United Nations "Internet" Summit held sans internet

Do you lose any and all direction in your life if your internet goes down for more than 20 seconds or so? Sadly, the same goes for us, but imagine the hysteria that ensued when participants realized the United Nations "Internet" summit was completely devoid of web access. Amazingly enough, the one conference where free WiFi was all but guaranteed failed to deliver, as the techies working for the "luxury resort hotel on the Athenian Riveria" couldn't iron out the connectivity issues. The hotspot initially presented the dreaded "could not connect to the network" error, and after repeated troubleshooting efforts were completed in vain, conference organizers apparently gave up on ever finding a solution. So, are you rethinking that decision to pick up one of those snazzy 3G ExpressCards yet?

[Rohit Kapur @ Oct 31st 2006 5:17PM]

Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?

[RM @ Oct 31st 2006 8:49PM]

It's a little TOO ironic. And yeah, I really do think.

[Razor @ Oct 31st 2006 5:19PM]

How ironic that the UN wants to pull the U.S. away from controlling the standards used on the internet and at the same time they can�t provide internet service during their �big� internet meeting.

Remember boys and girls, liberalism always generates the opposite of its stated intent!

[Todd @ Oct 31st 2006 5:26PM]

In the immortal words of Nelson from the Simpsons...

...HA HA!

[Jean-Michel Decombe @ Oct 31st 2006 5:34PM]

Too funny. The UN in charge of the Internet? No, thank you very much. Well, at least they can enjoy the pool and other facilities without guilt now. That was the initial point, no?

[CharlieX @ Oct 31st 2006 5:38PM]

See the problem was they should have been trying to connect to "the internets"

[enzo @ Oct 31st 2006 5:49PM]

There were probably too many dump trucks in the way...

[chimp @ Oct 31st 2006 5:51PM]

wow... such a curiosity 8-)

my home: http://www.photomastership.com

[Rex @ Oct 31st 2006 5:54PM]

Hahah one of the guys in there looks like Jerry Springer!

[Sam @ Oct 31st 2006 5:57PM]

Did they blast a round lottery ball through the tubes th unclog the internets?

[keith @ Oct 31st 2006 6:00PM]

i guess no one there had an airport express? :D

this is rather sad though. even without apple hardware (which makes it stupid simple) how hard is it to setup a multi-point wireless access network?

another sad blow to the UN's reputation.

[M? @ Nov 1st 2006 7:41AM]

Rogue bases are a serious problem when building such networks. Airport
Express units and computers acting as soft basestations are a constant
hassle. Every IETF, RIPE and similar meeting has had the network staff with
baseball bats hunting for those.

From people who were actually there instead of sitting at home speculating
I've heard things that tend to point towards unexperienced operators that
optimise for the wrong things (too short DHCP lease was mentioned; one
should not go below 30 minutes in this context, whereas this was more like
30 seconds. Common newbie problem.) rather than issues that a bunch of
uncoordinated base stations would only have made worse.

[marz @ Oct 31st 2006 6:17PM]

Engadget should link to where I can read more about stories. How do we even know stories are true if there are no external links.

[Costas @ Oct 31st 2006 6:32PM]

It is true...

...and it's actually old news!

It happened a couple of days ago on the first day of the meeting...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6090394.stm

[James @ Oct 31st 2006 6:32PM]

As a European, I think it's great that a nation as insulated, pro-corporate and self-interested as America gets to decide how the internet works.

For example, I'm really looking forward to tiered access, which will hopefully ensure that poor people will not be able to access good bits of the internet anymore.

To be sure, I'd feel the same about any particular country having so much power over something like the internet.

What's wrong about giving this power to a collective entity, setup precisely to monitor and control an individual nation's abuse of power?

Is working together as a global population, something I believe the internet fosters better than any previous human invention, really so hard for so many Americans to support?

[Alcaron @ Oct 31st 2006 6:42PM]

As an American I think it's great that a collection of nations as self-important and self-righteous as you gets to decide what to do with OUR invention.

Working together as a global population...oh you mean like the UN...yes yes I see your point now...lets take the internet out of the hands of "Americans" (too daft to even know its not government controlled, or too racist? Or just don't care because it lessens your cry?) where it currently, by and large, WORKS, and give it to a HIGHLY political, HIGHLY irrelevant body of so called "authority". Yes, that makes perfect sense.

If it isn't broke...DON'T FIX IT.

