UN to run Internet???????
Discussion
Either I've read that incorrectly, or they're not talking about 'running the Internet' at all, nor will their proposed changes have any effect on how the infrastructure works (or how resilient it is).
Other than one mention of extending their role to cover Internet crime and Spam, the main point is who retains control of Internet names and address allocation.
At the moment, they're controlled by the US, spreading that task amongst other nations surely would be a good thing (and is unlikely to have any real impact on how the Internet is run/used to us punters).
D
Other than one mention of extending their role to cover Internet crime and Spam, the main point is who retains control of Internet names and address allocation.
At the moment, they're controlled by the US, spreading that task amongst other nations surely would be a good thing (and is unlikely to have any real impact on how the Internet is run/used to us punters).
D
Thing is, they could NEVER stop it now it's taken such a grip.
EVERYBODY uses it these days, and to suddenly censor and moderate the content, or restrict access would cause such an uproar.
Don't think they could ever really do anything know, even slightly eroding freedoms on it would cause massive backlash!
Dave
EVERYBODY uses it these days, and to suddenly censor and moderate the content, or restrict access would cause such an uproar.
Don't think they could ever really do anything know, even slightly eroding freedoms on it would cause massive backlash!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Thing is, they could NEVER stop it now it's taken such a grip.
EVERYBODY uses it these days, and to suddenly censor and moderate the content, or restrict access would cause such an uproar.
Don't think they could ever really do anything know, even slightly eroding freedoms on it would cause massive backlash!
Dave
Technically, they couldn't do it anyway. If you're applying laws, which law should you apply (I suspect they'd be different depending on the country the server lives).
As far as I can understand it, they're talking about changing who allocated IP addresses and names, and that's it. To me, that's completely insignificant.
Could someone point out which part of the article suggest something more sinister? The one liner about Spam and Internet crime is hardly cause for the reactions I've read so far IMHO....
_Deejay_ said:
Either I've read that incorrectly, or they're not talking about 'running the Internet' at all, nor will their proposed changes have any effect on how the infrastructure works (or how resilient it is).
Other than one mention of extending their role to cover Internet crime and Spam, the main point is who retains control of Internet names and address allocation.
At the moment, they're controlled by the US, spreading that task amongst other nations surely would be a good thing (and is unlikely to have any real impact on how the Internet is run/used to us punters).
D
The argument revolves around money and power.
Icann is the current talking shop that tried to "extort" money off of the various registries a few years ago. Thankfully, the UK island mentality was one of the registries who said "on yer bike" and didn't pay up. Icann then had the choice of suspending all the .uk domains or backing down.
However, any new talking shop would need to be funded in its operations and so they would resurrect this proposal and we would all get to pay more on our domain registration and possibly ip allocations.
The reason an extended Internet is a good thing is because the US run Internet has been run very successfully. Mainstream politicians have not got involved at a technical level where possible unless they are within the remit of Icann.
If the UN takes over then the Internet will become politicised. For instance, Mugabe could make an application that news coverage on news.bbc.co.uk is unfair and detrimental to his nation and ask for the website to be censured. Under a US run Internet he would be given no opportunity to make such a request, however, once an organisation that works in "everyones interest" they will start co-ordinating it.
The idea that the UN will stop Internet crime and spam is laughable. We have Police forces and inter force bodies who chase down the bad guys. What we need is more effective laws rather than a UN led Police force.
The other thing the US has been very good at on a technical level is standing back. They do not dictate technicalities on the Internet and never had. The UN, being a talking shop would start thinking of ideas - things we can do with the Internet and could well start making technical mandates which will cost punters money in the end.
If you want tinpot dictators to have a say how your packet arrives at your PC you need to be against this UN proposal.
simpo two said:
Didn't I hear proposals to tax the internet? Surely it would be easy for Gordon Brown to insist that all ISPs, well UK ones anyway, levy a £100 year fee and send it to him to prop up his creaking credit account. Heck, make it £200.
the problem is that New Labour have promoted at all cost for homes to be connected - so making home connections more expensive is counter to that ideaology.
so any tax you add to connectivity services, eg a tax on border routers, or AS numbers, or even ip allocation, gets passed to the end user.
if the tax is levied on domains and websites then many companies, including my own would pack up from the UK and ship everything west.
there was a proposal many years ago about a bit tax, and someone suggested that we pay 0.001p per byte. that gave an email a notional value of say 0.01p. 100 emails would equal 1p and so forth and so would be considered good value.
until someone pointed out that streaming a full length movie across the internet would cost £282 or something quite stupid. So that plan was shelved.
wedg1e said:
the problem is that New Labour have promoted at all cost for homes to be connected - so making home connections more expensive is counter to that ideaology.
Yes, and of course the government NEVER changes its mind or goes back on its word...
this govt raises tax by stealth. if they proposed an IP tax on ISPs then the ISPs will pass the cost directly to the consumer and the consumer will see the increase as a direct result of govt action.
however, this govt doesn't work that way. if they want an IP tax - they'll stick 1p tax on tea bags and call it a response to aluminium poisioning from tea and the NHS needs more money to cope.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff