On Aug 11, 2012, at 9:41 PM, SM wrote:
Here is a rough estimate of users for one content provider:
US 158,758,940
Brazil 54,902,560
India 51,925,180
UK 37,569,580
France 24,345,920
Italy 21,822,640
Canada 17,474,940
Spain 16,075,560
Egypt 11,513,720
Russia 5,560,080
Romania 4,928,100
Tunisia 3,107,040
Libya 608,380
China 520,780
Uganda 444,560
If tomorrow Italy decides to adopt a "sending party pays" model it
may still be financially viable for the content provider to remain in
that market. It may not work that well for Uganda.
If tomorrow Libya decides that it would be in its interest to control
access to the Internet, operators can route around the problem as we
all know that's how the Internet works.
These operators are (hypothetically) Libyan citizens, right? Residents of
Libya who could go to jail for routing around the problem. Most likely on a
charge of espionage.
Well, not really, if most of
the traffic passes through one international gateway.
The number of international gateways does not matter, if all the operators have
to comply with the government's blacklist, or have to install a
government-mandated policy on a government-mandated firewall.
You can send
traffic over port 443 to prevent eavesdropping as that port is
secure. Well, not really, if the user already trusts the wrong SSL
certificate.
Not trusting the certificate just means you get annoying warnings. It won't let
you circumvent it. Living in an authoritarian country means you don't get to
play cat & mouse with your government
If you are on an Internet governance soapbox you might as well talk
about how the US is evil and it should not be the only country
running the Internet. You might also want to add that having only 13
root nameservers is all part of a conspiracy and that the IETF must
fix that. Obviously someone must be running this Internet thing or
else you will have to review your belief system.
I thought it was Al Gore running the Internet from his garage, no?
Yoav