RE: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)

From: HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2008 - 16:21:15 EST

  • Next message: William Herrin: "Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)"

    speaking about regulation, as a party providing an important piece of
    infrastructure to the muggles in the matrix, we would expect some
    gratitude from the various highly incompetent "governators" around the
    world, instead of pissing off isps with more regulations, primarily pushed
    by the various illegal kartells that form the "entertainment industry"
    (on which we should pull hostile takeovers to shut them down once and for
    good and noone will even miss them and their stupid dvds but that's
    besides the point), it would be nice if the "internet community" would
    from now on reside directly under the UN (no more local laws and other
    annoying interference) and our technical staff would at least get cars
    with sirens etc to go to datacenters -fast- if the need arises. (just
    basic -requirements-, nothing fancy)

    let's just face it, noone here (besides those in china) give a rats ass
    about what china wants (no falun gong) or that sweden has anti porn laws
    which have 24 as their criteria or other local crap, for some weird reason
    the local crap from the USA seems to be widely accepted -still-, but in
    fact the real problem is just that the scope of the internet goes well
    over the obsolete country borders from the past, and therefore any form
    of regulation should do so as well.

    nothing wrong with regulation, but as the reach of the internet is a tad
    bigger than that of a muggle tv station, it should be global, and as we
    own the infrastructure and they cannot do without us, we get to vote who
    goes into the new (not the fcc, as thats us only anyway) regulating body.

    (or we might as well pull the plug and keep our individual parts of the
    internet for ourselves, which sends them all back to the stoneage).

    after all, if you break it, you get to keep both parts.

    I'm quite sure noone in europe or asia gives anything about anything the
    FCC may say or do and larger transit-less networks will just move their
    headquarters to such places should it get in the way.

    On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Lamar Owen wrote:

    > Larry Sheldon wrote:
    > > How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran
    > [snip]
    > > > But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's too
    > > > simple to be real regulation. :-)
    >
    > > One World Government at last!
    >
    > Just one of the many loopholes in my simplistic outline, and the most difficult thing of all about regulating 'the Internet.'
    >
    > So, would prefacing my outline with 'In the USA, this could be done for that portion of 'the Internet' provider infrastructure within the jurisdiction of the USA' close that hole to a degree? (not really)
    >
    > Like I said, I am not touching the definition of the 'complete Internet' (and I even left a clue to this hole in that line).
    >
    >
    > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog"
    >


  • Next message: William Herrin: "Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD