The Most Important Meeting You've Never Heard of 171
An anonymous reader writes "In December the nations of the world will gather in Dubai for the UN-convened World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'). The topic of the meeting is nothing less than the regulation of the Internet. Under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union the governments of the world will review the international treaty known as the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR). The last review of the ITR was in 1988 when the Internet was just aborning. The remarkable and reshaping growth of the Internet provides the excuse for the new review. What's really afoot, however, is an effort by some nations to rebalance the Internet in their favor by reinstituting telecom regulatory concepts from the last century." At least it's being held in a hotbed of unfettered online communication.
Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (Score:4, Insightful)
All I ever read about is slavery. Is Dubai just a metaphor for "the rich can control everybody else" or is it a real country?
Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (Score:5, Insightful)
"A real country"? You mean like for example.. the US? The rich certainly don't control people there!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly I can't stand people who go out of their way to feel like a victim. The rich don't control people in the US. If you feel differently, your victimization is in your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what? Not everyone who feels like this is a victim, and the rich do not control every aspect of this country. The truth is somewhere in the middle of the two. There are just way to many people lined up at either end of the argument. It isn't as black and white as most people would like to make it seem.
Also
Re: (Score:2)
I don't live in the US. I don't feel victimised as I have a decent job and don't really care much about a lot of the political bullshit in the world, but I'm not blind either. As Mister Whirly pointed out, the rich set policy, so historically things gradually head in their direction until everything breaks down and there is revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird - I am in the US, and feel we ARE trying to control the internet and everything on it, like forcing US copyright law on the world, as in SOPA/PIPA and ACTA, insisting on tax breaks for the rich (which means more taxes for the poor and middle class), attempts at a flat tax to abolish the IRS (all of which are a tax increase for the poor/middle class), etc. Other laws like COPA, and the DMCA attempt to dictate world internet policy. The FCC chairman seems to want all internet to be metered and charged l
Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also go do your research rather than just listening to your political party of choice. About 97% of all of the taxes in our country are paid for by about 5% of the wealthy people in this country. In other words, we get our highways, police, national parks, etc...because the wealthy have paid their taxes. Take away the wealthy in our country and your taxes will double overnight. I for one am not wealthy, but I'm grateful to those who are and are paying taxes. BTW...the people that get the most back from the government are those that pay nothing. I'm shocked why they feel they should contribute absolutely nothing. Try living in another country...like India or anywhere in Africa. Even if you live at $2/day, you have to pay huge school fees and buy uniforms for your children if you want them to simply go to school. Can't afford it, they don't get an education. It appears you are concerned about the "poor" in America, but statistically, check out a global wealth calculator...several on the web...those living on welfare in the US are still in the top 20% of wage earner in the world for doing nothing. Not a bad gig. Don't like it, try living in another country and doing nothing and see what it gets you.
The cell phone providers are not the internet. They are your ISP. They can charge what you are willing to pay. If nobody is willing to pay it, they will go to some other provider. The try to limit the traffic...not control it. They want to earn money. So does any business.
Copyrights used to be easier because it was all physical or intellectual. Now the Internet has allowed people to copy what they didn't create for free and pass it around for others to have for free. Whatever movies you like or computers games or TV shows you may like, do you think they would exist if there was no protection at all and everyone could copy and pass them around for free? Really? The reason they can still be in business is because our government is trying so hard to protect and make it illegal to takes what someone has created and pass it around for free. If the US didn't pay to go to the movies, buy DVD, and rent the movies, I'd have a hard time believing that anyone in Hollywood would be willing to put up $100M to make a great movie. They'd loose all their money.
Go ahead and explain to us how and why anything would be developed (pharma, entertainment, software) if nobody is willing to pay for it and just waits to get it for free. I'd love to know how that system works?
Re: (Score:2)
About 97% of all of the taxes in our country are paid for by about 5% of the wealthy people in this country.
I don't believe you. Where is your proof of that? And don't tell me to google it, you are asserting something that sounds like a fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (Score:5, Informative)
97% of the taxes in the US are paid by the top _50%_ of the people in the country.
97% of the income tax. There are a lot of other taxes. For example, payroll taxes, which amount to about 7.5% of an employees first $105k in income, (so it's actually a regressive tax. That is paid by every employed person, regardless of income. Sales tax is another one not included.
And then, if you want to talk about the larger issue of funding the government, there are loads of fees (nearly) everyone pays, from car registrations, to fees on your telephone bill, etc. To mention only the income tax as OP did, is disingenuous.
Entitlement (Score:3, Insightful)
If 5% of the wealthy contain 97% of the wealth, they should be paying 97% of the taxes (hint: that number is wrong, its less). One penny less should be a crime.
The people that get the most out of government money are the ones that own businesses. Those roads your trucks go down: Tax money. Those police that keep your riches safe: Tax money. Those laws that forbid mere private citizens from participating in the arbitrage that made the wealthy and keep them so: Tax money.
There is no respect to be found being
Re: (Score:2)
If 5% of the wealthy contain 97% of the wealth, they should be paying 97% of the taxes (hint: that number is wrong, its less).
Nothing like using known incorrect numbers to make an argument.
You need to learn the difference between "wealth" and "income". What you want to do is tax someone on their income (it is "wealth in the first year of ownership"), and then on whatever part of that income they've been able to save or invest (true wealth) over and over again until it is gone.
That's called "wealth redistribution." It's also called "from those according to their means to those according to their wants".
The people that get the most out of government money are the ones that own businesses.
Not always. Some busines
Re: (Score:2)
"Go ahead and explain to us how and why anything would be developed (pharma, entertainment, software) if nobody is willing to pay for it and just waits to get it for free. I'd love to know how that system works?"
Funny we actually had all that before patents and copyrights. They were called doctors, art, math and made money just fine.
" If the US didn't pay to go to the movies, buy DVD, and rent the movies, I'd have a hard time believing that anyone in Hollywood would be willing to put up $100M
Re: (Score:2)
Funny we actually had all that before patents and copyrights. They were called doctors, art, math and made money just fine.
Before patents and copyrights, the system was called "patronage". You found a wealthy person who liked your art or supported the sciences (or did science himself) and he paid for it. And he got the benefits. That sculpture you made for him wasn't easily copied and sold in enough copies to make the money back. It went into your patron's house or garden, or he loaned it to a museum and got the prestige and respect for supporting it. A well stocked library was the sign of wealth and accomplishment, because th
Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (Score:5, Funny)
All I ever read about is slavery. Is Dubai just a metaphor for "the rich can control everybody else" or is it a real country?
Dubai is an example of the glorious harmony between (middle) east and west! A city that wraps the middle east's robust traditions of rule of law and enlightenment liberalism and the west's values of sober financial honesty in the civic-planning expertise of Vegas developers on PCP... Truly, an example for us all.
Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not so sure they're an example for everyone: China arguably does even better by combining the political freedoms enjoyed by northeastern Europeans for decades, the environmental and labor laws found in many nations in southeast Asia, and the economic opportunities common to Central America.
Re: (Score:1)
Whoosh...!
Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a whoosh: I'm saying that Chinese people have the political freedoms of the Soviets, the environmental protections of India (take a look at the Ganges), and the economic options of sweatshop labor vs subsistence farming.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Glorious Harmony" sounds like the name of the cult that dressed them selves up in robes lay down and poisoned themselves because they new the Alien ship was coming to snatch them away to heaven.
Yup (Score:3)
Kinda like Cleveland.
Re: (Score:1)
Dubai is an artificially constructed where no city naturally arise. The entirety of Dubai is a playground for the ultra-wealthy and infamous. Think of it as the headquarters of The New World Order.
Re: (Score:2)
Dubai is not a real country just a state in the Emirates.
BUY YOUR TINFOIL NOW (Score:1)
I've never been to Dubai (Score:1)
I hear it is nice. Pretty expensive too. Glad that my tax money is being spent on sending government employees to such an out-of-the-way place. After all, if they don't deserve it, who does?
Re:I've never been to Dubai (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not a map weighted by GDP? Why not a map weighted by number of internet users? Why not a map weighted by bytes per capita? Why not a location that reduces the total amount of travel? I'll bet you're from somewhere that doesn't give a shit about carbon footprint. But since this is a Telecommunications Conference, why don't they try teleconferencing?
