UN doesn't want to take over Internet, does want to help telcos profit

ITU Secretary General says he wants to address the content and carriers issue.

Read the whole story

 

[Dyskresiac]

They don't need your help.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

“ISPs really do seem to believe that content companies are ‘dumping’ traffic onto their networks, but the 'source' of all that traffic isn't the content companies: it's the users who have chosen to access those services,” he wrote. “Having popular online services is, of course, the very reason that people pay for Internet access in the first place.”

What, "popular online services" was the justification for the proliferation of the telephone or telegraph?

 

[AnonymousRich]

“ISPs really do seem to believe that content companies are ‘dumping’ traffic onto their networks, but the 'source' of all that traffic isn't the content companies: it's the users who have chosen to access those services,” he wrote. “Having popular online services is, of course, the very reason that people pay for Internet access in the first place.”

What, "popular online services" was the justification for the proliferation of the telephone or telegraph?

Odd, I don't see any mention of the telephone or telegraph in the quoted text. And the text I do see is quite specific, and it seems reasonable enough. If not for facebook my wife, as an example, would have little use for the web.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Point being that content creators weren't the only reason to build a communications network. Plain old human need to communicate was justification enough. Even if we did away with Facebook, or Netflix, there would be that.

 

[Donkey Hotay]

The UN statement in plain text:

We desire a global tax to sustain and grow our faux aristocracy in the face of economic uncertainty in the West. We propose to aid the backbone network suppliers and telcos in artificially raising their revenue without innovation or competition by forcing the content creators of the internet to pay for the privilege of making things the peasants want.

 

[doho7744]

Well maybe they would have more money if they stopped blowing it on politicians?

Yes I am implying this guy was bought.

 

[BuckyOhare]

The international internet bureacracy is bad enough already (thank you ICANN).
We don't need more of it.

WHOIS Review and Beyond 3.7.8
Jun 18, 2012 11:18 AM PDT
By Garth Bruen

...
the RAA [Registrar Accreditation Agreement] is unenforceable on WHOIS inaccuracy ... because the language of RAA 3.7.8 has no enforcement provision.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120618_whois_review_and_beyond_378/

This means shady registrars can abuse the system. This is not new.

 

[xoa]

Point being that content creators weren't the only reason to build a communications network. Plain old human need to communicate was justification enough. Even if we did away with Facebook, or Netflix, there would be that.

Which would justify what, maybe ISDN? Don't exactly need much to send an email or sit on IRC. I don't think that's what's driving broadband and increasing backbone utilization Ostracus, which is what the conversation is about.

 

[AND_YOU_ARE]

It would appear that Hamadoun Touré is looking out for his potential future employers when his second term is up in 2014. Sounds like a real politician by US standards.

 

[hobgoblin]

1. Regulatory capture.
2. You forgot a nation on list of misbehaving nations.

 

[Grieviant]

Which would justify what, maybe ISDN? Don't exactly need much to send an email or sit on IRC. I don't think that's what's driving broadband and increasing backbone utilization Ostracus, which is what the conversation is about.

If ISPs weren't compelled by outside forces (improvements in communications technology, public pressure, internet advancement) to upgrade the networks in order to sustain their monopolies, we'd still be on dial-up and paying the same amount for the privilege as in the 1990s.

The guy you're responding to is a shill who would probably claim that ISP 'innovation' is responsible for broadband internet. In reality, their main 'innovations' are things like low bandwidth caps, throttling, high subscription fees, and much bitching and moaning about services (such as video streaming) that actually use some of the bandwidth that is advertised. The MBAs should be proud.

 

[NicoleC]

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

 

[hobgoblin]

How about public infrastructure, private services?

 

[Grieviant]

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money.

That isn't a legitimate point, it's a hypothetical that doesn't correspond to reality. They build out infrastructure as slowly as possible in order to make more money.

 

[Kalkin]

If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure...

The alternative is the people (i.e., the governments) build infrastructure, instead. Which do you want: roads, toll roads, or railroads?

In the long term, I think there will be many internets, implemented and supported with every business and political model imaginable. In the countries where life is good, there will be as many internets as there are roads, and they will be impossible to close down on the whim of a lunatic. But there will be other types of country...

 

[AdamM]

1. Regulatory capture.
2. You forgot a nation on list of misbehaving nations.

Which one?

US which seizes domains of IP infringers?

Denmark which blocks TPB?

Finland that maintains a secret blocklist which includes a site that reports on what sites are blocked?

Perhaps even Australia that wants to implement a giant firewall?

Or even some of the other countries on this list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_c ... by_country

 

[Wes Felter]

If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money.

The question is where that money should come from: the local customers or foreign ISPs. Why should I pay for your broadband?

 

[Br@ndnew]

Well the good thing is that they are going up against big content, who also spend allot of money buying politicians.

Like the article says, this has been going on for a long time. I can't believe I am saying this, but a part of me is glad the MPAA and big content have politicians in their back pocket. The question is who has more?

 

[Brandon B]

If telecos don't make as much or more money as they have in the past, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure, or let anyone else do so, to allow other industries to make money.

Fixed to reflect reality.

 

[visbis444]

How on earth do the profit margins of telcos fall under the UN's umbrella??

 

[AdamM]

If telecos don't make as much or more money as they have in the past, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure, or let anyone else do so, to allow other industries to make money.

Fixed to reflect reality.

When governments grant easement and right of way exclusivity to telcos. That is the fault of government not telcos.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

The guy you're responding to is a shill who would probably claim that ISP 'innovation' is responsible for broadband internet. In reality, their main 'innovations' are things like low bandwidth caps, throttling, high subscription fees, and much bitching and moaning about services (such as video streaming) that actually use some of the bandwidth that is advertised. The MBAs should be proud.

