Does the Internet belong to one country?

[Big Shed]

It appears Stephen Conroy is only playing in the Junior League with his Internet filter (rumoured to be abandoned)

Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed (http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/obama-internet-kill-switch-proposed-20100618-yln6.html?autostart=1)

Frightening prospect indeed:(

[Sebastiaan56]

Conroy's plan is ridiculous and will make the insulation scandal look like minor cheese.

My understanding is that there are 2 internets, the one we are on here and a military one that no one knows about. The one we are on is supposed to be hosted on millions of local servers to keep the distribution non local and therefore avoid catastrophic failure. I dont know how he could bring it down in China, Russia etc. The military one would not be a problem I suspect.

[HazzaB]

Hey Fred,

You are right a very frightening thought, we were without Internet on Wednesday for about 6-7 hours, and the locals still haven't stopped talking about that, "couldn't check the weather to see if I could go and play golf" was the silliest thing I heard.
How would the economy work if all the money doesn't get swapped about in cyber space every night (except friday, saturday and sunday), and how would we get our gear so we can go into the shed??? It's too much I'm going for a lay down.:C

HazzaB

[Pusser]

Conroy's plan is ridiculous and will make the insulation scandal look like minor cheese.

My understanding is that there are 2 internets, the one we are on here and a military one that no one knows about. The one we are on is supposed to be hosted on millions of local servers to keep the distribution non local and therefore avoid catastrophic failure. I dont know how he could bring it down in China, Russia etc. The military one would not be a problem I suspect.

How do you know about the one that nobody knows about?:doh:
The internet was developed so that a nuclear strike could not bring down the ability to exercise command and control as the network did not depend on any single server or path between points.

[Groggy]

There is one internet and a number of military intranets. The military intranets are firewalled from the internet and can be cut off instantly if desired.

Most militaries have both a restricted and a classified intranet, only the restricted intranet having a portal to the internet itself. There is no 'military internet' as such (unless you still count the ARPANET as military) though there are some very large military networks.

[Waldo]

What a complete demonstration of arrogance.

Bluddy :censored2: :angfire:

[hughie]

...and they wonder why we call them some of them seppos. Arrogance out of control to believe its their national asset.

I dare say if they did, it would arise again slowly off shore and there the control would totally gone for ever, then what?

[blackhole]

I am sure the terrorists have other means of communicating rather than relying on the internet.

Either the political forces that are driving this idea are really stupid or they are using it as a smoke screen to hide their real agenda.

[Sebastiaan56]

There is one internet and a number of military intranets. The military intranets are firewalled from the internet and can be cut off instantly if desired.

Most militaries have both a restricted and a classified intranet, only the restricted intranet having a portal to the internet itself. There is no 'military internet' as such (unless you still count the ARPANET as military) though there are some very large military networks.

Thanks for clearing that up Groggy, it is probably the intranets I have been told about and misunderstood.

[cultana]

...and they wonder why we call them some of them seppos.
:rotfl:
Long time since I have heard that out in public.. Normally confined to an old group from the 60's/70s.

[cultana]

To some extent such a move will only hurt the US side as they will be locked behind the switch.

Each country has its own intranet and in essence the internet only links up each country. Yes it would mean that you could not access your favorite tool supplier in the US.
India is one country that will suffer badly as it is full of outsource industries linked to US companies.

[jimbur]

Yes it would mean that you could not access your favorite tool supplier in the US.

Now where did I put my fountain pen:D

[paulsmithx]

It gets better...privacy?

Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html)

[cultana]

It gets better...privacy?

Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html)

And you are surprised??

[two fingers]

...and they wonder why we call them some of them seppos. Arrogance out of control to believe its their national asset.

I dare say if they did, it would arise again slowly off shore and there the control would totally gone for ever, then what?


Now try reading post #14 and tell me what you think of the aussie government attitude...

For the most part most countries are latch ons to what the US and Canada developed - the internet. If Australia is too cheap to develop their own in country network that doesn't rely on outside influence for it's access to the rest of the world then that's their problem not the US's.

I don't think it takes a genius to see why such a plan would be put in place... It's ridiculous and stupid to think they would try to turn off the internet on a whim as some are alluding to here. I know you all hate the US but come on folks think a bit. No more threatening than suspending air traffic during 9/11 or... when a volcano erupts... the stuff of conspiracies.

[Sebastiaan56]

It gets better...privacy?

Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html)

Time to get some really subversive sounding sites going and fill them with Mary Poppins to play with these idiots heads. And I pay taxes for this?????

[kiwigeo]

For the most part most countries are latch ons to what the US and Canada developed - the internet. If Australia is too cheap to develop their own in country network that doesn't rely on outside influence for it's access to the rest of the world then that's their problem not the US's.



The US might be able to make it difficult for the internet to function 100% but I don't see how they could shut it down completely.

This from Wiki:

The Internet is a globally distributed network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_network) comprising many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body. However, to maintain interoperability, all technical and policy aspects of the underlying core infrastructure and the principal name spaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_space) are administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbers) (ICANN), headquartered in Marina del Rey, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_del_Rey,_California). ICANN is the authority that coordinates the assignment of unique identifiers for use on the Internet, including domain names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name), Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, application port numbers in the transport protocols, and many other parameters. Globally unified name spaces, in which names and numbers are uniquely assigned, are essential for the global reach of the Internet. ICANN is governed by an international board of directors drawn from across the Internet technical, business, academic, and other non-commercial communities. The US government continues to have the primary role in approving changes to the DNS root zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone) that lies at the heart of the domain name system. ICANN's role in coordinating the assignment of unique identifiers distinguishes it as perhaps the only central coordinating body on the global Internet. On November 16, 2005, the World Summit on the Information Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society), held in Tunis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis), established the Internet Governance Forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum) (IGF) to discuss Internet-related issues.

[jimbur]

Time to get some really subversive sounding sites going and fill them with Mary Poppins to play with these idiots heads. And I pay taxes for this?????

You've probably used at least two key words in your post - subversive and heads:D Watch out for men in suits with bulging armpits.

[jimbur]

I suppose that at the moment the internet provides the US with more useful information than it provides aid and succour to its 'enemies'. The same could be said for the United Nations in New York. Will that be closed down if narrow domestic policy thinks it a diminishing asset.
Cheers,
Jim

[cultana]

It gets better...privacy?

Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html)

Actually it is worth reading these two articles:
Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history - Communications - News (http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm)

Inside Australia's data retention proposal - Communications - News (http://www.zdnet.com.au/inside-australia-s-data-retention-proposal-339303862.htm)

In some ways the problem is not if one country, ie USA, wants to have a kill button, but what is actually happening in your own little national intranet.

Consider the above and also the use of a nationally controlled secret black list for a national filter, then add in the current intended e-medical number concept and you start having a nanny state.

I was talking to a person who lived through the fascist governments that WWII was fought against. His comment is that here in this democracy we as a nation are going way further than those governments did. What is more worrying is that peopel don't seem to realise what is actually happening, or worse are pleased for it to occur.

[Master Splinter]

About the most the US could do would be shut down the top level domain servers located in the US. That only leaves the top level servers in europe, japan, australia. south america, africa and even new zealand. Top level domain updates would run a little slower, ho-hum.

And as for recording internet history - that's going to be in the same bucket as the internet filter; it just raises the bar for entry a little higher, and it's the sort of thing that will turn around and bite some politician in the #### when details of their expense rorts/shady deals/illicit affairs/policy 'leaks' become known thanks to it.

I don't have problems with the concept, as long as the logs are freely available to browse by all Australian citizens (it's not like Echelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_%28signals_intelligence%29) isn't doing this snooping already, let's face it). I'd love finding out what websites members of parliament browse!

[cultana]

I don't have problems with the concept, as long as the logs are freely available to browse by all Australian citizens (it's not like Echelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_%28signals_intelligence%29) isn't doing this snooping already, let's face it). I'd love finding out what websites members of parliament browse!

Hmm.. Ok Echelon is public knowledge but not everything sorry.

As for your wish about the logs being public, forget that part straight off. Never going to happen.
What will occur is a tightening of what is being scanned/checked off against a user. Everything is traceable from money movement, phone , snail mail and just wait till CCTV comes outside your door. Ok call it scare mongering but going by the track record of various democratic governments about this small planet this is going to come slowly and you the public will hardly notice.

As for the US and killing the internet all it is supposed to do is at best shut off USA from the world and probably the internal systems. Anything outside the US will not be affected just go slower than normal slow.
As i pointed out earlier it will cause big disruptions to all those US companies that have outsourced to India etc.
In many cases more damage can be done by directly attacking the outsourced sites. This would disrupt a lot more than one may consider. besides it would also hit much of the global economies than just the US.

[kiwigeo]

Kinda strange when people get up in arms about the government having access to their private data but are quite happy to entrust privately run entities such as Facebook and Google with their personal details.

[Big Shed]

This thread is drifting off course somewhat, be nice if the original question could be addressed rather than all the "conspiracy theories":(

[hughie]

I know you all hate the US but come on folks

That you don't, its an assumption. I was married in the US of A and have a lot of fond memories as well as many friends there.

The point I was making is that some behave with amazing arrogance, an arrogance born out of past glories that have little if anything do with today.

[cultana]

This thread is drifting off course somewhat, be nice if the original question could be addressed rather than all the "conspiracy theories":(

The US can not kill all of the internet. It can but kill off access to the US part of the internet.

The only way that all the internet can be killed off is if a switch code was installed in all the various servers and routers world wide.
Add to that, this US switch to kill the internet had access to the code to shut down every server ad router.
Now that is a conspiracy theory.:oo:

[Master Splinter]

China actually makes a lot of the physical hardware used for the backbone of the internet - if anyone has a back door into it, my dollar would be on them!!!

[Sturdee]

. Anything outside the US will not be affected just go slower than normal slow.


My understanding was that this forum were hosted on a US server as well as many other Australian sites are.

In addition most of the internet traffic goes through the US so if it was shut down there would be major disruptions to the net. Also Google and Microsoft are US companies and would have to shut down their facilities world wide.

Peter.

[underfoot]

so if it was shut down there would be major disruptions to the net. .
just made me wonder what would happen without the net ?:rolleyes:
for a start I'd have an extra hour and a half of my day I'd need to fill,
(probably just waste it fishing or surfing or carving)

[jimbur]

I think it resolves into two parts.
The first is the US president wanting power to stop internal internet usage in his own country to prevent 'subversive/enemy' communications. This would have unwanted (for the rest of the world) effects but could of course be considered reasonable if a state of war exists.
The second part is far less clear. The US might feel they have the technical expertise to stop all communications on the internet throughout the world. This case would be analogous to blocking commerce on the seaways of the world for combatants or neutral countries alike. This would be against all international law.
Cheers,
Jim

[damian]

It is clear some of you don't understand how the internet works. Kiwigeo, good try - didn't work. I can't think of a simple analogy unfortunately.

Anyway, obfuscating your activity is trivial. VPN is a really obviouse tool and I am sure that if the Australian government actually does introduce it's silly filter offshore vpn hosts will prosper. There are so many caches nowdays that even if you killed all the top level servers dns would still chug along. There are national gateways and that is how china keeps control, but there are too many now in most western countries. I remember well when all our traffic went out through melbourne, that was 20 years ago.

Besides I thought obama's kill switch was only search engines, and the major ones for that matter ?

[kiwigeo]

It is clear some of you don't understand how the internet works. Kiwigeo, good try - didn't work. I can't think of a simple analogy unfortunately.



