[governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei...

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 18.08.11 09:44, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4E4CB08D.90902 at digsys.bg>, at 09:26:21 on Thu, 18 Aug 
> 2011, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> writes
>> The telephone network was regulated by an international oligopoly. 
>> Everyone agreed it was BAD.
>> Are you suggesting similar model for Internet governance?
>
> Both telephones and Internet "work" at the most basic level because 
> they have an end-to-end model for both numbering and transmission 
> protocols. Have you never marvelled at the way phone numbers are 
> consistent over the whole planet, and you can plug any phone in 
> anywhere? (Something which because quite useful for plugging in 
> modems, later).
I didn't really, because I knew how it is all organized.

You never could plug any phone everywhere. Telephone plugs are 
different. Exchange signaling is different. Electrical signals are 
different. Many modems would not work worldwide. Few did, but had high 
prices. You needed to put lots of hardware to make sure your modem would 
work in more places. But that is history.
About the only thing you could be sure with the telephone network was 
the country codes. In some places like the US, they used area codes, 
covering several cities, or several in a city, where in other parts of 
the world it was customary to have city codes assigned. There was not 
even mapping system like the DNS to help you.

This was all because of limitations of the mechanical switches. The 
telephone numbering plan was historically so designed, that by dealing 
each digit on an "analogue" phone, with pulse dialing (by the way, they 
all had different pulse rate, in different exchanges/countries too), the 
relay at the exchange would switch the circuit to the "right" direction 
and so on. With the introduction of all-electronic switches these 
limitations were largely removed. The typical mobile operator only has 
their own code in the numbering plan, typically under the country code 
where they are incorporated and more or less flat numbering for end-users.

The phone network did not have anything designed end to end. In theory, 
you would get an "voice" channel of approximately 3 KHz, over which you 
could sometimes hear the other end, sometimes not. All sorts of 
"optimization" technologies were applied over the network, starting from 
your local connection (typically in a form of digitizing your voice for 
transmission over fewer copper pairs) to trans-Atlantic links 
(cancelling echo etc). All this was done by local initiative, that is 
the local operator. Or your long distance operator. Sometimes there was 
significant interference caused by all this and rarely anybody cared.

In that respect too, Internet is different. The 'telephone network' 
required that all intelligence is in the network. The end user only had 
an dumb terminal (the telephone device). That is, the operator had to 
keep all the control and make all the choices. Also, to make the end to 
end "protocol" work.
Interned is so designed, that the network is expected to be dumb, but 
the end-nodes are smart. End nodes know the protocol, end to end. End 
nodes are in users possession and control and the operator can do little 
in terms of 'control'.


Today's telephone network is much different of course. Largely because 
of competition, largely because of Internet. Largely because the 
original design is already dead.


>
>> By the way, that telephone network was based primarily on contracts 
>> to make it work. Contracts between operators mostly.
>
> Make your mind up, was it regulated by the ITU, or by the operators?

What was regulated by ITU? The country codes list? The interconnect 
principles? The interconnect fees? Or the measures to ensure continued 
monopoly of it's members? I do not include technical standards here, 
because in the argument we have with Paul they  do not seem to 
participate in any way.

Who were/are ITU, by the way? Are the ITU representatives 
'democratically' elected? By whom? Certainly not by those who use 
telephone services! This was my point and it still stands.

On contracts. You remember the e-mail "standard", X.400. That protocol 
was very unfortunate to have the "requirement" that every participating 
operator wishing to have "mail server" had to have contract with every 
other such operator. Why did this happen?
Later, the requirements were relaxed, but it was way too late, because 
the Internet SMTP protocol did not impose any such restrictions. Anyone 
could set up an SMTP server and send/receive e-mail.
The irony is that the X.400 protocol was better designed than the SMTP 
protocol from that time, but... policy killed it.

Who invented the contracts between the PTT and the end-user? If it was 
ITU, then how come such an "corporation of corporations" an single 
entity, clearly supporting corporate interests, could be the example 
given by Paul Lehto for 'democracy'?

I am confident you know a lot about ITU. But can't you see???

Daniel

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t