Hacker News Reader

Comment by hammock | Hacker News Reader

The traditional argument for why the Internet can't/shouldn't be controlled always had a heavy dose of "it's not practical" in it. But ask yourself, when has the impracticality of regulation ever stopped a big government from lumbering in?

Knowing that stuff like what the OP mentions would eventually osmose into the internet, I have often been a critic of things like Net Neutrality and other structures which would effectively subsidize the current model of The Internet as we know it, locking it in place and creating a barrier to entry for any NEW, more free models which are as yet unheard of but may come along in the future!

Typically it has been very hard for me to get people to wrap their head around the idea that the Internet may not be the end-all be-all pinnacle of human achievement most people consider it to be, and that soon alternatives may arise which if given a fair chance could do even better.

View on HN

Consider the Postal service, A highly regulated platform bound to international agreements that control traffic.

The evolution of the postal service was an important milestone for international communication networks and how they are governed, and like the internet, utterly revolutionary in its day.

The postal service today suffers from many problems, and faces competition from private entities that are faster in delivery, but the very regulation that govern its operation still offer some advantages over FedEx, UPS and the like. the extensive regulation does not seem to have a substantial effect on the success of the alternatives.

the UPU is the second oldest international organization worldwide. and has survived two world wars, not all regulated fields are alike.

I think the idea of Net neutrality is important and should be pursued, ideally as an international agreement similar to the UPU - http://www.upu.int/

You should look into the history of the post office. It didn't revolutionize much. There have been competing businesses throughout history and a few of them were shut down by the government after out competing USPS.

Do you realize that UPS and FedEx often use USPS for some of the less profitable "last mile" destinations?

I posit that without the USPS, near-universal delivery (at rather uniform prices) from private providers would likely not exist.

Is it a stretch to imagine that once the government has all their surveillance and control set up on the Internet (actually a lot of it is already in place), they will attempt to shut down competing models in a similar fashion?

Let's see how they regulate mesh networking

There are two simple ways. First you could require a licence to run any kind of wireless network with a range above 20m or so and second, as it is already the case in Germany, hold the operator responsible for any kind of illegal behaviour that is done through his connection ("Störerhaftung" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%B6rerhaftung). The chilling effect of that law is a big reason why people here don't run open networks or Tor exit nodes.

I bet you could get around that by becoming an ISP. Make sure your network offers public IPs that you don't use (possible if your own ISP offers you an IPv6 range), and you're all set.

In France, doing that would require that you log the connections (who connects when with which IP) for a year, but the "who" part can be a mere MAC address. You also have to declare yourself as an ISP.

If you happen to share your own IP, then it's different. In France as well, you can be considered responsible.

But as an ISP you don't get around legislation that forces ISPs to filter the net.

Luckily, such legislation isn't yet enforced in France, and, I guess, most of Europe (though it will come with LOOPSI, ACTA…).

It is rather difficult to hold an ISPs accountable for its users, unlike content providers. The first is akin to snail mail, while the second it akin to journals. No one ever sued FedEx for mailing Anthrax or hate pamphlets. But the one who sent those? You bet he's accountable!

I agree with you, by the way. Just pointing out that a legislation that forces ISPs to filter the net is a Major Screw-up that should flag its country as an active Enemy of the Internet. I have hope (though I wouldn't count on it) that they won't put a Great Firewall of China.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com