Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You were doing well until you dragged GPS and the dollar into the argument. Those are US assets and the US are free to dispose of them as they see fit, no ifs or buts. The rest of the world chooses to piggyback on them because why not, but everybody knows US military and economic requirements will always come first on those platforms.

What you should have brought up, really, is the UN. The US pays for most of what is effectively a common good, because it derives prestige, influence, and material advantages (indirect control of a huge chunk of diplomatic communications, tons of money from workers and diplomats stationed there, etc etc) from hosting it.

And sure enough, the UN has a specialized agency that would have been the natural destination for a global communication service: the ITU. Sadly, the ITU is (in)famed for being a political clusterf#ck, so a choice was made by the Clinton/Gingrich generation of US politicians to keep the internet well away from it. That might have been a wise choice at the time, but we've since seen the drawbacks of that choice: instead of getting captured by known evils with some (small) degree of accountability, dns was captured by a bunch of new evils that answer to no one. That way lies oligarchy, as Russia showed in the last 30 years.






> Those are US assets and the US are free to...

GPS is a derivative of HÃ¥kan Lans AIS. The US military built the satellite network yes, but had they not shared it, another network would have been constructed to take its place as the technology itself is not American.

I fully agree with you though, the UN exist to host these projects as a non-partial entity. The fact that they don't is cause for some frustration and a risk to the world.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: