We'll take it from here... [Archive]

View Full Version : We'll take it from here...

Don Corleone

09-30-2005, 18:17

Crazed Rabbit

09-30-2005, 18:39

Uh-oh! The EU is 'very firm' on this issue. Even more firm than on the Iran getting nukes issue? I'm quakin' in my boots.

Or at least I would be, if I weren't so mad the johnny-come-latelys now want a piece of the bread they had nothing to do with baking. Guess what? You may have socialist countries, but we aren't, so we aren't gonna share!:furious3:
[/rant]

Crazed Rabbit

Ianofsmeg16

09-30-2005, 18:39

Don, first i agree with you, and it's not all countries in europe that belong to the EU.

Louis VI the Fat

10-01-2005, 01:34

Talk about Intellectual Property theft...:furious3: Apparently, the EU was serious about getting into a war with the US. Your latest trick is demand that the United States turn over control of Internet master directories, even though it was our money and ingenuity that built the thing in the first place. With all due respect, who the hell do you guys think you are? I understand the arguments that you simply want to 'distribute addresses freely and fairly to all' and all that, but there are other ways of accomplishing that. If you folks really think the US is just going to turn over control of all the Internet master directories (at least with a Republican in the White House) you're off your rockers.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/30/D8CUKA481.htmlSpeaking of property theft...
Apparently, the US was serious about getting into a war with the EU. One of America's tricks is demanding that the European powers give up their claim on Antartica, even though it was our money and ingenuity that discovered the thing in the first place. With all due respect, who the hell do you guys think you are? I understand the arguments that you simply want to ensure that 'Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord' and all that, but there are other ways of accomplishing that. If you folks really think Europe is just going to turn over control of all of Antarctica by Treaty to limit it's use to the advancement of science for the benefit of the whole of humanity, then...you're right. We have done just that.

Proletariat

10-01-2005, 01:47

Byzantine Prince

10-01-2005, 01:55

Let the baby have it's bottle. :snobby:

PS: I like how you refer to europeans as folks. LOL!

Marcellus

10-01-2005, 01:59

Or at least I would be, if I weren't so mad the johnny-come-latelys now want a piece of the bread they had nothing to do with baking.

You do realise that the world wide web was created by Tim Berners-Lee, who is British, at CERN, in Switzerland (which is, of course, in Europe [not EU].

The internet is a world wide resource. I have not seen a single convincing argument for one country controlling such an important resource.

Louis VI the Fat

10-01-2005, 02:10

You do realise that the world wide web was created by Tim Berners-Lee, who is British, at CERN, in Switzerland (which is, of course, in Europe [not EU].No way. Everybody knows Al Gore invented the internet.

Are you saying we wrested control of Antartica from the EU?No. Just that the nations that opened up Antarctica for the world have 'frozen' (pun intended) their claims on it by international treaty (http://www.asoc.org/general/ats.htm).

Kaiser of Arabia

10-01-2005, 02:16

I don't feel like losing my freespeech online, thank you.

Red Harvest

10-01-2005, 02:17

Are you saying we wrested control of Antartica from the EU? I don't see how the two are apples to apples. Then again, don't know much about Antartica's history other than the quick skim of the wikipedia entry for it I just took.
Everybody knows that Antartica is actually ruled by short, overweight men in tuxedos...oh...wait a minute. Those are penguins. Never mind. I guess the anti-terror alliance against sea lions will be moved to the back burner now that this is out in the open. Hmmm...we really could use a penguin smiley about now.

Proletariat

10-01-2005, 02:20

...we really could use a penguin smiley about now.

http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/images/smilies/penguin.gif

(No dice, huh?)

Steppe Merc

10-01-2005, 02:25

I thought some Swiss guys made the internet...

You do realise that the world wide web was created by Tim Berners-Lee, who is British, at CERN, in Switzerland (which is, of course, in Europe [not EU].
Well, I was close. ~;)

Uesugi Kenshin

10-01-2005, 02:41

Divinus Arma

10-01-2005, 02:56

I think the title of this thread should be renamed since it is actually a very good topic.

I have a suggestion for the EU:

Make your own.

Soulforged

10-01-2005, 03:36

Speaking of property theft...
Apparently, the US was serious about getting into a war with the EU. One of America's tricks is demanding that the European powers give up their claim on Antartica, even though it was our money and ingenuity that discovered the thing in the first place. And ours.~D

bmolsson

10-01-2005, 05:00

I believe there will be an alternative Internet in the future. The current development with more and more governmental control will create more and more private networks to keep all those paranoid agents out of our lives......

Soulforged

10-01-2005, 05:42

Oh please I hope not. I like the NET being one of the few unregulated places of the world. If we involve government and private property in his spaces and domains, and we control the info I think I'll puke.

Ironside

10-01-2005, 10:00

rasoforos

10-01-2005, 11:00

The www was created at CERN. The creation of what later become the interent is American.

Amen!

Now on the main subject, I do believe that the Internet and the WWW should be under International Control. If the US wants to keep control over the net it is fine by me, maybe all firms who have suffered damaged from an internet related attack can press charges and claim their losses from Uncle Sam ~;)

Del Arroyo

10-01-2005, 11:38

What makes you think that a UN body would run the internet responsibly? Having it under US control might not be fair, but it may be the best option for everybody involved.

DA

Uesugi Kenshin

10-01-2005, 14:10

Hmmm I thought that bit in Angels and Demons was made up. Interesting.

Geoffrey S

10-01-2005, 14:47

I don't feel like losing my freespeech online, thank you.
How would that happen? It's not like freedom of speech has been lost to non-Americans on the net.

Anyway, can't see any harm in the current situation, far as I can tell it works fine. A change of ownership hardly seem necessary.

Marcellus

10-01-2005, 23:25

T'was made by DARPA just in case you guys aren't joking and referring to Demons And Angels. It was first called ARPANET I believe and was made to link US military systems, that makes it a decidedly American invention.

EDIT: I thought it was first called DARPANET, checked a wiki article and it said ARPANET, I've heard that as well, since my memory is fallible I'm changed it to ARPANET.

The internet was created in America, and the worldwideweb, http etc. was created in Europe. Both groups helped the creation of the internet we now use. So my point is that no one group can claim that they alone created the modern internet. Therefore no one country can claim that they should control the internet. Since it is a world, resource, its control shold be in the hands of a world organisation.

During the 1950s, several communications researchers realized that there was a need to allow general communication between users of various computers and communications networks. This led to research into decentralized networks, queuing theory, and packet switching. The subsequent creation of ARPANET in the United States in turn catalyzed a wave of technical developments that made it the basis for the development of the Internet.

The first TCP/IP wide area network was operational in 1984 when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF) constructed a university network backbone that would later become the NSFNet. It was then followed by the opening of the network to commercial interests in 1995. Important seperate networks that have successfully entered the Internet include Usenet, Bitnet and the various commercial and educational X.25 networks such as Compuserve and JANET.

The collective network gained a public face in the 1990s. In August 1991 Tim Berners-Lee publicized his new World Wide Web project, two years after he had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few web pages at CERN in Switzerland. In 1993 the Mosaic web browser version 1.0 was released, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic/technical Internet. By 1996 the word "Internet" was common public currency, but it referred almost entirely to the World Wide Web.

Xiahou

10-01-2005, 23:57

The internet was created in America, and the worldwideweb, http etc. was created in Europe. Both groups helped the creation of the internet we now use. So my point is that no one group can claim that they alone created the modern internet. Therefore no one country can claim that they should control the internet. Since it is a world, resource, its control shold be in the hands of a world organisation.
Look, just to be clear, what CERN created was a protocol Hyper Text Markup Protocol- it allows for the creation and display of web pages. It's not the Internet or anything close- it's something that runs over or thru the Internet and has nothing to do with it's structure or addressing, ect.

That's like Blizzard saying "Hey, we created BattleNET- we own the Internet too." Well, not exactly, but you get the idea.~D I had the priviledge of using the Internet for a few years before the WWW took off and the prevalence of HTML certainly makes it easier for most people to use, but don't confuse it with the Internet itself.

scooter_the_shooter

10-02-2005, 12:59

Don Corleone

10-02-2005, 14:16

Louis,
I don't know the first thing about America forcing European countries to relinquish titular claims to Antartica. I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant there. But at the very least, we said 'nobody' owned it, we didn't force you to give control to us, which is the case here.

The WWW is not the Internet. You guys are showing your age when you express a belief that the 2 terms are equivalent. HTML is a protocol/programming language that allows a certain type of application to be run over the Internet. But CERN didn't do it in a vaccuum, the University of Illinois (courtesy of Mosaic) put a lot of effort in too, as well as others.

But the hardware layer and the network layer are all DARPA. The addressing system, the address servers, we invented it all. The WWW is just the most popular internet application right now, but there's also: FTP, Gopher, email, Instant Messaging and the rest.

What's more, I find it amazing that you guys are so insistent on taking it over. Thus far, the American government has pretty much left the Internet alone. With the exception of solving some child pornography and molestation cases, they have allowed the Internet to be whatever it wants. It's the EU that's saying that somebody needs to step in and start controlling what gets said. With talk like that, trust me, you're not going to be invited to share control. We must protect European Values, says Commissioner... (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050922/ap_on_hi_te/eu_internet)While I agree with the Comissioner on the point of child pornography (and it's already illegal for that matter, police bust people for it all the time) the whole talk of banning hate speech on the Internet sounds scary. Essentially, whatever the ruling party in the EU doesn't like will become hate speech. Hell, I bet anything said by a Republican will automatically qualify as hate speech and be banned. Nope, not going that route...

Meneldil

10-02-2005, 14:27

"As AOL has demonstrated over a number of years, it is in our commercial interests to be a responsible self-regulating service provider," it said.

Yahoo! Europe said the online environment was no Wild West as companies have worked together with national governments to tackle problems such as child porn.

My ass. Are they responsible when they censor chinese dissidents to get a bit more cash ?

I don't feel like losing my freespeech online, thank you.

Come on. If Muslim extremists' sites are closed, I don't see why we couldn't close christian extremists' site, or KKK/neo nazis' sites.

Don Corleone

10-02-2005, 14:31

Actually, the US DOES issue domain addresses to sites that advocate the destruction of the US. The only thing we do is if a group is stupid enough to post on a website that they were responsible for a crime in the real world, we might use the information we have on who they are to go investegate them. But that would be for the terrorism itself, not the hate speech against the US. There's hundreds of websites that call for violence against the US, some of which are run from within the US itself.

Ser Clegane

10-02-2005, 14:37

I would prefer if the EU kept its hands off the internet.

I guess there is enough stuff already for our functionaries to keep themselves busy with - no need to create another playground for them ~;)

CBR

10-02-2005, 14:43

Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.

They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.

I really dont see the point in who invented what. Today the internet is an important worldwide asset and the infrastructure to build it up is hardly done by US alone is it? As it will only grow more important in the future for both trade, information and communication it will be of outmost importance that it runs smooth without any potiential interference from just one nation.

Just imagine if one nation had the control of all powergrids and could shut it down whenever it wanted. Doesnt mean it would do it, but you can hardly blame other nations wanting some control too.

CBR

Don Corleone

10-02-2005, 14:57

So, let me make sure I follow your line of reasoning CBR... somebody invents something. They allow others to use their invention, and by virtue of the fact that these people are using it, they now get to turn around and make rules about it for everyone, including the guy who invented it in the first place?

Byzantine Prince

10-02-2005, 15:04

Why does it matter? What is this 1939? Are we scared of something? All inventions have been taken and improved by others all over the world. This is nothing special. If you study the history of many different inventions you'll see that it's never one person's and much less country's achievement, but humanity's.

Don Corleone

10-02-2005, 15:05

I don't mind people using the Internet. I don't want them to use it and then turn around and tell us how we're allowed to use it. If you all want to live in a police state, be my guest. But why should we have to live by your laws?

Byzantine Prince

10-02-2005, 15:07

What are you talking about Don? There's international laws and treates that would never allow for that abuse by anyone.

CBR

10-02-2005, 15:34

I believe anti-trust laws are there to prevent one company from taking completely over (and remove competition), even if that company is using an invention it created. So yes a guy who invents something might not end up with 100% control if it becomes of outmost importance to the rest of the society. I think Microsoft is one good example of a company that was forced to make some changes in Windows even though Windows is their invention.

You say you dont want to live by our laws but same could be said of the rest of world as they might not want to live by US laws. When it comes to IT technology we are talking about technology that can become worldwide standards and in this case also very important for all of us.

The GPS is one example of system that is important to us all and EU is now launching its own system so it could be less dependent on USA. Now Im not familiar with how difficult it would be to make an alternative internet but I guess that could be done and might very will be the result if lots of nations dont feel their IT economy is secure enough.

CBR

Meneldil

10-02-2005, 15:57

China is already working on its own 'internet'.

Actually, the US DOES issue domain addresses to sites that advocate the destruction of the US. The only thing we do is if a group is stupid enough to post on a website that they were responsible for a crime in the real world, we might use the information we have on who they are to go investegate them. But that would be for the terrorism itself, not the hate speech against the US. There's hundreds of websites that call for violence against the US, some of which are run from within the US itself.

Yes, but I heard there was law propositions to close these sites aswell (=any kind of site preeching terrorism). Now that was on French TV, and journalist never ever check their sources, or just make up the info.
Furthermore, sure as hell these sites should be closed IMO.

And Internet is not nearly as free as you think. In *many* countries, you can't just connect and read everything you want. As I said, Yahoo already agreed to close some chinese dissidents' sites, because that's what the Chinese gvt wanted.

There's clearly a double standard here. Now, if freedom of speech is available only for a few people, there's a problem.

Proletariat

10-02-2005, 17:25

Xiahou

10-02-2005, 18:39

Hey, if the EU doesnt like the Internet they don't have to use it- they can build their own. I'm sure it'd be wildly successful. ~D

I believe anti-trust laws are there to prevent one company from taking completely over (and remove competition), even if that company is using an invention it created.Those same laws leave exceptions for utilities in situations when it's impractical or impossible for there to be competition. Say for example, power transmission lines. I can choose who generates my power, but I always pay the same company transmission fees regardless of who generates it. Cable TV and local telephone networks are another example.

Crazed Rabbit

10-02-2005, 23:04

Hey, if the EU doesnt like the Internet they don't have to use it- they can build their own. I'm sure it'd be wildly successful.

Didn't the French try that? I wonder how that turned out...

Crazed Rabbit

Meneldil

10-03-2005, 06:15

Uhm, how is Yahoo responsible for what the Chinese govt wants? Should Yahoo refuse to do business with China until it acknowledges the freedom of speech?

I don't think you're saying that, but I can't tell what you are saying. Is it America's fault that this is China's policy? Would it be different under the EU?

I think you knew what Don meant when he said the internet was very free, but brought the Yahoo thing up as a red herring.

I don't care about who own and regulate the net, but when I read that AOL and Yahoo are working in a responsible way with national gvts, it makes me laught. Yahoo is not responsible for what the chinese gvt want, but do they really have to work as Hu Jintao's wh*re by providing tools used to censor chinese dissidents ?

And now, the French aren't trying to create a new internet. Chirac wanted to create an european equivalent of google. Dunno if this is still in the planning.

On the other hand, China is trying to create its own net.

English assassin

10-03-2005, 13:06

Should Yahoo refuse to do business with China until it acknowledges the freedom of speech?

Well, its a thought. Companies shouldn't be free to operate in a complete moral vacuum, doing anything so long as it makes a profit. There is something rather ironic in a company whose main schtick is enabling us to access information freely helping a government ensure that 1/4 of the worlds population cannot access information freely.

Kinda makes you wonder what they would do in the west if they were "asked" nicely enough.

During the cold war we all felt one proof that our system was better than the soviets was the (relative) lack of censorship. Now, does it turn out that it wasn't the censorship that was the problem, only the fact no western company made a profit from it?

Seamus Fermanagh

10-03-2005, 13:13

Well, its a thought. Companies shouldn't be free to operate in a complete moral vacuum, doing anything so long as it makes a profit. There is something rather ironic in a company whose main schtick is enabling us to access information freely helping a government ensure that 1/4 of the worlds population cannot access information freely.

Kinda makes you wonder what they would do in the west if they were "asked" nicely enough.

During the cold war we all felt one proof that our system was better than the soviets was the (relative) lack of censorship. Now, does it turn out that it wasn't the censorship that was the problem, only the fact no western company made a profit from it?

Well, the old Commie saw about "they'll sell us the rope we use to hang them" is not without at least a grain of truth to it.

Seamus

Proletariat

10-03-2005, 13:20

Now, does it turn out that it wasn't the censorship that was the problem, only the fact no western company made a profit from it?

I don't want to sound glib, but isn't that why we've always been happy to have a free-market?

Don Corleone

10-03-2005, 13:26

I think the truth lies between EA's and Prole's positions. I don't think you can expect Yahoo or Google to take a stance against China's government policies when the governments of the UK, USA and EU (the latter wants to sell them arms, btw) won't. But by the same token, I don't think that it's too much to ask Yahoo & Google to not act as the Ministry of Truth for the Chinese. What business do they have providing detailed records on who surfs where to the Chinese government? In this case they're not only not part of the solution (which I don't require) they've become a big part of the problem (which I do not think we should allow).

English assassin

10-03-2005, 14:52

In this case they're not only not part of the solution (which I don't require) they've become a big part of the problem (which I do not think we should allow).

Nicely put. I'd buy that as a compromise.

Proletariat

10-03-2005, 14:57

Me too. Let's drink on it.

Meneldil

10-03-2005, 16:39

/me agrees with Don's reply.

Now, about this Internet issue, what about sharing it like that : 50% to the US, 50% to the EU ? No ? And 51/49 ? ~D

Louis VI the Fat

10-03-2005, 22:21

Well how about we share Minitel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel) with you, and you share the internet with us? :beam: :yes:

Crazed Rabbit

10-06-2005, 18:33

Hmm, according to the Guardian, the issue is going to be raised at the UN, and "there is little the US government can do but acquiesce."

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html

So, just because its brought up at the UN and a bunch of people who'd all benefit from bullying control of it agree, the US has little choice? Since when have we been afraid of the UN?

Crazed Rabbit

Proletariat

10-06-2005, 19:12

"The UN has a problem with that? Oh, okay. Then sanction me. Sanction me with your army. ...Oh? You don't have an army? Well, if I didn't have an army, I'd shut the..."

