more on Setting history straight: So, who really did invent the Internet?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bjørn Vermo <bv () norbionics com>
Date: May 3, 2005 5:08:22 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Setting history straight: So, who really  
did invent the Internet?


On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:49:54 +0200, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


> ------- Original message -------
> From: Mike O'Dell <mo () ccr org>
> Sent: 2/5/'05,  9:36
...

> I was particularly taken by the comments about how it might still
> be "the internet" if done with X.25 or ATM.
>
> sorry - but that could not be, other than as some grandios  
> technological
> edifice. those "telco" technologies were created specifically to  
> provide
> for central planning and control of innovation (aka "new services").
> the power of that control can be seen in how successfully ISDN was
> crushed in the US.  In that world, "new services" (not necessarily
> innovative) are doled out by the network operators, in concert with
> their handmaiden equipment providers, on geologic time scales.

In some circles, a myth about the badness of X.25 has grown more or  
less unchallenged. Like most myths, it is spread by those with no  
firsthand experience. The truth is that the Internet was built in  
most places with lines leased from companies which were every bit as  
centralized as and often identical to the providers of X.25  
connections. It is not the bottom three layers of the OSI model that  
makes or breaks internetworking, it is what you put on top of it and  
how you make a culture to deal with and access it.

It is true that X.25 was effectively killed in the US, just as ISDN  
was, by the operators who pandered to high-volume analog telephone  
users to the detriment of any kind of digital service. I never quite  
understood the logic behind it, but from the outside it looked like  
somebody had over-invested in copper cables and analog switches and  
were unwilling to admit it. X.21 was never even implemented in the US  
to my knowledge, but Canada had a line switched network for a while.

In other countries, it was cost-effective to use both packet  
switching and line switching even at monopoly prices. We made all  
kinds of hybrid internetworking. Much of it was a set of really ugly  
kludges, but innovation and creativity were certainly not stifled by  
using infrastructure provided by rigid monopolies. On the contrary,  
finding new ways to route information more cheaply by using different  
underlying services in different countries and areas led to a large  
number of innovative gateways. Given time, it is quite reasonable to  
think that a unified worldwide internet could have evolved from it.  
It would probably have been a network with less centralized control  
than the Internet we have today.

Nor is a totally unfettered and individualistic approach to  
networking guaranteed to further innovation. Look at Fidonet - it was  
a hobbyist approach to networking, but was so religious about the  
smallest common denominator that it hardly evolved.

--
-bv


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/