U.S. Internet Control
-
The US has won its fight to stay in charge of the internet, despite opposition from many nations. BBC article[^].
What the BBC failed to report is that the United States Department of Defense has just been awarded a patent on the network communication systems. They are in the process of contacting all owners of devices with network MAC addresses for royalty fees. They can track all of us down, as Intel working with the FBI put in a tracking system based on the MAC address, Pentium ID, and processor clock frequency. The proceeds of the funds will go toward further development and advancement of United States Armed Forces. Of course, the ultimate goal is total world domination, the consumption of all known fossil fuels, and American SUVs dominating all world highways. :-D C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
-
Profit or not, do you want it to work? So far, all I see is a bunch of people whining that the US "controls" it. But I don't hear or see any list of what is wrong - it's just a "control" sort of thing. So, is would you like some cheese with your whine, or do you have some substance to some issue that exists? C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
-
I wonder whether you would be saying the same thing if, for example, China was in 'control' of the net. Somehow I'm thinking not.
Sigh... you are probably correct, since I do believe that China's "control" is a bit more heavy handed than the US' "control". Even so, you are arguing on principal - how dare that US "sniff" "Control" the Internet. This is a global resource, blah, blah, blah. Near as I can tell, the US isn't doing anything wrong, we just have a bunch of anti-US whiners. Again, what is WRONG with the current system? No one will answer my question. I'm sure all of the techies can get together and come up with a reasonable system or approach of MANAGING the system. As you well know, "controlling" this system is a bit difficult, if controlling == flow of information. I'm an Engineer - the system *works* - first rule of engineering - if it works, don't fool with it. First rule of management (insert UN here) - "do something! we have to look like we're working!" If the UN gets their hands on the internet, you will rue the day..... Now, if you are proposing that the UN can more equitably control the Internet, then this discussion is over due to its nonsensical nature. C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
-
The US has won its fight to stay in charge of the internet, despite opposition from many nations. BBC article[^].
This entire discussion intrigues me, so I went and did something novel - I went and read the article. Quoting: "Back then, nations pledged to make the net accessible to all by 2015. But worldwide only 14% of the population is online, compared to 62% in the US. The Geneva summit disappointed many countries after the rich nations failed to back a Digital Solidarity Fund. " And now we know the motivation for the UN to take control of the Internet - they want to be able to collect taxes, the internet is a "free" resource, should be available to all, blah, blah, blah. Typical agenda from the UN beauracrats. Note in the article that there isn't a DAMN thing wrong with the current system from an operational point of view. Of course, we have China and Iran saying that it would be better controlled by the UN. Bwahahaahaaa... C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
-
This entire discussion intrigues me, so I went and did something novel - I went and read the article. Quoting: "Back then, nations pledged to make the net accessible to all by 2015. But worldwide only 14% of the population is online, compared to 62% in the US. The Geneva summit disappointed many countries after the rich nations failed to back a Digital Solidarity Fund. " And now we know the motivation for the UN to take control of the Internet - they want to be able to collect taxes, the internet is a "free" resource, should be available to all, blah, blah, blah. Typical agenda from the UN beauracrats. Note in the article that there isn't a DAMN thing wrong with the current system from an operational point of view. Of course, we have China and Iran saying that it would be better controlled by the UN. Bwahahaahaaa... C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
CharlieG wrote:
we have China and Iran saying that it would be better controlled by the UN.
That's because China and Iran are U.N. member states and would *love* to be able to have a role in "defining" what is and what is not acceptable for access. Personally, I am happy that it rests in American hands.
-
This entire discussion intrigues me, so I went and did something novel - I went and read the article. Quoting: "Back then, nations pledged to make the net accessible to all by 2015. But worldwide only 14% of the population is online, compared to 62% in the US. The Geneva summit disappointed many countries after the rich nations failed to back a Digital Solidarity Fund. " And now we know the motivation for the UN to take control of the Internet - they want to be able to collect taxes, the internet is a "free" resource, should be available to all, blah, blah, blah. Typical agenda from the UN beauracrats. Note in the article that there isn't a DAMN thing wrong with the current system from an operational point of view. Of course, we have China and Iran saying that it would be better controlled by the UN. Bwahahaahaaa... C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
The internet is not "beer-free". The internet is not "libertarian-free" either. An .org to "create competition" - how unamerican is that? And that's exactly what's wrong with the Internet today: It is controled by the U.S.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
This entire discussion intrigues me, so I went and did something novel - I went and read the article. Quoting: "Back then, nations pledged to make the net accessible to all by 2015. But worldwide only 14% of the population is online, compared to 62% in the US. The Geneva summit disappointed many countries after the rich nations failed to back a Digital Solidarity Fund. " And now we know the motivation for the UN to take control of the Internet - they want to be able to collect taxes, the internet is a "free" resource, should be available to all, blah, blah, blah. Typical agenda from the UN beauracrats. Note in the article that there isn't a DAMN thing wrong with the current system from an operational point of view. Of course, we have China and Iran saying that it would be better controlled by the UN. Bwahahaahaaa... C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
-
The internet is not "beer-free". The internet is not "libertarian-free" either. An .org to "create competition" - how unamerican is that? And that's exactly what's wrong with the Internet today: It is controled by the U.S.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
I wonder whether you would be saying the same thing if, for example, China was in 'control' of the net. Somehow I'm thinking not.
