Ok, queue the 19 year olds with the Michael Moore induced ugly American comments.

I'm not about to jump on that bandwagon, but since we do live in a global economy these days, and the internet really is a meta-space, I think the 12 main hubs should be spread throughout the world.

We made it?

Just remember boys and girls. The enitity that wishes to control the internet is the UN. If you think they will do the "Right Thing" dream on. There is an Old saying, " If it aint broke, dont fix it". I am sure many of you foam at the mouth Libtards will however start the usual diarrhea ranting about Bush and the Internet. Btw...The UN is looking forward to Taxing the Internet. So uhmm think before you leap into the world of the corrupted garbage pit called the UN.

@deedrit: Yes

DARPA invented the internet and thus its theirs to own. If all these hater-European nations wanted to control the internet, then maybe they should have invented it themselves 30yrs ago. America isnt forcing people to sign on. These are the same Europeans who are suing Bill Gates to make Windows open-source.
So now we have to invent and then give to the Europeans both the way their computers operate and communicate.
The nations of the world are a bunch of cry-babies. I can think of several billion dollars of foreign aid that could better be spent in the States.
We all know that the moment others have control they will use it against us.

I don't care who controls it, as long as I don't get taxed, and people don't screw it up by doing something that a majority of its users will deem as the destruction of the internet in some way.

Well this isn't a surprise, with the US banning taxing the net till 20XX, the US Goverment not happy at Yahoo! and China deals, and the net neutrality war, I am not surprise that other governments want to get there hands into the pie.

Net neutrality would be a cold war if the internet systems were divided.(Oh, We don't liek you now, so now you are cut off from OUR system)

The best case as always is the open source, let everyoen have there own pie and be at peace.

But yeah, that I leave up to Google to handle.

@Vizi: DARPA invented the internet and thus its theirs to own. If all these hater-European nations wanted to control the internet, then maybe they should have invented it themselves 30yrs ago.

You mean like that European Brit who created the World Wide Web in 1989?

@Cellenin:
&
@spock11384:

You guys lost your right to have a rational discussion right away by implying support for your failed chimpy POTUS. If you want a real taste of "the usual diarrhea ranting" why don't you turn on Faux News or read your favorite Coulter/Malkin blog. Maybe you guys can keep the fire alive over there with some nice "Global Climate Change is a Hoax invented by Al Gore!" threads.

That aside, I'm not a fan of Taxing what (R) Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens from Alaska called "The Intertubes"...but I'm sure he's too busy being investigated by the FBI to comment on this one. Or maybe he's sucking dick in a public bathroom somewhere along with (how many scandals this year?) the other closet case homophobe Republitard hypocrites.

@Vizi:

"I can think of several billion dollars of foreign aid that could better be spent in the States."

Yeah, I can think of 200 billion a year that could be spent on better spent in the United States. Gee, I wonder where it's all going?

I don't believe other nations should control the internet. The US might hate certain regimes (RE: North Korea) but they've never done anything to prevent or limit their access. The majority of the web is US based, and it should stay centralized where there's no risk of taking it down.The current system works. Don't fix what ain't broke.

It's working just fine how it is. If they want a piece, they can buy stock in it.

If they want to own any part of the internet they need to develop it. One of the primary reasons the US is still the keymaster with respect to the internet is because its US firms that own the "roads" the internet traffic travels on.

The US govt developed it, the US firms powered it, and so the natural power base is here. If those other nations were to plop down the billions needed to create their own infohubs I am sure they could increase their power.

The childish "if they don't like it, they don't have to use!" comments from Americans in this thread illustrate exactly why control of the internet needs to be distributed.

I see a lot of kindergarten arguments here, like I made it so it's mine, nyah nyah. But is that a compelling policy reason? Wasn't one of the original design goals of DARPA to have a decentralized network? Shouldn't that be a consideration here too?

In the meantime, I think they should figure out a way to address spam without trampling on privacy, and get people moving on ipv6 and worry about using the US's diminishing status as a cudgel to get power of the Internet later. (It's our own damn fault that this is something people would even bring up.)

@S5
How is it childish S5? Did your country invent the internet? Did your country invest billions of dollars into research as well? Do we force you to use Microsoft Windows or buy Apple Computers or products from America? You buy these things at your own will and use the internet at your own will. Quit whining you crybaby.

@storm: Totally agree.

@ STORM.

The original goal was to have a decentralized network in America. Why should America give up control to organizations like the UN who name Human Rights abusers to the Human Rights Watch Council? Oil for Food? Ring a bell anyone?

