> legislated "net neutrality" enshrines the current mode
I don't see how that's the case. It doesn't prevent distributed solutions from existing it just makes them less necessary.
I don't see how that's the case. It doesn't prevent distributed solutions from existing it just makes them less necessary.
I think it's very likely that if a "net neutrality" framework becomes US law, that municipalities and small organizations who launch their own mesh networks will be told that, in order to comply with the law, they need to deliver Fox News and Netflix at the same bandwidth and latency with which they deliver locally available curated content.
In other words, I suspect that "net neutrality," well-intentioned as it may be today, will be a way to silence alternative internet topologies tomorrow.
Why would the speeds be different? If it's because longer links are more saturated/throttled, and nothing else, that's valid in the presence of net neutrality. Is there any other reason that should be protected?
I think that a misguided or malicious regulator might certain be able to read that physical interconnects represent a "non-neutral" topological configuration, because they allow neighbors to share with each other at speeds faster than those outside their subnet.
That's not how net neutrality works; you're arguing against a straw man. If network operators are blind to the packets on their network -- they have no idea where they came from, where they are going (except to route them to next hop), or what they contain then you have a neutral network. Your argument is participated on the idea of neutrality requiring perfect knowledge but instead it's perfect ignorance.
That means that someone on a community network, that isn't using the Internet very much, can't take advantage of that free peering. Instead they would have to join the same "traffic pool" as heavy users.
As it is everyone pays for their own connectivity. Netflix pays to connect to their ISP. You pay to connect to your ISP. The ISPs pay to connect to each other. They have agreements on traffic levels and bandwidth. But an ISP shouldn't be able to double-dip and "tax" certain services for which they have no direct connection with. It effectively amounts to extortion.
"net neutrality" is the term for the body of existing law, as it has been enforced for the past couple of years since classifying ISP's as "title II" common carriers. That classification was to clarify and enable enforcement of already-existing law, and had bipartisan support. The FCC is currently in the process of dismantling existing policy to abandon "net neutrality".
"Net neutrality" is a concept that long predates anyone dreaming of ISPs as title II.
My concern is that "net neutrality" as a topology concept - important as it has been to the growth of the internet so far - may be both subject to deprecation in favor of something more anarchic (ie, better) and at the same enshrined by law as the result of the current zealotry.
Why?
On a mesh (at least in OSLR or BATMAN), nodes only route certain packets. They are also free to drop packets for any reason, be they geographical or economic. Nobody can demand that a node perform routing.
I can absolutely imagine a malicious regulator claiming that the law requires every node on a small-town mesh to cart Fox News to the other side of town with just as much priority as packets originating from within the town. And that's not really sustainable for a mesh.