Well why don't you wait for this "shill" to actually make those claims, before you put words in my mouth.

 

[SantaClause]

"In other words, countries can essentially do whatever they want online—and they already do. (We’re looking at you, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and Syria !)"

It's funny how we don't recognise the US in this list, despite illegal search, seizure, sanction and persecution of those exercising free speech.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Point being that content creators weren't the only reason to build a communications network. Plain old human need to communicate was justification enough. Even if we did away with Facebook, or Netflix, there would be that.

Which would justify what, maybe ISDN? Don't exactly need much to send an email or sit on IRC. I don't think that's what's driving broadband and increasing backbone utilization Ostracus, which is what the conversation is about.

And MY point is that "popular online services" IS NOT the only reason people pay for internet access. Is that really that hard to understand? Some of us are old enough to remember when there wasn't an internet, nor "popular online services" and yet, "if you build it, they will come".

 

[AdamM]

"In other words, countries can essentially do whatever they want online—and they already do. (We’re looking at you, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and Syria !)"

It's funny how we don't recognise the US in this list, despite illegal search, seizure, sanction and persecution of those exercising free speech.

Source? Who has been silenced purely for exercising free speech in the US?

 

[Sphynx]

Not to worry. They can just impose a tax on tube manufactures. After all, isn't that what the Internet is made up of?....Get it! =p
/duck and cover

 

[hobgoblin]

Not to worry. They can just impose a tax on tube manufactures. After all, isn't that what the Internet is made up of?....Get it! =p
/duck and cover

Heh, where did i put WinNuke...

 

[wastrel]

We don't care... we don't have to--we're the phone comp, er, I mean, U.N.

 

[AceRimmer]

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

I think the point of the article is that many of the teleco's are making LOTS of money. They just don't want to spend their profits on upgrading their networks and are hoping that someone will foot the bill for them.

 

[kot_matroskin]

The UN statement in plain text:

We desire a global tax to sustain and grow our faux aristocracy in the face of economic uncertainty in the West. We propose to aid the backbone network suppliers and telcos in artificially raising their revenue without innovation or competition by forcing the content creators of the internet to pay for the privilege of making things the peasants want.

100% correct.

 

[Gooner1]

The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. A UN apparatchik is pushing an agenda that will make repressive governments happy and big corporations rich(er).

And anyone is surprised?

 

[Deleted member 192806]

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

I think the point of the article is that many of the teleco's are making LOTS of money. They just don't want to spend their profits on upgrading their networks and are hoping that someone will foot the bill for them.

Well if there's a lining to this, it's that it's not just the Americans. Kind of ironic in a way because in the usual Ars discussions, it's always pointed out how the grass is always greener in some other countries pasture. e.g Oh you silly Americans and your slower speeds, smaller bandwidth, and higher costs...

Spoiler

and your dicks are smaller too.

 

[Gooner1]

The guy you're responding to is a shill who would probably claim that ISP 'innovation' is responsible for broadband internet. In reality, their main 'innovations' are things like low bandwidth caps, throttling, high subscription fees, and much bitching and moaning about services (such as video streaming) that actually use some of the bandwidth that is advertised. The MBAs should be proud.

Well why don't you wait for this "shill" to actually make those claims, before you put words in my mouth.

He's just saving you the trouble.

 

[arcadium]

I may have completely misread the post, but I dont really see what the news here is, other than vague statements about how the UN does not want to take over the internet, and wants to encourage rollout of the internet via private industry, and will not curtail government imposed restrictions on their country's internet infrastructure.

What am I missing?

 

[Discoceris]

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

This is a false argument in favor of telecos. Telephone and Telegraph lines were nationalized in this country (US) because the telecos wouldn't have bothered to "connect the last mile" if left to their own devices, which would leave many rural areas without phone service. Incidentally, the same lines are now being used for rudimentary internet connections (dial-up) Without those, the people in the rural community would certainly be left in horse-and-buggy era.

 

[davegermain]

between the US been the police force of the world and the internet, and the UN messing with things which are clearly not in there remit.
We will soon be looking back on what was the golden age of the internet.

 

[Kingmöb1]

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

This doesn't make sense. In essence your saying power companies should get some taxes from washing machine factories, because they cause so much drain on their network. Now pretend that the power is essentially free and we have a perfect analogy.

There is no logic in this. Everyone who uses the internet (including 'big content') already pays for their access. If you want them to pay more, ask more.

 

[PurpleXVI]

I would like to ponder why in God's name an organization for private enterprises is even a UN agency. I cannot see why anything with the agenda of profit is even represented by the UN.

And if there's a lack of sufficient infrastructure for the growing traffic, maybe the telcos should spend some of those billions of profit on more/better infrastructure!

Also screw this guy for recommending "more privatization," all that's happened in Denmark as a result of "privatizing" the infrastructure is that one fat toad(TDC) has sat its big, warty backside on top of it, not invested in upgrading it in any sort of timely fashion, and used its weight to block competing infrastructure networks from popping up(our power companies tried to establish a competing fiber-optic network and that turned into nothing after TDC bought up said network and basically did nothing with it).

Nationalize the infrastructure and privatize the services, only way to operate when you're dealing with these monopolies.

 

[soulsabr]

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

This doesn't make sense. In essence your saying power companies should get some taxes from washing machine factories, because they cause so much drain on their network. Now pretend that the power is essentially free and we have a perfect analogy.

There is no logic in this. Everyone who uses the internet (including 'big content') already pays for their access. If you want them to pay more, ask more.

Well said. However, you forgot to mention that any extra money the telcos brought in because of said "tax" would in no way ever speculate about the merest possibility of coming near infrastructure investment as it would be piped straight to the bottom line.