If the entire world had Internet access.....

[mh10190]

If all the people in the world had equal access to the internet, what kind of a world do you think we'll live in.
I heard that by 2010 only 1/4 people on earth will have any access to the web.
Imagine a world were all of its inhabitants had the same access to information and people..
Tell me what you think soceity will be like, better or worse, and why.

[bored2k]

If the internet is governed by some country by that time (like US is "pretending" to do), though we might get the same access to information, that information would already be heavily modified for us.

On the other hand, oppressed countries will be able to get a taste of what others are like, which is always good (for countries like the Dominican Republic, the change was made from a guy who went to Europe, studied, saw the "outside world", came back with his new mentality, and freed us). Either way (tampered info or not), I think it's still good (education-wise).

[Cool J]

If the whole world had internet access...


...the poorer countries could sell their domains like tokelau does (www.mydot.tk) and develop themselves.

seems cool providing it is internet and not M$ Internet !!!

[majikstreet]

... we'd have a lot more idiots online... but really, it's true..

[Mr_Grieves]

If the entire world had internet access, they would also (hopefully) have water and food. So that would be great!

[curuxz]

I think the net would collapse, It has some big flaws in it as it stands, mainly that the USA has control over it, which is a massive massive mistake if its supposed to be freedom of information. Secondly the internet and its code (mainly html) are based in english, while this is great news for me (UK born n bred') it would make massive problems unless the whole world adopted english as a second lauange, which would be cool but unlikely to ever happen.

If those things dont change we will never see every person being able to access all peices of information no matter how many come online :)

[drummer]

Secondly the internet and its code (mainly html) are based in english, ... it would make massive problems unless the whole world adopted english as a second lauange

Yes, HTML is english based.. but XML is becoming increasingly popular I beleive and it can be written in any language you like. The user defines the tags and what they mean in the definition files. And even though XML is a little more tricky to learn to work with for a beginner scripter, there's always huge range of WYSIWYG tools out there.

[BSDFreak]

If the whole world had internet access...


...the poorer countries could sell their domains like tokelau does (www.mydot.tk (http://www.mydot.tk)) and develop themselves.

seems cool providing it is internet and not M$ Internet !!!

MS may be a behemoth of a company but not even theiy could take ownership of the internets.

They tried to start an alternative net with MSN (remember that win95 versions had the ability to sign you up for Microsoft Network which was a separate entity at the time) but that didn't work very well and the project (as it was) was scrapped.

[BSDFreak]

I think the net would collapse, It has some big flaws in it as it stands, mainly that the USA has control over it, which is a massive massive mistake if its supposed to be freedom of information. Secondly the internet and its code (mainly html) are based in english, while this is great news for me (UK born n bred') it would make massive problems unless the whole world adopted english as a second lauange, which would be cool but unlikely to ever happen.

If those things dont change we will never see every person being able to access all peices of information no matter how many come online :)

Great news for Swedes and northern europeans too as we do have english as our second/third/fourth language. It doesn't really matter as long as the tools are internationalized. You could, of course, claim the same thing about any code language as they are all english based.

[mstlyevil]

I think the net would collapse, It has some big flaws in it as it stands, mainly that the USA has control over it, which is a massive massive mistake if its supposed to be freedom of information. Secondly the internet and its code (mainly html) are based in english, while this is great news for me (UK born n bred') it would make massive problems unless the whole world adopted english as a second lauange, which would be cool but unlikely to ever happen.

If those things dont change we will never see every person being able to access all peices of information no matter how many come online :)

Who would you have control over the net? The UN? Also how often has the US actually exercised control that limited your ability to use the net freely. I am not against a multinational agency headed up by the free countries of the world sharing responsibility, but the idea of UN control scares the heck out of me. We are lucky at least to have a country such as the US in control and allowing freedom of information than lets say China having control and restricting access because they are afraid people might think for themselves. The UN would begin to heavily regulate and restrict net access because both China and Russia have both stated they want this to happen and they have a equal vote on the security council.

I just want to know how the US has blocked freedom of information on the net and what you would propose to replace the US as the gatekeeper of the net and freedom of information?

[BoyOfDestiny]

Who would you have control over the net? The UN? Also how often has the US actually exercised control that limited your ability to use the net freely. I am not against a multinational agency headed up by the free countries of the world sharing responsibility, but the idea of UN control scares the heck out of me. We are lucky at least to have a country such as the US in control and allowing freedom of information than lets say China having control and restricting access because they are afraid people might think for themselves. The UN would begin to heavily regulate and restrict net access because both China and Russia have both stated they want this to happen and they have a equal vote on the security council.

I just want to know how the US has blocked freedom of information on the net and what you would propose to replace the US as the gatekeeper of the net and freedom of information?

Amen brother, those whining most about U.S net control are countries like China, Iraq, and Cuba. Agreed that the UN is a joke.

Anyway to illustrate the point, "demonstration" "free tibet"
Oops!

If this were china, and Microsoft supplied the software for the board... My post would be gone!

http://www.physorg.com/news9627.html

Frankly I'd rather have an "anarchy" network than one controlled by any of those countries.

[Mr_Grieves]

I think the net would collapse, It has some big flaws in it as it stands, mainly that the USA has control over it, which is a massive massive mistake if its supposed to be freedom of information. Secondly the internet and its code (mainly html) are based in english, while this is great news for me (UK born n bred') it would make massive problems unless the whole world adopted english as a second lauange, which would be cool but unlikely to ever happen.

If those things dont change we will never see every person being able to access all peices of information no matter how many come online :)
Hm.. how exactly has USA mainly the control of the Internet?
The Internet consists of over 140 000 connected "networks" (Autonomous Systems).. I do not have figures on this.. but.. most of these networks are not at all owned or controlled by USA, but by ISPs. Outside of the USA they have little, if any controll over the Internet. Sure they can intercept information here and there, using ECHELON, but far from everywhere.. controll is a very strong word to describe that. It's impossible for the USA to edit the information on the hole Internet. They can only censur information in networks they controll, and what I know, this is not being done at any large extent, exept for maybe Al Quidas homepage and heavier criminal stuff.. that is anyway censured by ISPs.

I myself work atm. as a network engineer on a ISP that has one of the worlds largest global networks.. and neither my company or I are controlled by the US.. I can assure you that, hehe.

What kind of flaws are you talking about.. I'm not exactly following you. I think the Internet actually is working pretty OK. But that depends alot on you're ISP aswell. I'm not that good on Linux.. but I know some about the Internet.

The chance that the design of the Internet will change is less likely.. It's been the same since the beginning. The thing that makes the internet into the internet is that it's not controlled by ONE, but by countless numbers of people. That is the Internets strengh and very base that it stands on. It makes it possible for it to withstand even nuclear attacks (wich was the point with the Internet when it was developed).

[drizek]

Great news for Swedes and northern europeans too as we do have english as our second/third/fourth language. It doesn't really matter as long as the tools are internationalized. You could, of course, claim the same thing about any code language as they are all english based.

well, <div> makes as much sense in english as it does in swedish. i think the real problem is for coutnries that dont use an english alphabet.

[blastus]

Yes, HTML is english based.. but XML is becoming increasingly popular I beleive and it can be written in any language you like. The user defines the tags and what they mean in the definition files. And even though XML is a little more tricky to learn to work with for a beginner scripter, there's always huge range of WYSIWYG tools out there.

The content of a HTML document, like an XML document, can be specified in any language. The content encoding ("language") of a HTML document can be specified using the charset directive, or in XML in the prolog. However, I'm quite sure the names of elements, attributes, entities etc... in XML are restricted to letters, digits, and ideographs from the first 256 Unicode code points which is essentially ASCII (English.) I doubt XML allows things like Chinese Big Five element names for example.

[cityismine]

Even Linus Torvalds writes code in English, and comments code in English. English is the language of business also. So if want your website to be seen by the rest of the world, it has to be in english. Until we come up with a star trek type universal communicator, english will remain the communication medium of the world.

[mstlyevil]

Even Linus Torvalds writes code in English, and comments code in English. English is the language of business also. So if want your website to be seen by the rest of the world, it has to be in english. Until we come up with a star trek type universal communicator, english will remain the communication medium of the world.

According to the UN charter it is French. (/sarcasm)

[poofyhairguy]

If the whole world could get on the internet....

...those times when I lose all my seeds on a realy cool torrent would be less.

...broadband would become the major class distinction.

...porn sites would make WAY more money than they do now.

...it would be even harder to find golden content in all the noise.

...Flash movies would be more important than DVDs.

...this forum would have a million users.

...Amazon might actually make some money (cheap shot I know).

...many would barely use it.

[curuxz]

Just to quickly respond to the coment about the US control of the net, Just one example was the massive fuss caused when the wayback engine started bringing back sites that the us govenment has quielty taken down, mostly to do with Nuclear weapons and the CIA. Now im not saying that information should be availble but its a fine example of how the US govenment acts to protect its own intrests. Google is already being accused of censorship and several reports indicate its because of preasure from the us govenment. I think there should be an intentational body that is totaly seperate from any govenment including the UN.

As for serious flaws you have to remember that the protocalls the net was built on were not designed for large scale use, they produce lots of useless data and already the net is pretty much at max capacity hence lots of lows sites around today :S

I just dont think a global net is possible without large changes.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Just to quickly respond to the coment about the US control of the net, Just one example was the massive fuss caused when the wayback engine started bringing back sites that the us govenment has quielty taken down, mostly to do with Nuclear weapons and the CIA. Now im not saying that information should be availble but its a fine example of how the US govenment acts to protect its own intrests. Google is already being accused of censorship and several reports indicate its because of preasure from the us govenment. I think there should be an intentational body that is totaly seperate from any govenment including the UN.

As for serious flaws you have to remember that the protocalls the net was built on were not designed for large scale use, they produce lots of useless data and already the net is pretty much at max capacity hence lots of lows sites around today :S

I just dont think a global net is possible without large changes.

Geez, ease up on the FUD!

Well if the U.S gov wants it's own pages removed from the wayback machine, they can claim copyright infringement, and have it taken down. The same applies for anyone. If these pages belong to someone else, can you please post a link to the "story".

In regards to Google censorship, the only ones I've ever seen relate to China. Don't take my word for it.

http://www.google-watch.org/china.html

Feel free to post a link to wherever you "read" about the U.S gov censoring google.

The net has several protocols.Some new ones too. There was no http in 1980's... I'm guessing having several hundred million of people on it means it doesn't scale well.

READ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

As for another group running it, what is it you don't want? That people can say please don't keep my old web pages in a cache, and the group responds "tough"?

[WildTangent]

Hm.. how exactly has USA mainly the control of the Internet?

Last time I checked, the root DNS servers were controlled by the US government. Therefore, they in effect, control the internet. If those servers shutdown, there's a good chance you won't have your internet. Personally...I wouldn't have it any other way. They've done a great job running the internet since its birth, and I see no reason for that to change.

-Wild

[curuxz]

All i know is the USA was not asking for its pages taken down it was asking for other peoples and it got it.

[Malphas]

If those bashing the UN did some reading they might realise that they've had numerous successes in peacekeeping, arms control, humanitarian aid and protecting human rights. I've yet to hear a negative opinion or argument regarding the UN as a whole that hasn't smacked of Fox "News"-esque ignorance and xenophobia.

Anyway, the best solution in my opinion is for the Internet to be as decentralised as possible so no-one can ever have absolute control.

[Mr_Grieves]

Just to quickly respond to the coment about the US control of the net, Just one example was the massive fuss caused when the wayback engine started bringing back sites that the us govenment has quielty taken down, mostly to do with Nuclear weapons and the CIA.

Wayback? Some kind of giant cache/database machine I guess. What you are talking about is not controll over the Internets infrastructure. It's controll over some specific servers.. There is a huuuge diffrence there. If they have forced down homepages outside of the legal borders of the USA, then the sites must have been very illegal. For example, for the ISP I work at, to be able to make us shut down anything, there has to be a crime committed that could lead to a jail sentence. Most ISPs have this rule.



Now im not saying that information should be availble but its a fine example of how the US govenment acts to protect its own intrests. Google is already being accused of censorship and several reports indicate its because of preasure from the us govenment. I think there should be an intentational body that is totaly seperate from any govenment including the UN.

International organisations that "controll" how the Internet should be, yes there is allready, you might heard about one of them, ICAN (Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers) and IEEE - wich accounts for alot of the protocolls that the Internet use. ISP will allways have statly interests, because they build the infrastructure in the woulds countries. Aswell, typically the largests ISPs come from 100% statly companies, like AT&T, Bell, DTAG, etc, wich now in larger parts have been sold on the international stock markets. But often the diffrent countries keep some controlls over them, due to that thier work is a national security matter. You see, ISPs don't just route IP packets. They often own infrastructure that the packets are routed on aswell :) That some kind of international organ is to controll the infrastructure in all contries is just silly.



As for serious flaws you have to remember that the protocalls the net was built on were not designed for large scale use, they produce lots of useless data and already the net is pretty much at max capacity hence lots of lows sites around today :S

Not designed for large scale use? How does it come that an IP-address has 4 octets then? How come IPv4 is able to still function as the primary function on the Internet, when it's design haven't change much in 30 years? I'm sorry but you'll have to come up with something more than that. About useless data? Well, it's ofcourse not useless, naturally there is an overhead in most protocols, but this is the nature of these protocols. For example, header/tailer information reserved for future use. Should we do without this, then we would truely have protocolls with flaws.