Re:I've never been to Dubai (Score:5, Informative)
Glad that my tax money is being spent on sending government employees to such an out-of-the-way place.
Your gasoline money paid for the place so what's a few airplane tickets?
it became what it is.... (Score:5, Informative)
The internet became what it is and revolutionized human communication precisely because it was not regulated. It was an anarchy, and should remain one.
Re:it became what it is.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:it became what it is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the US regulate the servers and routers that are in the US, and other countries regulate those in them?
Re: (Score:2)
How about the US regulate the servers and routers that are in the US, and other countries regulate those in them?
But then developing countries wouldn't get as much of the "revenue stream" (whatever that means) of the Internet, and that would be terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is really an option. It's not like either the US or the UN could convince China not to censor their network. Tyrannies will always control their national subnets, the only difference is that they now also want control over the Internet of everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it became what it is.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it became what it is.... (Score:5, Informative)
It was an anarchy
... created by those well-known anarchists at the US Department of Defense, with funding and public support from that well-known anarchist Al Gore.
Re:it became what it is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
If ever there needed to be proof the legislators NEVER think of unintended consequences of the laws/programs they create, the Internet is it.
There is NO WAY IN HELL that if they had known what the Internet would become that they would have passed the legislation and funded the programs that spawned it in the way that they did. They would have ensured the regulatory capture first, which would have saved them all this hassle of a rear guard action of trying to achieve it now.
The Internet's success was probably the most serendipitous accident in human history. Had the lawmakers actually really known exactly what they were doing, I am certain they would not have done it.
Please note that I am not at all inferring that the engineers and technical experts working at DARPA at the time didn't know exactly what THEY were doing...
Re: (Score:2)
There is NO WAY IN HELL that if they had known what the Internet would become that they would have passed the legislation and funded the programs that spawned it in the way that they did.
The Internet grew and blossomed in the way that it did for two reasons:
1) It was under the radar of most world governments and regulatory agencies.
2) It was not under the radar for the tech sector.
aborning? (Score:3)
I would have said, "in its formative years"..
That said, thanks for the new word.. it's well cromulous.
Re:aborning? (Score:5, Informative)
You know, if you look a word up in the dictionary to see if it's real, slang, or newly coined you look a lot less stupid. Aborning is a real word, "cromulent" was invented in a cartoon making fun of making up words.
Definition of ABORNING [merriam-webster.com]
: while being born or produced
Origin of ABORNING
1a- + English dialect borning (birth)
First Known Use: 1916
2aborningadjective
Definition of ABORNING
: being born or produced
Examples of ABORNING
First Known Use of ABORNING
1943
Related to ABORNING
Synonyms: nascent, budding, inceptive, inchoate, incipient
Antonyms: adult, full-blown, full-fledged, mature, ripe, ripened
Re: (Score:3)
Re:aborning? (Score:5, Insightful)
It only seems stupid to you because it looks made up out of the word born.
There's nothing stupid at all about dusting off a lesser known word and holding it up to see if it should regain some stature.
Re: (Score:2)
Well is looks like it was made up of a form of the work born actually.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing stupid at all about dusting off a lesser known word and holding it up to see if it should regain some stature.
You should generally write to the level of your audience. However, some people are just infatuated with their knowledge of vocabulary. In this case I would have said, "when the Internet was just beginning".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the entire point of language is to communicate your ideas in an understandable manner to whomever your audience is, not to one-up them because you know more obscure words than they do.
I would say it serves a higher purpose (Score:2)
But the entire point of language is to communicate your ideas in an understandable manner to whomever your audience is,
That's true but, if you speak to a level slightly above your audience you also improve the ability to communicate in the future by being able to use some more abstract vocabulary terms.
I think it's better to aim slightly high than to try and write for an imagined lowest common denominator. The audience will get the gist even if they don't quite know a word or two.
It's not about one-upping,
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of those word-salad words you see in power supply reviews, used simply to adhere to the fake rule of not using the same word twice.
Redundancy is boring, which is why that rule is there. Of course, research papers don't have that rule; I read one at work once where the word "enumerate" was used five times in the first paragraph while the word "count" wasn't in the paper a single time.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, language does change, as anyone who's ever seen Shakespeare or a King James Bible knows. Yet "hither" and "yon" are still words; just because they're little used doesn't take away their status as real words. Meanwhile, I've only seen "cromulent" used in its original meaning, which is making fun of newly coined words by coining a new word.