Viking

10-06-2005, 19:16

Seamus Fermanagh

10-06-2005, 20:02

Let`s not forget who it was that 'invented' the U.S in the first place.~:rolleyes:

Al Gore!?!~:eek: Wow, that man never ceases to amaze....

~;) Seamus

Crazed Rabbit

10-06-2005, 20:27

Let`s not forget who it was that 'invented' the U.S in the first place.

uh...Americans?~:handball:

Crazed Rabbit

Geoffrey S

10-06-2005, 20:58

"The UN has a problem with that? Oh, okay. Then sanction me. Sanction me with your army. ...Oh? You don't have an army? Well, if I didn't have an army, I'd shut the..."
That does seem to be the problem with the UN, doesn't it? Lots of talk and precious little else to back it up.

Mongoose

10-06-2005, 21:34

The scary thing is that we(The U.S) are probably going to cave in anyway and do what ever they say:help:

Having a weak and timid leader just isn't a good thing...

Papewaio

10-06-2005, 21:43

By intellectual property laws, doesn't the www part of the internet consitute a greater then 10% change in the orginal design?

Xiahou

10-06-2005, 22:00

By intellectual property laws, doesn't the www part of the internet consitute a greater then 10% change in the orginal design?No. First off, the WWW is not the Internet. It's something that runs over the Internet. Second, even if it did, so what? The EU is free to make its own network (and have it fail miserably), so I don't see where intellectual property laws come into play. The US isn't trying to stop them from building their own similar network- we just don't want them to usurp control of the one we created.

kiwitt

10-06-2005, 22:11

This argument is silly about "IP".

Europe invented the car. Will you Americans stop driving our invention.
America invented the Aeroplane. Will you Europeans stop flying our invention.
Eurpeans invented wine. (maybe). Will you Americans stop drinking it. BTW: Same goes for Beer.

What I am really saying is it does not matter, where it was invented, it just needs to managed for the benefit of all. Things invented in the past are now safer and more reliable, by joint actions on safety, standards, etc. And the internet is also that type of item, that needs to go through the same process as all other things invented before.

scooter_the_shooter

10-06-2005, 22:29

America has its OWN car compaines and all that. Europe can make their own internet~;)

Strike For The South

10-06-2005, 22:47

I dont see a problem with it now why must we change it

Proletariat

10-06-2005, 22:55

That does seem to be the problem with the UN, doesn't it? Lots of talk and precious little else to back it up.

That's a quote from a skit from the Chappelle show where it depicts how W Bush would act if he and his administration were all African-American.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/chappelles_show/videos/season_2/index.jhtml

Scroll down and look for 'Black Bush' if you feel like watching it.

Papewaio

10-07-2005, 00:14

The internet is a multinational asset. As such it should not belong to a single country.

The internet is a grouping of various smaller nets, it was not put in place solely by the USA. That is like saying Germany put in place all the worlds highways because they had the first Autobhan...

Also as pointed out most of the work that consitutes what we use as the internet was done by international scientists who were trying to share information more quickly to work on projects. CERN being the most obvious case. Along with computer companies adding in their own network topologies.

Soulforged

10-07-2005, 00:24

That does seem to be the problem with the UN, doesn't it? Lots of talk and precious little else to back it up.Yes the problem seems to be that, but if the UN cannot achieve goals without cohersion then it's useless. It's supposed to be the apotheosis of peace, and freedom too, why not...

Crazed Rabbit

10-07-2005, 01:17

The internet is a multinational asset. As such it should not belong to a single country.

Um, no the internet's underlying structure was developed by the USA, as has been demonstrated earlier.

And guess what? Just because other people use it doesn't mean they can demand ownership of it.

Crazed Rabbit

Soulforged

10-07-2005, 01:23

Um, no the internet's underlying structure was developed by the USA, as has been demonstrated earlier.

And guess what? Just because other people use it doesn't mean they can demand ownership of it.

Then why don't you return all trains...

Uesugi Kenshin

10-07-2005, 01:41

Because we have designed and built our own trains or traded for designs of trains and eventually gotten around to building or designing our own. I don't really see a reason why the US should give it up (not necessarilly my point of view, just seeing it from the country's interest POV). Why is this in the US's best interest?

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-07-2005, 02:11

I don't get it. The biggest argument for giving the Internet to the EU is that "the US shouldn't have control over something everybody uses."

And the EU should!? What about, say, the South American countries? Or the Asian nations?

CBR

10-07-2005, 02:30

Slyspy

10-07-2005, 02:33

Have any of you actually read the article?

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-07-2005, 02:51

Aww. Reading the articles sucks.

It's much better to post based on the slanted statements of others!

OK, so in reading the article Don posted, it looks like the EU wants "everyone" (or, at least not the US) to share the internet.

What's wrong with the current system, again?

Papewaio

10-07-2005, 03:05

The internet is a conglomerate of many different networks, it is not just he USAs. The USA did not put the infrastructure in place in other countries nor did it create the user interface (www and html).

Nor are all the root servers in the USA.

I don't think the EU should have control of it. But I don't think any country should be able to control the internet. Its greatest ability is the free exchange of information and the ability to communicate across borders.

CBR

10-07-2005, 03:24

What's wrong with the current system, again?

Heh well you should get an idea from the articles again ~:)

A few quotes:

At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.

They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy

Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.

But with the internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure - Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.

Right now the Department of Commerce controls the root servers and could in theory shut down the internet in any country if it wanted. And that is the key issue here. Now that the internet is becoming more important for running a whole nation, and no longer is just something geeks and universities are using, it is vital for all nations that the internet is not controlled by just one nation.

CBR

Papewaio

10-07-2005, 03:32

Brief History of the Internet (http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml)

The original ARPANET grew into the Internet. Internet was based on the idea that there would be multiple independent networks of rather arbitrary design, beginning with the ARPANET as the pioneering packet switching network, but soon to include packet satellite networks, ground-based packet radio networks and other networks. The Internet as we now know it embodies a key underlying technical idea, namely that of open architecture networking. In this approach, the choice of any individual network technology was not dictated by a particular network architecture but rather could be selected freely by a provider and made to interwork with the other networks through a meta-level "Internetworking Architecture".

Thus, Kahn decided to develop a new version of the protocol which could meet the needs of an open-architecture network environment. This protocol would eventually be called the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). While NCP tended to act like a device driver, the new protocol would be more like a communications protocol.

Four ground rules were critical to Kahn's early thinking:

Each distinct network would have to stand on its own and no internal changes could be required to any such network to connect it to the Internet.

Communications would be on a best effort basis. If a packet didn't make it to the final destination, it would shortly be retransmitted from the source.

Black boxes would be used to connect the networks; these would later be called gateways and routers. There would be no information retained by the gateways about the individual flows of packets passing through them, thereby keeping them simple and avoiding complicated adaptation and recovery from various failure modes.

There would be no global control at the operations level.
Other key issues that needed to be addressed were:

Algorithms to prevent lost packets from permanently disabling communications and enabling them to be successfully retransmitted from the source.

Providing for host to host "pipelining" so that multiple packets could be enroute from source to destination at the discretion of the participating hosts, if the intermediate networks allowed it.

Gateway functions to allow it to forward packets appropriately. This included interpreting IP headers for routing, handling interfaces, breaking packets into smaller pieces if necessary, etc.

The need for end-end checksums, reassembly of packets from fragments and detection of duplicates, if any.

The need for global addressing

Techniques for host to host flow control.

Interfacing with the various operating systems

There were also other concerns, such as implementation efficiency, internetwork performance, but these were secondary considerations at first.

The internet is a grouping of private networks. The very protocol that allows this internetworking was made with the idea that there was no global control.

Widespread development of LANS, PCs and workstations in the 1980s allowed the nascent Internet to flourish. Ethernet technology, developed by Bob Metcalfe at Xerox PARC in 1973, is now probably the dominant network technology in the Internet and PCs and workstations the dominant computers. This change from having a few networks with a modest number of time-shared hosts (the original ARPANET model) to having many networks has resulted in a number of new concepts and changes to the underlying technology. First, it resulted in the definition of three network classes (A, B, and C) to accommodate the range of networks. Class A represented large national scale networks (small number of networks with large numbers of hosts); Class B represented regional scale networks; and Class C represented local area networks (large number of networks with relatively few hosts).

The shift to having a large number of independently managed networks (e.g., LANs) meant that having a single table of hosts was no longer feasible, and the Domain Name System (DNS) was invented by Paul Mockapetris of USC/ISI. The DNS permitted a scalable distributed mechanism for resolving hierarchical host names (e.g. www.acm.org) into an Internet address.

One of the more interesting challenges was the transition of the ARPANET host protocol from NCP to TCP/IP as of January 1, 1983. This was a "flag-day" style transition, requiring all hosts to convert simultaneously or be left having to communicate via rather ad-hoc mechanisms. This transition was carefully planned within the community over several years before it actually took place and went surprisingly smoothly (but resulted in a distribution of buttons saying "I survived the TCP/IP transition").

TCP/IP was adopted as a defense standard three years earlier in 1980. This enabled defense to begin sharing in the DARPA Internet technology base and led directly to the eventual partitioning of the military and non- military communities. By 1983, ARPANET was being used by a significant number of defense R&D and operational organizations. The transition of ARPANET from NCP to TCP/IP permitted it to be split into a MILNET supporting operational requirements and an ARPANET supporting research needs.

