Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt Predicts the Internet Will Split in Two By 2028 -- and One Part Will Be Led By China (yahoo.com) 178
Speaking at a private event in San Francisco this week, Eric Schmidt said he believes within the next decade there will be two distinct internets: one led by the U.S. and the other by China. At the event, economist Tyler Cowen asked, "What are the chances that the internet fragments over the years?" To which former Google CEO said: I think the most likely scenario now is not a splintering, but rather a bifurcation into a Chinese-led internet and a non-Chinese internet led by America. If you look at China, and I was just there, the scale of the companies that are being built, the services being built, the wealth that is being created is phenomenal. Chinese Internet is a greater percentage of the GDP of China, which is a big number, than the same percentage of the US, which is also a big number. If you think of China as like 'Oh yeah, they're good with the Internet,' you're missing the point.
Globalization means that they get to play too. I think you're going to see fantastic leadership in products and services from China. There's a real danger that along with those products and services comes a different leadership regime from government, with censorship, controls, etc. Look at the way BRI works -- their Belt and Road Initiative, which involves 60-ish countries -- it's perfectly possible those countries will begin to take on the infrastructure that China has with some loss of freedom.
Globalization means that they get to play too. I think you're going to see fantastic leadership in products and services from China. There's a real danger that along with those products and services comes a different leadership regime from government, with censorship, controls, etc. Look at the way BRI works -- their Belt and Road Initiative, which involves 60-ish countries -- it's perfectly possible those countries will begin to take on the infrastructure that China has with some loss of freedom.
"...GDP of China, which is a big number" (Score:2)
Re: Political Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
China is effectively already its own internet. The EU seems to be doing everything they can to follow their lead. There are several smaller nations already doing the same thing.
Re: Political Nonsense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vatican City. It has a litteral wall. Made from stone.
Nope, Vatican doesn't touch the Tiber, so no litteral wall either. There's a street or a park on the other side of the wall on all its length.
Re: (Score:2)
China is effectively already its own internet
Afaict it depends what you mean by "effectively it's own Internet".
On the one hand china blocks a large number of big name western search/social/entertainment sites that dominate the Internet experiance in the west. On the other hand they certainly have not cut off communication completely.
The EU seems to be doing everything they can to follow their lead.
The EU seems to be taking rather a different approach, rather than blocking foreign corps it threatens them with legal sanctions (which it may or may not be able to enforce). This has resulted in a few sites (mostly small
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't threaten foreign corps, its rules apply to all companies, European or foreign. It's just that American companies are not used to having to obey the law so they come unstuck in European courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally laws apply to those within the jurisdiction of a government.
However the EU has decided that these laws apply to anyone interacting with an EU client, regardless of whether or not the site operator has a presense in the EU. In response a bunch of smaller american news sites seem to have decided not to take the risk and just block anyone who appears to be from Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if "effectively it is own internet" means anything.
Re:Political Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit
Don't underestimate the adversary. China's aggressively expanding their sphere of influence in Asia and Africa. Do you not see that?
If you do see that, do you not see that they'll do the same in the internet? Do you want a 'net dominated by Chinese companies, Chinese ethics, Chinese censorship?
I don't want this. I think China has an axe to grind with the US, and they'll do whatever they can to undermine our commerce -- like they have been doing in the past few decades.
Re: Political Nonsense (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if you want it or not. A global, open Internet is impossible, governments will not give up control that easily. There will eventually be a US internet, a Chinese internet, a European internet etc.
Re: Political Nonsense (Score:1)
Re: Already happening (Score:1)
Re: Already happening (Score:1)
Re: Already happening (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This is wrong. The Chinese were actually quite intrigued and interested in the Jesuits. The issue wasn't the Jesuits, the issues was with other sects like Franciscan monks who basically stated that ancestor worship was a form of devil worshiping, etc. Jesuits were accepting of such practices however. The crisis came about when the Franciscans tattle to the pope that the Jesuits were allowing devil worshiping... The pope calls back the Jesuits and leave the Franciscans and other orders like the Dominica
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, China already tries to segregate their Internet from everyone else's. The odds that they will sever every single tie to the US Internet is laughable, and if they don't do that, it's still one Internet.
China has severed the internet (Score:2)
The great firewall is becoming ever thicker. By the month.
For most Chinese, the outside internet will not exist in a few years. Nor need it. Lots of internal news and social media sites. The Chinese equivalent of StackExchange will be quite good enough. And a few carefully monitored Chinese will still have external access.
Web 3.0 (Score:5, Interesting)
In a decade you won't even have to be on the "web proper" to be networked in.