It's true I'm not an IT guru but I do know enough about the internet to know that the US is going to have a very hard time shutting down the internet outside it's borders. Correct me if I'm wrong but the internet was originally designed with the aim of creating a network that couldn't be taken down in it's entirety.

[caity]

Now try reading post #14 and tell me what you think of the aussie government attitude...

For the most part most countries are latch ons to what the US and Canada developed - the internet. If Australia is too cheap to develop their own in country network that doesn't rely on outside influence for it's access to the rest of the world then that's their problem not the US's.

I don't think it takes a genius to see why such a plan would be put in place... It's ridiculous and stupid to think they would try to turn off the internet on a whim as some are alluding to here. I know you all hate the US but come on folks think a bit. No more threatening than suspending air traffic during 9/11 or... when a volcano erupts... the stuff of conspiracies.



Dude....
Aussies are not cheap. We're just not that close to fascism that we need to control what our people can and cannot view on the internet. Honestly, if one was that desperate to find out terrorist information, they would find a way around firewalls (like that US kid did not too long ago), or use means other than the internet.
Also, in response to your belief it is "our" problem and "not the US's", the two countries have been tight allies since WWII, closer than either of us are to England. So if an issue in Australia were to arise, the US, due to it's alliance with us, would be caled in for help, as we have done fro the US (Sorry, where did most of your international support come from with the twin towers?) :ausflag: :((

[two fingers]

The US might be able to make it difficult for the internet to function 100% but I don't see how they could shut it down completely.

This from Wiki:

The Internet is a globally distributed network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_network) comprising many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body. However, to maintain interoperability, all technical and policy aspects of the underlying core infrastructure and the principal name spaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_space) are administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbers) (ICANN), headquartered in Marina del Rey, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_del_Rey,_California). ICANN is the authority that coordinates the assignment of unique identifiers for use on the Internet, including domain names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name), Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, application port numbers in the transport protocols, and many other parameters. Globally unified name spaces, in which names and numbers are uniquely assigned, are essential for the global reach of the Internet. ICANN is governed by an international board of directors drawn from across the Internet technical, business, academic, and other non-commercial communities. The US government continues to have the primary role in approving changes to the DNS root zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone) that lies at the heart of the domain name system. ICANN's role in coordinating the assignment of unique identifiers distinguishes it as perhaps the only central coordinating body on the global Internet. On November 16, 2005, the World Summit on the Information Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society), held in Tunis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis), established the Internet Governance Forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum) (IGF) to discuss Internet-related issues.



The problem being bantered around is that the US, if needed, will shut down what they can if needed. Most countries have done little to establish their own networks that don't rely on the US's infrastructure - similar to GPS. No they can't shut it down completely but they can cause some serious slow downs - but that's not their problem.

[two fingers]

That you don't, its an assumption. I was married in the US of A and have a lot of fond memories as well as many friends there.

The point I was making is that some behave with amazing arrogance, an arrogance born out of past glories that have little if anything do with today.

If you don't have an ignorant hate for the US then you are in a minority in this country... so I apologise to you if that's the case...


What a load of rubbish! Do you not understand why a country would want to have the option of shutting down a potential threat? It has nothing to do with arrogance... Time and time again it has been shown the effectiveness of cyber attacks and the effect they have on a country. Any country's government that doesn't have a contingency plan in place are at best obtuse but probably simply stupid and or cheap...

[two fingers]

Dude....
Aussies are not cheap. We're just not that close to fascism that we need to control what our people can and cannot view on the internet. Honestly, if one was that desperate to find out terrorist information, they would find a way around firewalls (like that US kid did not too long ago), or use means other than the internet.
Also, in response to your belief it is "our" problem and "not the US's", the two countries have been tight allies since WWII, closer than either of us are to England. So if an issue in Australia were to arise, the US, due to it's alliance with us, would be caled in for help, as we have done fro the US (Sorry, where did most of your international support come from with the twin towers?) :ausflag: :((

I can't say that I've lived in a lot of countries but of the ones I've experienced Australia takes cheap to a level I've never seen before. It's a way of life here.

