![background-1023002_960_720.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmaykTgYFBfxJPHNvnAxkBnmqPFjcE4bJBkGp69hD3sJDk/background-1023002_960_720.jpg) There are many merits to free and open access to information. With the recent FCC's repeal of net neutrality, giving Internet Service Providers (ISPs) control over access-points to Internet resources, further fragmentation is bound to happen and the lack of net neutrality could stifle the power of network effects. Cyberbalkanization will be expedited under such an arrangement, especially between Internet users that have no choice over their ISPs. It's a slippery slope for censorship. It'll create an insidious problem, even if the intent is absent. Here's what cyberbalkanization means:- > *Cyberbalkanization is the segregation of the Internet into smaller groups with similar interests, to a degree that they show a narrow-minded approach to outsiders or those with contradictory views. While the Internet has largely been credited for broadening discussion, it also can serve as a means of bringing together fringe groups with intolerant viewpoints. So, while the Internet has contributed to globalization and information exchange, it also may be used to foster discrimination.* > _{*by [Techopedia](https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28087/cyberbalkanization)*} While net neutrality has been holding back free market solutions by the private sector, I personally think that net neutrality should stay, just like our unspoken rule about mail neutrality. It's clearly a bad idea if mailing networks are discriminatory and doesn't serve any of your mails or attempts to communicate with certain parts of the population. It's the virtual equivalent of Trump's wall. All consenting parties should ideally be able to communicate with one another with filters / restrictions. However, the nature in which net neutrality is maintained ought to be shifting into the power of markets, away from good old nation-state control. ![Public-and-private-sector (1).jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmP6ejNUDUU1Kf9NNoqxuDyR4zEoic6ChpieSeoXEvzQHk/Public-and-private-sector%20(1).jpg) _{Source: [Startup-Book](http://www.startup-book.com/2013/10/13/the-entrepreneurial-state-the-important-role-of-government-in-innovation-part-2/)} But it's not as simple as it seems. Even though net neutrality has been repealed, it remains that ISPs will still be dependent on the cost-intensive infrastructures that are funded, built, and maintained by [the entrepreneurial state](https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/). The private sector wouldn't be able to manage building out the entire foundations of the Internet on their own without absorbing too much capital risks. So we're left with a far bigger problem with the end of net neutrality, whether or not if you agree with state-control. In any case, ISPs don't actually operate in a free market since they have a dependency on expensive infrastructures that are a mix of the private and public sector. A better description of the modus operandi of ISPs is that they operate in a licensed cartel environment. Even Andreas Antonopolous explained the same thing [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yahjdULhtlc). Personally, I think ISPs will end up trying to capitalise on specific segments of Internet traffic with huge influxes of user activity. You've guessed it: cryptocurrency-related activities would be a lucrative target to gatekeep. It's the fastest growing phenomenon on the Internet anyway. ![](https://steemitimages.com/DQmQnj6FdpZm5ys3y98zKrDYcHkAH5RagTqq5SBNs8inJzy/image.png) _{Source: https://substratum.net/} With net neutrality being a hot topic recently, I came across a cryptocurrency project called Substratum, thanks to @lpfaust's notification. After studying their [whitepaper](https://substratum.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Substratum_English_Whitepaper.pdf) and [devlogs](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxUJoTH0XLERKl55zGnFI6g), I'm actually quite convinced now their solution is positioned extremely well in the space to provide free and open access for anyone with an Internet connection. All with the right token economics that'll enable mass adoption since anyone can participate easily in the mesh network with any web browser, all without the need for VPN or Tor. I've personally acquired some [Substratum (SUB) tokens](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/substratum/) recently because I believe this is a great free market solution for net neutrality, particularly when access to the Internet has now fallen onto the whims of overly-large corporations with vested interests that might work against the grain of users. I think it's going to be a huge win for everyone even in places like China and Venezuela with firewalls on web content, if the end product works. Check out Substratum's recent devlog:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0JLybfyt4 If money is pure information and a content-type, the solutions for net neutrality offered by Substratum will be a great benefit for cryptocurrencies and Internet users worldwide, in my opinion. Definitely a long-term hold for me. I think they've something legit and wish they'd get more attention and scrutiny to get it going. Please resteem this if you like the message. Hopefully this has been an informative post. Thanks for reading! PS: Substratum reminds me of [this scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V83cVWirw4) in the [Silicon Valley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_(TV_series)) series. # Resources Substratum website: https://substratum.net/ How-it-works: https://substratum.net/how-it-works/ Whitepaper: https://substratum.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Substratum_English_Whitepaper.pdf Markets: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/substratum/#markets --- --- _{This is not to be taken as financial advice. Please do your own research.
Follow me @kevinwong.}