Re: WCIT outcome?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 9:03 AM +0000 1/2/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote:
...

 Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of
 international
 regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented
 interconnection
 of leased lines**.

 But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed
 national boundaries would not fall under that rule?  Actually neither
 would a VPN operating over a couple of carriers that crossed national
 boundaries, would it?

That depended on how the various national monopolists chose to
interpret the rules. In Switzerland we were particularly affected
by the fact that the PTT monopoly was a specific line item in the
federal Constitution. In the US, you had the benefit of Judge Greene.

I could see it being viewed as commerce and subject to tariffs. (Not that I think tariffs are a good idea.)


 This is an arcane point today, but if CERN hadn't been
 able to use its status as an international organization to bypass that
 restriction in the 1980s, it's unlikely that TBL and Robert Cailliau
 would
 ever have been able to propagate the web. It's even unlikely that Phill
 would have been able to access Usenet newsgroups while on shift as a grad
 student on a CERN experiment.

 ;-) Actually what they don't know won't hurt them.  ;-) We were moving
 files from CERN to Argonne in the 70s through the 360/95 at Rutherford
 over the ARPANET.   Not exactly the way you want to do it but 15 years
 later I am sure it was upgraded a bit.

This would probably have counted as a store-and-forward network,
which was exempted in many countries.

;-) I of course was joking. But I remember being told that it was illegal, or maybe it was that no one was sure (we were all pretty new to this stuff back then) and figured asking was not a good idea! ;-)

(In several reports at the time, our node was the highest user of the Rutherford, probably of nodes on the net at the time.)


 Also, it is exactly because ITU was in charge of resource allocations
 such as radio spectrum and top-level POTS dialling codes that it was
 a very plausible potential home for IANA in 1997-8, before ICANN was
 created. Some of the ITU people who were active in that debate were just
 as active in the preparation for WCIT in 2012.

 Yea, this one is more dicey.  Although I think there is an argument that
 says that you need ccoperation among providers about assignment, but I
 don't see why governments need to be involved.  When phone companies
 were owned by governments, then it made sense.  But phone companies are
 owned by governments any more.

 That doesn't leave much does it?  (Not a facetious question, I am asking!)

Indeed. But I think you'll find that in general, the countries that signed
the WCIT treaty are those that still have some semblance of a government-
controlled PTT monopoly.

I was wondering about that and guessing that it might be the case. Thanks for the data.

Also, I would agree with Fred's comment on helping the police. Although as we all know that can be hard call and one has to hope that the proper controls are on them as well. The problem as I see it is that it is not a good idea to try to constrain a new technology to behave like the old technology. It is the capability they want it shouldn't imply how.

Of course, the other problem which really wasn't present before (just because of cost and/or availability) is that if the user chooses to encrypt everything they send, the network provider can provide the data but that is it.


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]