Thus, by 1985, Internet was already well established as a technology supporting a broad community of researchers and developers, and was beginning to be used by other communities for daily computer communications.

With the exception of BITNET and USENET, these early networks (including ARPANET) were purpose-built - i.e., they were intended for, and largely restricted to, closed communities of scholars; there was hence little pressure for the individual networks to be compatible and, indeed, they largely were not. In addition, alternate technologies were being pursued in the commercial sector, including XNS from Xerox, DECNet, and IBM's SNA. 8 It remained for the British JANET (1984) and U.S. NSFNET (1985) programs to explicitly announce their intent to serve the entire higher education community, regardless of discipline. Indeed, a condition for a U.S. university to receive NSF funding for an Internet connection was that "... the connection must be made available to ALL qualified users on campus."

A key to the rapid growth of the Internet has been the free and open access to the basic documents, especially the specifications of the protocols.

The beginnings of the ARPANET and the Internet in the university research community promoted the academic tradition of open publication of ideas and results. However, the normal cycle of traditional academic publication was too formal and too slow for the dynamic exchange of ideas essential to creating networks.

On October 24, 1995, the FNC unanimously passed a resolution defining the term Internet. This definition was developed in consultation with members of the internet and intellectual property rights communities. RESOLUTION: The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term "Internet". "Internet" refers to the global information system that -- (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-07-2005, 03:35

Uesugi Kenshin

10-07-2005, 03:37

CBR

10-07-2005, 03:44

But CBR - those things could happen no matter who is running the internet.

What if the UN decides to cut off internet access to all nations who recognize Israel's soveirgnty?

Or other nasty, similar circumstances.:book:

Well if you read the second article that is precisely what some fear: that internet and politics get mixed together. From what I can read it is not the idea and would definitely be bad if it happens. One good thing about putting it under UN is that then nothing will ever happen as we all know UN cant decide anything anyway ~;)

CBR

Alexander the Pretty Good

10-07-2005, 03:46

To me, admittedly a biased source, I would say the UN would try to politicize it before the US would.

If I was not a US citizen, I might see things differently though.

:bow:

CBR

10-07-2005, 03:51

CBR would it be possible or too cost prohibitive for countries to set up mini-internets specifically for tax-collection and such?
I don't have a strong opinion either way, just wondering and every now and then playing devil's advocate.

I have really no idea how costly it would be. The future will only make internet more integrated in our lives so I think having one standard is the best for making it as smooth and cheap for all of us.

CBR

Papewaio

10-07-2005, 04:02

Guys the internet is a lot of mini networks. The issue is that these independent networks have a global control point in direct violation of the orginal design and intent of the internet.

Uesugi Kenshin

10-07-2005, 04:05

Ah that's what I figured, thought I might as well ask though. Well it will be interesting to see how this turns out. Although I think the only way a country could truly ensure its IT infrastructure would be to have its own mini-web for government purposes. Though I bet it would be cost-prohibitive for small/poor countries.

Xiahou

10-07-2005, 04:18

Brief History of the Internet (http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml)

The internet is a grouping of private networks. The very protocol that allows this internetworking was made with the idea that there was no global control.That's not really true in the sense that you think it is. Yes, my home network is my own and is totally independent of the Internet at large. It uses a private IP subnet and has private name resolution (NETBIOS in my case). However, to access the Internet at large I have to go thru my router that uses a public IP address from Verizon, who, in turn, gets its block of addresses that are assigned to it by the ICANN. Those blocks of addresses must be properly assigned and managed for the Internet to function.

This is also being confused with DNS, which is best thought of as a phonebook. The DNS name totalwar.org translates to the "phone number" of 216.234.246.245 . We can remember totalwar.org and other FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Names) easier than you can long IP addresses, also if the number changes- all that needs to be done is to change the IP on the DNS servers, instead of getting the new address out to everyone who has ever or will ever use the site.

Now, DNS is a hierarchical system. For example, a 'local' DNS server would differentiate between www or forums.totalwar.org . Also, the owner of totalwar.org could do things like create www .rtw.totalwar.org, ect. But, up from that would be the '.org' servers, which would contain the registrations for anything that's .org- totalwar.org, cato.org- whatever. What it sound like the EU wants to get their grubby little mitts on are the "root" DNS servers. These keep track of the addresses for the servers responsible for the various top-level domains like .com, .org, .net, .edu, .info, .biz, and so on ad naseum.

Personally, if they think they should have control of those, they can go jump in a lake.
ICANN (http://www.icann.org/new.html) has done an excellent job of it and there's no need to go screw it up now just because someone is on a power-trip. Sorry, I don't trust them.