Reading the draft treaty (Score:5, Informative)
I read through the very early draft: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf [itu.int]
It seems like the focus is mainly compensation structure and what obligations exist for telcos passing traffic through. Content provisions are light. For example
This is a crucial treaty in the way the public water system is crucial to public welfare. Its existence is a matter of public interest, the details of implementation not so much. Most people want their messages to pass but don't really care how telcos pass expenses around.
Re:Reading the draft treaty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Just posting to give your view my support. Sick of all the cock-faced nationalist wankers the US floods Slashdot with when it comes to stories like this.
The fact that they still to this day claim that somehow the UNSC is relevant to the ITU, or the fact that Russia could somehow enforce global censorship even though this would require their dear USA to support it because the ITU works on consensus only, or the fact that they claim it's full of time/money wasting beauracrats when in fact staffed by the world
Re: (Score:1)
because they don't want to be able to give up their ability to censor international domains at will,whilst simultaneously using censorship as their go-to excuse as to why no one else should run the net
When has the USA ever censored international domains? We have enough real problems in the world let's not make up fake ones to fight about. The USA has a several hundred year strong history of light censorship, especially political censorship an excellent track record. If I had to trust any single entity
Re: (Score:2)
When has the USA ever censored international domains?
.com is an international domain. It may not have started that way, it certainly wasn't originally intended to be that way, but in practice that's what it has ended up becoming.
So if the US seizes a .com domain for violating US law when the foreign-hosted site has not violated the laws of its own country, that would be censorship of an international domain. It may even be legal censorship under the excuse that those international domains are registered to the US, and that's why there are occasional movements
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't. Censorship doesn't become censorship based on the legal status of the information. You can censor illegal and legal information, for example child pornography is censored even though its production is illegal, while simulated child pornography is censored even though its production would otherwise be legal.
I
Re: (Score:2)
The Nation has been publishing continuously since 1865.
Labor newspapers that had existed for a century only closed in the last few decades.
Books of all sorts are published freely.
The internet allows for free speech.
Yes the US does believe in free speech even when it threatens the powerful. There are infrequent incidents in the other direction but they have a fantastic record.
____
As for mega upload they were charged in Virginia court and Australia courts for crimes related to piracy. That is a typical busi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see much evidence of censorship. Where is this actual censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
"As for mega upload they were charged in Virginia court and Australia courts for crimes related to piracy. That is a typical business seizure that happens to businesses which are fundamentally criminal enterprises. You may disagree that megaupload was a fundamentally criminal enterprise but there is nothing unusual about the government seizing business assets for companies under indictment. That's not censorship."
Bullshit! Even New Zealand's courts said the government blew it and should never
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit! Even New Zealand's courts said the government blew it and should never had raided megaupload, which was legal locally, for shit going on in other countries. The entire raid was deemed illegal. The US may pay for this in less partnering from NZ later.
Your missing the point.
The question is censorship / not censorship
You are presenting evidence for legal under NZ law / illegal under NZ law
That isn't the same question. The US government's interest in megaupload was they believed them to be engaged
Re: (Score:2)
No your information has been seized not censored.
If your information were censored it would be illegal for you to publish that information in another forum but you would still have it.
Re: (Score:2)
you're merely trying to make excuses as to why it's not censorship, even though it clearly is.
No it isn't clear. I'm not saying the US hasn't shut down internet sites engaging in commerce, they certainly have. But that has nothing to do with censorship. Lets take your example and simplify by assuming it were domestic. The government could very easily seize a cardroom or illegal casino and that wouldn't be censorship. If they seized something like cardplayer magazine that would be censorship. Absol
Re: (Score:2)
You just contradicted yourself. You said that 1) Russia cannot enforce global censorship because it would require that the US cooperate in doing so, and 2) the US wants to be able to censor international domains at will.
2 shows that 1 is possible.
