Slashdot Mirror

But if there is only one (is there more?) Internet backbone, then whoever owns it is a monopoly, right?... and they'll be dealt with in a similar maner how monopolist in operating system market where dealt with...

I would say several companies own pieces of the internet backbones, but I'm not really sure how many do, let me google... According to Russ Haynal's ISP Page there are quite a few Major Internet Backbone MAPs.

" no, they only own the ports onto the net, not the net itself."

We're not talking about owning the entire internet. What I'm talking about is the interlinks that make the internet, "The Internet".

http://navigators.com/isp.html

"27.9% - UUNET/WorldCom/MCI
10.0% - AT&T
6.5% - Sprint
6.3% - Genuity (level 3)
4.1% - PSINet (cogent)
3.5% - Cable & Wireless
2.8% - XO Communications
2.6% - Verio
1.5% - Qwest
1.3% - Global Crossing"

The first three carry the lion's share of the communications, and are all...the phone company.

"i'd gladly cut off my nose if i could be sure that by doing so, they and other greedy scumbags would cease to exist."

We all are "greedy scumbags". Some just hide it better than others.

Other useful charts are at http://navigators.com/stats.html

A map of global internet connectivity is http://navigators.com/globe16b.gifhere

The real question is - where does the Internet go from here?

Other useful charts are at http://navigators.com/stats.html

A map of global internet connectivity is http://navigators.com/globe16b.gifhere

The real question is - where does the Internet go from here?

The telcos don't get a slice for internet traffic? Since when?Who owns the internet backbones?

27.9% - UUNET/WorldCom/MCI
10.0% - AT&T
6.5% - Sprint
6.3% - Genuity (level 3)
4.1% - PSINet (cogent)
3.5% - Cable & Wireless
2.8% - XO Communications
2.6% - Verio
1.5% - Qwest
1.3% - Global Crossing

Hmm, these names are sounding awfully familiar!

Telling someone they are wrong without saying why makes you look ummm stupid - lookie here: Here is where Verio is bigger than Global - here and 883 other google related articles which I won't subject all of ./ to talks about when Clinton signed off on NTT buying them.

The holdup in the fed was over a foreign business interest owning and operating a piece of "critical infrastructure" like a fibre optic grid. Big deal. There are two relevant counter-points to such an argument:

First, there are several other large backbone companies that are still very much U.S.-owned: Qwest, Level3, UUNet/WorldCom/MCI, C&W, etc. In fact, a handy breakdown of major backbone providers is available at http://navigators.com/isp.html. Global Crossing is a small piece in a big pie.

Second, regardless of who "owns" the network, what finally matters is who has access to the physical equipment. If, in some bizarre act of twisted politics the government of Singapore decides to use STT to hijack the American telecom system, all the U.S. government has to do is break down the doors of the buildings housing all the routers. It's impossible for a foreign company to provide "remote" cable connectivity because of the physical element - all they're really doing is paying people to run the network and taking in the profits.

Regardless, however, it's reasonably certain that whatever "deal" was brokered between the U.S. government and STT probably involves an open-ended permit for monitoring traffic on the wire. Yet another gift brought to you by the Department of Homeland Security...