this traffic and throttle it. But I suspect that, with enough work, they could find some feature that would allow the packets to be identified as coming from ZeroTier clients. Am I wrong? Can you prove it?

    Another problem with this proposal is that only 0.01% of the population can understand what ZeroTier does, so even if ALL of them adopt it, they won't have a significant impact on the network. Also, the

  • Somebody recently suggested just this sort of thing: []

    Oh wait. That was me. Only, I didn't suggest a single company benefiting.

  • A natural consequence of ISPs trying to negotiate individual deals with content providers is that the content providers will ally to increase their bargaining power. I suspect the ISPs will be in for a rough surprise if say the top 20 content providers (YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, eBay, Wordpress etc.) join forces to "negotiate" because if one site is slow that site has a problem. If users feel all the big ticket sites on the Internet are slow, the ISP has a problem. The

  • Service providers view consumers as a resource. Data providers like Google, Netflix, etc. also view consumers as a resource. So we're supposed to believe corporations in the latter category will come charging to the defense of consumers and start a war with a rich, exceedingly powerful enemy?

    Yeah, right.

    Far more likely: one group of rich, powerful corporations form an alliance with another group of rich, powerful corporations to shaft consumers more vigorously, more thoroughly and with even greater gus

  • What the FCC proposes to end in December isn't network neutrality; it never was. It's an impostor masquerading as network neutrality because some influential wonk put that label on it and legions of ignorant fools propagated it.

    Meet the real network neutrality: citizens owning the very same physical network that they use. It's time for eminent domain to be applied against that network and get rid of this chatty impostor once and for all.

  • The ISPs will block VPNs claiming they are maleware sites. They won't even need to go to the effort of throttling, you simply won't be able to reach your favorite VPNs.

  • Sure the big ISPs can't see what type of data you're sending, but they could check to see if the traffic is routing to ZT's network and just bill it at the highest rate.

  • Is this a sponsored press release for Zero Tier VPN? I know it's Robert Cringley, I know he makes passing reference to other VPN providers, but this reads like an ad.

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @03:00PM (#55625595)

    Then consider the irony of this guy talking about profits and corruption.

    Regardless, the solution is not VPNs but rather last mile competition. It is what it has been from the start and it will continue to be that.

    Look at the trouble Google Fiber is having getting Right of Way to the poles. If one of the largest and best capitalized and most politically connected corporations in the history of the planet is having a hard time... what chance does the small guy have?

    The corruption is evident. its mostly state and city corruption but its consistent and national.

    Either that gets dealt with... or the entire discussion is just hot air.

  • If you're going to advertise (seriously, keep it to HN), would you mind at least telling us what is the difference from the P2P vpns which work perfectly fine, ie tinc and cjdns?
  • ..they could just completely block Zero Tier unless you pay for "premium" internet access. Zero Tier is not the solution to net neutrality, it is its potential victim.

  • by Altrag ( 195300 ) on Sunday November 26, 2017 @08:09PM (#55626737)

    Any plan that starts with "we all" with respect to the entire nation may as well stop right there. "We" probably didn't read your article to in the first place, and most of the "we" who did will stop caring as soon as they realize it takes more than one or two clicks worth of effort, never mind when it costs money.

    Its the same reason why you'll never prevent climate change by suggesting people drive less.. even if they agree with you, they simply won't do it. They'll excuse themselves for one reason or another or they'll decide that their personal contribution isn't enough to matter or so on.

    If you want a significant number of people to follow your plan, you have to make it worth their immediate while. Or alternately, enforce an immediate punishment when they fail to follow the plan. Being immediate is the big thing though -- people are just way too good at finding excuses if the pros and cons are too vague or too far in the future.

  • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Monday November 27, 2017 @09:43AM (#55628993)

    Those are some pretty big friends to have on your side -- our side...

    Fuck no. Just because they want the same thing NOW does not mean they are on our side. They are on their side and for NOW it might be that we want the same thing, but do not confuse that for being on the same side.

    The fact that it would make a difference is what is fucked up. The government should be on the side of the people. It should be "Is this good for the people or not? OK, it is not" and that should be the end of it REGARDLESS of wich company want what.

"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]