The ITU has finalized its proposals for rewriting the regulations governing internet traffic, which will be decided at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WC-IT) being held in Dubai this December. The eleven-day conference will host the rewriting of the international telecommunication regulations (ITRs) …
What the ITU says is really quite irrelevant.
An "open and free internet" to the americans means "an internet we control". As if they're somehow the guardians of all that's good and right. Well, they're not. They don't even manage to keep close tabs on their own TLAgencies, they do start several wars in response to relatively minor incidents, and so on, and so forth. In short, they're hypocrites, the worst kind of. It doesn't matter that other countries may or may not be worse; they say they're the best and other countries look at them and say "hey, we can do that". So there is and will be a big push to get more government control into them tubes of teh intarwebz. They may not know exactly what it is, but it's powerful enough to want a piece of the governance pie.
The only real way for the USoA Congress to stop this push, or at least take the sting out of it, is to put the thing out of reach of everyone's grasp, including their own. That last bit is absolutely necessary. The why I'll leave as an excercise, it shouldn't be hard to see for political players at that level (if not, what're they doing there?), the how I'll happily explain to them congresscritters should they care enough to ask. They have the means, but do they have the will?
Re: What the ITU says is really quite irrelevant.
Unfortunately, what the ITU regulations say is not irrelevant. For more years than I can remember, CCITT and then ITU-T regulations, sanctioned by international treaty, have been used by governments, government monopolies, and de facto monopolists or dominant market players to justify local rules that either restrain trade or restrict the rights of the public, such as the right to privacy. In all fairness to the US Government, although they still claim to have contractual control over ICANN, the US position in the ITU - under both Republican and Democrat administrations - has for many years been anti-monopolistic and libertarian. New ITU regulations, when we are allowed to see them, have a high chance of making things worse, not better.
Yes, of course ITU regulations have quite a lot of power. I probably should've written "what the ITU promises", since despite all their good intentions and whatnot, the political situation is such that unless properly resolved, governments will keep on tugging on the governance issue. And the ITU is a very convenient vehicle to exercise that governance power. So they can say whatever they like, and the US congress can harp on "open internet" and whatnot until they're blue in the face, such worse ITU regulations are more or less inevitable.
Unless, and that was the point, the US relinquishes control over the internet in such a way that the ITU cannot regulate it, and in such a way that other governments cannot force censorship outside their own jurisdiction, and so on. But as long as they're sitting on it, whatever their stance on telecommunications, the US is part of the problem and in the way of a good solution. Quite regardless of what they claim or what the ITU claims will happen.
They have their hand in the cookie jar and the rest wants cookies too. Give in and we all lose. So out the cookie jar must go.
"from friction comes life"
... change was essential to kick-start the "knowledge economy."
Maybe someone should tell them it started a while ago.
ACTA didn't go as expected, then ...
Let's try once more, from different angle ...
Re: ACTA didn't go as expected, then ...
Exactly. This was the first thing that went through my mind - this is about "intellectual property." A closed conference, with access only to privileged organisations, and no public-interest representation. Sound familiar?
My first thought there was that the "privileged organisations" would of course be the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, BPI, BREIN and the other copyright pigopolists whose DRM-pushing, region-locking, pay-per-use agenda would be on top of the pile.
Sigh. Let the protesting begin... yet again...
Worrying in many ways
..."knowledge economy." This is a very scary idea because if it is to work then it'll mean restricting access to knowledge; if we think that patenting software is a bad idea just wait until the rules are rewritten so that knowledge can be patented too.
"...from friction comes life." From friction comes heat; energy that is wasted and, due to entropy, lost forever.
'"Those documents that have come into circulation, thanks in large part to the wcitleaks website set up to publish them, could alarm "credulous members of the public," Touré said...' If you're doing something that may alarm people there're two ways to handle it: either publish a credible and binding explanation to reassure everyone or just try to demean and discredit anyone who shows concern.
I, for one, welcome our new ITU Overlords.
Silicon Valley has been off the Reservation for 8-ish years now. The American Government is incapable of taming them. Their beliefs are largely unchallenged and it becomes harder and harder to explain to these moon howlers that it matters not whether the moon is full or new.
Money doesn't grow on trees, cheap labour does, but only in Asia, other places require no-poach arrangements to prosper., and so on.
- JLaw, Kate Upton exposed in celeb nude pics hack
- Google flushes out users of old browsers by serving up CLUNKY, AGED version of search
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine
- Twitter declines to deny JLaw tweet scrubdown after alleged iCloud NAKED PHOTOS hack