[discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
alliance at fsp4.net
Mon May 5 09:30:39 UTC 2014
your comments are interesting as they denote a real cultural
difference. None can have a problem with that.
However, what is preoccupying is that instead of considering the
other culture, you are despising it, right from the preamble. The
result on a MS process you can participate to (such as this list) may
turn out being very negative and create a divide between (in this
case) what one might call the edge providers' internet and the
Notwithstanding this negative impact, your attitude is pertinent if
you are convinced that the only possible internet is the edge
providers' one. In such a case, you give Andrew Sullivan the response
he looks for irt. Google's supposed over influence. Either edge
providers will actually take over the internet (first form of threat
to possibly regulate) or they have already brainwashed you in order
you biase the MS process in their favor (second form of threat that
would also call for attention, before it starts an open conflict).
Let note that, in both cases you justify our dynamic coalition's
precautionary preoccupation for a fail-secure plan for our nets.
aggregated comment of fsp4.net participants.
At 19:35 04/05/2014, David Conrad wrote:
>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
> > These local networks are organized by the local people themselves.
> > 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
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss