I'm starting to get the feeling that this shit is never going to stop coming. Something HUGE will have to happen if we want the government (& people/organizations that are pushing this bills forward) to realize that this does not lead anywhere good. But what? A full blown anarchy, massive revolutions? It seems to me that there is no reasoning with this people and that riots (or something such) are the only was to go here (if it comes that far). I'm not advocating riots/anarchy/... mind you, but I fear that is the only way. But ... seeing how my fellow citizens are (completely apathetic), that seems unlikely to happen even if they take the internet away completely.
The word "anarchy" is thrown around when a politician does not understand how something exists without their approval. Maybe we should embrace this idea once more. Anarchy is not the same as disorder or lack of rules. Opposing chaos is a no brainer, what the political system is opposing is precisely the ordered anarchy that the internet has become.
>Anarchy is not the same as disorder or lack of rules.
Well said. Anarchy is not a world without rules - it's a world without rulers.
I always like to refer to something that Alan Moore (the author of V for Vendetta) said: he regards the current state of society as anarchy gone horribly wrong. As he remarks, people often like to claim that in a state of anarchy, the strongest would eventually rule, and use this to dismiss the philosophy as a whole.
Now he asks (and so do I), how is this different from our current society? The strong (corporations and governments backed by monetary and military power) control the weak (the general populace), and will do everything to keep the current state of affairs and to prevent the loss of their power, including threats, lies and atrocities against life.
Anarchy is the most natural and best state of human society. It is actually unavoidable, since entropy dictates that any society will eventually disintegrate. Instead of counteracting this with increasingly strict control, which always leads to some sort of authoritarian dictatorship (which will also eventually destroy itself), we should embrace chaos, and try to work with it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist or - worse - that it is tamable.
I was suggesting anarchy/revolution/whatever to demonstrate to our leaders that we do not agree with what they are doing, and that they cannot shove us around however they wish.
If you support the government, and have also given them a monopoly of force, you are explicitly supporting a social contract you seem to detest.
EDIT: Come now, why the downvotes? I'm not saying they are correct or not--I'm merely pointing out that it is somewhat contradictory to both call for revolution/anarchy and yet still de facto support the government.
EDIT2: Moreover, the final part of the parent explicitly says "...cannot shove us around however they wish." They very much can, as we have all given our respective governments reasonable monopoly on force in exchange for whatever it is they do that benefits us. Complaining about that while at the same time being a disarmed taxpayer is akin to complaining about the rain while leaving your umbrella indoors.
Yes I pay taxes, otherwise I would be thrown in jail. That doesn't mean I support the government. It would be rather hard to fight the power behind bars, don't you think?
Your arguments is the same as: you support factories that pollute, because you are breathing air.
Of course it is never going to stop coming. That does not mean that all is lost though.
The Internet as we know it today did not grow up in unregulated anarchy, it was purposefully structured this way by government action (as the article points out). That is proof that governments, given the right inputs, can get things right when it comes to the Internet. If you're fearful of what the government might do next, the thing to do is engage and influence the government to get it right again--not despair and dream of revolution.
It'll most likely be a second coming of the Internet, more decentralized than ever using mesh networking... People already use gigabit LAN networks in apartment blocks - combine that with high speed Wifi and other wireless/optics communications and new protocols and it's problem solved - then governments and regulating organizations will have to lower their demands or people would just stop using them - solves the trans-oceanic Internet problem, as well...
It's telling that the conference is being held in Dubai, UAE, which blocks Skype because it competes with the incumbent monopoly telecommunications company, Etisalat, which is majority owned by the government of the UAE which is an absolute hereditary monarchy.
Remind me again why people like this should have any say in how the internet is run?
At least we can take comfort that the UN is basically toothless and the good old USA more or less controls it... With the occasional rise from China/Russia... As long as the Americans keep their government in check everything will be fine, right?
Liberty always has the cost of blood, but why shed more blood than necessary?
Preemptive de-legitimization of their control is the first (and best) step towards reducing general popularity of governments attempting to establish control over the internet. Workarounds will definitely be declared illegal and dangerously punished.
This shows no understanding of how the Internet operates.
There is no technical reason why organisations like ICANN and IETF have the say that they do - at the end of the day it is nothing but consensus that empowers them. We choose to listen to what the IETF says about protocols, and choose to use the DNS root servers blessed by ICANN. If those organisations become corrupted, we can choose to use others.
