Posted on 12/24/2018 10:56:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In September, Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive and Alphabet chairman, said that in the next 10 to 15 years, the internet would most likely be split in two — one internet led by China and one internet led by the United States.
Mr. Schmidt, speaking at a private event hosted by a venture capital firm, did not seem to seriously entertain the possibility that the internet would remain global. He’s correct to rule out that possibility — if anything, the flaw in Mr. Schmidt’s thinking is that he too quickly dismisses the European internet that is coalescing around the European Union’s ever-heightening regulation of technology platforms. All signs point to a future with three internets.
The received wisdom was once that a unified, unbounded web promoted democracy through the free flow of information. Things don’t seem quite so simple anymore. China’s tight control of the internet within its borders continues to tamp down talk of democracy, and an increasingly sophisticated system of digital surveillance plays a major role in human rights abuses, such as the persecution of the Uighurs. We’ve also seen the dark side to connecting people to one another — as illustrated by how misinformation on social media played a significant role in the violence in Myanmar.
There’s a world of difference between the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, known commonly as G.D.P.R., and China’s technologically enforced censorship regime, often dubbed “the Great Firewall.” But all three spheres — Europe, America and China — are generating sets of rules, regulations and norms that are beginning to rub up against one another. What’s more, the actual physical location of data has increasingly become separated by region, with data confined to data centers inside the borders of countries with data localization laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Among other stupid things dumb jackass Obama did, giving up control of the internet was one of the biggest.
that’s certainly good news for syndicates like google.
You’re right. Obama was helping the Chinese on that one...
Here’s some good news... something we’re doing right:
https://www.apnews.com/80749f2dd5a84bb49b7aceb1a4c43b8e
Idaho lab protects US infrastructure from cyber attacks
By KEITH RIDLER
You can’t ‘give up the internet’. If other groups want to make their own, it will happen regardless of our wishes.
Chinese one will prolly have less censorship
Netflix internet, porn internet, and regular internet.
This is not an issue.
For any of us in the US.
Wonder how easy it would be to clandestinely bridge the Chinese network with the US network. Wonder how regulated and controlled our network will be, too. All in the name of our safety.
Shudder to think how the Old Gray Statist Slut would define the “best internet”.
DNS can do a pretty good job of controlling this.
China’s Net goes nowhere, fast. The EU’s Net has a little more air, but goes down a year later. Our Net is controlled by Google, MS and NSA, so it’s safe from collapsing. Heh.
Unless you don’t trust these entities. Especially Google. The scary thing is that any control will not be obvious to the typical user - re: shadow banning websites.
I caught that, too. They probably think the “best internet” is where Communists monitor the ‘Net and de-platform those pesky Trump supporters.
Also, which one will get priority. There is only one wire feeding the home. Probably the same with the upstream network. Switching would have to be done based on content.
Heh, doesn’t take much to figure out why the NYT dorks might consider Europistan or China’s net to be better, now does it?
There isn't a single one of the freedoms mentioned in this piece that the editorial board of the NYT hasn't already suborned, subverted, twisted, misrepresented, or evaded already. This is, recall, the board who hired that avatar of racism and misandry Sarah Jeong to play in this very cyber arena. It's purely hypocritical to hear them deplore the suppression of the Uighurs and defend and promote someone who has called for the public castration of white men by lottery. The only "freedom" in question here is their own, to do anything they want to anyone they want. So please, spare us the viewing with alarm.
5G is coming, 100x the wireless speed we have today, not possible without a Trump administration
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-355136A1.pdf
“An Accenture study pegs 5G’s potential at 3 million new jobs, $275 billion in private investment, and $500 billion in new economic growth.”
RE: 5G is coming, 100x the wireless speed we have today, not possible without a Trump administration
The whole 5G framework can be divided into two key technology: 1) the modem chipset and 2) router infrastructure.
On one hand, the modem chipset is installed in your phones and other sensors that need to be connected to the Internet.
The current 5G modem chipset patent (IP) is held by:
Huawei (China), Qualcomm (US), Samsung (Korea), MediaTek (Taiwan), Intel (US), Apple (US) (rumoured).
On the other hand, the router infrastructure is placed in base stations all over the buildings and towers. It directly talks to the 5G modem in your mobile phones and translates your 5G requests to the Internet.
The current 5G router patent (IP) is held by:
Huawei (China), Nokia (Finland), Ericsson (Sweden), ZTE (China) Surprise Hah?, Cisco (US), Samsung (Korea).
There are two hidden traps from this 5G technology that other people might not tell you:
The router and the modem chipset must be compatible, and therefore a standard must be settled in order for them to talk.
The modem chipset is deeply coupled into the system on a single chip with CPU and GPUs. The system is normally shipped as a package.
If you hold the 5G modem IP in a SOC (System-on-chip), you can also bind your CPU and GPU IP in a package. That means whoever controls the 5G IP would also control the whole market of the CPU and GPU intellectual property. If you hold the 5G router standard, you can also control the modem standard and then control the whole system standard.
For example, if the US were to allow Huawei to sell its 5G router devices to Verizon or AT&T, then Huawei could make all of its base stations to only support its own modem standard. Then you could end up with the whole system package delivered by Huawei as well. Then the US might have to buy more devices made by Huawei in order to use 5G.
Huawei gets the full cultivation in the Chinese market and does not fear the US government. It never intends to go to the US market as well. What it focuses on is the adoption in China and the rest of third-world countries.
The Chinese government said it would perform nationwide 5G adoption using Huawei technology around March 2019. Please note that this is a market of 1.4 billion people that is US population and Europe population combined. And the Chinese government is pushing this really hard, unlike the US stuck in legislation as you can imagine.
RE: China’s Net goes nowhere, fast.
Let’s not be too cocky. See post #19 above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.