Internet Fragmentation: Difference between revisions

Line 18:

* '''Character:''' Whether fragmentation is generally positive, negative, or neutral

==Technical Fragmentation==

==Types of Fragmentation==

===Technical Fragmentation===

When the Internet concept was first articulated, a guiding vision was that

every device on the Internet should be able to exchange packets with any

other device. Universal connectivity was assumed to be a primary benefit. But

there are a variety of ways in which the original concept has been eroded

through a complex evolutionary process that has unfolded slowly but is

gathering pockets of steam in the contemporary era.

Four issue-areas are reviewed, including Internet addressing, interconnection,

naming and security. Within these categories, 12 kinds of fragmentation of

varying degrees of significance are identified:

1. Network Address Translation

2. IPv4 and IPv6 incompatibility and the dual-stack requirement

3. Routing corruption

4. Firewall protections

5. Virtual private network isolation and blocking

5

6. TOR “onion space” and the “dark web”

7. Internationalized Domain Name technical errors

8. Blocking of new gTLDs

9. Private name servers and the split-horizon DNS

10. Segmented Wi-Fi services in hotels, restaurants, etc.

11. Possibility of significant alternate DNS roots

12. Certificate authorities producing false certificates

==Governmental Fragmentation==

===Governmental Fragmentation===

The most common imagery of “governmental fragmentation” is of the global

public Internet being divided into digitally bordered “national Internets”.

Movement in the direction of national segmentation could entail, inter alia,

establishing barriers that impede Internet technical functions, or block the flow

of information and e-commerce over the infrastructure. Pressure and trends in

this direction do exist, as do counter-pressures.

Six issue-areas are reviewed, including: content and censorship; e-commerce

and trade; national security; privacy and data protection; data localization; and

fragmentation as an overarching national strategy. Within these categories,

10 kinds of fragmentation of varying degrees of significance are identified:

1. Filtering and blocking websites, social networks or other resources offering

undesired contents

2. Attacks on information resources offering undesired contents

3. Digital protectionism blocking users’ access to and use of key platforms

and tools for electronic commerce

4. Centralizing and terminating international interconnection

5. Attacks on national networks and key assets

6. Local data processing and/or retention requirements

7. Architectural or routing changes to keep data flows within a territory

8. Prohibitions on the transborder movement of certain categories of data

9. Strategies to construct “national Internet segments” or “cybersovereignty”

10.International frameworks intended to legitimize restrictive practices

==Commercial Fragmentation==

===Commercial Fragmentation===

A variety of critics have charged that certain commercial practices by

technology companies also may contribute to Internet fragmentation. The

nature of the alleged fragmentation often pertains to the organization of

specific markets and digital spaces and the experiences of users that choose

to participate in them, but sometimes it can impact the technical infrastructure

and operational environments for everyone. Whether or not one considers

commercial practices as meriting the same level of concern as, say, data

localization is of course a matter of perspective. Certainly there are significant

concerns from the perspectives of many Internet users, activists and

competing providers in global markets. As such, the issues are on the table in

6

the growing global dialogue about fragmentation, and they are therefore

discussed here.

Five issue-areas are reviewed, including: peering and standardization;

network neutrality; walled gardens; geo-localization and geo-blocking; and

infrastructure-related intellectual property protection. Within these categories,

10 kinds of fragmentation of varying degrees of significance are identified:

1. Potential changes in interconnection agreements

2. Potential proprietary technical standards impeding interoperability in the

IoT

3. Blocking, throttling, or other discriminatory departures from network

neutrality

4. Walled gardens

5. Geo-blocking of content

6. Potential use of naming and numbering to block content for the purpose of

intellectual property protection

==References==

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 * '''Character:''' Whether fragmentation is generally positive, negative, or neutral
-==Technical Fragmentation==
+==Types of Fragmentation==
+===Technical Fragmentation===
+When the Internet concept was first articulated, a guiding vision was that
+every device on the Internet should be able to exchange packets with any
+other device. Universal connectivity was assumed to be a primary benefit. But
+there are a variety of ways in which the original concept has been eroded
+through a complex evolutionary process that has unfolded slowly but is
+gathering pockets of steam in the contemporary era.
+Four issue-areas are reviewed, including Internet addressing, interconnection,
+naming and security. Within these categories, 12 kinds of fragmentation of
+varying degrees of significance are identified:
+. Network Address Translation
+. IPv4 and IPv6 incompatibility and the dual-stack requirement
+. Routing corruption
+. Firewall protections
+. Virtual private network isolation and blocking
+. TOR “onion space” and the “dark web”
+. Internationalized Domain Name technical errors
+. Blocking of new gTLDs
+. Private name servers and the split-horizon DNS
+. Segmented Wi-Fi services in hotels, restaurants, etc.
+. Possibility of significant alternate DNS roots
+. Certificate authorities producing false certificates
-==Governmental Fragmentation==
+===Governmental Fragmentation===
+The most common imagery of “governmental fragmentation” is of the global
+public Internet being divided into digitally bordered “national Internets”.
+Movement in the direction of national segmentation could entail, inter alia,
+establishing barriers that impede Internet technical functions, or block the flow
+of information and e-commerce over the infrastructure. Pressure and trends in
+this direction do exist, as do counter-pressures.
+Six issue-areas are reviewed, including: content and censorship; e-commerce
+and trade; national security; privacy and data protection; data localization; and
+fragmentation as an overarching national strategy. Within these categories,
+kinds of fragmentation of varying degrees of significance are identified:
+. Filtering and blocking websites, social networks or other resources offering
+undesired contents
+. Attacks on information resources offering undesired contents
+. Digital protectionism blocking users’ access to and use of key platforms
+and tools for electronic commerce
+. Centralizing and terminating international interconnection
+. Attacks on national networks and key assets
+. Local data processing and/or retention requirements
+. Architectural or routing changes to keep data flows within a territory
+. Prohibitions on the transborder movement of certain categories of data
+. Strategies to construct “national Internet segments” or “cybersovereignty”
+.International frameworks intended to legitimize restrictive practices
-==Commercial Fragmentation==
+===Commercial Fragmentation===
+A variety of critics have charged that certain commercial practices by
+technology companies also may contribute to Internet fragmentation. The
+nature of the alleged fragmentation often pertains to the organization of
+specific markets and digital spaces and the experiences of users that choose
+to participate in them, but sometimes it can impact the technical infrastructure
+and operational environments for everyone. Whether or not one considers
+commercial practices as meriting the same level of concern as, say, data
+localization is of course a matter of perspective. Certainly there are significant
+concerns from the perspectives of many Internet users, activists and
+competing providers in global markets. As such, the issues are on the table in
+the growing global dialogue about fragmentation, and they are therefore
+discussed here.
+Five issue-areas are reviewed, including: peering and standardization;
+network neutrality; walled gardens; geo-localization and geo-blocking; and
+infrastructure-related intellectual property protection. Within these categories,
+kinds of fragmentation of varying degrees of significance are identified:
+. Potential changes in interconnection agreements
+. Potential proprietary technical standards impeding interoperability in the
+IoT
+. Blocking, throttling, or other discriminatory departures from network
+neutrality
+. Walled gardens
+. Geo-blocking of content
+. Potential use of naming and numbering to block content for the purpose of
+intellectual property protection
 ==References==