In the post-Singularity world depicted in the novel Singularity Sky [1] the IETF has taken over the UN because the concept of nation or money or army is now meaningless.
It would be a nice thought experiment to think for a second of a UN organisation that is consensus-based, not vote based and whose resolutions are not binding in case the market expects a different outcome. Oh, wait, it is exactly how it is run now.
Until it becomes illegal (in some countries) to use IETF/IANA/ICANN stuff instead of the "official" ITU alternatives. Just to give one example, a national firewall could block all the ICANN/IANA DNS root servers so that you have to use new ITU root servers.
Good luck with that. DNS lookups are only a few bytes long and thus are probably the easiest protocol in common use to smuggle. So technically it won't work.
However, a country could abuse its own population in order to force it to work most of the time. There's probably not a technical solution to that problem, people need to use the freedoms they have to oppose techno-authoritarianism before it can take over.
I don't think it has any chance of being widely adopted in its current incarnation because of two major flaws:
1. The early adopter advantage is too high (the designers took steps to limit this, but not enough.)
2. Renewal is free (encourages squatting.)
And there are other missed opportunities. A built-in auction system would be nice, as would a mechanism for registering a "tld" and inviting public registration of subdomains.
Still, I reckon they got the basic idea right - decentralised registry of domains, using well-tested (thanks to bitcoin) cryptographic algorithms.
Works currently. This could change that. There's little difference these days between the phone and internet networks, and yet they have no trouble charging more for international calls.
The way that "the intrawebs works" NOW you mean looks like this is a power grab from the ITU - who still seam to be smarting over the fact the TCP/IP won over OSI.
And historically inter country charging was a major source of revenue for smaller countries which is why the Postmaster General was such a plumb job loads of opertunities to siphon off cash to your swiss bank acounts
Wow, I can't believe this is the first I've heard about this. Any discussions over internet control that give China a say will not end well. I don't see how any regulation can improve the internet. All the government influence we have seen this far has only tried to hurt it.
I get the feeling that governments really, really want to see mass protests and rebellions worldwide over the access to Youtube and Facebook. Why they can't see that touching the Internet will not end well for anyone?
EDIT
It was a bit of a hyperbole on my part, and I wasn't thinking about Arab Spring - more about recent anti-ACTA protests in Europe. And while it is true that revolutions in Egypt, etc. were not about the Internet access, we (aka. the so caled 'first world') noticed them only after those governments started blocking the Internet in their countries.
Countries with oppresive regimes have lots of reasons for people to protest about; I'm more worried about our 'democratic part' of US and Europe, where tensions are building up on topics of freedom, and especially freedom of the Internet. Just a small example - recent takedown of Megaupload has annoyed lots of normal (non-IT) people in my country, as Megavideo was really, really popular way to watch TV series here. General sentiments are not looking good. I wouldn't be surprised to see more Internet-freedom-related protests in the future; especially that anti-ACTA protests in Poland seem to have been quite influential in the EU politics on the topic. And as people get more daring, there's a short way from protests to riots.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression that the Americans are worried that the US is turning into a fascist state. I don't see how governments poking around the Internet is going to help to alleviate those worries.
From my perspective here in the US the Arab Spring was more about rising food prices and a lack of opportunity. Will that trend extrapolate here to America? I think it is very possible since we are starting to see gas prices creeping up.
AS far as fascism goes - the US was set up to be a representative democracy. You do not have direct control over policies but you elect people who do. On a state level the government can react much more quickly to popular opinion and is held responsible. On the federal level, there is a risk of power being out of touch with the need for Progress.
Governments want control over Youtube, Facebook etc. in order to prevent these kinds of uprisings.
People weren't rioting over access to Youtube and Facebook, but access to them did fuel the riots and help coordinate them (hence they were shut down).
• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for
"international" Internet traffic
Intuitively, this seems like a terrible idea, but I'm having trouble coming up with actual reasons why. Why don't ISPs charge more money for traffic with a lower TTL number? If you're sending a packet to London, rather than next door; it touches more routers, and takes up more fiber capacity, so it costs more, but the customer isn't charged more. Which seems weird.
> If you're sending a packet to London, rather than next door; it touches more routers, and takes up more fiber capacity, (...)
There's the bug in your logic: A packet to London may touch less routers than one next door due various reasons that disallow routers near you to handle the traffic (maybe the "direct line" between you and your neighbor is damaged. Then it has to go to London and back - and this is only the most simple example). In general, you cannot say which routers are touched by a packet before you've send it.