This is nothing more than pissy europeans attempting to wrest control of the internet from us because they dislike our policies elsewhere but there is neither jack nor sh*t that they can do about it.

The day you can prove it is being incorrectly run and you have a better suggestion for who should run it as a result (and if thats the UN you need not bother applying) is the day we will TALK about MAYBE considering it. In the meantime, if you don't like this bandwagon...feel free to get off.

[Alcaron @ Oct 31st 2006 6:48PM]

Oh and one more thing...try actually READING about tiered internet access before you go making an absolute buffoon out of yourself suggesting such stupid nonsense.

Net Neutrality deals with the PROVIDERS. Meaning we can't tell "the intarnets" to slow down a website in France just because we dont like him or hes not paying. It means PROVIDERS can say "google isn't paying for their share, we dont give them priority over yahoo, who does pay their share" not "omg you are poor, hahaha, no google for you!"

Heck so far the VAST majority of telco's talking about tiered provision have ONLY talked about it from the hosted company's side, NOT the end user. Which means if the PROVIDER (which even if the UN does take control, they have ZERO say in this matter) decides you arent paying for the amount of bandwidth your website is using, they can decide to change your WEBSITES priority ONLY on THEIR network...you get the picture now? If you hit a site in france, and you are in germany...net neutrality in the US means abso-positively-lutely NOTHING to you.

So please, yes, inform us about how you brilliant europeans can run the internet better, as you clearly know so much about the subject.

[everrette powell @ Nov 1st 2006 8:02AM]

Sorry something that limits the use to others because of finance is something I can't support. If people around the world thought like you the poor wouldn�t be able to get educated either.

[James @ Oct 31st 2006 7:00PM]

Sorry to cause offense old bean, not quite sure how I managed that.

To address:

1) Even if the internet really were an American invention (I'd check that out on Wikipedia if I were you, I think Mr Berners-Lee may be sick of being presumed American), it's not particularly relevant to my point. I think that the internet can be used, quite literally, as a tool for furthering human co-operation and understanding. Failing that, it's good for cheap shopping. The idea that the administration and control of something so powerful should rest in the hands of one nation is a bad one. This is obvious, and not related to anything other than the fact that such a concentration of power is a bad thing - ie: your citing of my apparent dislike of US policies is completely irrelevant. Incidentally, I made no mention of government control, but even you must see that ICANN is an American institution with ties to the government and corporations, as well as American self-interest.

However well the US is doing right now at controlling the internet is certainly no guide to its future handling - a collective responsibility should manage to avoid such a pitfall as the 2-tier internet that everyone was up in arms about for about 5 minutes.

2) The UN represents everyone. Not just pissy Europeans.

3) The UN is very far from perfect. Obviously. However surely you can see that it the ideals behind it are to be lauded, that it is, to put it boldly, a GOOD IDEA? As for its politics, I'm confused - isn't the point that it represents all nations of the world? And as such is completely non-partisan almost by definition? No doubt you perceive it as liberal, or apply some other such ridiculously over-simplified label to it. I'm glad to see that critical thinking and political education remain high on your priority list.

Cheers.

[James @ Oct 31st 2006 7:03PM]

Oops, you got in there first without allowing me to respond first.

As I've tried to make clear, and have no doubt failed, I was trying to show how control over a global institution like the internet should not fall in the hands of one country, as they COULD perhaps be able to mess it up for everyone without anyone being able to do anything about it.

As you nicely put it yourself.

My comments pertaining to net neutrality were a "thin end of the wedge" example of this, and certainly not the entirety or even the point of my argument.

Toodles.

[Alcaron @ Oct 31st 2006 8:06PM]

"I think it's great that a nation as insulated, pro-corporate and self-interested as America gets to decide how the internet works."

I think that MAY be how you offended.

[mark @ Nov 1st 2006 2:35AM]

I think you are getting confused between "the internet" and the world wide web. America "created" the delivery mechanism thru ARPA/DARPA and Tim Berners-Lee put the "front end for dummies" on it. Read the wikipedia article in a bit more detail

[mark @ Nov 1st 2006 2:36AM]

I think you are getting confused between "the internet" and the world wide web. America "created" the delivery mechanism thru ARPA/DARPA and Tim Berners-Lee put the "front end for dummies" on it. You should read the wikipedia article in a bit more detail old bean

[Chocolate Starfish @ Oct 31st 2006 7:07PM]

Perhaps the UN should stick to writing non-binding resolutions that condemn others' actions but don't actually make any call to action. At least they can enforce those.

