AfterDawn: Tech news

How the ITU is leading the way to the 20th century

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 04 Dec 2012 23:00 User comments (8)

How the ITU is leading the way to the 20th century You are likely already aware of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) which opened in Dubai on Monday. This two week conference is where a review of the International Telecommunications Rules established by a 1988 treaty is being conducted by representatives of the 178 International Telecommunications Union (ITU) members who are party to it.
The ITU, originally formed as an industry association for telegraph operators in the 1800s, has expanded over the years to become a United Nations agency with a membership consisting of nearly 200 countries and more than 700 private organizations. Although only states have votes on the adoption of ITU policy and rules, all members may propose changes.

There have been numerous accusations about secret agendas behind the most significant changes proposed to ITU-T rules which govern wireline communications across the legacy PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). Despite the fact nearly all such arguments being charged with political rhetoric and grandstanding, most of them are sadly very accurate. Rather than trying to summarize them all here I'm going to highlight the worst of the worst and provide links to more detailed information on each.

We can start with this though. The UN is not trying to take over the Internet. That's not to say that various ITU members are not trying to exert improper regulatory control over it for equally improper reasons. But despite being technically an agency of the UN, the ITU isn't really under their control. In fact the real controlling authority in this case is the 1988 treaty mentioned previously.

The ITU's role in the Internet


ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Toure has claimed that regulation of Internet communication is not an expansion of the agency's authority because their mandate, as mentioned in their own constitution, covers all telecommunication. That's nonsense. The ITU's constitution does, in fact, cover telecommunications but in that context it refers to nothing more than interoperability between international, government regulated PSTN (Publicly Switched Telephone System) networks.

In reality there are basically two goals behind the problematic proposals to expand ITU authority. The first is an attempt by legacy telecom players, including governments with state run telco monopolies, to neutralize market forces to pad their profits. At the same time governments who seek to restrain the flow of information and ideas want to gut the Internet's ability to empower their citizens.

In an opinion piece for Wired last month Toure detailed what their members claim to be aiming for, but even a cursory look at the actual proposals paints a very different picture which mostly boils down to two issues.

Content Filtering


Tourre's first point of emphasis was on cybersecurity:

Many authorities around the world already intervene in communications for various reasons – such as preventing the circulation of pornography or extremist propaganda. So a balance must be found between protecting people's privacy and their right to communicate; and between protecting individuals, institutions, and whole economies from criminal activities.


The problem is while many proposals use the word security in their description it's really just an smokescreen for an obvious agenda of filtering and censorship. They come, not surprisingly, from member states like China and Russia whose attempts to control the free flow of information and communication both through and within their borders are well known. Others originated in regions like the Middle East where social networking has been instrumental in toppling regimes.

Take, for example, Egypt's contribution to the 'security' question (via the Center for Democracy & Technology):

There must be transparency of the routes: on request, Member States must be able to know the routes used, in particular to avoid fraud and to maintain national security. If the [Member State] does [not] have the right to know or select the route in certain circumstances (e.g. for Security reasons), then the only alternative left is to block traffic from such destinations, which is neither logical nor desirable!


That's not security. It's censorship.

Subsidizing telcos


Toure also claimed ITU members were focusing on expanding Internet service to reach more of the world:

The conference will also focus on how ICTs – and particularly broadband – can be highly effective catalysts for sustainable social and economic progress.

Right now, access to this potential is constrained by issues of affordability, with high costs a reality for many users. Related to this is insufficient investment in infrastructure, especially in developing countries.


In reality the big push for revenue is coming from ETNO (the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association), representing the highly profitable European telecom industry. It's nothing more than a demand that others pay for future network upgrades (download full document from WCITLeaks.org):

Operating Agencies shall endeavour to provide sufficient telecommunications facilities to meet requirements of and demand for international telecommunication services. For this purpose, and to ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services and, where appropriate, respecting the principle of sending party network pays.


In plain English this is nothing more than a rehash of the tired argument ISPs have been making for decades about how companies like Google and Netflix are getting a free ride on their networks. It's just as nonsensical now as it has always been. Without the billions of dollars spent annually developing, deploying, and maintaining search engines, media delivery, cloud storage, and numerous other services ISPs would have no customers for their broadband offerings to begin with.