> There's the bug in your logic: A packet to London may touch less routers
Regardless of the number of routes, the ISP knows before relaying your packet that certain destinations require the use of paid traffic while other can be accessed with peered traffic. I agree with the grand-parent: it seems strange that ISP are not charging more for access to IPs that are outside their peering agreements. I am not suggesting it; I just find it strange that they are not trying to push it on us like the mobile operators are trying to do giving you free access to Facebook [1] and their own music stores while charging for access to other sites.
> it touches more routers, and takes up more fiber capacity, so it costs more, but the customer isn't charged more.
From a consumer protection standpoint, how would you communicate this to the end user?
When you're dialing a phone number, you can look at it and know if it's local, long-distance or international, and you can make the informed decision to make the call or not given your phone company's price list.
But when you're on the internet, how would that work? A popup before each TCP connection is established? What about "local" webpages that use "international" resources, like embedding jQuery from Google?
No, the business model is already taken care of, the various providers are organized in tiers with peering agreements, and everyone pays to their upstream link.
There are already countries where international traffic costs more than domestic traffic. Ever rent a server in South Korea? International traffic is often limited to 1-3% of your monthly quota, depending on who your backbone provider is. Overage fees on international traffic usually run an order of magnitude higher than usual.
A policy like that has more than merely economic impact. It discourages people from interacting freely with foreign web services, contributing to a relatively isolated online culture. Korea might be doing this for economic and technical reasons only, but you can be sure that China has cultural and political agendas.
Bringing the same policy to consumers, on the other hand, would be insane. Even in Korea, consumers only pay a flat rate and the ISP absorbs any cost difference.
Just speaking from Mexico... Telmex soon announcing - "Banda Ancha Internacional". Mr Slim already charges insane fees for any form of communication through his company, having an opportunity like this, he'd seize it immediately.
While technologically there is a valid case we all know that in reality the system will be abused once implemented, named by oppressive regimes like Iran and China. It's no surprise that China and Russia are pushing schemes like this. Both Iran and China have already stated they want 'their' own version of the internet and China is already succeeding. Theoretically any country could claim to have an 'open' internet but in practice charge insane fees for international traffic, effectively censoring their citizens. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
Governments get sick when they hear 'freedom' in any form, especially if they cannot shut it up at will. So be prepared to more fighting over the years, as the stake - the amount of free Internet users - grows every year.
Hmm actually I think something along those lines would be a great idea. Some sort of Geneva Convention style treaty (but with more binding teeth) that lays out a list of fundamental principles and rights for the internet that all countries agree to adhere i.e. go over the head of the ITU.
Well I guess that's where people power comes in (or revolution!). If the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ and most of the good countries in South America and Asia signed it, that would be enough for me. The Iran's of this world can have their own walled garden if they want.
>Some sort of Geneva Convention style treaty (but with more binding teeth) that lays out a list of fundamental principles and rights for the internet that all countries agree to adhere i.e. go over the head of the ITU.
That'll be awesome...
ISP's have to be located in countries... I wonder if it's feasible to launch a "Free Internet" satellite or something...
ISPs located in a country that has signed up to the treaty would have no issue communicating with other treaty member ISPs and since the idea is that most of the worlds decent countries are signed up to this new treaty, where's the problem?
Paying more for international traffic... FFS, this stuff is never going to end until the Internet is comprised of a giant decentralized mesh of millions of wireless routers in people's homes. And that will definitely happen once regulation gets past a certain point...
Why is it that governments are all for deregulating the financial, health and environmental sectors, but are chomping at the bit to impose more regulation on the greatest success story in the history of human civilisation?
If I were a cynic, I'd say it's because they're corrupt.
Why is it that governments are all for deregulating the financial, health and environmental sectors
Where do you see any deregulation (especially in the USA) of finance and health? These must be the two most regulated industries in the nation, and only becoming more so. Consider SarbOx and then Dodd-Frank, and ObamaCare; while I don't see anything that's loosening the reins in those areas.
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I think this qoute has some relevance here. What we have now might not be perfect, but it works.
The article conveniently omits the fact that the Internet is already partially regulated by one side: the US. After all, ICANN et al. are American organizations and many of the most popular top domains (e.g. .com), which for all intents and purposes should be considered international, are within the reach of US law enforcement.
And we know what that means: Among other things, reckless and predatory practices protecting the interests of RIAA, MPAA and other dangerous entities from before the Internet era.
