who owns the internet?

[Void Main]

To be honest, I had concerns about this thread from the beginning. I totally understand that you don't come here every day and you weren't just digging up an old thread so don't think I am directing this all at you. You have been a very valuable member here and I enjoy hearing from people around the world. I totally understand that we may have differing political views but I just don't want that to get in the way of other common interests. That's my problem with political discussions. It starts out as a discussion about one specific area and then degenerates into a flame war involving the same old things that get my blood pressure up. I'm too old to have to put up with that sort of stress. :)

[Calum]

i totally understand what you're saying. i see both sides really.

anyway, i haven't been being an activist here so far and will try not to be any more of one than i've already been (on average) if that's ok.

Looks like the political discussions finished in this thread anyway, i think we both said what we wanted to say and now maybe we can avoid the flamewar. And in fact thanks for not nuking the thread. I always think posts in a thread, no matter how old, could spark interesting responses at a later date.

[ZiaTioN]

i think we both said what we wanted to say and now maybe we can avoid the flamewar

Actually no we did not; however, I stopped responding as soon as you started with the insults. Calling me a gun toting redneck, inuslting American intelligence, and spouting your overall slanderous propaganda. You have shown that you have no desire to be respectful so I now know to ignore your posts.

I once saw a post on another BBS that summed up what arguing on a message board is like. I did not like the analogy much but it seemed to capture the idea perfectly. It went something like, "arguing on an internet message board is like winning a special olympics race, you may have won but you are still retarded!"

I try to keep this in mind when people like you try to drag me into a bull hockey argument over something they, or I, never had a hand in. The fact is if America completely turned to isolationism, like some would like, I think they would be very suprised at how quickly they would wish that they had been careful what they asked for. We are very well off on our side of the globe and would only benefit from this. I think the problem with idealist is they can never see more than 5 feet in front of their face.

If I were Void, I would delete this thread. You are right, this thread is full of "rubbish" and that "rubbish" being the fact that you feel your opinion should be valued more than anyone elses. Do you really think that spreading your nonsense is going to gain you brownie points on a largely American based message board?

Feel free to respond but I will no longer participate. All I really wanted to say was the part about the special olympics anyway. Please let me know anytime you want me to leave your living room Void. You will get zero argument from me. I have better things to do with my time.

[Stryker]

who owns the internet?

I believe the following companies own the majority of the internet:

MCI
AT&T
Sprint
Genuity
PSINet
XO Communications
Verio
Qwest
Global Crossing

Wouldn't they have the most say in how the networking works? They can simply dictate everything in their contracts: "Get your IPs directly from us (or organization X), use these root servers".

They don't have to bother with ARIN, or ICANN. It is their network, and they ultimately have the say in how its run. Why go after a company they choose? If they see changes they don't like, they can simply elect another organization to handle it, or do it themselves. If there is any concern over how the network is run, the issues should be brought to the network. I don't see why these other organizations are being harassed. The situation just seems like "Everybody listens to you. We don't like what you have to say, so we're going to tell you what to say or stop you from saying it." Take the issues to the networks, who can actually enforce how the internet works.

[ZiaTioN]

I believe the following companies own the majority of the internet:

The funny thing is they may own the equipment but we, the consumer, own the lines. However with each monthly bill we continue to pay for the lines. You would think that they have been paid off by now.

They don't have to bother with ARIN, or ICANN. It is their network, and they ultimately have the say in how its run.

Fortunately for all involved this is not the case. They most certainly have the say so in how their network is run, but not how it is addressed. They could run their own private network if they wanted to and could create there very own IP scheme; however they would not be able to connect that network up to the web. There would be duplicate addresses like crazy and nothing would work.

The organization of IP addresses was done for a reason. Just think of the Internet as one big network and you will be able to see why each smaller network within the larger can not simply create their own IP scheme.

I worked for an agency where we did have our own World Wide network where we did run our own IP scheme but this network did not touch the Internet at all. That is just basic networking. Duplicate IP address are bad.

[Void Main]

Actually all those companies own their own lines. They are the telcos with the fiber and big fat pipes. They are the backbone of "the web". They already are and always were their own networks. What you say about IP duplication is true to an extent however duplication isn't as evil as you might think. For instance, most companies all use the same IP addressing scheme internally (10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) which are not routed by the internet routers. Even some bigger providers (Charter) use the off-net ranges for their intermediate networks. You are right though, for any publicly routed address there can not be duplication. The distribution of these public ip addresses are what I think are most in question regarding governance. Also how we get from IPv4 to IPv6 if we're really going to get neck deep in it. It's not so much the naming because there are many TLDs that you can choose from, not all managed by the same group. You can create your own rogue domain naming systems if you want and get people to use your systems instead. Create your own domains, etc.

[Stryker]

I know these companies own their own lines. But their lines are pretty much what all internet traffic goes through. Without these companies, there would be no internet. We must agree to whatever they put in their contracts to have the internet. They are the ones who dictate everything, not ARIN or ICANN. Any challenge to these organizations is pointless, as the internet is almost completely privately owned by these companies. Any decision to create new root servers would still be at the mercy of the decisions these major networks decide.

[Void Main]

Stryker, I totally agree with your comments and your previous comments. I was more replying to ZiaTioN's comment.

[Stryker]

The funny thing is they may own the equipment but we, the consumer, own the lines. However with each monthly bill we continue to pay for the lines. You would think that they have been paid off by now.

I do believe these companies own the lines and the equipment, wether they are paid off or not.

Fortunately for all involved this is not the case. They most certainly have the say so in how their network is run, but not how it is addressed.

Sure they do, or at least they can if they wanted to. All they need to do is modify their contracts. "By leasing our lines (or, traffic going through our equipment... if they truely dont own the lines), you agree that any all traffic using the ipv4 protocol will have the source IP assigned by us." or something to that effect.

They could run their own private network if they wanted to and could create there very own IP scheme; however they would not be able to connect that network up to the web. There would be duplicate addresses like crazy and nothing would work.

They are the web. They would be hooked up to themselves. It would make peering arrangements difficult, but it would be figured out in their peering agreements.

The organization of IP addresses was done for a reason. Just think of the Internet as one big network and you will be able to see why each smaller network within the larger can not simply create their own IP scheme.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I'm talking about the larger networks. They are free to dictate how the address space in their network.

[Stryker]

Stryker, I totally agree with your comments and your previous comments. I was more replying to ZiaTioN's comment.

I didn't realize he posted until after I replied to you.

[ZiaTioN]

Actually all those companies own their own lines.

No actually that is not true. We the consumer pay for ALL the lines. There are Federal laws (at least in the US) that prohibit the telcos from owning the lines. These laws were put in place to keep one telco, say Verizon, from pushing another telco out of the market by over charging them for usage of "their" lines or not allowing it at all. I think if you researched this you would see that I am right. Also if you looked at your monthly bill (phone line) you would see a small fee for transmission line maintence, etc. They do pay for the trenching of the fiber, but they pass this cost on to the consumer. They are NOT allowed to dictate who uses these lines OR charge them an irregular fee for usage. This means they DO NOT own the lines.

They already are and always were their own networks.

I am not sure this was ever in question.

What you say about IP duplication is true to an extent however duplication isn't as evil as you might think. For instance, most companies all use the same IP addressing scheme internally (10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) which are not routed by the internet routers.

This is not an example of IP duplication by any strecth of the imagination. These subnet ranges were set aside to be "private" addresses and therefore are used by private networks, NAT devices etc. These subnets are not allowed to be on any publicly routed network.

Creating your own domains has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The IP addresses, on a public network, are not and never will be dictated by the telco's themselves.

Getting from IPv4 to IPv6 is simple.

The distribution of these public ip addresses are what I think are most in question regarding governance.

You are right here. That is what has been in question the entire time.

You can create your own rogue domain naming systems if you want and get people to use your systems instead.

Good luck getting people to pay for that limted service. Your little rogue network would never be allowed to be on any public network if you chose to duplicate addresses and therefore would be useless.

[ZiaTioN]

I do believe these companies own the lines and the equipment, wether they are paid off or not.