Are you serious! this has nothing to do with censorship! This has to do with cyber terrorism. The US is close to the top for least censorship prone countries on the planet! Most of the internet you down load originated in the US, but I digress...

An analogy I used in this thread has to do with GPS. The US put up all the satellites. The EU is now putting up their own... But if the US decides to alter the signal and all your GPS's no longer work that's your problem not theirs as everyone latched on to them - on the cheap. It's the same with the servers and infrastructure for the internet that exists in the US - it's the back bone of the internet and most countries have done nothing to alleviate this. Why should they worry about it? It's not their problem.

Tight allies! Try to say that to the person on the street. I have never seen such hatred for the US that is so unfounded than I have in australia. To the outsider you'd think the hatred was taught in school. Visions of little australians rocking back and forth chanting I hate america, I hate america...

[two fingers]

It's true I'm not an IT guru but I do know enough about the internet to know that the US is going to have a very hard time shutting down the internet outside it's borders. Correct me if I'm wrong but the internet was originally designed with the aim of creating a network that couldn't be taken down in it's entirety.

Bingo! The US doesn't want to shut down the internet. They simply want a plan in place to halt a potential catastrophic cyber attack. It's something every country should have in place... I can only think of three countries that might actually have such a plan: US, UK and Canada. Australia, hmmm maybe in about 10 years if at all.

[jimbur]

Does the following, taken from the ABC news site add anything to the conspiracy theories or even to this discussion?

WikiLeaks has built an information repository it thinks is foolproof. Instead of secret documents physically changing hands, they are anonymously sent to digital drop boxes and stored on servers around the world. Finally, they are posted on the WikiLeaks site.

Cheers,
Jim

[damian]

It's true I'm not an IT guru but I do know enough about the internet to know that the US is going to have a very hard time shutting down the internet outside it's borders. Correct me if I'm wrong but the internet was originally designed with the aim of creating a network that couldn't be taken down in it's entirety.

It's possible you misunderstood my comment. I was complimenting you on a good effort at explaining it, not questioning your understanding of it.

Unfortunately to properly understand why the internet is robust you have to understand tcp/ip, packet structure and routing protocols, encryption and dns for that matter. I don't know any simple way to explain all that. I guess that's why network administrators are amongst the highest paid of all IT professionals (I'm not one but I was a Unix sys admin for some years and understand the basics).

Ok try this:

You have a road network. Your at home and your sending out "cars" to some destination and they come back with parcels of information. You can block roads but your cars can find other ways around the blockages. Even if they put a road block on some critical point in the road network and it can't be bypassed and all cars are being searched before being let through you have several tools to hide stuff in the cars so it can't be found. You can also disguise your car as an ambulance or diplomatic vehicle. Also if some of your cars get stopped you have an infinite supply of them so you can send out more until enough come back to put your parcels of data together into a coherent document/picture/whatever.

That is (very badly) how tcp/ip works.

I just read the later comments. Australia was an early adopter/developer of internet. The origional was developed by the US military and expanded to a few US universities. Our academic institutions took it up early. As I said our first overseas link was to the us out of melbourne. I can't remember the years or the details. Anyway now the us is just a part of a world wide computer network linked by all sorts of devices from bluetooth to satellites. The US is not surprisingly still the largest user and has the largest network but truth is if the US suddenly ceased to exist the network would stay up and chug along quite happily. Mostly there would be some administrative changes. It is really NOT like GPS where the US made a signifigant capital expenditure and made that available to us all free.

And the obama proposal, keeping my analogy above, is bascially like turning off all your GPS navigators, and most people haveing no paper back up road maps.

Hope that helps.

[kiwigeo]

I guess that's why network administrators are amongst the highest paid of all IT professionals (I'm not one but I was a Unix sys admin for some years and understand the basics).



