Though I am a staunch supporter of net neutrality (primarily because so much tax payer money and publicly owned assets have gone into laying the actual pipe), I don't really fear a non-open internet.
VPNs are already usable by any motivated main-stream desktop user, and point-to-point + next-gen wifi allowing ad-hoc fast networks are only a matter of time.
At best the telcos will be able to squeeze unreasonable rent out of their infrastructure with outrageous data-caps and surcharges, but the writing on the wall even for that.. municipalities are laying their own fiber, and google fiber is likely only going to keep growing.
Just like no amount of raids, laws, scare tactics, pr campaigns, etc were never able to put even a dent in media pirating: an effectively free an open internet is going to be accessible by motivated individuals, period.
"an effectively free an open internet is going to be accessible by motivated individuals, period."
I believe most citizens (myself included) live and act with the intent to obey the law. So while a free and open internet may be technically feasible for any individual, if the access techniques are actually illegal, citizens who wish to obey the law will lose access. The law still very much matters, even if it is hard to enforce and easy to circumvent.
It certainly matters very much. I didn't mean to imply 'none of this matters'; rather, that the internet is anti-fragile and will continue to service humanity in more-or-less the same way regardless of any law (at least that is even remotely likely to be passed).
Besides, unless I am mistaken (I don't follow it that closely) there is not any whisperings of making things like VPNs or adhoc networks illegal. It is primarily about the "right" of the telcos to favor certain traffic, by increased speed or traffic not counting toward your quota for some sites/services.
If telcos have a 'right' to favor traffic, then using anything that subverts their ability to control your traffic is probably illegal. Rights don't mean anything if you don't have laws backing them.
I don't really fear a non-open internet. VPNs are already usable by any motivated main-stream desktop user ... an effectively free an open internet is going to be accessible by motivated individuals, period.
This makes no sense. An ISP could block VPN traffic... and there are millions of people with access to only a single ISP.
I guess if "motivated individuals" means they have to uproot their lives and move to another part of the country to get a decent ISP.. then sure, I agree. I guess we all have plenty of choices then.
> This makes no sense. An ISP could block VPN traffic... and there are millions of people with access to only a single ISP.
How? They could block access to a specific IP, which might be a VPN server, but they have no way of differentiating encrypted vpn traffic from encrypted anything traffic.
And what requires them to permit encrypted anything traffic? ISPs get away with unjustified port blocking all the time, and with deep packet inspection to throttle traffic they don't approve of.
VPNs are already usable by any motivated main-stream desktop user, and point-to-point + next-gen wifi allowing ad-hoc fast networks are only a matter of time.
At best the telcos will be able to squeeze unreasonable rent out of their infrastructure with outrageous data-caps and surcharges, but the writing on the wall even for that.. municipalities are laying their own fiber, and google fiber is likely only going to keep growing.
Just like no amount of raids, laws, scare tactics, pr campaigns, etc were never able to put even a dent in media pirating: an effectively free an open internet is going to be accessible by motivated individuals, period.