<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 17.06.12 04:40, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-size: 10pt;">Now to our present concerns: ITU actions
can indeed legitimate actions which I would argue are not in the
interests of a nation's citizens, but may be in the interests of
a state ministry of telecoms, and/or a national telecom
provider. Which is reason enough to remain - observant - of what
WCIT is up to, in all areas.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Whose concerns are almost guaranteed to represent private commercial
"get rich" interests.<br>
<br>
History has it and I can certainly confirm observing it, that often
the state owned telecom business is used to subsidize political
parties, for such businesses often have extremely fuzzy accounting
and very high margins -- and, for the most part steady cash flow
guaranteed to last (with the help of ITU and various arrangements).<br>
<br>
In most cases, you will hear the claim "we do this in the name of
the people", which should be in fact translated as "look, we
promised those people who put us in power, that they are going to
get free ride. we do it, no matter what".<br>
<br>
There are suggestions that the ITU is a "better" fit for the
governance of Internet. Because, as they claim, the ITU has
well-organized and disciplined resolution system. But, let me ask
you: do you consider some well-organized army better suited to
manage your country, by occupying it? (of course, this happens, all
of the time, even today)<br>
<br>
The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting
mechanism to Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that
ITU could enforce bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP
traffic. Remember, this is precisely what killed X.400 when it saw
the (primitive at the time) competition by Internet-based e-mail
(UUCP, SMTP, ...).<br>
Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you,
because they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :)<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
</body>
</html>