[HN Gopher] The Privatized Internet Has Failed Us ___________________________________________________________________ The Privatized Internet Has Failed Us Author : hyperluz Score : 76 points Date : 2022-06-17 20:44 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (slatereport.com) (TXT) w3m dump (slatereport.com) | cyanydeez wrote: | The privatized _____ has helped us. | | Mmmm | iamdamian wrote: | See also: Late capitalism | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism | [deleted] | kristopolous wrote: | The "bring the mainframe to the battlefield" is just false. As is | the idea it was built to withstand nuclear attack. It's uncited | in the book, I've got a copy. That's because it's bullshit | | It was built by academics for tasks like remote timesharing. | | All the early nodes were at academic institutions. Exactly 0 were | on military bases. | | The project goals, people involved, sites it was installed at, | technologies built, all the founders, Cerf, Kahn, Taylor, | Roberts, Linkletter - zero military people - 100% academics. None | of this suggests military purpose | | It just doesn't | | Look at the abysmal security the network had. Do you think email, | rcp, ftp and telnet was designed for military use? | | Anyone could just fraudulently send email as generalSmith@dod.mil | in 1975 and you'd have no way of knowing if it was real. | | And then it would traverse in a totally nondeterministic | completely unencrypted way over any machine that claims it can | get it there. Designed for war? | | It was openly bridged to the Soviet research network through | IIASA, you know, cause that's how cold war things happened - open | door policy to the enemy | | Or what about the routing protocols where a rogue network switch | could just announce itself and then start soliciting for traffic | to pass through it. | | In 1997, a misbehaving router singlehandedly took down the net | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_7007_incident ... Sure, | designed for nuclear war. | | Look at DNS host transfer up to about 2002 - you could just query | for all records dumping your entire network topology, to just | anyone. | | Look at finger and the original whois, an email and personnel | lookup tool. You could use it to get people's schedule, all the | people who work under them, what they're doing, how to contact | them, where they last logged in at | | There's zero security in any of these. The doors are unlocked and | swinging open with a giant honking welcome sign blinking. | | Edit: Apparently reality is unpopular. I'm committed to reality | far more than being popular. I don't care | cfmcdonald wrote: | > The "bring the mainframe to the battlefield" is just false | | It's actually true, more or less. Bob Kahn's initial motivation | for thinking about internetworking was in order to connect | PRNET[0], a packet radio network intended for possible field | use by the Army (by using mobile trucks as stations), with the | computing power in ARPANET. | | > As is the idea it was built to withstand nuclear attack | | Yes, but I don't see that mentioned here. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRNET | [deleted] | jml7c5 wrote: | This article was already sumitted here yesterday, where it | garnered a lot of discussion: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31773233 | hyperluz wrote: | Searched for it before posting, but did't find it. Next time, | will search with an external search engine. | | Edit: yesterday's OP used a highly modified title | lmm wrote: | They may well have used the original title and got edited by | a mod. | pvg wrote: | That site looks like a content farm which might be root | problem. | jml7c5 wrote: | It's a bit of an odd one to search for because both the title | and site are different. I wouldn't have found the original | either. (And, in fact, didn't! It was only because I knew the | previous submission was to Jacobin that I could locate it.) | jonas21 wrote: | The site in today's submission seems to have copied the | original article wholesale and slapped their own byline on | it, along with a bunch of ads. | | The only credit to the original author is at the very | bottom, and that's probably accidental (it was mixed in | with the article content in the original). | vt85 wrote: | walrus01 wrote: | What has failed us is putting people like Ajit Pai in charge of | the FCC and the federal government trying to remove net | neutrality. | | The economics textbook version of the term "regulatory capture" | is what has failed us in the large telecom and large ISP | industry. | | The private internet has failed us? No shit, maybe we shouldn't | allow entities like the combined Centurylink/Level3 to acquire | various mid sized players and reduce the market competition. | Maybe we shouldn't allow Rogers and Shaw to merge in Canada. | Things like that. | | Maybe when the US federal government hands out subsidy money to | companies like Frontier and Verizon to build suburban and rural | FTTH they should be held accountable when they just take the | money and _don 't actually build the service promised_. | | Maybe people in their ordinary homes in ordinary neighborhoods | should have better options than degraded DSL from the local | "phone" company on 30 year old copper POTS lines or the near | monopoly local Comcast DOCSIS3 coax cable service, squeezing | every last dollar of ROI out of that legacy coax plant. | | bias/point of view: I do network engineering for a small/mid-size | ISP that directly competes with the telecom dinosaurs. | alexfromapex wrote: | I feel like the federal government at large has failed us, due | to financial conflicts of interest taking priority over | everything | cyanydeez wrote: | Which is just privatization of X. | [deleted] | svachalek wrote: | It's gotten really bad, and still seems to be accelerating in | that direction. When government stops responding to