No this is not true, I have already addressed this in my previous post. They own the quipment but NOT the lines. Please people look into the telco laws before you speak on this. Now if it has changed in the last year I apologize but as far as I know this is NOT true.

Sure they do, or at least they can if they wanted to. All they need to do is modify their contracts. "By leasing our lines (or, traffic going through our equipment... if they truely dont own the lines), you agree that any all traffic using the ipv4 protocol will have the source IP assigned by us." or something to that effect.

You are talking about splitting up the internet into multiple smaller completely seperate networks? LOL.. That would be ridiculous.

They are the web. They would be hooked up to themselves. It would make peering arrangements difficult, but it would be figured out in their peering agreements.

Not one single telco makes up the entire internet and therefore this falls into the ridiculousness of above.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I'm talking about the larger networks. They are free to dictate how the address space in their network.

Sure they are allowed to control the block of IP's they are assigned but they can NOT choose their own addresses to use.

Am I the last sane person on the planet here? LOL...

[Stryker]

No this is not true, I have already addressed this in my previous post. They own the quipment but NOT the lines. Please people look into the telco laws before you speak on this. Now if it has changed in the last year I apologize but as far as I know this is NOT true.

I believe you are confusing bandwidth carriers and telephone companies. These internet isn't run over telephone wires like your DSL is, it is run through thousands of miles of underground fiber owned privately.

You are talking about splitting up the internet into multiple smaller completely seperate networks? LOL.. That would be ridiculous.

No, I'm talking about these networks having the ultimate say and that they are the ones to speak to about changing things and having the changes enforced.

Not one single telco makes up the entire internet and therefore this falls into the ridiculousness of above.

You must have missed the whole peering thing. This would be an issue if the networks didn't cooperate with eachother, but they need to to satisfy their customers.

Sure they are allowed to control the block of IP's they are assigned but they can NOT choose their own addresses to use.

IPs = addresses (Hint: IP Address), and they can assign them if they wanted.

[Stryker]

No actually that is not true. We the consumer pay for ALL the lines. There are Federal laws (at least in the US) that prohibit the telcos from owning the lines. These laws were put in place to keep one telco, say Verizon, from pushing another telco out of the market by over charging them for usage of "their" lines or not allowing it at all. I think if you researched this you would see that I am right. Also if you looked at your monthly bill (phone line) you would see a small fee for transmission line maintence, etc. They do pay for the trenching of the fiber, but they pass this cost on to the consumer. They are NOT allowed to dictate who uses these lines OR charge them an irregular fee for usage. This means they DO NOT own the lines.

see my previous post, these are not telecos. Telecos get the bandwidth from the major carriers and resell them on the public lines. It wouldn't be the ISPs that that dictate what I'm talking about, but backbone providers.

reating your own domains has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The IP addresses, on a public network, are not and never will be dictated by the telco's themselves.

And nobody said they would be. We're not talking about your ISP.

[Void Main]

Good luck getting people to pay for that limted service. Your little rogue network would never be allowed to be on any public network if you chose to duplicate addresses and therefore would be useless.

In my statement on this I was only talking about naming, not addressing. I'm not talking about a rogue network, I'm talking about rogue naming of the network. Like instead of using the "Yellow Pages" I use the rogue one called "Yellow Book". For instance, you get to my site via the name "voidmain.is-a-geek.net" which is not the name you'll get when you do a reverse looking on my IP address. I can just as well assign any name to point to this address. I can run my own DNS servers and create new TLDs if I want (in fact I do within my own house and company) and for any address that my name servers do not know they can forward to the existing DNS servers. This is all hypothetical but if people really had a problem with contol of existing TLDs they can collectively create and switch to something else. There really is no tie between addressing and naming other than the DNS server you point to and who it knows a particular address as. Nobody forces you to use a specific DNS server to resolve names. However, like I said, it's the control of the addresses that is more at issue. You have to play by the some rules there. Who controls the making of those rules is what is in question here. Then again I could just be talking out my arse because I haven't really read the original article to get a really good understanding of what the gripe is. :) Maybe if I find a spare minute this evening I'll do some more reading so I can comment without talking out my arse. :)