I just dont think a global net is possible without large changes.
Not possible? We HAVE a global net TODAY! What are you talking about? :D
Have a look here: http://www.maxmind.com/app/techinfo


Last time I checked, the root DNS servers were controlled by the US government. Therefore, they in effect, control the internet. If those servers shutdown, there's a good chance you won't have your internet. Personally...I wouldn't have it any other way. They've done a great job running the internet since its birth, and I see no reason for that to change.

The root DNS servers are not controlled by the US government. They are placed all around the world and are controlled by many diffrent companies. Again, the base idea of the Internet. Not one country/company/person in controll of everything, but alot of diffrent parties.

Read more here: http://www.root-servers.org
As you can see, US goverment is not in controll of all DNS root servers.

As a side note:
DNS is a service wich makes translations between IP-addresses and Domain names like ubuntuforums.org. But DNS is not needed to make the Internet work. Routers and switches around the world don't care about domain names. So, you could surf the Internet without DNS, even if there would surly be some problems on a global scale.

[Lord Illidan]

1 : There would be a real lot more porn sites. Why? Because poor countries will use their women/men as their commodity to get rich.

2 : The backbone would most likely slow down even more, and we get a real slow internet.

3 : More people might switch to Linux......and use......Ubuntu........and use the repositories.........so our speed falls.......

[Mr_Grieves]

Anyway, the best solution in my opinion is for the Internet to be as decentralised as possible so no-one can ever have absolute control.
Exactly. As it is today.

[ChristianR]

Just to throw my 2 cents in...

I remember from the news about the ICANN conference last month in Morocco, where it was pointed out by the UN (Mr. Annan?), that the UN does not feel to happy about having the US control over the WWW. Namely this is not "the US", but the ICANN i.e. is supported as a branch of the US Department of Commerce. (Which actually makes me wonder, why they permit the existence of Linux in the first place? :rolleyes: )

But to get back to he topic:
Living in the center of germany, I am happy with the fact, that I introduced a chinese student to the linux world recently. (She was wondering, how Mr. Torwalds survives - in comparison with Mr. Gates, if everything is "free"?) And I shutter thinking, that the unbuntu-CD I passed on to her, will be copied by a billion chinese... :D
(At least that would be a great chunk of the world with the "right" OS!)

[Mr_Grieves]

2 : The backbone would most likely slow down even more, and we get a real slow internet.

And why would not the Carriers/ISPs of the world upgrade thier backbones as they got more customers? Hahaha. That's just silly :D



3 : More people might switch to Linux......and use......Ubuntu........and use the repositories.........so our speed falls.......
More people WOULD switch to Linux.. and use Ubuntu.. and use the repositories.. and Ubuntu would get more bandwidth, as they would get more money.. and everybody would be happy :D

[mstlyevil]

Living in the center of germany, I am happy with the fact, that I introduced a chinese student to the linux world recently. (She was wondering, how Mr. Torwalds survives - in comparison with Mr. Gates, if everything is "free"?) And I shutter thinking, that the unbuntu-CD I passed on to her, will be copied by a billion chinese... :D
(At least that would be a great chunk of the world with the "right" OS!)

You can always tell her he is supported by companies like Red Hat and Novel. Also I believe he is employed by some company in the Seattle Washington area. (No it is not Microsoft.)

[fuscia]

the internet would become more exotic. we'd find out just how different people really are. in his book, the great cat massacre (i hate that title), robert darnton suggested the key to understanding other people, cultures, eras, etc. lies in understanding the reasoning behind their behaviors that puzzle us most. world wide access would certainly allow us more oppurtuntiy to explore such.

[Mr_Grieves]

One more comment.



Originally Posted by curuxz
the net is pretty much at max capacity hence lots of lows sites around today :S

You discuss like there is a upper limit for Internet usage in the worlds backbones. There is not. As the carriers/ISPs get new customers they upgrade thier backbone, distribution and access networks. All serious ISPs/carriers go by the rule that never have more than 50% of backbone usage. Some smaller providers overbook thier backbone alot. But this is not close to a global problem. Just a problem at some providers, often virtual, hiring capacity from carriers, sometimes in 3rd hand.

[deNoobius]

If those bashing the UN did some reading they might realise that they've had numerous successes in peacekeeping, arms control, humanitarian aid and protecting human rights. I've yet to hear a negative opinion or argument regarding the UN as a whole that hasn't smacked of Fox "News"-esque ignorance and xenophobia.

Anyway, the best solution in my opinion is for the Internet to be as decentralised as possible so no-one can ever have absolute control.

Yes, the UN did a great job watching genocides occur in Bosnia and Rwanda and doing nothing about it. Terrif.

