The Debate Is Live And Clicking, So Who Controls The Internet?

March 12, 2020
The Debate Is Live And Clicking, So Who Controls The Internet?

And thus the struggle for the future of the web rages on.

Much was made from the ITU meeting in recent months, with over a couple of media outlets indicating WCIT-12 reflects a concerted effort, by the ITU, to capture control of the world wide web, thereby jeopardising freedom of speech and data.

But is that really what is happening? Is the ITU actually hoping to impose greater controls online?

Prehistoric Regulator

In online terms, the ITU as well as the ITR are not just old, but ancient.

Obviously, this was pre-internet user-friendly internet browsers created the net searchable and available in 1993 along with the internet was introduced to general business visitors in 1995.

Nearly as old as the net itself will be the contests for control over key components of online governance.

The ITU, as part of the UN Development Group, is considered by many nations as a neutral candidate to get a regulator of characteristics of the world wide web.

The Conflict Persists

Together with the suggested revision of this ITR in WCIT-12 battle lines seem to have been attracted . The US has now mobilised private celebrities like Google to come out swinging against some supposed catches for electricity by the ITU.

Vint Cerf, one of those engineers that undertook vital historical work online and who’s currently vice president and also an online evangelist at Google has generated a range of startling allegations concerning the schedule of the WCIT.

These include claims that any motions from the ITU to maximize its abilities and become involved with internet governance will destroy the web as we know it.

Internet communication has been purposely designed to function in a de-centralised manner, as different from the classic hub-and-spoke version of telephony. This decentralised version of the net supposed if any area of the system was down, the more traffic may be re-routed through an alternate pathway.

A decentralised version, obviously, means there’s a lack of a centralised controller or choke point, which makes the net hard but not impossible to control from a central point.

The best thing about the design means that the system is basically dumb the intellect and software are made on in the end stage.

It has generated the revolutionary and willingness of the net and distinguishes it in closed and proprietary networks in which the intellect is hosted and regulated at the middle of the network.

Charging For The World Wide Web?

Thus, supposing users implement the applicable protocols (for instance, TCP/IP) and possess the relevant links, they may be a part of the world wide web. You do not need to use to join and you do not need to cover; you merely need to embrace the proper criteria.

Under this version, telecommunications are highly controlled, directly down to the charging mechanisms for global exchange.

Developing countries claim they can ill afford to construct the essential online infrastructure, that will then be employed by wealthy (largely US-based) content suppliers, like facebook and YouTube, to disseminate their own content.

This manner, it’s very likely that WCIT-12 will appear at possible charging models. And this could clarify Google along with also the US’s concern that the ITU would like to bill you (the consumer) for the world wide web. More correctly the ITU will be charging the likes of Google who’d then must take into account how those costs might be passed.


What exactly does all this imply for WCIT-12?

Surely the ITU does need to expand the range of the ITR to explicitly incorporate the world wide web. Up until today the world wide web was categorized (and controlled) as an information service as opposed to a telecommunications services. This has enabled greater flexibility for authorities regarding pricing and regulation.

So What Does This Mean?

Well, national governments have significant capability to control the net in their own lands, but the aforementioned submission would allow this capacity more explicit and more “acceptable”.

This could possibly be considered an effort by Russia and other people to stake a claim to an equivalent right to handle the world wide web. However, as a practical matter, net control stays firmly in the control of personal US-based pursuits, like google and Facebook. (Just think about the amount of information these services accumulate about our private lives and hunt histories).

Limiting Freedom

As some commentators have pointed out, there’s not anything surprising or new in nations expressing a desire to get a more equal state in internet governance. Nonetheless, it is upsetting to people who believed the problem dead and buried together with all the restructuring of ICANN at 2005.

In the coming days of this WCIT-12 (that runs till next Friday) we have already seen a proposal from the united states and Canada to restrict the reach of the ITR to telecommunications continues to be reversed.

Since ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré educates usall conclusions will be reached by consensus prior to being voted upon (and executed) by member nations.

It may well be that net freedoms are under assault, but not in the ITU.