[discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works

Sun May 4 17:35:22 UTC 2014

On May 4, 2014, at 12:00 AM, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:
> from the final document of NetMundial we can see, that this organization has no interest to strongly support the self-organization of the people for their global communication systems. Rather, institutions are installed to continue the principles of monopolization and representation.

Given this preamble, I suspect this will be a waste of time, but...

> 1) The local networks
> 
> The Internet is nothing more then the connection of local, independent networks. They have at least one server, which is connected to the local router and this router connects to the adjacent networks.

If you change "the local router" to "a local router" since many networks have multiple connections to other networks, then sure.

> These local networks have a maximum of sovereignity and independenence, because they maintain all the necessary resources and functions locally.

Um. The whole point of interconnecting networks is to gain access to non-local resources.

> These local networks are organized by the local people themselves.

Sure.

> 2) The inter-connection of local net-works
> 
> The Internet rests on three levels.
> 
> a) connection of the adjacent local networks
> b) the regional network of regional centers
> c) the global network of regional centers

Nice hierarchical model. To bad reality doesn't really match it. Interconnections of networks is not limited to regions. If you force this sort of topology for ideological reasons, then you impose unnecessary fragility to and reduce the resilience of the network.  

> The technology is based primarily on directed microwave radio links. The components are manufactured locally or regionally.

So you want to constrain both technology and markets? I see.

> All types of data are transported. Text, graphics and speech. This eliminates all separate instances for the data transport.

If this is saying 'data is data', sure. Of course, some transport of data requires different characteristics, e.g., if you're transporting text, you have zero tolerance for lost or duplicate data, whereas if you're doing voice or video, some level of data loss and duplication is acceptable. On the other hand, delaying text a few tens or hundreds of milliseconds doesn't generally matter, but if you go over 200ms delay on voice, human communication becomes increasingly annoying to the point of uselessness. This is why technical folks get annoyed when people sound bite "network neutrality" into "treat all data as the same".

> The transport capacities are symmetric in principle. Thus, each client can themselves act as a server.

Sure. If you force everyone into using microwave links.  Of course, most people on the Internet have no real interest in being a server so forcing them to pay for that capacity is a bit of a waste.  By the way, who's going to be paying for this network?

> 3) The IP address
> 
> The IP address is derived from the geographical position in the world coordinate system.

Andrew Sullivan discusses this quite well.

> This eliminates all institutions, which deal with the management of number spaces and routing. There is no Internet governance more. It is not necessary.

This is only true if you assume the only reason for Internet governance is to deal with number spaces and routing.  Making this assumption would appear to be quite odd since the vast majority of IG-related discussions revolve around issues related to domain names, Internet content, and the limitations (or lack thereof) of that content. 

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140504/121fd251/signature.asc>