More than Cold War, INTERNET ISOLATION Begins

[Think_PAP]

https://www.rt.com/politics/411156-russia-to-launch-independent-internet/


Russia to launch ‘independent internet’ for BRICS nations - report
Published time: 28 Nov, 2017 10:00
Get short URL

© Global Look Press
The Russian Security Council has asked the country’s government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions.
Read more
Russia won’t disconnect from global internet, works on cyber security – Kremlin
The initiative was discussed at the October meeting of the Security Council, which is Russia’s top consultative body on national security. President Vladimir Putin personally set a deadline of August 1, 2018 for the completion of the task, the RBC news agency reported.

While discussing the issue, members of the council noted that “the increased capabilities of western nations to conduct offensive operations in the informational space as well as the increased readiness to exercise these capabilities pose a serious threat to Russia’s security.”

They decided that the problem should be addressed by creating a separate backup system of Domain Name Servers (DNS), which would not be subject to control by international organizations. This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Read more
Russia to press for international internet behavior code to fight emerging threats
The issue of excessive dependency on global DNS has previously been addressed by Russia. In 2014, the Russian Communications Ministry conducted a major exercise in which it simulated the “switching off” of global internet services and used a Russian backup system to successfully support web operations inside the country.

However, when reporters asked Vladimir Putin’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov if the country’s authorities had been considering disconnecting from the global internet in 2014, Peskov dismissed these allegations as false.

“Russia’s disconnection from the global internet is of course out of the question,” Peskov told the Interfax news agency. However, the official also emphasized that “recently, a fair share of unpredictability is present in the actions of our partners both in the US and the EU, and we [Russia] must be prepared for any turn of events.”

“We all know who the chief administrator of the global internet is. And due to its volatility, we have to think about how to ensure our national security,” said Peskov. It’s not about disconnecting Russia from the World Wide Web, he added, but about “protecting it from possible external influence.”

 

[Think_PAP]

Pirate King also want to have his own Internet

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3021788/think-the-internet-is-doomed-kim-dotcom-has-an-idea
Think the internet is doomed? Kim Dotcom has an idea
MegaNet's been in development for at least two years

Think the internet is doomed? Kim Dotcom has an idea

• [URL='https://www.theinquirer.net/author/profile/6017/ben-woods']

• Ben Woods
• 23 November 2017

• Tweet
• Facebook
• Google plus
• Send to

0 Comments


THE DEBATE about net neutrality - something that really shouldn't need a debate at all - was reignited this week, but MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom has an idea for a new version of the internet.

On Wednesday, it was announced that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would start walking back net neutrality protections. Quite unsurprisingly, it's news that didn't go down well with many Web users.

Kim Dotcom, however, has bigger plans - ones that involve the launch of the "MegaNet", which he says will be "a new Internet" that will replace existing infrastructure.

The current corporate Internet will be replaced by a better Internet, running on the idle capacity of hundreds of millions of mobile devices. Run by the people for the people. Breaking net-neutrality will only accelerate the adoption of a new network. But first K.im and Bitcache.

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) November 22, 2017
While it could sound like an instinctive reaction from Dotcom to the net neutrality changes this week, it's a plan that he says has been in process for at least two years. Indeed, he first tweeted about it back in 2015, saying that MegaNet would be impervious to government and corporations' control or censorship.

Kim has a history of building successful peer-sharing services, but seemingly neverending legal troubles continue to plague him for his part in running them. After MegaUpload collapsed, Kim launched Mega.net, but later had to distance himself from that organization as well after what he described as a hostile takeover.

In August this year, Dotcom lost an appeal to regain $67m in assets seized during the investigation of MegaUpload. He's currently fighting extradition to the US from New Zealand.

Exactly what form MegaNet will take - and more importantly, what sort of security will be implemented, is still unknown at this stage but Dotcom has revealed that it'll be a non-IP based system. µ

• Tweet
• Facebook
• Google plus
• Send to

[/URL]

 

[Think_PAP]

The world is not one single Internet from now on.

Each will have their own Internets.

 

[tanwahtiu]

Pinky PAp can smile now...

 

[tanwahtiu]

Can ban dodgy English languag of the most evil race in the world BE.

 

[Think_PAP]

Everyone want to break away and Isolate from others.

Ang Moh can no longer control Internet.

Russian & Chinese will revamp their own using quantum optical technologies and block Ang Moh's off.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/technology/internet-dying-repeal-net-neutrality.html


The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality Hastens That Death.



Farhad Manjoo

STATE OF THE ART NOV. 29, 2017

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Photo

Credit Illustration by Doug Chayka, Photo via Library of Congress
The internet is dying.

Sure, technically, the internet still works. Pull up Facebook on your phone and you will still see your second cousin’s baby pictures. But that isn’t really the internet. It’s not the open, anyone-can-build-it network of the 1990s and early 2000s, the product of technologies created over decades through government funding and academic research, the network that helped undo Microsoft’s stranglehold on the tech business and gave us upstarts like Amazon, Google, Facebook and Netflix.

Nope, that freewheeling internet has been dying a slow death — and a vote next month by the Federal Communications Commission to undo net neutrality would be the final pillow in its face.

Net neutrality is intended to prevent companies that provide internet service from offering preferential treatment to certain content over their lines. The rules prevent, for instance, AT&T from charging a fee to companies that want to stream high-definition videos to people.

Because net neutrality shelters start-ups — which can’t easily pay for fast-line access — from internet giants that can pay, the rules are just about the last bulwark against the complete corporate takeover of much of online life. When the rules go, the internet will still work, but it will look like and feel like something else altogether — a network in which business development deals, rather than innovation, determine what you experience, a network that feels much more like cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and Netflix.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
If this sounds alarmist, consider that the state of digital competition is already pretty sorry. As I’ve argued regularly, much of the tech industry is at risk of getting swallowed by giants. Today’s internet is lousy with gatekeepers, tollbooths and monopolists.

Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business. A handful of broadband companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, many of which are also aiming to become content companies, because why not — provide virtually all the internet connections to American homes and smartphones.

Together these giants have carved the internet into a historically profitable system of fiefs. They have turned a network whose very promise was endless innovation into one stuck in m&d, where every start-up is at the tender mercy of some of the largest corporations on the planet.

Many companies feel this shift. In a letter to Ajit Pai, the F.C.C. chairman, who drafted the net neutrality repeal order, more than 200 start-ups argued this week that the order “would put small and medium-sized businesses at a disadvantage and prevent innovative new ones from even getting off the ground.” This, they said, was “the opposite of the open market, with a few powerful cable and phone companies picking winners and losers instead of consumers.”

This was not the way the internet was supposed to go. At its deepest technical level, the internet was designed to avoid the central points of control that now command it. The technical scheme arose from an even deeper philosophy. The designers of the internet understood that communications networks gain new powers through their end nodes — that is, through the new devices and services that plug into the network, rather than the computers that manage traffic on the network. This is known as the “end-to-end” principle of network design, and it basically explains why the internet led to so many more innovations than the centralized networks that came before it, such as the old telephone network.

The internet’s singular power, in its early gold-rush days, was its flexibility. People could imagine a dazzling array of new uses for the network, and as quick as that, they could build and deploy them — a site that sold you books, a site that cataloged the world’s information, an application that let you “borrow” other people’s music, a social network that could connect you to anyone.

You didn’t need permission for any of this stuff; some of these innovations ruined traditional industries, some fundamentally altered society, and many were legally dubious. But the internet meant you could just put it up, and if it worked, the rest of the world would quickly adopt it.

Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Interested in All Things Tech?
The Bits newsletter will keep you updated on the latest from Silicon Valley and the technology industry.


You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

• See Sample
• Manage Email Preferences
• Privacy Policy
• Opt out or contact us anytime

But if flexibility was the early internet’s promise, it was soon imperiled. In 2003, Tim Wu, a law professor now at Columbia Law School (he’s also a contributor to The New York Times), saw signs of impending corporate control over the growing internet. Broadband companies that were investing great sums to roll out faster and faster internet service to Americans were becoming wary of running an anything-goes network.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Some of the new uses of the internet threatened their bottom line. People were using online services as an alternative to paying for cable TV or long-distance phone service. They were connecting devices like Wi-Fi routers, which allowed them to share their connections with multiple devices. At the time, there were persistent reports of broadband companies seeking to block or otherwise frustrate these new services; in a few years, some broadband providers would begin blocking new services outright.

To Mr. Wu, the broadband monopolies looked like a threat to the end-to-end idea that had powered the internet. In a legal journal, he outlined an idea for regulation to preserve the internet’s equal-opportunity design — and hence was born “net neutrality.”

Though it has been through a barrage of legal challenges and resurrections, some form of net neutrality has been the governing regime on the internet since 2005. The new F.C.C. order would undo the idea completely; companies would be allowed to block or demand payment for certain traffic as they liked, as long as they disclosed the arrangements.

At the moment, broadband companies are promising not to act unfairly, and they argue that undoing the rules would give them further incentive to invest in their broadband capacity, ultimately improving the internet.

Brian Hart, an F.C.C. spokesman, said broadband companies would still be covered by antitrust laws and other rules meant to prevent anticompetitive behavior. He noted that Mr. Pai’s proposals would simply return the network to an earlier, pre-network-neutrality regulatory era.

“The internet flourished under this framework before, and it will again,” he said.

Broadband companies are taking a similar line. When I pointed out to a Comcast spokeswoman that the company’s promises were only voluntary — that nothing will prevent Comcast from one day creating special tiers of internet service with bundled content, much like the way it now sells cable TV — she suggested I was jumping the gun.

After all, people have been predicting the end of the internet for years. In 2003, Michael Copps, a Democratically appointed commissioner on the F.C.C. who was alarmed by the central choke points then taking command of the internet, argued that “we could be witnessing the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it.”

It’s been a recurrent theme among worriers ever since. In 2014, the last time it looked like net neutrality would get gutted, Nilay Patel, editor of the Verge, declared the internet dead (he used another word for “dead”). And he did it again this year, anticipating Mr. Pai’s proposal.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
But look, you might say: Despite the hand-wringing, the internet has kept on trucking. Start-ups are still getting funded and going public. Crazy new things still sometimes get invented and defy all expectations; Bitcoin, which is as Wild West as they come, just hit $10,000 on some exchanges.

Well, O.K. But a vibrant network doesn’t die all at once. It takes time and neglect; it grows weaker by the day, but imperceptibly, so that one day we are living in a digital world controlled by giants and we come to regard the whole thing as normal.

It’s not normal. It wasn’t always this way. The internet doesn’t have to be a corporate playground. That’s just the path we’ve chosen.

Email: [email protected]; Twitter: @fmanjoo.

Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

1. 
   F.C.C. Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in a Victory for Telecoms NOV. 21, 2017
   
2. 
   Net Neutrality Repeal: What Could Happen and How It Could Affect You NOV. 21, 2017
   
3. 
   STATE OF THE ART
   How to Smoke Out Where Broadband Companies Stand on Net Neutrality JULY 13, 2017
   

What's Next
Loading...
Site Index The New York Times
Site Index Navigation
News

• World
• U.S.
• Politics