who owns the Internet?
Discussion
I've often wondered who owns the Internet. According to this story from the BBC about the UN trying to prise control of the Net from the US, it's the Americans. But which ones exactly? What gives anyone the rights (for example) to sell domain names? Who has the power to switch it on - or, indeed, off? Is internet control the ultimate weapon?
Here's that Beeb story:
'The US has confirmed it would resist efforts to put the internet under the control of the United Nations. At present several non-profit US bodies oversee the net's technical specifications and domain name system. They operate at arms-length from the US government but officially under the remit of its Department of Commerce. There has been speculation that other nations will push for a change later this year, but they cannot force the US to comply.'
Here's that Beeb story:
'The US has confirmed it would resist efforts to put the internet under the control of the United Nations. At present several non-profit US bodies oversee the net's technical specifications and domain name system. They operate at arms-length from the US government but officially under the remit of its Department of Commerce. There has been speculation that other nations will push for a change later this year, but they cannot force the US to comply.'
No one power owns the Internet but parts of it are switched on or off by local governmental control and thats what really gets up the nose of some as there is nearly always a way round it.
Google and other search engine companies do have a headscraching time trying to censor images or texts under the fear of losing the market stronghold or being fined.
Maybe it is best there is some control otherwise it would be rife with sick groups trying to contact each other.
Google and other search engine companies do have a headscraching time trying to censor images or texts under the fear of losing the market stronghold or being fined.
Maybe it is best there is some control otherwise it would be rife with sick groups trying to contact each other.
No one country can turn off the internet, all though each country may have some control over the data network being used, but even then enterprising individuals will find ways around that. As for who owns it, the US probably has the biggest claim as it was them who started it, however I don't think there is any way now to lay claim to the whole internet as theirs, as much of it is well out side of there control.
Morningside said:
Maybe it is best there is some control otherwise it would be rife with sick groups trying to contact each other.
this is point where someone pulls a lever, a massive alarm goes off, and a bucket of gunge is emptied over your head. and then you fall through the trap door your chair is on. Blackpuddin said:
Makes you think though. If there is someone way up high in the US licensing domain sellers, who is that? And if there is no-one, why are we paying unlicensed sellers for domains? Isn't it just like buying interstellar real estate? Or unreal estate, as I suppose it should be called?
ICANN.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_...
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is licensed by the US Department of Commerce to manage the DNS Root Zone, and is the body that issues the list of official root servers. By that definition, the US still "own" the bit of the Internet that makes the Internet the Internet. Barack Obama has an off switch for the DNS Root Zone which is effectively a poisoned list of root servers, and while certain countries that hold their own root servers may be able to restart their bit of the network, it wouldn't work very well at all, since most of the major sites and content delivery networks are US based.
Blackpuddin said:
I've often wondered who owns the Internet.
Essentially, the Internet is not a ‘thing’ that can be owned, it’s a system. A method of communication between networks.What gives it usefulness though, is the management of addresses upon the system—and that’s controlled by ICANN, as mentioned above. Which is a theoretically independent ‘charitable organisation’ devolved from the US Government.
stevejh said:
Blackpuddin said:
Makes you think though. If there is someone way up high in the US licensing domain sellers, who is that? And if there is no-one, why are we paying unlicensed sellers for domains? Isn't it just like buying interstellar real estate? Or unreal estate, as I suppose it should be called?
ICANN.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_...
Nice work if you can get it.
davepoth said:
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is licensed by the US Department of Commerce to manage the DNS Root Zone, and is the body that issues the list of official root servers. By that definition, the US still "own" the bit of the Internet that makes the Internet the Internet. Barack Obama has an off switch for the DNS Root Zone which is effectively a poisoned list of root servers, and while certain countries that hold their own root servers may be able to restart their bit of the network, it wouldn't work very well at all, since most of the major sites and content delivery networks are US based.
I can't see it taking longer than a week for everything to be back to (near) normal if the US tried to turn off the internet.We'd be just in time to see whichever president tried it hanging from a lamp post.
EDLT said:
I can't see it taking longer than a week for everything to be back to (near) normal if the US tried to turn off the internet.
No, it'd be days. Root nameservers don't contain much information, and not all of them are in or owned by the US.When this came up last time, someone who was very sure of themselves but had no idea what they were talking about who isn't on this thread yet, thought the US could remove entire countries from the internet purely with BGP
rxtx said:
EDLT said:
I can't see it taking longer than a week for everything to be back to (near) normal if the US tried to turn off the internet.
No, it'd be days. Root nameservers don't contain much information, and not all of them are in or owned by the US.When this came up last time, someone who was very sure of themselves but had no idea what they were talking about who isn't on this thread yet, thought the US could remove entire countries from the internet purely with BGP
davepoth said:
The problem isn't the stuff based outside of the UK at all. You have to consider how the internet would work with no google, no hotmail, no yahoo, no ebay, no facebook and crucially none of the content delivery networks which pretty much every website relies upon for load balancing. Ever wondered why so many websites contact Akamai when they're loading?
I'm aware of that, but Google or CDNs (which are globally based, not solely in the US) being inaccessible is not the same as the internet being switched off, there would just be no routing to them.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff