[dend]

I generally agree with the sentiment (and yes, internet should be treated as an utility). However, the reality is that the vast majority of people will not be able to self-host on their own hardware for a myriad of reasons (lack of skill, lack of money, lack of interest, etc.) That's not a reason to gatekeep them from having their own corner and claim it as theirs.

If you have a domain and your own site, even hosted on a colocated rack or in the cloud, you're already miles ahead of those that don't. And if you have a domain and can manage DNS records, then in the future that doesn't preclude you from "graduating" to your own hardware, if you so desire. The goal here is more or less self-sufficiency with web properties rather than a pure interpretation of "rent" vs. "own." Because at some point you have to rent something from someone (say, you're not running your own domain registry and registrar).

[dusted]

I don't want to gatekeep, I want to gate-unkeep! The way things are going, we're divinding the people and the companies into two classes, with the former having fewer rights and privileges than the latter. I want everyone to have the RIGHT to participate in the Internet, should they have the interest to learn how to do it. That right is under pressure when we accept this division, when we use the excuse that "most people don't know how to", to justify taking away everyones right to even try.

If only companies have the right to participate on the internet, they are empowered even more to chose who should be allowed to even run a website.. It's a slippery slope that ends up in a very bad place, participation wise. It becomes like the airline industry, where the companies pushing hardest for more regulation and red-tape are the oldest, those who made their fortunes back when it was easier and cheaper, and who now use their enourmous wealth to make it harder for new players to enter their market.

It's the same everywhere, when you start allowing power to concentrate.

[BlueTemplar]

There is a simple way though : have the ISPs provide all of this. If they can provide you a personal website, an email account and a NAS, they can also provide you a a personal website and an email account ON that NAS. (Especially now, with IPv6.)

(Which of course assumes that there are laws in place against lock-in, just like there are already laws in place against lock-in for your pick of ISPs and obligations for mobile carriers to transfer your phone number to another carrier.)

[dusted]

I think this only shifts the problem, the whole idea with the internet is a distributed network of computers that talk with each other, and if the computers at the edge (end users) can't do that, then it's no longer the internet, it's something else, more akin to cable-tv where there are "providers" and "consumers". The playing field stops being level.

[BlueTemplar]

Well, yes, I am specifically calling for ISPs to build this edge infrastructure in people's homes, so I don't understand your point ?

[dusted]

Ah, I took it as you suggesting the ISPs providing VPS services for people..

Thing is, that edge infrastructure has been there from the beginning of broadband and is only recently beginning to slip away, with the advent of ISP NAT, agressive IP rotations, blocking of ports and not providing public IPs at all.

[sneak]

ISPs don’t want lots of customers sending lots of data. Their model is based on millions of dumb consumers downloading (only) from the same 20 ASes.