Timeline for Net Neutrality and Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2017 at 8:41 | comment | added | user1306322 | @cr0 there is apparently a way to use wifi with special towers to make a mesh network with flat hierarchy and thus low latency. The real world examples I've read about are still dependent on the existing bigger ISPs' backbone, but theoretically you could interconnect such wifi mesh towns with optic cables, if you ever got a permit to place the cable. Wifi doesn't seem to require permissions, but as always, local radiotelecommunication laws differ. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 21:48 | comment | added | cr0 | @user1306322 have you learned anything about decentralized solutions in the past few months? I have read about them before, mainly for use in places with very sparse internet access (rural or 'developing' places). Can't recall the 'movement' that had info on it though | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 18:02 | comment | added | SlySven | I was considering switching to BT because VM spam email filtering also broke my IPv6 tunnel via the free SixXS broker (they finally shut down after running for 18 years last month as they feel that ISPs should have finally get their IPv6 connectivity sorted out by now) over a year ago - guess which major (Top 3) UK ISP has not yet got IPv6 implemented (well they have ~1000 test users at the moment) - it is due real soon now (at least they are no longer claiming "We are not going to run out of IPv4 addresses for the foreseeable future"...! 🤥) | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 17:38 | comment | added | Mark K Cowan |
@SlySven: No idea, I set up a DNS proxy (pdnsd) on a cloud server, serving on port 54, then another pdns proxy locally which uses that one (local proxy necessary as system insists on port 53), then I have systemd-resolved configured to use the local pdns proxy. Censorship in the UK is really easy to get around, just a bit annoying. The DNS hijacking is done by filtering only on port #53 and non-BT DNS servers. I've also put SSH through ISPs who block it (and also the Great Firewall of China) just by running on port 443 (HTTPS).
|
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 17:24 | comment | added | SlySven | @MarkKCowan Does dnscrypt help to provide a solution to your issue? | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 12:20 | comment | added | Mark K Cowan | @SlySven: I'm on BT and they hijack DNS requests, rewriting all A-record requests to point to two of their servers, unless you use BT's own DNS which has censorship, and which redirects you to adware sites for non-existent domains instead of giving error/no response (breaking some software that expects RFC-complaint DNS). After weeks of phone calls BT have still not "been able to find the problem"... | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 5:07 | comment | added | SlySven | On a personal note I am seeing this sort of effect here in the UK! I have an Internet Connected PVR from YouView however my ISP/Cable TV Virgin Media operator is not one of the Media companies involved - they have their own Cable TV receivers which duplicates most of the functionality in a different way that YouView provides. However because of "differences in interpreting" a protocol or something the on-line functions of the PVR are totally crippled & useless with neither taking the blame/or fixing it. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 4:52 | comment | added | SlySven | Strange to think that back when ARPANet was put together it was designed to maintain as good as possible as much as possible of the interconnectivity between the connected Hosts - so that should some links fail in, say, the unfortunate occurrence of something like a nuclear war the remainder would still get their packets through what remained in the network via even a tortuous route. Now it seems the FCC is trying to work exactly in the opposite direction - at least for those who are unwilling/unable to pay for "enhanced" access to the system. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 5:35 | history | edited | user1306322 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 355 characters in body
|
| Jun 30, 2017 at 15:36 | comment | added | user1306322 | I wonder if there's a completely decentralized solution, like a mesh of a huge number of nodes with a long range and no dependency on wires. Where the users don't rely on a single or even as little as <10 connections. Wifi seems too weak for achieving that. Maybe a mesh of LTE/4/5G wireless routers and access points? Latency and bandwidth aside, I'd like to learn about such potential options in case a local ISP goes rogue. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 13:45 | comment | added | Servy | @MonicaCellio It's a problem at both ends (and in between). The ISP can not only stifle a competing services just before it reaches the consumer, but also between that competing services' servers and the backbone, or any time traffic from that competing service goes through any part of the network they control (even if they aren't directly servicing either endpoint). That means that this is most certainly relevant for foreigners, because access to those competing services can still be impacted before they leave the country (unless the competing service has servers outside the US). | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 13:30 | comment | added | Braiam | @user1306322 which would be a cost and management nightmare. On infrastructure, it's recommended that the state regula.. nay, control it, like electricity, health, transport, etc. You cannot trust private interest to not use the leverage that brings natural monopolies to further their benefits. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 12:59 | comment | added | user1306322 | @Braiam then we should strive to have more than just 1 route of communication between important points? Wifi or similar close-ranged mesh networking comes to mind as a potential solution, in absence of alternative high-speed wired connections. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 12:29 | comment | added | Braiam | @user1306322 remember that the internet has many layers, and some of them are kind of the only route between both points. If someone along the line wants to, they can screw anyone that pass through their network. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 11:24 | comment | added | user | "if you're not a USian, you can donate to EFF, but I'm not sure about that either." It's certainly possible to donate (a single time, or recurring) to the EFF even though you have nothing to do with the USA. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 7:43 | comment | added | user1306322 | @MonicaCellio so, you're saying that no matter what kind of means of obfuscating where I'm trying to download my traffic from (VPN/Tor), if it's not from the "approved" places by my ISP (assuming I'm in the US, and it may be very well Comcast), it will get slowed down? Sounds to me like the only screwed citizens in this scenario are US citizens, as we're talking FCC which has no power outside US (granted, their decision might affect other countries, but not as much as US). Other countries may still have their own regulations in place against this kinda stuff. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 4:03 | comment | added | Wildcard | @MonicaCellio, ah, well that is certainly true. :) It's really an amazingly multifaceted issue—the least clear-cut of any modern hot button, in my opinion. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 3:59 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @Wildcard yeah, I don't know those answers either. I was just trying to explain why it's not as easy as moving servers. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 3:08 | comment | added | Wildcard | @MonicaCellio, but that doesn't cover the other side of the coin. If Comcast wants to set up new, faster infrastructure to stream their own video service (which would be a much lower cost than setting up faster infrastructure for everyone), would they be able to legally do so? I think not. Even if the end result would have been (a) sufficient profits from their streaming service to (b) incentivize the creation of the accelerated infrastructure in the first place and (c) enough money and experience in dealing with the new infrastructure at small scale to (d) make it available broadly. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 2:28 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | The problem is at the other end. Say you get your Internet service from Comcast. And say they decide that they want you to buy your streaming video from them, not from Netflix So they slow down the traffic coming from Netflix to your house. This has nothing to do with where Netflix's servers are. If you're Netflix you can probably pay the fee that Comcast demands to let your traffic through unhindered; if you're some indie video site, you probably can't. And while that much is a US problem, the secondary effects -- like Netflix raising fees to cover that cost -- affect everyone. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 2:10 | history | answered | user1306322 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |