On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote:
...
Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of
international
regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented
interconnection
of leased lines**.
But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed
national boundaries would not fall under that rule? Actually neither
would a VPN operating over a couple of carriers that crossed national
boundaries, would it?
That depended on how the various national monopolists chose to
interpret the rules. In Switzerland we were particularly affected
by the fact that the PTT monopoly was a specific line item in the
federal Constitution. In the US, you had the benefit of Judge Greene.
This is an arcane point today, but if CERN hadn't been
able to use its status as an international organization to bypass that
restriction in the 1980s, it's unlikely that TBL and Robert Cailliau
would
ever have been able to propagate the web. It's even unlikely that Phill
would have been able to access Usenet newsgroups while on shift as a grad
student on a CERN experiment.
;-) Actually what they don't know won't hurt them. ;-) We were moving
files from CERN to Argonne in the 70s through the 360/95 at Rutherford
over the ARPANET. Not exactly the way you want to do it but 15 years
later I am sure it was upgraded a bit.
This would probably have counted as a store-and-forward network,
which was exempted in many countries.
Also, it is exactly because ITU was in charge of resource allocations
such as radio spectrum and top-level POTS dialling codes that it was
a very plausible potential home for IANA in 1997-8, before ICANN was
created. Some of the ITU people who were active in that debate were just
as active in the preparation for WCIT in 2012.
Yea, this one is more dicey. Although I think there is an argument that
says that you need ccoperation among providers about assignment, but I
don't see why governments need to be involved. When phone companies
were owned by governments, then it made sense. But phone companies are
owned by governments any more.
That doesn't leave much does it? (Not a facetious question, I am asking!)
Indeed. But I think you'll find that in general, the countries that signed
the WCIT treaty are those that still have some semblance of a government-
controlled PTT monopoly.
On 01/01/2013 18:36, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Was D.1 to ease wire tapping?
No. It was all about preserving the lucrative PTT monopolies.
On 01/01/2013 22:13, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
In the early eigthies, after consulting with the telecom authorithy
in the Netherlands we got the green light to move data for third
parties, and thus the (then uucp based) EUnet was born.
Exactly, and EARN (European BITNET) was just the same.
The green
light was given in the anticipation of the libiralization of the
EU telcom market.
Exactly, and the 1988 revision of regulation D.1 was closely related
to the general move toward telecom liberalization.
As I said - this stuff *matters* for the Internet (both historically
and for the future).
Brian