So says this BBC story by Alfred Hermida. It continues:
It is seen as arrogant and determined to remain the sheriff of the world wide web, regardless of whatever the rest of the world may think.
It has even lost the support of the European Union.
Like David Davis has even lost the support of Gordon Brown.
It stands alone as the divisive battle over who runs the internet heads for a showdown at a key UN summit in Tunisia next month.
The stakes are high, with the European Commissioner responsible for the net, Viviane Reding, warning of a potential web meltdown.
“Responsible for the net”, is she? I’d always heard it was Al Gore.
“The US is absolutely isolated and that is dangerous,” she said during a briefing with journalists in London.
If any of the assembled journalists thought to ask her what exactly this danger was, or why the net is liable to melt down unless the Iranians get a share in running it, Mr Hermida does not tell us about it.
“Imagine the Brazilians or the Chinese doing their own internet. That would be the end of the story.
The end of the story… yes, you could say that. Later the article warns that the US faces “opposition from countries such as China, Iran.” I wonder why. Mr Hermida declines to keep me company in my wondering; he doesn’t express any curiosity as to whether the Chinese and Iranian authorities might have any other motive than a selfless desire to share the burden of Icann’s labours, or the American authorities any other motive than nationalism for wishing to fend them off.
AmEx has posted a superb parody which makes another good point:
Britain has an image problem when it comes to broadcasting.
It is seen as arrogant and determined to remain the sheriff of international news dissemination, regardless of whatever the rest of the world may think.
It has even lost the support of the US. It stands alone as the divisive battle over who runs the World Service heads for a showdown at a key UN summit in Tunisia next month.
Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: And then read this Eurosoc article about former Swedish Prime Minister (and UN Special Envoy to the Balkans) Carl Bildt’s editorial in the International Herald Tribune arguing that the setting up of an “international mechanism, controlled by governments” would be “profoundly dangerous” and would be likely to result in “theocrats or autocrats around the world getting their hands on the levers of control.” (Hat tip: Dan.)
Mr Bildt’s line of argument is well expressed, but not at all unusual. Many share his view, including many non-Americans. I am, alas, not surprised that none of these arguments were alluded to on Mr Hermida’s article.
In the face of opposition from countries such as China, Iran and Brazil, and several African nations, the US is now isolated ahead of November’s UN summit.
Oh no, Mali and Benin are lined up against the US too. Can Uncle Sam withstand the pressure?
On the table are European proposals for some kind of international forum to discuss principles for running the internet.
The heart sinks.
The heart does indeed sink but this is the sort of journalism which we are forced to pay for in this country. A claim such as “Imagine the Brazilians or the Chinese doing their own internet. That would be the end of the story.” would, by any normal unbiased news service, be treated with the utmost scepticism if not outright laughter, but not by the BBC. It’s quite clear that the BBC has an agenda here – to present the USA as the villain of the piece while truly villainous countries such as China and Iran are given an easy ride.
I can at least sleep easy at night knowing that I don’t help fund the despicable BBC’s ‘news’ output.
The US, as the most powerful country by far can afford to isolate itself from countries whose opinion hardly matters. The BBC is a home for frustrated empire types. If they can’t rule the world, why should anyone else?
Good for you David!
Be sure to mention you save 120+ pounds a year to as many people as possible.
Looking at the number and “threateningness” (new word!) of the TVLA gestapo ads, I’d say quite a few more than we think are boycotting the Gramscian Broadcasting Corporation.
Rob,
Yes, it’s bad enough having to watch (and read) the BBC’s output as a non-payer – to do so in the knowledge that I was helping to fund these dangerous idiots would, I think, be unbearable. I last paid a licence fee in 1987 (I was living in a shared house at the tie) – I’m sure if the British public was made more aware of how they can safely avoid paying then we could bring the BBC to heel. Until that time there’s no hope.
Somehow I think the US is holding all the trump cards on this one.
The EU, “opinion formers” at the Beeb, the dictators and one party states all object to the nasty freedom the internet has given us ordinary folk. It may just start putting ideas into the uppity people’s heads. They might start questioning the perceived wisdom handed down by the enlightened elites.
For the EU of course there’s also the loss of a ‘nice little earner’. Never mind that they’d tax and regulate the thing to death.
I doubt there’s really that many actual users in Europe who would relish the prospect of an EU regulated internet!
Eursoc points out
Former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt has made an impassioned plea to the EU to rethink its position on opposing US regulation of the internet.
Writing in Tuesday’s International Herald Tribune, Bildt argued that in refusing to countenance any change in “ownership” of the net, the US had the reluctant support of most of the internet community
If Sweden supports the US, shouldn’t that be good enough for the BBC?
The Eurocrat’s reference to China appears odd in view of the history of this dispute.
The EU switched sides following complaints from a group of nations led by Iran, China and Brazil that leaving the Internet in control of just one country “lacked legitimacy.” Eurocrats claim that what the US is describing as the EU’s “shocking and profound” change of direction is merely a move to the middle ground between the two camps.
http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/890/The_Internet_War.html
I dont think there will be any surprise when the American rightly tell the EU and associated dictatorships to bugger off.
The internet was invented by the USA and the root servers are there. The WWW was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, an Englishman. Handing over the internet would be an economic and defence disaster for the USA and it will never happen.
It’s funny/tragic that none of these nations have produced revolutionary innovations, goods or services of their own – and then shared them. They are nothing short of parasites , refusing to changeor become innovative, yet feeding off nations that take risks and actually advance this dirtball we live on.
Shouldn’t the focus be the other way round?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/default.stm
The BBC just gets worse!
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=160890
“The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which operates radio services in 43 languages, will terminate its Thai-language service at the end of the year, the “Nation” daily reported Monday.
The paper, quoting a source in London from where the programmes are produced and aired, reported that the 65-year-old service would be shelved due to cost- cutting measures.
The BBC is said to be focusing more attention on the World Service in Arabic and had asked the Foreign Office of the Commonwealth (FOC) for 45 million pounds to establish an Arabic language television channel for the Middle East and North Africa.“
O/T Here we go again….!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4352192.stm
Ray Nagin,
“We are going to continue to monitor the storm and at a moment’s notice people should be ready to evacuate”
…and I would add…
“…and we have parked up the buses and plan to leave them there”
The BBC have a major problem here as well:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=365765&in_page_id=1773
I suspect the best bet would be to turn off the BBC. No one watches it anyway.
It’d save us all money and the agony.
Webb’s back….and looking into his crystal ball, what future does he see for the Bush presidency?……
‘Bad omens’ for the White House
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4353070.stm
“…..Mr Bush’s presidency is already in a mess, and criminal indictments could all but finish it off….”
Yeah, whatever Justin……
Will the BBC be promoting this weekend’s festivities for the Battle of Trafalgar? showing on tv live footage?
will they be showing old black and white movies about trafalgar?
or even as a token gesture “master and commander” with russell crowe?
come on BBC do something for a change..show us all that there is light at the end of the tunnel….
Ian, if the Daily Mail is the moral guardian of the nation then anyone vaguely normal is off to burn in Hell anyway. Quality original drama commissioned from private production companies is amongst the things that a much slimmed down BBC should be providing, along with nationally important events and impartial, intelligent news coverage – it’s the endless repeats and moronic ‘will this do’ dirge which should be binned.
btw, saying that ‘nobody watches’ the BBC is as ludicrous as your earlier statement somewhere that the current economic state of Britain is the worst ‘ever’. Exagerration is the last refuge of those without a coherent argument.
I wouldn’t say that the current economic state of the UK is sound.
There’s certainly no boom feeling! Most rational economic watchers think we’re on the edge of a very nasty patch.
P.S. The Daily Mail is the reason the Tories are the force they are today!
Eamonn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/default.stm
Did a monkey take that photo?! No professional photographer can be that bad surely?
Come to think of it, thqat looks photoshopped to my entirely untrained eye. Clarke and Cameron (for I think it is he through the blur) are looking in completely different directions. In fact Cameron’s head looks like a cutout on a stick held up in front of the lens. Oh what wits those retards at the BBC are.
P_L well if you get an infinite number of monkeys armed with cameras etc etc
O/T
The BBC have asked for questions that they can ask Hugo Chavez.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4350254.stm
Here are some questions that haven’t made it.
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200510180529
O/T
More BBC/Hugo Chavez
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2005/10/homework-for-readers-of-this-blog.html
” i can’t believe that the fawning idiocy published by the bbc represents the majority of comments. who are these people? clearly they have never been to venezuela, and don’t know any venezuelans. do they not know who robert mugabe is? do they not find chavez sucking up to such a thug offensive? what planet are they from?
anonymous 2 | 10.18.05 – 8:02 am | #”
I wonder if he has been to this website?
Goodness, such an outpouring of accolades and prayerful respect on (D)HYS for Saint Hugo of Caracas!
Why do I have the feeling that the same accolades — from the same sort of people — would have been directed at Saint Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe only a few years ago?
Why do socialists never learn from repeated lessons?
Will we in the West have to pick up the tab for feeding or offering asylum to the starving/fleeing people of Venezuala once Saint Hugo’s economic and agricultural policies bear exactly the same fruit as all other Communist/socialist economic programs have in the past?
Let’s make the BBC pay for the (future) starving Venezualans. C’mon Beeb, there’s no justification for those fat expense accounts and lavish junkets in an age where people are starving to death. . .
Since most of this here Internet thing runs on servers in the States it means at the end of the day that the EU and China (ably assisted by their friends at Yahoo! who help the commies catch pro democracy campaigners…) can go do to themselves what them darned Yanks do to Turkeys at Thanksgiving…..with extra cranberry please! (And NO, BBC it was NOT a fake turkey all those years ago in Baghdad despite your best efforts to carry that silly story forward like your two year old ‘recent news’ about God and Bush….) jeez what do you have to do to read NEWS nowadays – buy the Daily Star?
O/T (again – sorry)
The comments are excellent!
“In the ME, we used to call the BBC Al-Jazeera for Infidels!”
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2005/10/homework-for-readers-of-this-blog.html
If Mali, Benin et al are so woried about the bad old US will they use some of their US aid money to set up their own servers….? Thought not! I would love the US to turn the things off and see the EU etc squeal!
Thanks TomL,
These blog comments show that not everyone in the world buys into the Beeb’s bullpuckey — no matter how much they try to make it seem like the US is alone against the rest of the people of the world.
Well, we now have them on record. When Hugo starts implementing his gulags, we can throw it in the Beeb’s face about how much they worshipped Saint Hugo.
Of course there’s always stealth edits and “lost” archives. . .
On the US standing alone, I understand that Ms Reding’s position doesn’t carry the full weight of those countries that she claims to represent. A small example is the UK government’s support for the US position!
The news that Kenneth Clarke has graciously bowed out of the Tory leadership contest will, I’m sure, come as a sad loss to many commenters here, I therefore would like to propose a minutes silence…………
Thank you.
Susan,
Yes, it is good to know other people in other countries can see it too. It is hard to believe people like the BBC would buy the Chavez-Hero myth.
Sorry, that’s rubbish. Of course they would buy it, he’s a left winger. What was I thinking?
Tom,
Clarke was too old, he said so himself.
O/T
Ian,
“Will the BBC be promoting this weekend’s festivities for the Battle of Trafalgar? showing on tv live footage?”
This pisses me off as much as you. They wont do a thing. To think how much of a fantastic historical occasion it is.
Bet they have a short bit of it online. Then that will be it. Thats your lot, move on.
Still, I am sure the History channel will have loads. Which oddly, we have the “choice” of purchasing. And even more odd,if we dont pay for it we dont get sent to jail.
Disgusting.
TomL
“Clarke was too old, he said so himself.”
He may have been a sweaty corpulent Europhile Tory traitor, prepared to sell England down the Swany but he wasn’t TOO OLD!……………He was also the beebs favourite choice for a while………………………………..he also recognised sarcasm.
David Davis isn’t the BBC’s man in the Conservative Party leadership race. On tonight’s news, the political correspondent Nick Robinson (for American contributors, NR is Sgt Bilko’s doppelganger) commented on Davis emreging from the House of Commons after acquiring the greatest number of votes of the four candidates that he “was wearing a forced smile”. Perhaps. Then followed praise for their new man, David Cameron, who wanted the UK to apologise to Iraq because our Army took action to save two of its soldiers from being beheaded. DC is definitely a BBC-type.
Later on the same news came a statement from Caroline Hawley in Hallabja, Iraqi Kurdistan, that Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988 with “weapons sold to him by the West”. WTF goes through her mind? Does she still not know which two countries sold Saddam almost all of arsenal? One was Russia, and the other was ……. let me think now…..
Oops, second last sentence. Insert “his” between .. Agh, forget it.
“Does she still not know which two countries sold Saddam almost all of arsenal?”
More importantly does Peter Hill-Wood know? Women and football ah Allan,cha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C.
Question: Do any of the current Conservative Party leadership candidates attract the votes of the readers of biased-bbc ?
Why
Why
This thing about turning the internet over to the UN is laughable. As people have pointed out here and elsewhere, the root DNS resides in the US. IN fact it takes up several floors in a very large building and costs quite a bit to administer. So, the first obstacle to someone like the EU or UN taking over the net is to replicate that, and we all know competent the UN is when it comes to commercial scale projects…
The second obstacle is the control of the regional DNS servers. Those servers pass out information to local servers in their area, such as Europe/North Aftica, Asia-Pacific, Americas and other such locations. They all get *their* info from the DNS root in the US, so the UN can replicate and mirror the Root DNS as much as they like, but they won’t be able to do anything useful with it unless they convince the often private administrators of these servers to change them to send requests to the UN Root server.
