The OP gets a lot of the history wrong. But I don't think the established history is entirely correct either. It is a history given from a particular point of view which is not the only relevant point of view.
The view from outside was never quite the same as the view from inside. And the US version of how the Internet was won tends to sound rather too much like white men bringing their benevolent gifts. The implication being that if the Internet is a gift of the US of A, it is only right and proper that the vision of the founders determine its future in perpetuity.
My view of what happened is rather different. Basically, the Internet succeeded because it was the only technical proposal on the table that met the necessary conditions for becoming a global network. And the first and most important of those was local autonomy. So local autonomy was not a gift, it was a necessary condition for success.
If we were to explore the counterfactual in which (D)ARPA did not fund Internet development, that might have affected the timing but AOL/CompuServe/MSN would have still faced the same fact that an open communication system will grow faster than closed and no government was going to allow a foreign company to establish a monopoly of email.
We are currently engaged in what some are starting to call 'The Great Information War'. Had Putin's crew managed to succeed in their attempted coup on 2021/6/1, Trump would have disbanded NATO before the invasion of Ukraine. Fascism would have returned to Europe and likely have arrived in the US as well.
The Internet was always at the center of the Great Information War. But it wasn't Trump's tweets that reached a national audience, it was the willingness of the establishment media to repeat them. And not just Fox News, but CNN, the NYT and Washington Post.
Some people are asking how the Internet can be used to win the Great Information War. But that is to miss the real point which is how we stop the next fighting war breaking out.
How we got to where we are is relevant only insofar as it informs our efforts to get to where we need to be.
Telling falsehoods is a limited technique for controlling public opinion. In the 1920s the press barons discovered that they could control public opinion by setting the agenda, by choosing what issues were news. The civil rights movement finally succeeded 40 years later because it was able to successfully challenge the ability of the press to set the agenda.
Today it is not the 'centralization' of the Web that is the real issue, it is the fact that a handful of individuals control the voting shares in the companies that set the agenda through curation of the dominant social media feeds. That is the power that must be challenged if the Internet is going to fulfill its promise as a technology of freedom.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:00 AM vinton cerf <vgcerf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. Arpanet was never called "Darpanet"2. I don't think we ever "numbered" users since getting on the Arpanet was mostly by having an account on a time-sharing computer at a university (or research lab) that had an ARPA contract.3. "bangs" were at email level, not Arpanet (or Internet) level of routing. The "bang" email addresses aided routing through application level gateways.4. Bob Kahn, Dave Walden, Frank Heart and many others at BBN did the Arpanet IMP design. The Arpanet Host-Host NCP effort was led by Steve Crocker (Jon Postel and I and others helped) and stabilized enough to support email in 1971 and a public demonstration in October 1972. The Internet work started the next year in 1973. Since Internet was conceived as a network of networks, you needed more than one network to make an Internet. There were three to begin with: Arpanet, Packet Radio Net and Packet Satellite Net, all funded by ARPA.On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:50 AM David Lloyd-Jones via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Willi,
You have shown us that you are full of good sentiments. Quite a lot of them. Very good ones. I assume that you know something about the start and development of the Internet but no such knowledge has found its way into your long post.
.
First proposed by Bacon in the fifteenth century or so, the 'Net was a solid policy proposal made by Vannevar Bush in 1945. It was made possible by the invention of packet-switching in the mid-1960 to 70s. Johnny Foster, JFK's science advisor in 1961, was the first person I know of to have done solid financing of the effort. Bush was working on wide-scale computer networking, along with many other things, when I met him in his utterly false "retirement" in Lexington, Mass. in 1976. This was well before your Reagan Administration.
The original present "internet" was ARPAnet (on which I was user #300 in 1971). This was financed before it really existed by ARPA when that "Agency" was more-or-less a slush fund passed around at random in the Pentagon. It continued as DARPAnet after they added that "D," for defence, to pretend compliance with the Mansfield Amendment. I worked on this on Congressional staff in 1969-71 and at MIT in '72. The D was tacked on in December '71 or January '72, I forget, but had been in the works ever since Mansfied, as Senator, had tried to prevent military money from corrupting civilian research. Unfortunately, civilian researchers cried piteously that they wanted to be corrupted. By then, Mansfied was ambassador to Japan....
When the scalability of the internetted nets, DARPAnet, began to seem limited, -- all those !!! "bangs," -- its growth was smoothed by the development of the present TCP/IP, credited to Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf. When Cerf later went to work for MCI, a hapless little phone company, their PR department tub-thumped that he was "the" founder of "the" Internet. Many people seem to have believed this inanity. More recently this has been toned down to "a" founder of the Internet. In fact packet-switching, the key invention, was largely the work of Lenny Kleinrock, under whom Cerf studied as a university student. Their much later contribution to TCP/IP has certainly been useful._______________________________________________On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 13:07, willi uebelherr via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why the World Must Resist Calls to Undermine the Internet
Andrew Sullivan, 02.03.2022
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls-to-undermine-the-internet/
Dear friends,
Andrew Sullivan rightly pointed out in his text that "the Internet is
for everyone". Absolutely right in the idea.
