babble: Breaking America's grip on the net

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » labour and consumption » Breaking America's grip on the net

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Breaking America's grip on the net

Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 06 October 2005 11:49 PM

quote:
After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments

Guardian story

quote:
Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium.

From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 07 October 2005 01:25 AM

Since the internet is global, it shouldn't be controlled by the U.S. government. It makes sense for there to be an international or UN body.

For example, the UPU (Universal Postal Union) was setup back in the 19th century. It basically guarantees that if you drop a letter in a mailbox in Toronto that it'll get delivered in Timbuktu.

That letter may end up going through several countries en route and all of the postal administrations are obligated by the UPU rules to handle it.

The ITU (International Telecommunications Union) regulates what radio frequencies get used for what purpose on a global basis. Everyone pretty much follows these rules.

IATA (International Air Transport Association) regulates international air transportation...even things like what info has to be on an airline ticket.

From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 07 October 2005 12:50 PM

In fairness, the internet was started by the US government (actually their military, which then gave it to their universities). But in keeping with its beautifully anarchistic nature, I'd suggest it might be best if no one organization ran it, UN or otherwise ... at most each government could apply regulations locally, though ideally each ISP could apply it as desired (which might mean a poliferation of protocols, but that might be interesting in its own right). The need to provide communications would ensure that everyone co-operated, without some controlling organization.

From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 October 2005 01:19 PM

Interesting. In effect they seem to be saying "Gee, thanks for this interconnected network that we all joined up on and everything, but now we want to run it."

If they didn't approve of the root servers being run by the people who started the internet, they should have refused to connect to it.

It's like me signing up with my ISP, then saying "OK, now that I'm hooked up to this thing, I demand to run it."

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 October 2005 01:37 PM

Oh, of course--the whole thing belongs, or should belong, lock stock and barrel to the US government. After all, they laid all the cable . . . wait, they didn't? Well, they pay for all the servers worldwide that move packets around . . . they don't? Well, anyway, they came up with the concepts and protocols for the World Wide Web and HTML and stuff . . . that was guys at Cern in Europe? Well at least all the relevant software for handling web stuff and email was written by the US government . . . it's all open source or private sector?

What was the reason again? Oh, yeah, someone in the US government invented a protocol for passing messages that was intended to let the military keep communicating even if lots of their bases had been nuked. And they currently run a registry service.

Big fucking whoop. The internet's decentralized. If someone else wants to run a competing registry service, and people start using it for lookup instead, I don't see what business it is of the US government. I suppose they could keep operating theirs forever, and we could see whose eventually became irrelevant, or if the software all started checking against both.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 07 October 2005 05:00 PM

quote:
Interesting. In effect they seem to be saying "Gee, thanks for this interconnected network that we all joined up on and everything, but now we want to run it."

Same mentality that some right-wing folks had over the Carter-Torrijos treaty that turned sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone back to Panama.

From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 October 2005 05:13 PM

Except that the Panama Canal is a physical thing, in Panama.

This is a network of computers. If they didn't like the Internet such as it was, they could always have created their own network, couldn't they have?

Then, at some inevitable point, "Euro-Net" or whatever they wanted to call it could have possibly connected up with Arpanet, but at that point there would be a more plausible negotiation over any administrative duties.

quote:
Big fucking whoop. The internet's decentralized. If someone else wants to run a competing registry service, and people start using it for lookup instead, I don't see what business it is of the US government.

I agree. Nobody should be forced to use an Internet they don't like.

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 October 2005 05:29 PM

And if the Americans wanted to control it, maybe they shouldn't have made the protocols an international standard. Then they could have US-only protocols and be unable to talk to the rest of the world.

Near as I can make out, the domain thing is just a phone book for computers. You'd all be using the same internet, just like now with deregulation we've got umpteen little phone books with wide overlap in what numbers are in them, but we use the same phone lines to call and the call goes through the same switching hard- and soft-ware no matter which book we look up the number on. It is not a matter of setting up a new, totally different internet any more than the US DoD physically set up the old internet.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 October 2005 05:33 PM

In the case of deregulating the Bell monopoly it was a matter of allowing smaller carriers to turn a profit too, rather than one monolith.

What's the "profit" to administrating the internet? Exactly what benefit does the U.S. derive from providing this service, that the EU would like some of?

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 07 October 2005 05:45 PM

It's not about profit. It's (mostly) about trust. In order for the internet to function there has to be some agreed upon names and numbers. Right now that is a private organization called ICANN. Said organization has been captured by large corporations. The US government is currently the body that will enforce the ICANN decisions.

Some people don't trust the US government in this area. In particular, probably the first area where this becomes significant is dispute resolution mechanism for the things like cybersquatting etc. The US government is not seen as a effective force in controlling corporate power creeping.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: