| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
DoC will put IANA functions up for competitive bid
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 26 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
U.S. Government Starts to Design New .NET Via LAWS
The U.S. Government's numerous agencies and the
U.S. Congress now see what a travesty the
IANA-based Internet has become. It is a Wild West
show. Consumers have no protection, and lobbyists
from outside the U.S. dominate discussions on
how the U.S. should run their network, to benefit
those lobbyists.
The U.S. Government, in concert with the 10 or
20 major players (RBOC telcos, M$, V$, N$ and
banking, cable and the media companies) will work
to design a new .NET via laws. The ISOC and ICANN
will be off chasing their dreams with the UN/ITU.
That is a very good way to distract them.
Small ISPs will be cut-off, and many countries.
The FCC will step in and regulate the back-bone.
The Wild West show will end, and U.S. consumers
will benefit, and not have to be subjected to
the world lobbyists that want to destroy the
American network dominance, and replace it with
tin cans and kite string to third world countries.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/ news/11032005_Broadband.pdf
SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS.
(a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.—Subject to subsection
(b), each BITS provider has the duty—
(1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the
offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful content, application, or service provided over the Internet;
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"BITS provider - not to block, impair, or interfere"
That removes the NANOG Thugs from the picture.
They can continue to play the game of "my bit pipe
is bigger than your bit pipe", but it will not
matter because their bit pipes will not be
connected and routed. That frees up all of their
IP address blocks.
ATT/SBC does not care, they now have that ATT
/8 and all of the remaining address space that
the IANA never sold. They now just homestead it
with the other major players that have agreed
to do that, at the IP layer. TCP and UDP are not
even in the picture. Comments about Ports and
Port 25 and Port 80 are irrelevant to the big boys,
the BITS Providers.
Response from the Inner Circle:
"do you want some legislation that gives the CEO of ATT/SBC the world largest dinosaur a blank check to do as he wishes with *HIS* network. This bills language is HIGHLY deceptive. I too despise government incompetence but giving Whittacre a blank check is IMHO much worse."
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
FCC will step in and regulate the back-bone.
The regulations are mostly in the area of speed
and performance, something the research/hobbyist
nets never really cared about. To have a nationwide,
reliable, secure, and consistent packet transport,
you have to consider end-to-end performance.
One of the major issues will be whether Hawaii,
Alaska, and the other various islands, such as
CUBA, are part of the .UBA from a regulated
performance point of view. Congress can not
legislate that a single thin fiber will carry
more bits, it just lays there and does not care.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