Once you get proper Web 3.0 decentralized networks running - like the Akasha beta [akasha.world] you don't need web proper. All you need to be is attached to another node, even without web-proper access and you can communicate anywhere. I hope to see neighborhood mesh networks be it WiFi or cable-over-the-fence networks, as long as you've got a machine or two somewhere connected to the web then you've got worldwide communication going. Once we figure out how to make IPFS [ipfs.io] have some reasonable naming systems the old-school web will matter less and less.
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't gonna happen! That's what you said, and I swear I won't forget that dumb remark until I'm dead! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense, it'll come right after IPv6.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can reach out to another host, then you're on a network.
If you can reach out to a host not on your network, then you're reaching to a different network.
This means the separate networks are interconnected. An "internet" if you will.
You may need to find a way to route data around.
The "web" is nothing more than the internet + a way to discover and navigate hosts and services.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I recognize that.
The Internet as we know it is pretty well thought out and purposefully built. Once you start getting into IPFS and block-chain peer to peer land you legitimately have and option to network with peer to peer chaos. No need for DNS, theoretically you could have hosts not running TCP/IP participating and huge chunks could be offline at any given time and the chaos still manages to work.
The difference:
Web-proper - managed under authority with the ability of individuals and organizat
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes and no. IPFS is interesting, but is probably completely impractical as a replacement for the web, simply because things are too decentralized and large-scale caching is usually a bad idea.
That said, the concept of a decentralized name lookup system is a good idea in theory. A better way to think of the problem, IMO, would be as a series of channels provided by some tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I cut my teeth on Netware 3.0
I helped to start an ISP.
I've got a reasonable idea of how data flows overall. One of the big components of how data flows is backbone. The ISP I worked at used Savvis back in the day, most traffic winds up going over a backbone somewhere, IP addresses are controlled by a central authority, and DNS is controlled by a central authority.
The increased level of chaos I'm referring to leaves out the need for a backbone - though having a few would help, as long as your I.P. works wi
Re: (Score:2)
What do you do if you want a low latency connection?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you go ahead and get onto spy-net instead of the wild-wild-web. OR depending on the situation you run your own fiber or private tunnel.
Re: (Score:1)
The magic in the success of these peer to peer physical networks is that each of you own your own physical nodes, not some gov / corp owning them all, and that each pair of you own the link between your adjoining land / residences, privately. No gov / corp in the world has the resources or care to police or tax that. And once you power up the two nodes, lighting up the shared fiber / cable / wifi, and then deploy encrypted routing protocols over it, they can't see inside it. So you're golden from that point
Re: (Score:2)
I can terminate fiber - did it for a company this past week. I've discussed at length how to do neighborhood networks with my buddy on the drives to work and back. When I discovered IPFS is was the answer to everything I ever wanted to get going. Private networks bridged between my local buds with firewalls and gateways to the outside so we can control what connects us together and what sets us apart? Friggin awesome! Right now I'm working on public works type project so I'm learning a little about how
BRI itself is fragmenting (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole Belt and Road initiative is running into some problems [bloomberg.com], receiving a lot of pushback from many countries that are realizing it's no picnic to be controlled by China.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not.
Re:Doesn't China essentially have their own alread (Score:5, Insightful)
You note that he said the Chinese internet versus the American internet, which is arguable but probably effectively true. That's two (big) countries that comprise about 25% of the world's population. The rest of the world has to decide what to do.
China is obvious: don't insult pooh bear, don't contradict the government, don't stir up dissent, don't rock the boat, be good happy citizen in harmonious society. America lets you say anything you want: but don't fuck with corporate interests particularly with IP, you will be thrown in jail just as quickly.
So the question is what does the the remaining 75% of the world use? They will probably pick and choose. They will probably get their entertainment and software from the Chinese internet. They will probably get their social, and their porn from the "American" internet. The question is where will they get their drugs and mutually agreed upon contraband...
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Pound sand, China. Bye. Don't let the door (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Googleowns a chunk of it, and will likely own more before the first customers.
Do it now (Score:2)
We should cut off China, and all other evil dictatorships, from the internet now. If they can't stop murdering people that disagree with them, they do not deserve to be part of the civilized world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
America too. If it can't stop murdering people of color, and punishing asylum seekers by torturing their children, it shouldn't be on the Internet.
Or... hear me out here... maybe your idea is fucking stupid and that cutting China off from a resource that provides more freedom to its citizens while giving the government jack shit isn't a bad thing.
Re: (Score:1)
The "individuals" are uniformed, and protests against such murders are criticized as anti-American, by elected politicians including the President of the United States. Our country, and society in general, does condone the murders of black people. It does not "condone crimes" because in general such murders aren't treated as crimes.
Re: Do it now (Score:2)
Does that include death by taxation?