The author of the article (an FCC commissioner) simply defends the interests of one side, while ignorant readers think this is a benevolent editorial in defense of Internet freedom.
Protecting the interests of RIAA and MPAA is one thing. China, Russia and a lot of other countries want a complete different level of censorship and the current USA actions will look quite benign compared to what other countries want. Let me put it this way: things are bad, but they can become orders of magnitude worse.
That's great, except China and Russia can't impose anything. As the article says, the UN body is representative, every of the 190-sth members has a vote, and only some of them are despotic autocracies that will align themselves with China and Russia.
I would much rather have Brazil come up with some other ideas and instead of regulating the Internet, simply deny control to anyone, including the US.
[I recently read an article by Peter Sunde of The Pirate Bay fame, and he said that President (now former) Lula of Brazil personally encouraged Peter to move to Brazil, because it has no extradition treaty with Sweden. How can you not love that?)
I am Brazilian and although I believe a international administration of the Internet would be better than what we have now, I would hate if it came in Brazilian hands.
There in too much legalese running in my country and sometimes the judges are not reasonable in their decisions, if this same framework is applied to the internet things for me would be worse than they are now.
No one is suggesting that Brazil should run the Internet.
I'm just saying that Brazil is capable of independent thinking and could be a force for positive change in Internet governance.
And, personally, I would be even more hopeful for EU influence, which would be even more positive in terms of values, but I'm afraid the EU isn't vocal and active enough to be an effective change agent. (Well, maybe at least we'll kill ACTA. :)
> As the article says, the UN body is representative, every of the 190-sth members has a vote and only some of them are despotic autocracies
Only some?
> that will align themselves with China and Russia.
That's your argument? That commie bastards aren't a majority?
The vast majority of world govts are bastards, even if they're not commie bastards. They will happily cooperate to screw other people's residents if doing so helps them screw theirs.
And no, I'm not saying that the US is kittens and unicorns, except by comparison.
This is speculation, but I would be unsurprised if China and Russia (the current bogeymen) are able to buy votes from other countries using other tactics. The Great and Glorious Nation of Trashcanistan supports freedoom for her citizens...but she also supports access to cheap oil and rare earths.
As much as everyone might bitch about the missteps in US management of things, we've done a (mostly) excellent job--for example, I don't think that the EU would have anything useful to say about allowing hate speech on the 'net, while we tend to allow that sort of thing.
> is already partially regulated by one side: the US
> while ignorant readers think this is a benevolent editorial in defense of Internet freedom
Who is doing the external regulation is not the issue, the issue is quantity of external regulation. Attempts for the US to expand regulation must be opposed, as well as attempts to centralize regulation internationally at the behest of countries who would also like to expand regulation. There are two directions the internet can take: more external regulation or less external regulation. The goal should be as close to zero external regulation as possible.
> The author of the article (an FCC commissioner) simply defends the interests of one side
The messenger never matters, what matters is the message. Since everyone is guilty of self-interest, if it is made a criteria for wrongness then everyone is wrong.
China kind of already does. Close off a lot of foreign major competitors, block objectionable sites, have domestic ones replace them which tie into the government.
Exactly. My impression is that the U.N. negotiations are largely noise, since nations will regulate things as they please within their own borders anyway.
That's funny, but I think putting MPAA and RIAA in one line with China and Iran is actually not such a huge stretch.
After all, how much difference is there between a Chinese kid being thrown in jail for a blog post critical of the communist party and a UK kid being extradited like a terrorist to the US for linking to some pirated content?
The security apparatus that was set up to fight terrorism is constantly expanding its scope to protect particular interests.
The .com domain would be within reach of law enforcement no matter what country houses it. It's not a choice of "U.S. or nothing", it's a choice of "which nation do you want to regulate .com". The U.S. is certainly not perfect, but it has accessible and transparent legislative and court systems, and the strongest Constitutional protections for free speech in the world. It has an open and liberal trade policy and it welcomes and protects foreign direct investment. And it is large enough to set its own course on the world stage--no other nation holds much leverage over it. There are a lot of good reasons to leave Internet governance in the U.S.
I largely agree with your statement. In a perfect world, I would prefer to see no state actor with control over the Internet, but alas there must be some regulation on some level. As it is, I would prefer the US over any other state entity, except perhaps for a few European nations. Idealistically speaking we would see internationally distributed regulation, preferably from non-state, non-commercial actors, but I think this is unlikely without monetary incentive or support of some kind.
