One of the main reasons we don’t have a truly decentralised internet is actually really simple: it’s the fact that providers globally don’t give us symmetric upload/download speeds and fixed IP addresses at home. Kills decentralisation at the root. 1/2
For me a fixed IP address and symmetric upload/download speeds for domestic internet connections are the forgotten part of #NetNeutrality , killed by brutal „IP“ lobbyism since the 1990s. 2/2
here in UK you have to get a business grade connection and pay a small amount extra for it. But with a lot of UK home ISP connections they actively discourage running servers from there, some ISPs even forbid it in conditions of service (not sure how much its enforced), but dynamic IPs traffic shaping and sometimes locked down routers make it difficult anyway...
In the Philippines, almost everyone is behind CGNAT, so that locks out almost everyone from hosting servers from their homes.
this fedi instance i'm on is selfhosted, but i had to use a reverse ssh proxy to do that, not the kind of thing we want if we need more people to selfhost.
@jwildeboer Das hatten eir schon bei 1200/75 moniert und deswegen eigene symmetrische Netze aufgebaut. Aber die Masse der Mir-alles-egal-Sauger hat leider (mit) dazu geführt, dass sich die „order & pay“-Leitung für Endverbraucher durchgesetzt hat.
@jwildeboer I think that's way too simple. Many people have sufficiently fast uplinks and still don't run a local server for the public.
Some reasons are:
a) The operation of servers is too complex and requires too much knowledge (e.g. the Ruby tinkering for Mastodon).
b) People use the network much more mobile and most people do not have an always-on PC, if they still have a PC at all.
@ls Interestingly the concept of services running from home (or very close to it) is making a comeback - under corporate control - as edge computing. And most DSL routers nowadays have enough capacity to be that always-on PC and have been dabbling with adding services since quite some time.
@jwildeboer But "under corporate control" is not my definition of "truly decentralised internet".
It's not about physical location of servers (a corporate server in your LAN is even worse than a data center). It's about autonomy and users having control over their data, right?
That means you need simple and secure-to-use server software so average people can understand it... and we are far away from that. And you need firewalls, security concepts, ...
@jwildeboer I totally agree but maybe the bigger factors today are that people either don't have the knowledge to self-host or are having security concerns. For me personally, the latter is important. However that doesn't mean you have to use the big players instead, there are plenty smaller service providers for many things.
@firstname.lastname@example.org I dunno. its not like bit torrent doesn't work at all in these scenarios. developers are very conditioned to think in terms of centralized or federated infrastructure so it isn't intuitive to work with a DHT. have to be a little creative. in many places, its ADSL or no networking at all really. would be better to have more symmetric networks for sure, but its also more expensive to deploy and not everyone can afford.
@jwildeboer this is absolutely true, but in addition to pointing fingers at ISPs, you need to point fingers at IP itself--a protocol with no roaming or multi-homing is fundamentally unsuitable for connecting to remote services. it's fine for physical routing to be done in the hierarchical manner IP does, but those addresses are no more appropriate for treating as service identities any more than MAC addresses are. DNS is a shitty way of mapping names to the *wrong* thing, and then you have to glue the entire TLS PKI onto it just to verify who you end up talking to anyway.
IPv6 doesn't solve this at all. overlay systems like cjdns, yggdrasil, etc. attempt to, but the network itself could perform this function instead of requiring inefficient overlays to do it--that's what alternative systems like RINA implement, though RINA itself goes even further and does away with the absurdity of a flat global address namespace entirely.
@email@example.com So much yes. I would really like to host more stuff from Home but 100/50 (down/up) is just not enough for lots of stuff. Anything that requieres more bandwidth is hard to do from home
That's inherent in the decision to allow commercialization of the internet. Content providers subsidized the consumer internet. If it had remained academic, it would have been an elite tool for much longer, but eventually would've become more available through municipal access points
Then, policing would be more of an issue, so...
Probably a utility monopoly under common carrier rules would be as close to ideal as one can get under capitalism
@jwildeboer there is a ridiculous artificial scarcity of upload speed for "residential connections" in the united states, effectively creating a class of consumerist downloaders. Physical control of information in media distribution systems by their physical placement in datacenters is much easier to manage from a top-down point of view, so there are many people motivated to do this as the internet is an incredibly powerful platform for influence.
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name