If the UN is mad at you, they'll just send you an angry letter, they won't do anything. Genocide in Rwanda? Jajaweed killings in Darfur? The UN HASN'T DONE ANYTHING IN THESE SITUATIONS. We've seen this time and time again.

UN = an ineffective organization that does very little in the world.

Indeed. The UN is archaic, corrupt, wasteful, and ineffectual. None of that can be disputed. It should be dismantled.

@dle5: For a second there, I thought you were talking about the current state of the US Govt.

Hey here's a novel concept...how about we just let the ISPs peer with as many or as few of each other as they want, and not have ANY governments "controlling" the internet? Debating whether the american feds or the UN should take over is like debating which serial killer kid toucher you want babysitting your 3 year old. Governments are really only good at a few things, namely going to war, taxing, and throwing people in jail. What's the rush to give them more power? Is 2000 years of history not enough to convince people that gov't isn't on your side? I'll trust Verizon and L3 before I trust France and China.

@SpacemanSpiff: I don't trust the ISP's as long as ATT is using a Narus STA 6400 in room 641A of 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco.

Are there any real grievances that countries are bringing to the table? I think things should stay how they are. The US seems to have a decent track record for the fairness with which they have been wielding their power, so why change?

In a perfect world, the community would govern the internet.

Do we live in a perfect world?

NO. So everyone quit crying. You want to control the internets? Go make new ones. It's kinda like the spanking the American Dollar is currently taking. A global market will sort itself out, be it a large country that has invested a lot in the US quietly making big steps, or a general consensus of other countries filling in where the US is lacking. Or the US maintaining its economic backbone.

It's all about money. It's ALWAYS about money.

Reading some of the arguments here, you don't know if you should laugh or cry.

The Internet isn't as American as many here would like to think. The WWW for example was invented in Europe. And that's all besides the point anyway. The Internet isn't today what the Arpanet was originally. The Internet today is truly global and its servers, switches, routers and most importantly USERS are spread all over the world. The technology used to power it isn't only American: the WWW is European of origin, Linux, the most common server operating system, is Finnish in origin as is IRC - the forefather of instant messengers. In just a few years phones will be the most common end-user access points to the Internet and most phones are made by Nokia (Finnish), Sony-Ericsson (Japanese-Swedish), Samsung or LG (Korean), NEC, Sharp (Japanese), etc. They run ARM chips (British) and are mainly manufactured in various parts of Asia (e.g. Taiwan, China). Coming to think of it, someone could argue that only the lowest layers of the Internet such as DNS, IP, TCP, UDP etc. are of American origin.

Many people are saying that the US origins of the Internet should make it American controlled. That's like saying that the European origins of Americans should make the US country controlled by Europe. Times change, the condititions change. And the Internet is no longer a military Arpanet for maintaining communications during a nuclear war. It's now a global communications network between people and businesses and it's way too big and important for any one country to have control over.

Ironically, exactly the same original reason - decentralization to ensure no single point-of-failure - is why the USA should give up it's control! It's in its own interest too not to have a single point of failure for it!

Imagine the UN controlling the NET? Imagine country's such as Libya, Iran, Zambia and the rest of the third world shit holes deciding on how and in what manner YOU the people who pay for the creation and success of the internet will use it. Gimmie a fricken break.

@deedrit:
@Vizi:

While it is true that TCP/IP protocols were developed in the US it is worth noting that the World Wide Web was developed in Europe. From Wikipedia:

"The network gained a public face in the 1990s. On August 6, 1991, CERN, which straddles the border between France and Switzerland, publicized the new World Wide Web project, two years after British scientist Tim Berners-Lee had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few Web pages at CERN."


@Syndication:
Oil for Food was a US initiative launched by Bill Clinton's administration.

Genocide in Rwanda? And the USA has done what? And the same applies to Darfur. What about human rights abuses in Iraq (by the USA) or in Guantanamo Bay.

Or what about the the US supporting and even bringing dictators to power (Idi Amin in Uganda, Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, Ian Smith in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia and the list goes on).

Quite often the US has been involved in subverting democratic processes when it hasn't been happy with the results.

The USA is hardly in any position to claim to have the moral upper hand.

@JOHNYRANDOM

DailyKos Much? You sound like you get your talking points from that website.