Re:Reading the draft treaty (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm American and yes treaties aren't popular here. Though in all fairness most Americans in almost all their practices live in a world where on most things the US congress is the final authority. There is no American version of Brussels. Further remember that 1/2 of Americans haven't been out of the country, for many Americans their primary view of foreign countries are the stories about how their family fled and images on news programs emphasizing how much the USA is hated globally. So a large percentage of American population are isolationist. I good deal of the US probably wouldn't mind a US internet, that is loosely connected to other nation's networks; like the telephone system rather than a genuinely global system. Which isn't hypocrisy but rather a deeper desire to move away from empire.
That being said, we also do have foreign policy hawks and then business interests that like US domination rather than US participation.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no American version of Brussels.
Washington D.C. is the American version of Brussels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of Americans that have been to places you could travel without a passport, traveled in ways that didn't require a passport (like in the military) or had a passport at one point and do not now have one.
Re:Reading the draft treaty (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm European and I think you are an idiot for bringing nationalism into a debate about the global net. Like it or not, the Internet has become what it is under American control, they developed it and built it up to a thing that fundamentally changed our lives. That's why I trust them much more than the barbarian-dominated UN. America is still the land of the free and one of the most liberal places in the world, and while I don't like it when they try to force that liberalism on the political or economical systems of other countries, that freedom is crucial for the Internet to function. The Internet is a worldwide thing, and national legislation of it is bullshit and would just fracture it into small subnets, ruining its biggest strength. And while I would love if it was led by a global organisation of professionals, that has exactly zero chance. In the current situation most countries only support the treaty because they want to censor the net and want to introduce tariffs on throughgoing traffic. This is a move to give politicians even more control over the net.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The medium is the message: Governments and Industry are at the table and we aren't.
Gandolf metaphor (Score:2, Interesting)
Gandolf: "No! You must understand... I would use this ring from a desire to do good, but through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine".
HO Ho (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HO Ho (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is to say, it's a fantastic time saver if the plan is to consider, but then reject, the idea...
Well, bollocks to that. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non US citizen, I hope this fails completely and the US maintains control.
As far as I can see, the US can be pretty crap, but they are by far the least worst option. if you think the US is bad look at the free speech protections of every single other country in the world.
Presumably, this meeting won't actually mean anything unuless America decides to cede control. I don't se why they would actually do that.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Wow! A non-US citizen that isn't throwing crap at us every chance you get? Sure, we work hard, make a lot of money and help a lot of struggling nations, clean up after natural disasters, and give far more to charity around the world than any other nations (per person and collectively as a nation). There will no be many that try to turn that around and call us evil and controlling....I just try to imagine what the world would be like if Iran were the most powerful country in the world....how would this con
Re: (Score:2)
Take away that completely, and you will see software and movies and entertainment fade away as they are unable to make money doing it.
Do it. If people aren't willing to fund their entertainment voluntarily, why should my tax dollars be spent forcing them? If it's not worth it to you to pay money willingly it *should* go away.
And consider the size of the entertainment industry compared to the computer industry. If we have to choose between general purpose computing, and an entertainment industry, technolog
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough... But from a moral standpoint, I think I prefer the person who gives his own money to the person who gives someone else's money.
Re: (Score:2)
The link doesn't mention one statistic that I think is important: debt relief. When one country offers another a loan, then for various reasons (either at the time or years later) says "You don't have to pay it back," does that count as either charity or foreign aid? I'll hear about the US forgiving debt in return for other agreements often, but I never hear about the reverse (and it's not like the US doesn't have debts..) Some of that might be media bias, but I doubt all of it does.
The index penalizes arms
The witch thus spake... (Score:2)
Something wicket this way comes.
Re: (Score:2)
something wicket this way comes
And what the heck does this have to do with an ewok [wikia.com]?
But the +600 net will follow, too. (Score:1)
"If you agree to censor blasphemy and other anti-religious screeds, I'll agree to censor psychics, Scientologists, and anti-global warming claims."
"Ok, but let's also require IDs for Intertube access so -1 Troll downmods will follow people everywhere they go."
"Deal!"
Beware the Ides of Peaceful Negotiation.
No, that is not how it is pronounced. (Score:2)
In December the nations of the world will gather in Dubai for the UN-convened World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT – pronounced 'wicket').
It is pronounced wicked despite the T in the acronym to reflect the evil intentions and ulterior motives of them. And also to pretentiously sound like some organization that is the mortal enemy of some super hero.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet regulation inevitable... (Score:5, Interesting)
To avoid wealthy-elite/government domination of communications, you'll need an open source, wireless mesh internet, sort of like these guys (http://www.shareable.net/blog/afghans-build-open-source-internet-from-trash-0), to create an "underground" internet, perhaps literally (http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/FelixRadio/FelixRadio.htm).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because we'll make a mesh wireless network between the US, Europe and Australia, I don't foresee any problems there. Or even between big cities with a lot of nothing in between. Why reinvent the physical layer? If you got Internet, you can connect to any kind of overlay network, sort of like a global VPN. Or if you've seen Inception, like an Internet inside the Internet. Unless the outlaw that too, but then you're already living in a oppressive regime and got bigger issues than Internet regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
We may or may not get a mesh or some other kind of network between continents. Gateways of some sort, legal or not, will probably ocur. If you don't understand why the physical layer must be distributed and reinvented, I suggest you think through the implications of dictatorships plus small numbers of easily controlled root servers, powered by a centralized electrical grid.
And yes, they will try and outlaw that too. In case you haven't noticed, we in the USA are already starting down the oppressive regime p
Life, the Universe and Everything (Score:1)
censor the hostee net access! (Score:1)
hijack the internet connection and start censoring it. speed up the discussion a bit!
We are going deeper undegraund (Score:1)
internet will be divided, with different kinds of restrictions from different countries, it's now happening everywhere - in some places it's political, in some it's about copyright and another 'illegal' content, it is happening. It will be like this - from China you can see this part, from Europe this part, from Iran this another part of a used to be global network. We will have to live with it and find a ways around it, and, as a geeks, show the ways to the people. Get used to so called darknets - tor, i2p
I hope the attendees don't eat any poppy seed buns (Score:2)
in business class.
"In one of the most extreme cases, it [Dubai] reported a man being held after poppy seeds from a bread roll were found on his clothes."
Dubai wants tourism and convention business, but their draconian drug paranoia makes this aspiration ridiculous. How many of the attendees to this conference will be harassed or even imprisoned I wonder? I know this is old news, but any chance I get I take the opportunity to share this BBC article [bbc.co.uk] concerning Dubai's absurd reactionary jailing of innoce
ITU attempted to replace TCP/IP back in the Day (Score:5, Informative)
"ISO will replace TCP/IP in 5 years" was a real thing. After 10 years the phrase became a joke. Now it isn't even that.
Ever wondered why the L in LDAP stands for "Lightweight"? It started as a radically simplified version of ISO directory services.
Almost nobody used ISO (including ITU, which at the time preferred paper over networks internally) but ITU really pushed it over that toy internet thing. They also charged a lot of money to buy the bookshelf-meters of ISO documentation...only available on paper for the most part.
It is probably completely unfair to the ITU of 2012 but I find myself worried whenever they are mentioned in the same breath as "internet".
Re: (Score:2)
"ISO will replace TCP/IP in 5 years" was a real thing. After 10 years the phrase became a joke. Now it isn't even that.
Assuming you mean OSI, it was in use on UK academic networks in the early '90s. I remember when it was scrapped in favour of IP, and the world became a better place. There are many good things about IP, but the key ones are that it can be implemented on many devices, that it can be routed over many different physical layers, and that it doesn't require all the nodes to know how to route to every other node they might ever want to contact (BGP and DNS are wonderful things, for all their flaws).
Re: (Score:2)
Now that I've head of it... (Score:2)
What's the new Most Important Meeting I've Never Heard Of?
Yub Yub (Score:2)
WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'. Wicket as in Wicket Wystri Warrick? - "Starcruiser go CRISH CRISH!" CRISH CRISH as in the internet plummeting to it's doom? I see what they've done here....
Is anyone else morbidly amused by... (Score:2)
...the fact that an organization that has human rights worldwide as core functions is hosting something in a known hotbed of human trafficking and slavery?
$Deity what a fucking farce.
In other secret meeting news.... (Score:2)
I've never heard of the Bilderberg group or its annual meetings. Honest!
Are these guys more or less useless than ICANN? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may have replied to the wrong story.