[Mr_Grieves]

Yes, the UN did a great job watching genocides occur in Bosnia and Rwanda and doing nothing about it. Terrif.
I know nothing about that.. but.. I guess so did the rest of the world? So, in what way was that a -UN- problem? The worlds countries controlls the UN.. so.. I don't get it.

Ofcourse the UN organisation do got alot of things that may be changed for the better, but that goes for 99,97% of all organisations.. and the UN are doing alot of good things. Without them I think the world would be a very much more dark place to live in.

[curuxz]

As far as I'm aware the UN has a good reputation, its the stupid security council that does not, I mean its undemocratic in its very existance. Everyone gets to vote on everything, exept military matters thats enterily down to a few countries. Thats where the massicar thing came from, the security council had countries like france Veto'ing everything stopping troops being allowed to engage troops.

The UN is also based out of New york so handing them control because of fears of futher abuse of power by the US would be a real stupid move, if they want control they will get it.

When I said global internet I mean global as in everyone in the world not just the rich 1/4 :)

The net is facing break down if ICAN is not taken out of US control then asia and EU will break of with their own internets and personaly I would welcome the move since untill I am alowed to Vote in the US, (As a UK citizen) I dont want my internet controled by people who dont listen to me. Thats undemocratic and cant be good for freedom.

The internet has a great potentail to expand but before it does we must examin where this freedom is comming from and try and remove the hypocracy of bringing others freedom while we are still controled by ICAN which favours US intrests and big business.

:) lets hope africa and southamerica chose linux tho, i think thats the battle ground where we can screw MS

[dosed150]

as bad as americas policies are they dont censor as much here in the uk the government can hand out d-notices to newspapers and tv to shut them up about things so imagine if we controlled the net

[mstlyevil]

As far as I'm aware the UN has a good reputation, its the stupid security council that does not, I mean its undemocratic in its very existance. Everyone gets to vote on everything, exept military matters thats enterily down to a few countries. Thats where the massicar thing came from, the security council had countries like france Veto'ing everything stopping troops being allowed to engage troops.

The UN is also based out of New york so handing them control because of fears of futher abuse of power by the US would be a real stupid move, if they want control they will get it.

When I said global internet I mean global as in everyone in the world not just the rich 1/4 :)

The net is facing break down if ICAN is not taken out of US control then asia and EU will break of with their own internets and personaly I would welcome the move since untill I am alowed to Vote in the US, (As a UK citizen) I dont want my internet controled by people who dont listen to me. Thats undemocratic and cant be good for freedom.

The internet has a great potentail to expand but before it does we must examin where this freedom is comming from and try and remove the hypocracy of bringing others freedom while we are still controled by ICAN which favours US intrests and big business.

:) lets hope africa and southamerica chose linux tho, i think thats the battle ground where we can screw MS

If an international agency controlled the Internet how do you think you would have a vote or even a say so. It would be even more undemocratic than it is now. Also you would have nations like China, Russia, North Korea and Cuba helping to make the rules. In your Idea world you can just kiss freedom of information good bye. Also BTW, ICAAN is not run by the US Government. It is funded by the US Government and has representatives from many nations on it's board. Also a fractured Internet would be a disaster especially for Europe.

[Mr_Grieves]

When I said global internet I mean global as in everyone in the world not just the rich 1/4 :)

Ofcourse it's the richer countries that get Internet. If you're starving and dying of thirst, you're not very interested in Internet. The technologies that the Internet build on is more than adequate to handle much larger Networks. For the address issue, when it comes, we got IPv6.

Is there any specific protocoll that you think must be changed? .. and why? Or is it something else?



The net is facing break down if ICAN is not taken out of US control then asia and EU will break of with their own internets and personaly I would welcome the move since untill I am alowed to Vote in the US, (As a UK citizen) I dont want my internet controled by people who dont listen to me. Thats undemocratic and cant be good for freedom.

In the ICAN board, there is people from not just the USA. There is people from Sweden there for example.. and lots of other countries. In what way does USA control ICAN/Internet? Please be abit more specific. Facing a break down. Ehe.. On what facts do you base that?

You're Internet connection is controlled by you're ISP and the companies/organisations that controll the networks on wich you send data, NOT ICAN. ICAN does not controll you're ISP. Trust me.



The internet has a great potentail to expand but before it does we must examin where this freedom is comming from and try and remove the hypocracy of bringing others freedom while we are still controled by ICAN which favours US intrests and big business.

The things ICAN make decisions about is so far from the regular usage of the Internet that saying that ICAN/USA controlls the Internet is like saying that I controll YOU due to that:

1) I controll networks that you send IP packets over.
2) I own shares in a company where you buy food from.

[Blippe]

...we would be writing in spanish and/or chinese.