[dextro @ Oct 31st 2006 7:17PM]

These people do know that the internet as we know it was actually inverted in Cern, SWITZERLAND right?

[Ian Jardine @ Oct 31st 2006 7:26PM]

James,

Where on earth do you get your "attitude" from? And your no sure how you offended?

Quote
As a European, I think it's great that a nation as insulated, pro-corporate and self-interested as America gets to decide how the internet works.
Unquote

Wow is there really a need for this "attitude on engadget?

By the way B-L did not create, or invent, the "internet" and never has made such a claim... This prominent Brit converted the US created and paid for by the USA, internet, into an easily used tool by creating the "Web" interface an easy way to maanage your waya round the internet. We all have a great dela to thank B-L for and he never made any money out of it either.

By the way James don't make any assumptions about my Nationality either.

[Lee Gibson @ Oct 31st 2006 7:41PM]

"setup precisely to monitor and control an individual nation's abuse of power?"

Because regardless of its intent, the UN doesn't ever actually succeed at this goal.

[Jean-Michel Decombe @ Oct 31st 2006 7:45PM]

Hmm, sorry to correct you fellows but the Internet was invented about 40 years ago in the USA. The Web is not the Internet, although it surely became the killer application of the Internet. I was sending email back and forth and even chatting online long before the Web came about.

Anyway, who invented what is not the point. Who cares? There is no doubt in anyone's mind, I am quite certain, that the UN's stated goals are laudable. Now it remains to be determined whether the UN, with its track record, are ready to take over control of something that actually works quite well except in those UN countries that still limit personal freedom and whatnot (unfortunately, the USA is slowly becoming one of them). Of course, it is great that the UN are studying the whole system, making recommendations to improve it, and providing a more balanced point of view, as everyone will benefit from such an endeavor.

[James @ Nov 1st 2006 4:27AM]

Interesting - it appears that no-one who got "offended" has actually addressed any of the points I made.

Firstly, I'm well aware of the history of the internet. I won't bother going into this any more, it's clearly an emotive subject and is completely irrelevant to what we're supposed to be talking about.

I'd like to apologise for causing offense, it always amazes me how closely some Americans associate a criticism of their country with a personal criticism - I assure you this was not my intention.

As I clearly stated in my original post, I would feel unhappy about any country, or for example the EU, having control over the internet. The idea that no-one can totally control the internet is controversial, and again irrelevant - the level of power the US, as a single and understandably self-interested entity, has over the internet is still too much.

Yes, they have done an admirable job of, to date, keeping it free, unpolitical and stable, and of course they are to congratulated. Again, irrelevant! This does not, as I've already stated, give any indicator to future behaviour.

To the guy who said I shouldn't use this forum to make deliberately "immotive" [sic] comments - I'm bewildered. I'm on topic (talking about the UN regulating the internet rather than a single country), I don't see a problem with making apparently emotive comments on a forum (although the emotion surely comes from others, I'll agree that my comments could be inciting emotion).

My basic point: IF the UN worked properly (for which it absolutely needs US support), surely giving it control over the internet, as global body representing all continents and all nations, is a better way of regulating and controlling the internet, as a tool for furthering human co-operation and understanding?

It seems to me that the only possible answer to this is thinly-veiled nationalism. I have no problem with people holding that point of view despite disagreeing with it, but let's call a spade a spade, and not hide behind insulting me personally and arguing about the origins of the internet.

[Costas @ Oct 31st 2006 8:20PM]

To Ian and Alcaron...

What part of James' "insulated, pro-corporate and self-interested" comment towards the US do you think did not apply to your country's regular approach on international matters and therefore constituted an offence?

:-)

With regards to net neutrality, I too am very very worried about the US' pro-corp attitude towards this issue.

Telcos are increasingly seeing their roles in the consumer market squeezed into just one product, a bandwidth pipe (versus cable tv + telephone + internet as separate services).

The problem with this is that they are increasingly losing their ability to charge premiums from content when they are essentially getting disconnected from content providing and reduced to mere bandwidth providers.

Cable TV is getting replaced by torrents and vlogs.

Telephone is getting replaced by VoIP.

...and that's even before WiMax starts literally pulling the plugs on them!

Changing net neutrality is their last chance to command a premium on internet traffic, CableTV style!

Want the "multimedia pack" for $9.99/month or will you go for the "web pages only" service for $3.99?

Let's not give Telcos more power than they should be entitled to.

Just look at what's happening in Little America (aka Australia) where Telcos are left entirely on their own and this poor country's citizens are still getting charged by the megabyte on 200 megabyte-a-month download limit "broadband" packages!

A scary concept...

[Ian Jardine @ Oct 31st 2006 8:42PM]

Costas,

Whether the remark is true, or untrue isn't the point being made. Everyone is free to have their own opinions about anything.
Question is why lead a posting with such personally pointed remarks which are nothing to do with subject matter? The author merely used this forum for making deliberate immotive statements. Why the need? Stay on subject and leave such "stirring up" statements for some abusive/political forum Please!
Then to cap it all don't make incorrect statements about whow invented the "internet" I think the person even pointed us to the Wiki, which actually he has never read, because it gives the correct history and the correct role for (D)ARPA, CERN and B-L.

Moving on:)

Considering that the "internet" was funded from conception by the US Military (D)ARPA it has been amazingly well run and kept free from Politics for it's entire life. Those concerned over the last 40+ years are to be congratulated. It remains to be seeen if the UN can perform to the same standard. CERN, B-L have all played important parts B-L particularly transformed it into a user friendly environment.

[Tony Rayo @ Oct 31st 2006 8:48PM]

=/, their "tubes" got tied x.x.

- Tony R.

[Chris @ Oct 31st 2006 10:27PM]

um, guys, the internet is nothing more than a bunch of really small networks all hooked up together. france controls their part of it, germany thier part, china their part, and the US their part. name servers are all over the world and controled by all sorts of entities, there is even a bit of tld conflict going on out there. the US does not, in any way, control the WHOLE internet. it's just not possible. And the UN can't control it either, any more than the US Congress can, or does.

and timmy didn't invent the internet, just html/http. the internet is MUCH more than html, like irc, smtp, the various IM chats, and all the other protocols out there. even http wasn't invented by him alone, and many on the group were in the USA, including his work with dan connolly at MIT on html. tcp/ip was definatly invented in the USA, and tim would have nothing to invent if it weren't for that.

not to mention most of the funding was by DARPA. so, most of the internet was invented in the USA and funded in the USA as well (including some of tim's work).

references:
http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/html/rfc1866.txt
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/05/21/TLDA.idg/

um, yeah. so get some facts. where do I stand? if the UN thinks they can do a better job than ICANN, let them put a bid for it on the next contract renewal, just like everyone else. wish them luck.

[Juaquin @ Nov 1st 2006 1:31AM]

Owned.

[James @ Nov 1st 2006 4:37AM]

Just as a quickie to mark:

The development of the "for dummies" part of the internet was the single most important step in making the internet what it is today. Without that contribution, we would simply not be talking about this right now.

I understand all the points about how the US was absolutely the prime mover in all ways (financially, intellectually, conceptually), but surely you can accept that how the internet and the WWW has developed since then is an absolute paean to international co-operation?

And hopefully you can also understand my points above which re-iterate how who "invented" the internet is not important anymore.

Finally, no-one uses old bean anymore.

[James K @ Nov 1st 2006 2:37AM]

Actually Costas, there are better plans than that in Australia. I have an adsl2+ plan with TPG which gives me a 24Mb/s download and 1Mb/s upload, which I can tell you is FAST! I get a 30GB download limit, which is shaped to a 128/128k connection with no excess download charges when the 30GB limit is exceeded. It costs $59.95/month, which is not bad at all. Unfortunately adsl2+ is currently only available in major cities. You just have to avoid Telstra at all costs.

As far as net neutrality goes, it is a must. A necessity. The Telcos don't need the control over bandwidth.

[everrette powell @ Nov 1st 2006 7:50AM]

that is too funny they decide the faith of millions even billions of lives, but they can't get a WiFi connection to work! oh yea world peace here we come.

[Matt B @ Nov 1st 2006 9:59AM]

It's the F'n UN!! I'm sure there is someone there who spoke the language of the router's tech support line.

[romangame @ Nov 6th 2006 2:27AM]

yeah. switzerland. not the usa and not gore. but 'at' cern not 'in' cern, cause CERN is an institution close to Lausanne.
Rules on Internet Governance should be something like the Geneva Conventions, if ever.