
Sir Tim Berners-Lee flags UN net conference concerns - eplanit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20594779
======
vy8vWJlco
The problem I have with this situation is the basic premis that the ITU or any
organization should have any say whatsoever over what is supposed to be an ad-
hoc interconnection of independant networks. Anarchy was it's biggest virtue.
The fact that these discussions are even happening reflects how centralized it
has become, how easy to censor and disrupt it is, and how easy it is to seize
in a coup, or simple UN slight-of-hand.

I feel like we have a learning disability or something, watching all this and
I for one am glad I kept that 56Kbps modem so at least I can dial up my actual
_peers_ when the robot apacalypse comes.

There's a difference between documenting the evolving anarchy (RFCs, W3C
"standards") and what appears to be a deluge of closed-room policy and
legislation.

~~~
porlw
Um, you do realise that the very reason you can dial up your peers pretty much
anywhere in the world today is down to agreements made in the ITU?

~~~
meaty
Did the ITU have any involvement in constructing the Internet? No.

We can 'dial' (if you use Plan9 terminology) any address we wish? Yes.

What would their involvement bring other than a commercial model which does
nothing for the consumers and businesses? No.

It's like the Mafia want their cut now because someone has started up a
business on their turf.

~~~
DanBC
> Did the ITU have any involvement in constructing the Internet? No.

The ITU had a lot of involvement in the CCITT modem standards. (CCITT morphed
to be / is part of ITU.) V.21 through V.92 are all relevant for dial up
modems.

~~~
meaty
None of which are relevant the the internet apart from providing some tunnels.
The technical standards did not affect much in the osi stack bar the transport
layer, which could be run quite happily over anything out there (Cambridge
ring, avian carriers, cups and string, flashing lights).

~~~
DanBC
> None of which are relevant the the internet

...but all of which are relevant to the comment you replied to.

------
stfu
Somehow I find it fascinating how fast all those crazy world "World
Government" conspiracy theories are getting more and more tangible.

The ITU case clearly demonstrates, that when we propose more negotiation and
common solution finding of governments across the world, individual liberties
are to many nations very low on the priority list.

~~~
meaty
_Always_ listen to the tinfoil hatted conspiracy theory spewing nutbags.

Why? Because there are more of them in politics and business than there are
anywhere else working on the opposite agenda.

------
charonn0
The ITU might have more geek cred if there were fewer politicians and
diplomats and more technologists and engineers making the decisions. Do we
really want people who regard the Internet as a "series of tubes" and/or a
threat to their domestic power to be the ones in charge of it? Or are we
content to let the people who _built_ the damned thing continue to run it too?

------
benbataille
To be fair, with all due respect, while I understand the concerns of Messrs.
Berners-Lee and Cerf, I think they are also kind of missing the point. Unless
newspapers are intentionally or not misleading us which is another
possibility.

If you read what Russia is actually asking for, you will see that it has
nothing to do with technologies and standardisation, everyone is pretty happy
with that. No, what some governments start questioning is ICANN and especially
IANA powers.

IANA is overseeing the whole IP allocations business and supervise root DNS
management which give it a huge power over the network. However, while
private, ICANN operates under a DOC contract and is headquartered in LA. I'm
not overtly surprised it tickles some countries which are not too fond of the
USA.

IHMO keeping ICANN but making it operate under a UN contract (maybe through
ITU) would be a step in the right direction.

------
hakaaak
The problem is that there are central points that any government can control
because we communicate over wire and fiber-optics. By decentralizing the net
and using mesh networking, we would regain and retain control. We need to
develop the technology needed to have a world-wide mesh network.

~~~
betterunix
Why even bother with mesh networking? We already have the technology needed to
decentralize the Internet: amateur radio operators have been using digital
modes for decades, over long and short distances, and packet switched amateur
radio nets do exist. The problem is the ITU, which set up the regulatory
structure that prevents amateur radio from ever being anything more than a
hobby.

If we took some of the spectrum that was handed over to 4g cell providers and
gave it to amateurs, and created a regulatory system that encouraged amateur
stations to act as repeaters, routers, and gateways, we could have a
decentralized wireless internet in short order. We should create a new class
of amateur licensing, specifically for packet switched networks, that allows a
station to repeat a commercial transmission (e.g. someone directing their web
browser to Amazon or Google), allows the use of cryptography without requiring
key disclosure, allows profanity, allows communication with unlicensed
stations (e.g. someone's laptop), etc. There is no technical reason this
cannot be done, and amateur radio operators are just as capable of setting up
and maintaining a packet switched network as commercial services are (and
perhaps even better; Comcast has pretty bad bufferbloat problems).

The ITU establishes standards and regulatory recommendations that are intended
to protect the power of telecom monopolies. That is fundamentally incompatible
with the Internet's design, which makes no distinction between nodes (compare
to cell networks, cable TV networks, etc.) -- any connected node can be a
service provider.

