Skip to comments.
Breaking America's grip on the net (US FORCED to give up control of the Internet?)
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html ^
| October 6, 2005
| Kieren McCarthy
Posted on 10/06/2005 5:55:46 PM PDT by Blogger
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: Blogger
Uh-oh. Folks had better consult with Al Gore. As the inventor of the internet, he SHOULD have some say in the matter, shouldn't he??? [/sarcasm]
Seriously, though - where and how was the internet developed? Wasn't the US a if not THE major player in the creation of it many years ago? That should, at minimum, give us some say i the matter.
But leave it up to the "world", probably meaning the Euro dorks - then you can BET there will be some sort of increased cost (taxes).
21
posted on
10/06/2005 6:16:23 PM PDT
by
TheBattman
(Islam (and liberalism)- the cult of Satan)
To: Blogger
Calling Al Gore ... Al Gore, please invent a new Internet...
22
posted on
10/06/2005 6:17:27 PM PDT
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: Blogger
When the point comes where I can talk on my cell phone and post a picture or post to my blog from anywhere on the planet without "fear" of where I am, who I am, or what I say than we can think about having the UN involved. Not a day sooner.
23
posted on
10/06/2005 6:18:21 PM PDT
by
Ray66
To: Blogger
Don't you mean that Algore should just invent something else, after all he did invet the internet.
To: wildwood
No. They want ours. They want regulatory capacity over the internet.
25
posted on
10/06/2005 6:22:15 PM PDT
by
Blogger
To: Blogger
A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up controlThe usual suspects! Are they suggesting we give up naming standards, or that all the backbone servers reside in the basement of the U.N.?
To: cyberdasher
Are they talking about control over the '.com' root? And ".net" and so on.
Each country has its own suffix ( eg Canada is ".ca" ), and the country's govt can make its own rules as to how names get assigned in its suffix.
But everybody wants a ".com" name
The way naming works is the root servers point to what servers handle ".com", ".net", ".ca", etc, and the subsidiary servers may in turn point to lower level servers. So ibm.com may have its own name servers to resolve what the IP address for "magoo.ibm.com" happens to be.
So the world can do as it pleases, but we have the means to ignore them if our side chooses not to bend over. China may designate its own name server that chooses to say that "freerepublic.com" points to a machine in the basement of their secret police headquarters, but that won't affect somebody who uses the US name servers
To: Czar
Any American representative who is stupid enough to attempt to make any agreement diluting American control over the internet will be quickly ID'd and trashed accordingly, right along with any of the other crapweasels in Washington who want to sign on. If there were a Democrat in the White House right now, this would already be a done deal.
To: TheBattman
29
posted on
10/06/2005 6:27:28 PM PDT
by
Genesis defender
(Brother Maynard, bring out the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!)
To: Genesis defender
Please note the remark Senator Kennedy made.Nope. I'm getting ready for bed. No fat drunk lunatic 'Rat nightmares for me tonight.
To: SaveTheChief
"But first, I would close down the U.N. headquarters, turn it into cheap housing for those in need, and make sure each and every last foreign diplomat is escorted to an airplane on it's way out of the country.Turn it into "cheap housing"? I'd sell it to the highest bidder and give the proceeds back to the American people as a tax refund.
31
posted on
10/06/2005 6:32:03 PM PDT
by
Godebert
To: Blogger
No. They want ours. They want regulatory capacity over the internet. No, they want TAXING capability over the Internet. They want businesses to pay thru the nose for their names, and they want ISP's to pay a surcharge to the UN for allowing them to use the net (which will get passed to individual users)
They also want the ability to censor the net
To: SaveTheChief
I'm afraid that if I had control of the Internet, I would unplug it to everyone outside of the United States Ah yes using that well known Internet Plug.
To: rogue yam
"If there were a Democrat in the White House right now, this would already be a done deal."And so you feel that because it is an "(R)" president in the White House, this will not happen?
34
posted on
10/06/2005 6:32:28 PM PDT
by
Czar
(StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: coydog
They are going to Zimbabwe-ize it..It will go
from being a profitable and going concern,
exporting profit and success to it's neighbors,
to being cannabalized and run in fiefdoms to
the point where it can not only no longer develop
profitable markets and sussesses, but it won't even
be able to support itself, and chunks of it will
fall off the WWW...and who will it hurt the most? the self same countries that aere arguing for it's seizure.
The US, aas one poster said, will develop something
bette, and keep it to ourselves. In fact, we allready
*have* all we have to do, is start rolling out the infrastructure for it. Makes broadband look like the
Telegraph.
To: Blogger
This story is so full of inconsistencies and ignorance that one hardly knows where to begin.
In one place they tell us Brazil relies on the Internet for its taxes and therefore US must give up control. In another they point out that China filters what their Internet users can access. Wouldn't that imply China already has control?
The US "Controls" the net by hosting the root level domain servers, but these servers are not essential for local use of the Internet. Every ISP and their up-stream provider hosts copies of these domain server. The root level servers could go down for a week and not many people would notice. Joe user never uses these servers.
All these servers to is convert www.freerepublic.com to 209.157.64.200. Thats it. Nothing more.
And your local ISP does this for you unless their server has never heard of freerepublic.com because they don't keep it up to date. In which case it asks its upstream provider, and so on up the chain to the root servers. Joe user never gets to use the root servers directly.
Once your machine is told the IP of Freerepublic it contacts it directly to get a web page without going through any US government facilities.
Some countries host their own top level servers for in-country use. China, for example. Brazil could do the same and thereby assure its tax system would never fail.
Other than that, there is no infrastructure that is in the hands of the US government that is not also replicated elsewhere.
There is no filtering that can be carried out by the US government to prevent a tax payer in Buenos Aries from contacting the tax headquarters in Brasilia, because that transaction never leaves Brazil.
And China can prevent their citizens from ever seeing www.whitehouse.com if that is what they fear, by simply null-routing that domain in their top level domain servers or blocking that particular IP.
What are these fools going on about?
36
posted on
10/06/2005 6:34:03 PM PDT
by
konaice
To: Czar
And so you feel that because it is an "(R)" president in the White House, this will not happen? Well, no, I didn't say that, and I don't feel that either, unfortunately.
To: Blogger
No one can "force" us to do anything. Our "Globalist" rulers might acquiesce to their demands however. Its a pathetic state of affairs.
38
posted on
10/06/2005 6:36:43 PM PDT
by
BnBlFlag
(Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis)
To: konaice
And also the main root servers are mirrored:
http://european.nl.orsn.net/ The article is pure over-reaction to an otherwise irrelevvant issue
To: Blogger
The rest of the world thinks that they have an entitlement to use the U.S. funded Internet?
F the F'n F'ers.
40
posted on
10/06/2005 6:39:22 PM PDT
by
Triggerhippie
(Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson