OECD report: Internet is five orders of magnitude more efficient than telephone networks. No need to stop him from developing!
The latest report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD ), devoted to the global market of Internet traffic, published on October 17, consists of 99 pages, which are read as a fascinating detective story. It contains detailed statistics on Internet providers, traffic exchange points, Internet bandwidth growth, self-organization mechanisms governing the worldwide network. But I want to dwell on the comparison of the Internet and telephone networks, which is often used in the report.
Since its inception, the Internet has shown steady exponential growth (today, 20 average broadband subscribers generate as much traffic as the entire Internet in 1995). Its bandwidth far exceeds the capabilities of any other global communication systems. At the same time, the price of traffic at international exchange points, in the equivalent of per-minute payment for voice communication, is $ 0.0000008 per minute - five orders of magnitude lower than in telephone networks. This is partly due to the technological superiority of packet-switched networks, but this difference is not so great, especially since telephone networks have long been using packet switching. The key difference is different.
One of the main reasons for the prosperity of the Internet is its decentralized, self-regulating nature. Traditional channels of communication have long been thoroughly regulated by bureaucratic procedures. The Internet literally works “on parole”. The survey conducted by the compilers of the report covers 4,331 providers in 96 countries, which together account for 86% of global Internet traffic. There are 142,210 exchange agreements between them. 99.51% of them are verbally, without signing any official documents!
Have you heard about the "Italian strike"? This is when workers begin to strictly follow all the rules and job descriptions. Usually this means almost complete stop of work. Compared to the Internet, traditional telecommunications companies have been working in continuous “Italian strike” for years and decades. Whereas the ease with which you can connect to the Internet, become a provider, participate in the local, and in the future, and in the international traffic exchange leads to healthy competition and transparent, reasonable and fair rules of the game. Without any international treaties, codes and departmental regulations.
')
In the practice of international traffic exchange, there are no "offshore". If two providers enter into an agreement, then they do so in the legal field of one of the two countries in which they operate. The multilayered legal pads characteristic of many other industries on exotic islands, used to circumvent curves and inconvenient local laws, are simply not needed.
In the light of these data, attempts to transfer control of the Internet to the International Telecommunication Union look particularly silly. They are criticized most loudly for the prospect of censorship and the possibility of the global network disintegrating into fenced-in national fragments ruled by local kings. But even if with all our might we strain our imagination and suppose that the authorities will not use new opportunities to suppress the freedom of speech, then such regulation bears a great threat simply because it prevents us from working normally. The Internet does not need additional regulators. Do not fix what is not broke!
Since its inception, the Internet has shown steady exponential growth (today, 20 average broadband subscribers generate as much traffic as the entire Internet in 1995). Its bandwidth far exceeds the capabilities of any other global communication systems. At the same time, the price of traffic at international exchange points, in the equivalent of per-minute payment for voice communication, is $ 0.0000008 per minute - five orders of magnitude lower than in telephone networks. This is partly due to the technological superiority of packet-switched networks, but this difference is not so great, especially since telephone networks have long been using packet switching. The key difference is different.
One of the main reasons for the prosperity of the Internet is its decentralized, self-regulating nature. Traditional channels of communication have long been thoroughly regulated by bureaucratic procedures. The Internet literally works “on parole”. The survey conducted by the compilers of the report covers 4,331 providers in 96 countries, which together account for 86% of global Internet traffic. There are 142,210 exchange agreements between them. 99.51% of them are verbally, without signing any official documents!
Have you heard about the "Italian strike"? This is when workers begin to strictly follow all the rules and job descriptions. Usually this means almost complete stop of work. Compared to the Internet, traditional telecommunications companies have been working in continuous “Italian strike” for years and decades. Whereas the ease with which you can connect to the Internet, become a provider, participate in the local, and in the future, and in the international traffic exchange leads to healthy competition and transparent, reasonable and fair rules of the game. Without any international treaties, codes and departmental regulations.
')
In the practice of international traffic exchange, there are no "offshore". If two providers enter into an agreement, then they do so in the legal field of one of the two countries in which they operate. The multilayered legal pads characteristic of many other industries on exotic islands, used to circumvent curves and inconvenient local laws, are simply not needed.
In the light of these data, attempts to transfer control of the Internet to the International Telecommunication Union look particularly silly. They are criticized most loudly for the prospect of censorship and the possibility of the global network disintegrating into fenced-in national fragments ruled by local kings. But even if with all our might we strain our imagination and suppose that the authorities will not use new opportunities to suppress the freedom of speech, then such regulation bears a great threat simply because it prevents us from working normally. The Internet does not need additional regulators. Do not fix what is not broke!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/160331/
All Articles