Amurrrrrreka is EVIL, WE're all living under the tyranny of George Bush. Blah blah blah, If you want to see a real dictatorship, look at Hugo Chavez, praised heavily from fellow leftists such as actor Danny Glover. Do you really think George Bush is WORSE THAN HUGO CHAVEZ? It's amazing that a good portion of the left do. I haven't seen ole Bush close down the New York Times, so quit bitching about how many rights you claim to lose everyday and how you claim to live in a police state. Things aren't as bad in the US as you make them out to be.

@Syndication: Funny you mention it, but I never read the Daily Kos. I also never said that America was evil or that I was a fan of Hugo Chavez. So, it looks like you're getting your talking points directly out of your ass.

If you think the death of Habeas Corpus isn't losing your rights then you need to wake the fuck up from your pipe dream. I'm not claiming to lose rights, I have proof. I can bitch about the worst president the US has ever had if I so please, so don't think for a second I'm going to listen to your echo chamber "fall into line" crap.

People have mentioned net neutrality here, and I kind of feel the same way I do about that issue as I do about this one: ideally, we wouldn't have government regulation, but i'm just too afraid of the of the alternatives not to. so i'm pro neutrality regulation and pro US control. like others have said, the 'net is currently open, free and untaxed, and i'd be too afraid of changing what's working so well now. just look at china.

@syndication: regardless of @johnny's comments, why would you think that a person can only complain if they are living in the absolute worst, most vile and horrible situation ever imaginable, and anything less is not worth complaining about? can't we say "america is great, but there are some things i'd like to change"? overall i like my job, for instance (it beats being a janitor), but there are still plenty of things i don't like about it.

@manyou07: That, and the fact that probably one of the most important rights one has as an American is to express dissident views. Any American who tries to oppress that right and still waves a flag around is basically a living, breathing contradiction.

Here's a story for those of you who think that the Internet should remain in American hands. Did you know that the Otto engine (the regular engine that is today used in cars, plains, motorbikes, etc )was invented in Germany. That's in Europe. When it was invented the World said that this invention was way to important to let only the Germans build or patent it, therefore the Germans had nothing of their invention. The infrastructure of the Internet was invented in the states, but the software system, the WWW, the protocols, the ip addresses, etc, were all made in an institute called CERN, based in Switzerland (that's also in Europe). Therefore, there is no real reason the Internet should remain in America only.
By the way, if the Internet should remain as it is today, the Japanese have announced a new type of Internet (not based on the WWW system) which is faster and safer.

Seeing as 90%+ of these comments are by you Americans, it seems a lot of you (sorry for the gross generalisation) seem to think that America have a divine right over the internet, yet complain that if other countries get their dirty little mits on it, they're going to corrupt freedom of speech or just destroy it in some way. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, sure, but I'd view other countries getting more control as a good thing, which could potentially enrich the internet as a whole. (I'm English, by the way).

@Cellenin: mmmm, no

The tax issue is more or less irrelevant to this discussion.

The recent US legislation affects only purchases shipped to people in the US from a US supplier. If a Canadian (for example) buys from a US company over the net, it will still *hit* customs on its way to the buyer's address and be taxed under our government's laws and regs.

it was a dutch guy who invented the microscope, ergo no micro chips if he hadent done that, so teh internet should be under dutch ruling.

my point: SHARING IS CAREING

Wow, thank God for Al Gore!

If a country can demonstrate that they can manage the internet properly than I say give it to them.

There are a fair amount of precedences. The USA is always giving away systems and equipment to other countries. Just look at the Carribean countries. Their Coast Guards and Navys run just about exclusively on ships that the US decommissioned and gave away.

We did invent the internet but I think we got our 20 years of copyright.

As long as I can view my pron, I don't care who runs the system. lawl

I fail to see how decentralization is a bad thing.

The Internet as it is today hasn't been invented by any single developer, institution or nation. Stop commenting out of your asses. The theoretical and script-associated basis for what is commonly referred to as the Internet has actually been simultaneously developed in several places. And that's how it will be further down the road.
The current state of the Internet isn't the non plus ultra some commenters seem to think it is. There's plenty of room for innovation, improvement and, eventually, replacement.
And limiting 'net maintenance to just one nation is short-sighted, to say the least. I'm not saying it will change anytime soon, because there's just too much economic interest behind the status quo, but the current state of affairs is not one that completely benefits the system.

They took er jobs!