For sure! Have you seen how China already tries to control information and only allows what they want to be published? Can you imagine a country like that controlling the Interent (if even possible to - control)? A global body would be better to govern, but that is hard to find that do not end up like the UN. Rocky <>< Latest Post: Time for change! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
I wonder whether you would be saying the same thing if, for example, China was in 'control' of the net. Somehow I'm thinking not.
If China did control it, why would we even want to be a part of it? It'd be something completely different from what we have today.
-
Peter, I'm lost. I'm not being deliberately argumentative. You sent me mail, then deleted your posts... What is meant by "beer-free"? or libertarian free? chg C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
Sorry for the delete - I managed to get more or less a double-post, and deleted one of them. (It should read the same as the other reply). The CP Hamsters are acting up again :) Core intention of myreply was that the internet is not "free" in any of the many senses it is used. It is controled by the U.S., And I don't trust the U.S. to protect or even respect my freedom (anymore).
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Sorry for the delete - I managed to get more or less a double-post, and deleted one of them. (It should read the same as the other reply). The CP Hamsters are acting up again :) Core intention of myreply was that the internet is not "free" in any of the many senses it is used. It is controled by the U.S., And I don't trust the U.S. to protect or even respect my freedom (anymore).
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenI concur completely on your comments about "free" - cooperative is perhaps a better word. To my understanding, for the internet to function in a reliable fashion, there must be one benevolent dictator over the IP addresses. My only argument would be that none of us want a UN Committee. Heck, have a rotating selection of CPians :) As far as trust the US, etc., never, ever trust a government for freedom - that should be a universal rule. You made some other comments in the posts that have been deleted ... not sure what that truly has to do with the internet, but perhaps another time. C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
-
Sigh... you are probably correct, since I do believe that China's "control" is a bit more heavy handed than the US' "control". Even so, you are arguing on principal - how dare that US "sniff" "Control" the Internet. This is a global resource, blah, blah, blah. Near as I can tell, the US isn't doing anything wrong, we just have a bunch of anti-US whiners. Again, what is WRONG with the current system? No one will answer my question. I'm sure all of the techies can get together and come up with a reasonable system or approach of MANAGING the system. As you well know, "controlling" this system is a bit difficult, if controlling == flow of information. I'm an Engineer - the system *works* - first rule of engineering - if it works, don't fool with it. First rule of management (insert UN here) - "do something! we have to look like we're working!" If the UN gets their hands on the internet, you will rue the day..... Now, if you are proposing that the UN can more equitably control the Internet, then this discussion is over due to its nonsensical nature. C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
CharlieG wrote:
Again, what is WRONG with the current system? No one will answer my question.
Okay, I will. It works that’s what’s wrong with it and it doesn’t cost trillions of dollars a year to operate.
DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.
-
This entire discussion intrigues me, so I went and did something novel - I went and read the article. Quoting: "Back then, nations pledged to make the net accessible to all by 2015. But worldwide only 14% of the population is online, compared to 62% in the US. The Geneva summit disappointed many countries after the rich nations failed to back a Digital Solidarity Fund. " And now we know the motivation for the UN to take control of the Internet - they want to be able to collect taxes, the internet is a "free" resource, should be available to all, blah, blah, blah. Typical agenda from the UN beauracrats. Note in the article that there isn't a DAMN thing wrong with the current system from an operational point of view. Of course, we have China and Iran saying that it would be better controlled by the UN. Bwahahaahaaa... C. Gilley Will program for food... My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
CharlieG wrote:
The Geneva summit disappointed many countries after the rich nations failed to back a Digital Solidarity Fund. "
It seems to me that Kofi Annan is more worried about the internet than some of the other more important issues facing third world countries. Priorities, people (The UN) priorities… Then again considering how well the UN has handled many of the humanitarian crisis's they have been charged with; maybe their hoping that they will succeed with attempting to control the internet.
DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.