Guys the internet is a lot of mini networks. The issue is that these independent networks have a global control point in direct violation of the orginal design and intent of the internet.The individual private networks are independent and open. How they interconnect needs to be managed or it wont function.

Mongoose

10-07-2005, 04:18

Europe invented the car. Will you Americans stop driving our invention.
America invented the Aeroplane. Will you Europeans stop flying our invention.
Eurpeans invented wine. (maybe). Will you Americans stop drinking it. BTW: Same goes for Beer.

Your missing the point, kiwitt. Europe should have some access, but not control. We built it, you can't take it and tell us how to use it. Europe invented the car, we bought cars from europe, and then built cars of our own. We didn't demand that you give us the invention and we certainly didn't try to enforce road laws on you.

Let`s not forget who it was that 'invented' the U.S in the first place.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/misc/rolleyes.gif

That has to be the most inane post i've seen in awhile...The US is an independent nation; not part of europe.:dizzy2: I suggest that you read up on some of the events of 1776 and 1812~D

Franconicus

10-07-2005, 08:11

Don,
I do not know much about the internet claims. But I do know that the US does not use interlectual property rights in a fair way. They support them whenever it is good for the US and they hurt them whenever it is not. So please do not complain!
I agree that the EU is more agressive towards the US to protect her rights (o.k. what she thinks is hers~;) ) Do not know how this started.

Geoffrey S

10-07-2005, 08:59

To me, admittedly a biased source, I would say the UN would try to politicize it before the US would.
Aw, come on. The UN can't get common politics even if it wanted to, so how could the UN possibly politicize the internet?

Scroll down and look for 'Black Bush' if you feel like watching it.
And rather amusing it was too.

Papewaio

10-07-2005, 09:18

The individual private networks are independent and open. How they interconnect needs to be managed or it wont function.

Managed yes, controlled by government no. Either the EU or US.

As for the root DNS servers they are located in the locations with the highest traffic. USA, Europe, Japan etc

DNS Root Servers. (http://www.root-servers.org/)

Edit.

There are 13 root dns servers, each of which can have multiple nodes for instance F root server:
F root (http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/ops/f-root/)

Xiahou

10-07-2005, 09:43

Managed yes, controlled by government no. Either the EU or US.Yeah, maybe we should put it under the management of an internationally organized, non-profit corporation..... oh wait, we already have that. So, we should change it, why?

Viking

10-07-2005, 18:36

uh...Americans?~:handball:

Crazed Rabbit

Wrong, there was no Americans before America was created. :deal:

That has to be the most inane post i've seen in awhile...The US is an independent nation; not part of europe.:dizzy2: I suggest that you read up on some of the events of 1776 and 1812~D

Did I say so? I`m just saying we want to take part in you parties, without 'us 'there would never been any 'you'. :deal:

Mongoose

10-07-2005, 18:49

Did I say so? I`m just saying we want to take part in you parties, without 'us 'there would never been any 'you'. :deal:

why not apply the samething to children? With out your parents, you wouldn't exist. therefore, any money you make or property you buy should belong to them. But make sure that you have plenty of children; you'll need money and property too. To make sure that you have a steady cash flow, have atleast have one extra child more then your parents. It's like a pyramid scheme.

things change after 200 years. Europe claiming to have "invented" The U.S is as absurd as italy demanding parts of europe and the middle east back because they owned those areas ~2000 years ago.

I repeat: The U.S is an independent nation. NOT part of Europe.

Viking

10-07-2005, 19:02

why not apply the samething to children? With out your parents, you wouldn't exist. therefore, any money you make or property you buy should belong to them. But make sure that you have plenty of children; you'll need money and property too. To make sure that you have a steady cash flow, have atleast have one extra child more then your parents. It's like a pyramid scheme.

things change after 200 years. Europe claiming to have "invented" The U.S is as absurd as italy demanding parts of europe and the middle east back because they owned those areas ~2000 years ago.

I repeat: The U.S is an independent nation. NOT part of Europe.

The romans might have owned the middle east and great parts of Europe, but they did not make up a majority of the population there. Otherwise the continental plates moves in the right direction, you are right, the U.S is not a part of Europe. :deal:

Mongoose

10-07-2005, 19:14

By "Not part of Europe", i meant not part of the EU.

"The romans might have owned the middle east and great parts of Europe, but they did not make up a majority of the population there."

Yes, but the population did mix with the romans AFAIK. Infact, without them, Europe might be less advanced. Thus, any advanced technology developed by Europe should be given to italy. With out 'them', there would be no 'you' as there is today.:deal:

This argument isn't going anywhere. let's let this thread take a better course

Viking

10-07-2005, 19:32

By "Not part of Europe", i meant not part of the EU.
(...)
This argument isn't going anywhere. let's let this thread take a better course

I am not a part of the EU either. Oh well... :vanish: for now.