@PRO7: I would say that your story was a bad example, considering what Germany would have done with its invention.

btw Your information is incorrect. CERN did not invent any of those. They are an organization for Nuclear Research. They used their own version of the Internet for their networks (a modified version invented by Arpanet) and refused to use the more widely used conventions. Their networks also remained isolated from the internet until 1989.

go here for an accurate article on the Origin of the Internet [www.stratford.edu]

or go here to read a quick summary of CERN

[en.wikipedia.org]

i think no one country should have rule over it period. if its global let it be global with more than one country controlling it or restrict it to only the us plain and simple and dont call it global

the main servers should be split out throughout the world just incase something happens, bomb, terriost attack, asteriod etc.

7 in north america, 1europe, 2asia, 1oceania, 1hawaii

somehow, the phones work fine and they're controlled by the UN.

@nospamsam:

In the page you yourself link to, it says:

"The World Wide Web began as a CERN project called ENQUIRE, initiated by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau in 1990. Berners-Lee and Cailliau were jointly honored by the ACM in 1995 for their contributions to the development of the World-Wide Web.
Based on the concept of hypertext, the project was aimed at facilitating sharing information among researchers. The first website went on-line in 1991. On 30 April 1993, CERN announced that the World Wide Web would be free to anyone. A copy of the original first webpage, created by Berners-Lee, is kept here."

The Internet protocols however did not start at CERN as you say.

First, as an apology to all, not all Americans are pompous bastards. Sometimes we just get full of ourselves, its just the American way. Blind confidence and were always right has worked for us so far, and the majority of people will still follow that to some degree.

As far as sharing the internet goes, what exactly do the other countries want right now that they don't have? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The only concern I can see is with the domain names; don't they all have to be in just Arabic numbers and Latin letters? If other countries want to register a domian name in their language with their characters, that should be ok. English should just be the standard for simplicity's sake, but if countries want to deviate, then it is thier loss of site hits and revenue.

So far, I haven't really seen a threat to the internet by keeping the US in charge. Ignore the Iraq war or anything else of high controversy that doesn't relate to the matter at hand, look just at the US track record with the internet. So far, hasn't everything been working out? I'm not a freakazoidAmericaIsPerfect kinda guy, but I do belive our freedom of speech laws will reflect on the safety of the internet.

Sorry about the long comment, I rant in the morning.

@Kim98: I stand corrected. Thank you.

I don't think it's fair to share in this case. We spent so much money and time developing the Stargate program and now the other governments want a piece of the action?

Wait, what?

Oh and shouldn't we ask Al Gore what he thinks? He invented the damn thing.

about 160 million americans use the internet. About 280 million non-americans use the Internet. Wake up and smell the usage statistics. You don't own it anymore. Just like we don't own you anymore. It seems clear to me that a distributed system is for the best. 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' is what leads to stagnation and corruption in any system.

All this frothing neo neo con new republican bullshit is what makes me sure that the Internet needs to be moved out of the US. One day when President Ron Paul goes truly nuts and decrees that a giant wall by built around his glorious United States of Insularity, all the rest of the world willie left high and dry. Part of me hopes he'll do it soon do that our, slightly less militant governments can get on with constructing a better system. Roll on the euronet (sorry rest of the world, it has a better ring than globenet...)

Let's make this fair to everyone. Only countries that have landed humans on the moon should be considered for running the internet. That way only technically competent countries can be considered for such an important job.

I think it's in everyone's best interest that the internet be as decentralized as possible. Putting it in any one nation's hands means that it serves only the interests of those who have power in that one nation and would slowly make the system less and less desirable for everyone else.

Like it or not, the US has less than 6% of the world's population and less than 23% (and declining) of the world's economic activity. It's in America's best interest that the internet serve everyone in the world, since it is a way to market American values, goods and services abroad and grow your economy. (I live in Canada but buy goods from US based Amazon.com all the time.)

Silly uber-patriotic comments about other nations developing their own systems if they don't like American control serve only to cut your nose off despite your face and limit your own businesses from competing internationally and bringing prosperity to your own economy.

Some kind of international cooperation needs to happen to maintain some order to the system. This already is in place when it comes to radio and television through the International Telecommunications Union, which is successful enough that we aren't even aware of it's existence, much less of its coordination of national regulations governing the radio and TV spectrum.

We shares the atom bomb and look where that got us.

I guess my problem is the countries we are talking about as other world powers are fine places. However a good portion of them have less individual freedoms more taxes and restrictions. China is a major player, do any of us want a communist controlled Internet? The U.K. is a great nation but you tax people to drive in London, your basic ability to own a handgun is disallowed, whilst that may work for you I will not give up basic fr