Go to If I get smart with you....how will you know?
- Add a comment
- Go to Should Female Bloggers Be Required to Wear Burkas?
Corbin and Giskard, thank you very much for your voices of reason. I, too, believe the UN is an entity that definitely must not be allowed control of the internet.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 9, 2005 at 6:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Giskard
Thank you very much for that excellent explaination..........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 9, 2005 at 4:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin
Excellent post. I understood nothing of the technical part yet I understand how important it is to use care and restraint on anything that goes into the hands of the UN. BB
posted by
Justi
on November 8, 2005 at 11:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Damon
How ironic that you claim a 'little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing' when you are so clearly ignorant of what you speak.
While my post was about how different values lead to different particular implementations of technology, let me start, instead, with the more technical aspects of your ignorance.
Almost all modern phone networks, like the Internet, are digital. However, the history (and hence the baggage) of the two networks are very different. The modern digital phone network, having grown out of the old analog circuit-switched networks, use a digital version of circuit-switched networking known as Broadband Integrated Services Digital Network (B-ISDN). The Internet, on the other hand, is a packet-switched network based on what is unimaginatively referred to as Internet Protocol (IP).
To be sure, these are different protocols serving different purposes. And that is exactly my point. Why are these two networks so different, when fundamentally, they are both digital networks? Because the people who built the two networks had very different goals in mind and those goals were based, in part, on different values.
The phone network was built to be closed and micro-managed by 'planners' whereas the Internet was built to be open and extensible by anyone.
I will close this subject with another simple comparison of the two networks to illustrate my point. If I start my own small business, I can go to the phone company and get a phone line activated. Oh boy!
I can also go to my Internet Provider and get internet access! Oh boy!
So far, in both cases, I am a consumer of the services provided by each company. However, I can do something very different with my Internet access that I cannot do with the phone network: I can expand it. I can develop and entirely new application of the Internet. In fact, that can be the whole purpose of my business!
That's why there are so many different applications of the internet. There is the world wide web, Usenet, IRC, VoIP and on and on. The list is truly endless. That is what a mere teenager did when he built Napster!
We can't do that with the phone network. We can't build a new application for it. The phone network is under the micro-managed control of the ITU and world governments.
And now those same people want to micro-manage the Internet.
posted by
Giskard
on November 8, 2005 at 5:23 PM
| link to this | reply
THE UN CONTROLLING THE INTERNET???? I am not a fan of the UN. They are bunglers and corrupt and--- and---and. The thought gives me a migraine.
So, maybe Al Gore should be in charge of their plans/ He DID invent the Internet, didn't he?
posted by
Tiel
on November 8, 2005 at 4:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Giskard
Would you like to educate DM on this one?
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 8, 2005 at 3:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Ooooh...
...I love to see this sort of foot-stamping!
The UN is too corrupt and political to take charge of the Internet?
And therefore, by extension, the US isn't any of those bad things?
C'mon. We didn't drop out the trees yesterday, y'know.
And what's this about the phone and Internet networks being made from the 'same fundamental technology? What - you mean wires? In that case, why not ask how to build a website on the national power grid, 'cos that's wires as well?
Sheeesh. A little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 8, 2005 at 3:06 PM
| link to this | reply
One more thing
To drive home my point concerning the vast difference of both social and economic freedom between the international phone network and the Internet, let me ask a couple of questions.
1) How do you create your own website on the international phone network?
You can't, can you? Why not? Both networks are based on the same fundamental technology. To be sure there are some differences in protocols but there are no technical reasons that outright prevent the phone network from providing the same type of capabilities we have in the Internet.
2) How do you 'Google' the international phone network for information on the human rights violations of the People's Republic of China?
You can't. Why not?
Some might say, "Well, the phone network isn't that kind of network."
I'd say, "Exactly!"
The phone network is tightly controlled by the U.N. and governments around the world.
In other words, it was built with a different set of values. And now the people with those same set of values want control of the Internet.
To be sure, this over simplifies the issues but at the same time it highlights what, ultimately, IMO, is at stake.
posted by
Giskard
on November 8, 2005 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin
I'm not sure I get the jist of your post. The situation I describe is the same one you put in your blog.
The ultimate global authority of the world wide phone network is the
International Telecommunications Union which is a branch of the United Nations.
The U.N. now wants similar authority over the Internet. Presumably they would create a similar branch to the U.N., perhaps the International Internet Union.
I think that would be a disaster.
Networks are simply technology. How they're built and how they are operated depend more on the values of those building the network than it does on technology. Or, to put it another way, technology can be used to free people or it can be used to oppress people. Which it does is dependent upon the values of those developing the technology.
The U.N. itself has no values. It's a conglomeration of world governments and all are accepted regardless of the kind of government or the kind of values those governments are derived from. North Korea is a member of the U.N. for crying out loud.
The Internet is a free network. It was built by those who value freedom of information. While the Internet was originally funded by the U.S. government it was actually built by both corporate and academic engineers from the Woodstock era!
The Internet reflects their values of the open and free access to information. Anybody is free to distribute information on the Internet. This distinguishes the Internet from almost any other kind of network (whether they're digitally based or not). Most other networks tightly control and regulate the distribution of information.
When the Internet out grew the abilities of its founders to manage the U.S. government made an important decision. They decided to keep the Internet free from government regulation and in 1998 created the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private non-profit corporation composed of international private and public stakeholders.
The U.N. wants to take control of ICANN. Presumably because it doesn't consist of the 'right' stakeholders. But, in my opinion, it's a ruse to gain control of the Internet and begin controlling the distribution of information.
Anyway, I've already spent too much time writing this, I need to get back to work. I'll try to expand on it later.
posted by
Giskard
on November 8, 2005 at 9:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Giskard.....welcome
I wasn't aware of the situation you described.
When we are "comfortable" with how we have things.....we sometime don't think about how others may have it........
Can anyone name one program that the UN has done an exceptional job running it???
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 8, 2005 at 8:43 AM
| link to this | reply
I was just writing a blog...
...on this very subject. Very timely!
I'm coming at the subject from a slightly different perspective. Here's a little taste for you!:
The U.N. and many of its constituent governments want to bring to the Internet the same oppressive regulation they've imposed for decades upon the telephone network.
Even a casual comparison between the phone network and the Internet quickly reveals a vast disparity of innovation, of diversity and of social and economic freedom. Yet, both networks are built from the same fundamental technology. What can be the reason for this disparity? How can the same technology realize such fundamentally different networks?
The difference is the values that were used to build them. Technology is amoral. It can be used to build free, liberated networks or it can be used to build tightly constrained, oppressive networks. It's up to the builders of the network to decide what kind of network they want to build.
posted by
Giskard
on November 8, 2005 at 6:55 AM
| link to this | reply