But the reality is different. The technical players acting today are not
interested in a free global communication of people, but in a
commercialization and capitalization of their needs for communication.
This result did not come about by chance, but was already the essential
guiding principle at the beginning by the government of the USA under
Ronald Reagan. The original concept of "the inter-connection of local
Net-works", which is necessarily based on local networks, became a
privately and state organized system of interconnected star-systems,
"the inter-connection of private Star-Systems".
This interconnection of star-systems creates the possibility to organize
access and exclusion according to arbitrary criteria. And we see today
that the system of a free global communication has turned into a field
of censorship and private control mania, organized by countries calling
themselves "the West". Already the naming points to organized bullshit,
because the planet is a sphere and not a disk and thus any directions
can lead to the same goal.
The actors of this fragmentation and breaking of a free human
communication "without borders" are those who call themselves
representatives of a "free world", but in fact trample every diversity
with military boots. Every form of racial mania a'la Cecil Rhodes is put
back on the table. Lying and hypocrisy is the form of communication that
is now elevated to the absolute.
The idea of telecommunication in the form of an Internet that does not
adhere to private or governmental or geographical boundaries, as we saw
with Jonathan Postel, was destroyed at the very beginning of the life of
an Internet. Today we see what a monster of small-minded power madness
it has developed into, where only private profit interests and state
delusions of control apply.
The alternative always remains. A telecommunication in the form of an
internet, which rests on local networks and thus enables free access to
all people of our planet, independent of their social situation and
geographical position.
That and only that is a "net of nets".
with kind regards, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay
in german -----------------------------------------------------------
Liebe freunde,
Andrew Sullivan hat zu Recht in seinem Text darauf hingewiesen, "the
Internet is for everyone". Absolut richtig in der Idee.
Aber die Wirklichkeit sieht anders aus. Die heute agierenden technischen
Akteure sind nicht an einer freien globalen Kommunikation der Menschen
interessiert, sondern an einer Kommerzialisierung und Kapitalisierung
ihrer Beduerfnisse nach Kommunikation.
Dieses Resultat ist nicht zufaellig entstanden, sondern war bereits zu
Anfang das wesentliche Leitmotiv durch die Regierung der USA unter
Ronald Reagan. Das urspruengliche Konzept "the Inter-connection of local
Net-works", das ja notwendig auf lokalen Netzwerken ruht, wurde zu einem
privat und staatlich organisierten System von verbundenen Sternsystemen,
"the inter-connection of private Star-Systems".
Diese Verbindung von Stern-Systemen schafft die Moeglichkeit, nach
beliebigsten Kriterien den Zugang und Ausschluss zu organisieren. Und
wir sehen heute, dass sich das System einer freien globalen
Kommunikation zu einem Feld der Zensur und privatem Kontrollwahn
entwickelt hat, das von Laendern organisiert wird, die sich "der Westen"
nennen. Schon die Namensgebung deutet auf organisierten Schwachsinn,
weil der Planet eine Kugel und keine Scheibe ist und damit beliebige
Richtungen zum gleichen Ziel fuehren koennen.
Die Akteure dieser Zersplitterung und Zerbrechung einer freien
menschlichen Kommunikation "ohne Grenzen" sind jene, die sich als
Vertreter einer "freien Welt" bezeichnen, tatsaechlich aber jede
Diversitaet mit militaerischen Stiefeln zertrampeln. Jede Form des
Rassenwahns a'la Cecil Rhodes wird wieder auf den Tisch gestellt. Die
Luege und Heuchelei ist diejenige Form der Kommunikation, die nun zum
absoluten Mass erhoben wird.
Die Idee einer Telekommunikation in Form eines Internet, das sich nicht
an private oder staatliche oder geografische Grenzen haelt, wie wir es
bei Jonathan Postel sahen, wurde schon zu Beginn der Lebensphase eines
Internet zerstoert. Heute sehen wir, zu welchem Monster kleingeistigem
Machtwahns es sich entwickelt hat, wo nur noch private Profitinteressen
und staatlicher Kontrollwahn gelten.
Die Alternative bleibt immer existent. Eine Telekommunikation in Form
eines internet, das auf lokalen Netzwerken ruht und so allen Menschen
unseres Planeten den freien Zugang ermoeglicht, unabhaengig von ihrer
sozialen Lage und geografischen Position.
Das und nur das ist ein "Netz der Netze".
mit lieben gruessen, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay
_______________________________________________
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
-
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
-
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