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, despite not being an evil dictatorships the US has manager to murder plenty of people who disagree with them all over the world. Would the US murder less people if they were "cut off" from the Internet? Doubtful.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want to puhish them for their goverment. Do reverse - free education via internet
And when they set up illegal pirate networks to access that content, they get to go to jail. It seems you don't understand how it actually works under a government like China's.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Do it now (Score:1)
Err, they have already done on their own. (Try accessing content outside of China when you're there.)
Problem is the majority of Chinese people don't care. Their version of the internet revolves around talking to loved ones and buying all sorts of stuff -from rice to airtickets- over WeChat, or watching Game of Thrones, legally, on the internet (except that they prefer their locally produced shows these days). In a sense, they are living actual life.
In contrast, western people use the internet to shit post a
Re: (Score:2)
That is a good point. In a lot of ways the Chinese internet is better for them. The only stores available are Chinese; fine, and no pesky trademarks to worry about, so copycat goods are plentiful and cheap. The only social media available is Chinese; fine, that is where their friends are. Copyright doesn't exist, download whatever content you want, for free, nobody cares.
Re: (Score:2)
I gather that at one time, China had the technology to sail the world, but they figured the rest of the world was just primitive barbarians, so they didn't bother.
From a Chinese perspective, China is the world.
To paraphrase the old soviet joke, in Chinese world, world is cut off by China.
Re: (Score:3)
In reality China explored & traded as far west as Egypt and Ethiopia. They met Buddhists and Muslims, and carried their belief systems back home.
China is a massive bubble (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's supposed to be an obtuse reference to Ewan McGregor/Charley Boorman "Long Way Round" and "Long Way Down".
You are a racist asshole (also clueless) (Score:1)
You've never been to a shitty American city have you? Did you get mugged in the Chinese city or were they all civilized?
How many Americans own apartments/houses?
Here's a cluewho's 90% and who's 65% [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Given America's paranoid track record (Score:2, Insightful)
I fear for the worst. There's a lot of flippant accusations about surveilance and censorship of the rest of the world in the Chinese internet, but more than anything it's about keeping America's slimy, spying, sabotaging tentacles out of there, which is sensible.
The problem with America is that they're growing increasingly paranoid and consider all the other countries to be enemies, and have even committed hostile actions, subversion and sabotage against European networks, of everything. Chine on the other
One internet in each hand. (Score:1)
a bifurcation into a Chinese-led internet and a non-Chinese internet led by America.
I can't see that happening as all the equipment used to connect to the internet comes from China. If they make it, they can hard-wire it to work with whatever version of the intenet they please. It is the tech / manufacturing equivalent of having the intenet by the balls. I must assume that when the times comes that the chinese want to assume authority of the intenet, they will just take it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure the manufacturing is done in China (just because its cheap) but in many cases the internet equipment companies themselves are actually American and European.
The internet doesn't split (Score:2)
China wants to exclude itself from the internet and have essentially its own version of the internet where everything their politicians disagree with is deleted --- that's not splitting the internet though: that's islanding China from the rest of the world: that's damage. As we well know, the Internet wants to re-route around such damage.
I Pity Inanimate Objects Because They Cannot Move (Score:2)
Meh (Score:3)
Missing the Bigger Point (Score:2)
If you think of China as like 'Oh yeah, they're not a Nazi super-state so it's okay to trade with them,' you're missing the point.
Re: (Score:1)
It is natural for human society. At the end, the "free" in freedom (and this includes the "right" to use) means that somebody it is providing it for some "control" reason.
TCP/IP was created with a military mindset and the Internet inherited that capacity, not only in the technical but also in the political and control part. To think that we can do whatever we like in the virtual space it is an illusion, as false as to say that we can do whatever we like in the physical world. But, what to do?
The imp
Re: (Score:2)
no, it doesn't have to be natural to maim and kill others to steal from them and have power over them. many countries have rejected that evil mindset.
so what if an invention was for military purpose, there are legitimate reasons to have a military. I was talking of use of militaries to do evil, to murder, steal, oppress.
the internet has an evil control body centered in an evil country. much of the world has had enough of that evil country's nonsense.
Re: (Score:1)
I like to agree with you ... however.
What country it is not stealing from another one?
The main difference with old and new times is the stealing "method". At the end, we agree on giving something to acquire something, but the one with more power will be the one have more benefits.
You see, in Costa Rica we don't have military forces. They are not needed. But this doesn't mean that we don't have problems ... we have a lot of them, we have corruption, bad management, or lack of it. And at the end, e
Re:Missing the Bigger Point (Score:4, Interesting)
you're missing the point, the USA has even bigger body count doing evil than China, and supports a theocracy that engages in systematic oppression and genocide.
I assume you have data to back this up? Mao was responsible for ~45 million deaths. What did the US do to achieve that number?
Re: (Score:2)
Those were deaths from famine.
Deaths from Famine (Score:2)
The famine was created by Chairman Mao, not natural elements. Google The Great Leap Forward. It was truly horrendous, for everyone that died there were hundreds that went desperately hungry. All completely unnecessary.
Mao's photo hangs proudly over Tiananmen square.
Re: (Score:2)
nothing actually happened in Tiananmen square, protester being killed under martial law happened elsewhere in Beijing that day... and not thousands either.
Re: (Score:2)
nothing actually happened in Tiananmen square, protester being killed under martial law happened elsewhere in Beijing that day... and not thousands either.
"A member of the Chinese State Council estimated that at least 10,000 civilians were killed"
"In 2014, Next Magazine reported on White House declassified files, which estimated that 10,454 were killed and 40,000 were injured."
https://www.hongkongfp.com/201... [hongkongfp.com]
Re: (Score:2)
but that point is that is false sensationalism.
yes there was a massacre, yes it was horrible. but real count was 200 or more, not 10,000
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/0... [nytimes.com]
or check wikipedia, they have 200 to 10,000....haha quite a range
you've fallen victim to believing U.S. sensationalism and propaganda
Re: (Score:2)
you've fallen victim to believing U.S. sensationalism and propaganda
Well, one of those sources was Chinese. And I don't know what the real number is, but there is more than one person who has looked into it and believes it is at least 10,000, and at least one of those people has a vested interest in reporting the lowest number possible. The article you linked cites "Mayor Chen Xitong of Beijing, who is in prison for corruption" as the source for the 200 number. Not the most reliable witness there.
I very much doubt you know the number is less than 1,000. But if you ha
Re: (Score:2)
the chinese claim less than 200.
the propaganda was the ridiculous claim of thousands without facts by U.S. media and government.
the "civilians" are said to have attacked, and were NOT the majority student protesters who left peacefully. Unarmed? How do you know they didn't have bats or large rocks? If you don't know stop repeating propaganda.
The facts are very much disputed, again see major news sources like the NY Times I quoted written AFTER the emotional sensationalist drivel of the time.
*Will* split? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that split can be avoided (Score:2)
Mostly because those that can influence it pretty much want the Chinese Variant of the Internet, a network, controlled by the government and built for the benefit of the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I, like the corporations in the "free" world, control the government then yes, I do want the government to pick the winners and losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Does industry control the Chinese gov? IOW, is the Chinese Communist party controlled by industry?
Schmidt is right (Score:2)
Already. (Score:2)
Looking at the activity logs of my servers that have public IPv4 addresses, all the traffic I get already from China is spam, bot scans of web pages, and constant port scanning and SSH dictionary attacks.
On top of that, I am pretty much 100% certain that if I put up a web page of interest to Chinese in China and it got popular and the government of China didn't like then nobody there would be able to see it anymore.
If the Internet did bifurcate as Schmidt says, what would be so different?
China isn't invulnerable (Score:2)
More problems than the US.
For as much power, wealth and influence they have at the moment, their window of opportunity for world domination, eg, "The Chinese Century" is rapidly closing and they know it.
The reason Xi is tightening control is because he knows the people of China are sick of the CCP and the corruption, etc;
Also, as others have pointed out, the BRI is having problems also. Those who have signed onto it are now seeing the error of their ways
Business Opportunity (Score:2)
Someone can invent a device that connects to BOTH the American Internet and the Chinese Internet, and routes traffic between the two, making them look one one big Internet.
Gonna be a lot of work though.
Then there won't *be* an Internet anymore (Score:2)
But what will Internet 2 and 3 do then? (Score:2)
Look, there are other internets.
Faster ones.
Able to leap tall Gigabytes in a flash.
Just saying.
Non such thing (Score:1)
There is no such thing as globalization.
That term would imply that it was a two way street.
What is often called Globalization is just money and technology going from West to East.
Correction to article (Score:2)
Sure, you can call him a pseudo-economist, but please never call him a real economist.
Old News (Score:1)
The Chinese one is called "wechat", and nobody in the West uses it, because the TOS basically say that the Chinese Communist Party owns your soul, as well as all of your personal data and human rights. It's supposed to be super convenient, though. So they say. Has every feature you want. Except privacy.
The other one is called "the internet", and you can't really access most of it in China, because it's blocked. I mean, there are a few public-internet sites still reachable from C
Eric is just plan WRONG. (Score:2)
At the same time, their policy on corporate ownership insures that the companies inside the great firewall are majority owned by the Chinese.
At the same time, large US companies outside of China are constantly faced by monopoly threats by the US government. They're also prevent from merging to create bigger companies. And they don't have the p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your angst is going to give you a fucking heart attack.
The best thing that can happen is for these companies to do this. SpaceLink is coming and will be coming in a BIG way.
Likewise, this will encourage local gov to build out fiber as a utility.