What ETNO is proposing is essentially to shoehorn Internet traffic into a 20th century PSTN model where every hop a packet takes across any network can be metered, measured, and billed to the originating network in order to pad telco profits. If Deutsche Telekom needs to upgrade their infrastructure maybe they should have invested the 480 million euros in profit they declared for the first three months of this year.

And we need the ITU why?


The real question here isn't whether these proposals will be adopted. They won't. In fact it's entirely possible not a single modification to existing rules or recommendations will come out of the WCIT conference because it would require unanimous support from all countries.

What you should be asking is whether it's time to put the ITU out to pasture. They don't necessarily need to disappear entirely. They could simply return to their roots as a standards body for infrastructure providers. Given their almost non-existent role in building the Internet as we know it today, though, it's hard to see any reason to give them control over its future.

More news

Previous Next

Related news

 

8 user comments

15.12.2012 8:14

They are leading us backwards? We are in the 21st century now.

25.12.2012 9:36

Originally posted by SomeBozo:
They are leading us backwards? We are in the 21st century now.
That was sarcasm, Sheldon
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Dec 2012 @ 9:37

Ignorance en masse is still ignorance.

35.12.2012 15:39

WCIT is all about to control the free-Internet we all know today:
http://rt.com/usa/news/un-internet-itu-packet-385/

Even the Internet Co-creator urges action against ITU, a branch of the U.N. attempts to rule the Web (900 regulatory proposals).
http://bgr.com/2012/12/04/vint-cerf-opp...et-regulations/

Join #OpWCIT
Flyer: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8_eBWLCYAAYm2b.jpg:large
Pad: http://pastebin.com/HZdAGC9i
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...d&v=UXwMjQRO6Bo

In Sum Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VMExwG...player_embedded

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Dec 2012 @ 18:55

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

47.12.2012 17:59

I thought it was the 22 century... and as long as information is uncensored and unfiltered I don't care whos the regulatory board is.


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

58.12.2012 12:05

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
I thought it was the 22 century... and as long as information is uncensored and unfiltered I don't care whos the regulatory board is.
Perhaps if we live to see the year 2101 it will be accurate to consider it the 22nd century (whether A.D. for 'anno domini' or C.E. for "common era"), but not before then.

68.12.2012 12:12

The only thing I want to come out of these treaty talks is an agreement to designate as a criminal act of felony the intentional purveyance by anyone, individual, business enterprise or state actor, of malware intended for 1) theft of intellectual or financial property or 2) physical or operational damage of industrial and other institutional control systems, with conviction to warrant large financial compensation extracted by and lengthy imprisonment for the perpetrators.

Or would you prefer to have unrestrained proliferation of malware such as Stuxnet, Storm, Flame or Shylock and so many others (all perniciously worse as time passes)?

If so, then you're more likely to be among the miscreants behind that sort of criminal activity who trumpet "Freedom of the Internet!" as a smokescreen, or affiliated with a state actor who wants to retain the ability to conduct clandestine cyberwarfare or industrial espionage with zero oversight or acknowledgment.

Thus all the more valid to have uniform legal code treatment among nations for the actions and activities involved with purveyance of malware. Embedding that principle within an international treaty seems legitimate to me.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Dec 2012 @ 12:12

78.12.2012 16:42

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
I thought it was the 22 century... and as long as information is uncensored and unfiltered I don't care whos the regulatory board is.
Yes this include censorship, filtration, data retention, pay for sending big files to other countries, etc. or: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense...otocol_for.html
That is why we are like going back to the 20 century, when the telecommunication companies now want to take over & rule the internet. A "Internet-Police-like" where people have to pay for $$$.

"The ITU is like that creepy guy at the bar trying to get your number"
So for those unbelievers: We already have been experience Internet-blackouts like in Syria where the American Internet prove-tors Companies shootout Syria internet under America Govt. command. This and more is the power that the U.N. is after; even Washington is against 'cos like the song say: "Everybody wants to rule the world"

UPDATE:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012...+All+content%29
http://readwrite.com/2012/12/07/itu-lea...et-strikes-back
Proposal PDF: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Merged%20UAE%20081212.pdf
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Dec 2012 @ 19:57

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

810.12.2012 20:22

UPDATE
ITU confirmed: the "proposals" is now “off the table”
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/wc...espeed=noscript


Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest user comments

News archive