Wish they'd pay IT help desk people more..maybe then I'd get a straight answer when I ask them a question and maybe they wouldnt keep telling me to go upstairs and see my IT Manager whenever I give them a problem they cant solve (Im on an oil rig 200km off the WA coast....the only thing upstairs is a drill floor and a bunch of burly roughnecks).

Your car analogy pretty well describes TCP/IP for a layperson.

[damian]

There is a cear heirarchy in IT. Helpdesk is at the bottom, it's the job you get when you start. Next are programmers, they don't get paid as much as most others. Next is probably sys admins, then data base admins and at the top of the technical payscale are network admins, assuming they are good. CCIE's get the sort of salaries you associate with CEO's. This of course doesn't count sales people and managers and other non technical staff.

I was lucky. I stepped out of engineering for a few years and went straight to 3rd level support. Even then IT is a pretty yukky place to work. I've done many things over the years and eng is amongst the most rewarding, probably no. 1. For me anyway...

[jimbur]

If anyone wants a good read (if somewhat outdated) then Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll is excellent. It has spies from both sides, hippy astronomers, the internet, computer viruses, recipes for biscuits and is absolutely true.
Cheers,
Jim

[hughie]

What a load of rubbish! Do you not understand why a country would want to have the option of shutting down a potential threat? It has nothing to do with arrogance... Time and time again it has been shown the effectiveness of cyber attacks and the effect they have on a country. Any country's government that doesn't have a contingency plan in place are at best obtuse but probably simply stupid and or cheap..The threat to a country like the USA is small as far as the establishment goes. The threat to the populace is far greater and of less consequence on the Government of the day other than voting power.

The key services have far more sophisticated security and tracking methods than most folk realize or imagine. I would be very ,very surprised if a successful attack was made on the USA. But this is not the place to discuss any details of any US security arrangements in regards to internet or anything else.

I do understand that they would have back up plan. Nor did I suggest other wise,my comments were directed at the individual who in the USA who is endeavouring to bring it about and his high handed attitude.That '' we'll shut it down goddammit, its our right.'' etc etc.That was the way it struck me at the time.

<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Tight allies! Try to say that to the person on the street. I have never seen such hatred for the US that is so unfounded than I have in Australia. To the outsider you'd think the hatred was taught in school. Visions of little Australians rocking back and forth chanting I hate America, I hate America...

International Arrivals-2010 Year-To-Date Analysis (http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2010-I-001/table6.html)

We sure like to visit the place you say we hate, :? Hmm I guess your travel experiences in this matter to be different from mine. From my wandering about over seas for several years I bumped into some very serious anti US sentiment. I am not sure what part of Oz you live in as I have not seen it anything like it here at all.
Other than a certain ethnic group that seems to hate all, other than themselves.
__________________

[jimbur]

I gather the bill has now been passed.
cheers,
Jim

[snowyskiesau]

I gather the bill has now been passed.
cheers,
Jim
Apparently this power of cutting off communications by the president has existed since 1941.
The current bill (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/105377-senate-homeland-security-committee-approves-cybersecurity-bill-) adds a few restrictions to how the president can activate this power.

[jimbur]

Apparently this power of cutting off communications by the president has existed since 1941.
The current bill (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/105377-senate-homeland-security-committee-approves-cybersecurity-bill-) adds a few restrictions to how the president can activate this power.

Thanks Geoff. That article is the background information we needed.
Cheers,
Jim

[Rifleman1776]

The second Internet is used for educational purposes. It is much faster than this one and is being developed as a replacement for the current one. As to which country own it, I don't know. But, I do know there is an international organization which oversees it. That meets in Switzerland. OTOH, who knows what is going on we don't know about???

[jimbur]

The second Internet is used for educational purposes. It is much faster than this one and is being developed as a replacement for the current one. As to which country own it, I don't know. But, I do know there is an international organization which oversees it. That meets in Switzerland. OTOH, who knows what is going on we don't know about???

I think the "known knowns" are complicated enough:D
Cheers,
Jim