voters, | it's no longer a democracy (or democratically elected | republic if you want to go there). | rabuse wrote: | We're shifting towards a feudalistic society. | uoaei wrote: | Call it corporatism, techno-/neo-feudalism.... Call it a | mess. | | Make no mistake: these dominating and coercive structures | and the natures of their functions are built with | intention. In each example you will find expressions of | capitalist ideology, namely, control and exploitation at | the behest of the profit motive, as fundaments of their | construction. | | This is not how government _ought_ to be, and I really | hesitated before using that word because I don 't like to | assert it lightly. Government is for governance -- in | democracies and even democratic republics, it is _by | definition_ a service for the people. The cost of those | services, inasmuch as you can quantify a cost borne by _a | sovereignty that manages its own fiat currency_ , cannot | use the same language nor apparatuses as are applied "at | the kitchen table" so to speak. That is ridiculous in the | most spiritedly literal interpretation. | | Additionally, we know by now that optimizing for wealth | re: quarterly profits does not mean optimizing for | cultural/societal/civilizational longevity and | sustainability. I have not yet seen a significant | apologia regarding this basic fact. So clearly the | incentives are wrong vs the stated justifications for the | existence of governmental bodies. The fact that | corporatists infiltrate sovereign governments to install | or convert allies who manipulate public opinion and | policy to produce such a narrative should be considered a | political crisis second to none. | usrn wrote: | There isn't a single functioning agency of the federal | government. The entire thing has been turned against the | American people in order to serve these large corporations. | gumby wrote: | I think you're missing all the stuff that works, and thus | isn't written about. | Calamitous wrote: | I'd be curious what stuff you feel works well, in the | federal government? | | (I'm not being snarky, just genuinely curious) | [deleted] | Vladimof wrote: | > What has failed us is putting people like Ajit Pai in charge | of the FCC and the federal government trying to remove net | neutrality. | | Net neutrality is good, but so far it hasn't fucked with us so | I don't know what you are saying... What really messed up the | internet/world is the centralization... Google, Facebook, | etc... which allows them to control speech on a major scale. | kwatsonafter wrote: | As this article very aptly points out, "centralization" and | it's counterpart, "decentralization" have very little to do | with how, "free" a system is. Consider that when Standard Oil | was broken up it became more powerful and as many small | companies than one large megalith. I'm no fan of Google, | Facebook, the like (..._) but it wasn't these institutions | that failed us necessarily-- it was an uneducated and | tasteless public which had demand for, "dopamine-rich" social | experiences and a lack of insight into what the real causes | of innovation have historically been that created the many- | headed tech Hydra of the day. The present crisis is an | educational and cultural crisis. The structural | characteristics of institutions isn't the only determining | factor in terms of how the public comes to participate in | technology. It's actual marginal in the grand-scheme. | | tl;dr-- Freedom of Speech is stifled in the United States not | because of tech companies but because of its toxic, | unrectified post-Civil War culture where-in huge swaths (100 | millions) of people are systemically kept in cycles of social | stagnancy as a result of the real realities of human life in | post-industrial societies. We've chosen the Machine for | ourselves and the desperation of Americans (you see it in the | Trump people) is the manifest spirit of people caught in the | teeth of the gears of history. What makes this so appalling | to us is the almost religious belief that this is period of | great historical exceptionality-- consider though that | Caesar, Alexander, Hegel, and Napoleon also considered their | time, "exceptional." Consider the October Revolution and | Marx' historicism. | | Life is better than it's ever been. We're upset because out | expectations are made artificially high by our own lack of | historical prudence and a strange overabundance of | imagination. The post-war culture lied to us and told us | anything was possible. We're constantly traumatized by the | fact that we're not living in a perfect world. Bless our | little hearts. | | People like Ajit Pai are flies in the ointment. When the | priests see what's happened they'll throw the whole jar away | and I'm quite sure all the little flies will have learned | their lesson; that is of course until they have the cunning | to become wasps or dragonflies. | walrus01 wrote: | My semi-ranty post is more on the topic of actual large | carriers/telcos/cable company/ILECs/last mile and middle mile | ISPs. Although google has some last mile stuff through their | acquisition of webpass they are not in the same market | segment. | | There are definitely a whole lot of screwed up things going | with walled garden social media platforms and centralization | there as well. | Apocryphon wrote: | > In his analysis of capitalist development, Karl Marx drew a | distinction between the "formal" and "real" subsumption of labour | by capital. In formal subsumption, an existing labour process | remains intact, but is now performed on a capitalist basis. A | peasant who used to grow his own food becomes a wage labourer on | somebody else's farm. The way he works the land stays the same. | In real subsumption, by contrast, the labour process is | revolutionised to meet the requirements of capital. Formerly, | capital inherited a process; now, it remakes the process. Our | agricultural worker becomes integrated into the industrialised | apparatus of the modern factory farm. The way he works completely | changes: his daily rhythms bear little resemblance to those of | his peasant predecessors. And the new arrangement is more | profitable for the farm's owner, having been explicitly organised | with that end in mind. | | > This is a useful lens for thinking about the evolution of the | internet, and for understanding why the dot-coms didn't succeed. | The internet of the mid-to-late 1990s was under private | ownership, but it had not yet been optimised for profit. It | retained too much of its old shape as a system designed for | researchers, and this shape wasn't conducive to the new demands | being placed on it. Formal subsumption had been achieved, in | other words, but real subsumption remained elusive. | | > Accomplishing the latter would involve technical, social and | economic developments that made it possible to construct new | kinds of systems. These systems are the digital equivalents of | the modern factory farm. They represent the long-sought solution | to the problem that consumed and ultimately defeated the dot-com | entrepreneurs: how to push privatisation up the stack. And eBay | offered the first glimpse of what that solution looked like. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31784966 | [deleted] | voz_ wrote: | Is this that jacobin article again? | wmf wrote: | It's another review of the same book that Jacobin reviewed. | gyre007 wrote: | Strange, but if privatised internet has failed us, why is there a | massive banner on top of the article? | [deleted] | ok123456 wrote: | Didn't see it. | [deleted] | rank0 wrote: | Nobody is going to run core internet infrastructure for free. The | government can't even handle our current infrastructure of roads, | bridges, electrical grids, and utilities. How on earth is the | government supposed to operate as an ISP? We need better | regulation, not public ownership. | | Or I guess we'll just tack on another Trillion dollars to our | annual deficit...infinite government expansion/spending can solve | every problem right?! /s | Spooky23 wrote: | I worked for a government telco and ISP, that serviced | govenrment customers. At the time, our cost structure was about | 30-40% less than an equivalent telco service. | | Once you get past the "derp, government dumb", the government | has a lot of competitive advantages. Government entities have | better ability to do capital spending as they aren't beholden | to Wall St analysts, who hate capital. | | For an ISP, a .gov could bond out to build and contract private | operators at a much lower cost than monopoly companies charge | themselves internally. | pessimizer wrote: | > The government can't even handle our current infrastructure | of roads, bridges, electrical grids, and utilities. | | If they stop doing this today, because they're so bad at it, | what system do you think would take roads, bridges, electrical | grids, and utilities over, and would they do a better job or | hasten us into libertarian Mad Max hell? | seoaeu wrote: | > The government can't even handle our current infrastructure | of roads, bridges, electrical grids, and utilities. | | Other than the (private) electrical grid in California and the | blunders in Texas, handling of the electrical grid has been | pretty good. And despite all the complaining from government | contractors who want more road/bridge repair funding sent their | way, those things are honestly in pretty workable shape | walrus01 wrote: | there is a middle ground in between asking that the government | run the internet, and allowing telecom behemoths to merge as | they please and reduce consumer competition. | | https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=largest+t... | | You can run a totally fine regional last mile ISP with 10, 15, | or 50 FTE staff positions. Depending on your geographical | scale. Or 500. | | You don't need to be a Comcast, Centurylink or Verizon sized | monster. | | In fact some of the absolute best consumer-service quality 1GbE | and 10GbE symmetric FTTH ISPs that I'm aware of are run by | teams of less than 25 people in total. On a county sized scale. | klipt wrote: | You seem to be assuming government means federal, but local | government is also government and there are many towns with | municipal fiber their residents are happy with. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Yes consumer focused regulation to ensure net neutrality, ISPs | not spying on you to sell data, and good value for money would | be the solution IMO. You pay for broadband, the watchdog | ensures that the monopolies are doing a good job. | jjtheblunt wrote: | > Nobody is going to run core internet infrastructure for free. | | Agreed. Is the domain name slatereport correlated with Slate, | the news site, which seems to be historically very pro big | government? | shuntress wrote: | Working for the public trust does not automatically make people | incompetent. Publicly run projects have been run fine in the | past with excellent results and there is no inherent flaw in | the model that prevents public projects from succeeding. | | The "Deficit" boogeyman is a tired scare tactic. Spending money | on things that are worth their cost is not bad. | hitovst wrote: | [deleted] | kwatsonafter wrote: | Great article. I like that it gets to the real meat-and-potatoes | of what determines, "tech policy" in the United States. Moving | forward it doesn't seem like a movement back to a, "science and | research-first" communication architecture is really feasible but | I think, considering that the real, "Internet" is just, | "computers talking to each other" that there are going to be | parallelized cultures existing on-top of the extent TCP/IP | infrastructure that might be worthwhile. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-17 23:00 UTC)