Then there’s the matter of the changes that the UN will inevitably want to make to TCP/IP in order to make it more controllable. My hunch is that the ITU wants control of the net in revenge for the fact that the US managed to develop and implement a working, scalable and successful internet in the same time it took the ITU, essentillay an adjunct of the UN, to come up with their first draft proposals for their own internetwork. Anyway, if the UN somehow manages to gain control of the net, they’ll want to implement changes that bring it more in line with the ITU spec and more in line with the wishes of their favourite dictators and politburos aka China, Iran, the EU at al.
And there’s final, insurmountable hurdle. Changing the protocols that alow computers to communicate across the ‘net would require those changes to be made on every single computer in the entire world. At last count, that’s several billion computers, all of which will have to be updated to take account of the new protocols that the UN will inevitably want implemented. An impossible task. An economic nightmare the likes of which we have never seen before.
Tom,
“he also recognized sarcasm”
Oooooo, Matron!
Chemical Weapons,
A man from Holland has been charged with supplying chemical agents to Saddam. I saw something else about it the other day, but can’t find the link.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/28/113447.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Yes I saw Nick Robinson.The arragant little s..t seems to think its him and his mates who are electing the next leader. As the BBC also seem to want anyone to win but David Davis he has just got to be the man. Could it be that Davis has intimated that he might close them down. No wonder it suddenly seems so important to him.
” could be your next prime minister ” he said in a panicky tone.
Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that the EU and the UN have decided they want control over the Internet just as the blogosphere has taken off, and has broken the socialist/tranzi ruling class’s monopoly over the media?
I don’t. Clearly the Oil-for-Palaces scandal, Rathergate, etc. are upsetting the powers that be quite a lot — including the hopelessly tranzi BBC. They want control over the Internet because they want to shut up the blogosphere and return everything to “normal.”
Don
Brilliant! “Retired Empire Types made my day”
You mean we’ve lost the support of the EU? (gasp!) No! I’m just so devastated…NOT!
Susan,
Excellent point.
Jay D. Dyson has a take on the subject at hand.
So… what contribution have the UN and the EU made to the internet that they should be taking it over?
I understand that the U.S. has already stated that control of the internet is “non negotiable”. That’s my stance too. If you want your own internet, Kofi, build it. They won’t come.
Presumably you’re going to shut down this site when the BBC “Have Your Say” turns into a discussion forum? People will be better off and have more exposure by posting comments about bias directly on the BBC site.
In your view what’s the least bias news service in the world?
Anon –
That’s “least biasED” – it’s an adjective. If, on the other hand, you mean “LEAST bias-news service” (compound noun), in the sense of “most objectionable”… well, it would have to be your own noble employer
anon,
You don’t have to repeat yourself. Your comment was loud enough to be heard when you first made it on Andrew’s thread above.
The question of Bias is irrelevant if people are no longer jailed for refusing to fund the institutionally leftist broadcaster.
The BBC should chose it’s future: subscription or death.
archonix: “…An economic nightmare the likes of which we have never seen before.”
Right you are. Where I work, some bozo in system security came up with the bright idea of using a comm system OTHER than TCP-IP, in a too-clever scheme to keep hackers from telnetting into our systems. As you seem to know well, this is NOT the way to solve the hacker problem!
They’ve been playing with an alternate system for more than two years now, can’t get it going, and TCP-IP, which is supposed to have been taken out of our systems at the beginning of this fiasco is still functioning! We can STILL telnet from one system to another, in spite of being told that we can’t. I had to SHOW one of those “big brains” that telnetting was still possible! LOL!
My personal dream about this whole silly turn of events is to have someone… say Bush… tell the UN, “Sure… come get the root servers– IF you think that’s safe!” Then post the 82nd Airborne around them :). They’d probably also bump into the teensy-weensy but ever so significant US phenomenon of armed citizenry protecting the root servers.
As long as the US is in control of the root servers, we can rest assured that any idiot who wants to make an even bigger idiot of himself will have the freedom to do so.
Hmmm… come to think of it, that has TV series potential…
Scene: A futuristic, but battered and war-torn building in which The Guardians stand armed watch over The Servers, protecting them from the Evil Sociofreaks…
Hmmmm…