It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Trouble For US in Geneva: US Likely to Lose Control of Internet

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:15 PM
Seeker, I agree my man. I like the whole conspiracy thing. Just wish something with more depth than the NWO could come up. Ahh well, if I didn't get something out of conspiracy's I wouldn't spend all my time reading this site

This might be a dumb question, but these "root servers" - I am assuming they are like the backbone of the network? Couldn't any nation have their own, and just link the two or is there some sort of VHS Beta war that I am not aware of, or what is stopping other nations to have their own root servers? Now seriously, what am I missing because I am obviously missing something here... what's all the cafuffle?

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Passer By

This might be a dumb question, but these "root servers" - I am assuming they are like the backbone of the network? Couldn't any nation have their own, and just link the two or is there some sort of VHS Beta war that I am not aware of, or what is stopping other nations to have their own root servers? Now seriously, what am I missing because I am obviously missing something here... what's all the cafuffle?

Passer By, your inquiry wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to answer part of it anyway.

You assume correctly, the root servers are indeed the backbone of the internet. Any country or group could build one or more anywhere they wanted to locate it--that would turn into another interesting contest though as most of them don't really trust one another that far. As you can picture, root servers are physical installations and whoever has total access to one can literally monitor anything passing through it and or filter, censor, or what have you all the traffice passing through. Or even shut whole regions/nations off altogether if desired.

I know that doesn't give you the complete picture, but I believe it is enough to see the ramifications of control. Anyone who doesn't think the things I just sketched out are possible is either very naive or is delluding themselves. The Internet and World Wide Web have become so ingrained into just about every nations fabric & economy that control is really a national security issue--not just for the U.S., but for everyone.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 12:49 PM
AStro, I appreciate any info anywhere. Thanks for the knowledge.

So it would seem then isn't it better to be in the hands of a multinational organsation instead of one, single country?

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:40 PM
Most if not all members for the UN cannot even resolve issues in their own country be it economically, health etc... for individual citizens. I think most in the UN are just there to pat each other on the back and gauge out what they can for their elite citizens. But I digress.. That’s another story.

Just read today how two back bone servers are at odds with each other and cut service to one another and how possibly millions may be affected.

Link found here.

Its bad enough China has censored the internet from its citizens who have no say in the matter. What is to prevent the UN from voting in such sensors it deems important.

Even now some things are considered taboo on the net by some countries. Are we not now being policed? I am not an advocate of such things but child porn is one that I can think of now that is nationally considered a no no. So the UN votes 100% that this should not be encouraged.

What happens when the vote is less then 100%? The majority rules... Bad enough there are some nations out there bullying others by brute force but shall we now have our intellectual bullied as to what can and cannot be posted or viewed/read if we become the minority.

If a country becomes invaded, will it be cut off from the rest of the world? Just as the US attempt's to sensor, for whatever reasons, activities that take place in area's around the world it is at war with.


posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:03 PM
Can't work.

Won't work.

Not gonna happen.

Don't believe me?

Pick up a book on DNS and NAMED.

This harr intarweb just don't worky dat way.

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:08 PM
Wilbert, you bring up the exact points I would. Except you don't seem to notice, that the general issue here is that those root servers are in the US, and it is the US that seems to be losing control of itself. You see the problems with China having control - because they want to make sure people only have the information that is beneficial to the Chinese Government. Wouldn't the same problem exsist with the US? Sure the US is not communist(yet?) but it does have it's own interests and has shown that it will protect their interests as feircly as China does. Doesn't it seem then a little foolish to trust any single government with something so important?

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:21 PM
To be honest im quite happy with the way it is at the moment, i have no problem with the US being in control. The US being in control hasnt hurt anything as far as im concerned, i have access and can surf and post whatever i want when ever i want. Why fix something that dont seem broke.
Why do people stick their nose in where its not needed? I accept that the tech was developed by many different people from many different countries but if the US has been the main financial contributer then why cant they have control? And will the US be compensated for the money they have spent if they relinquish control.
By the way im from the UK so i have no axe to grind here.

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:00 PM
The US invented it, US tax dollars fund it, so it should remain here, period. I in fact support the proposed foreigner tax so that we're not paying for all the other moocher countries using or bandwidth and power for nothing that was proposed before. As soon as control is lost, the internet will be worthless, thanks UN keep up the good work, morons.

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:00 PM
Actually, U.S. tax dollars don't fund the Internet. The root servers are owned by corporations like MCI, etc. Tax dollars do fund ICANN through the Dept. Of Commerce though. If you read the link supplied above about the dispute between Cogent and Level 3 (two backbone/root server suppliers/owners) you'll see that both of those companies are commercial enterprises and they are both losing money. I would just as soon that the feds stay out of running the actual internet operation. They may have to step in to regulate the fees charged though.

[edit on 7-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:08 PM
Could someone explain to me what controlling the "top level" of the Internet means?

And basically, when we say that the U.S. "controls" the Internet, what does it "control"? The infrastructures? The servers? The standards? The contents?

This is all very unclear at best.

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:13 PM
OTTS, maybe this will help in answering what you ask?

At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce.

EU says internet could fall apart: Developing countries demand share of control--US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform


posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:31 PM
Nope, it's ours and they can't have it.

It's here, and it's not going anywhere else.

Too bad, looks like English language dominates.

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:37 PM
seekerof > thanks for the link. It was very informitive.

I hope the U.S. stands their ground on this one.

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:17 PM
SeekerOf, thanks once again for that article, and I appreciate you taking the time to find this thread, to which the article pertains.

IMO the likely outcome will be that the other countries will decide to develop and run their own top level domains. Some may just agree to stick with what we've got, as it appears to be working well. It may turn out to be rather messy, as other countries try to get their root networks up and integrated.

It seems in this case there will be a need a for a central, worldwide DNS which sends data requests to the proper top level country domain. That way each country will be able to control to a better degree what information is available from, and into that nation.

<< 1   >>

log in