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

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

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

(Dave - your note about regretting the posting applies
equally to responding to it, but here it is anyway)

Mr. Peter's exposition is an interesting read, another
contribution to a long line of origin works about
"The Internet."  As comic book authors know so well,
few themes sell issues like "origin" stories, which
is why some characters have enjoyed several different
ones over the years. In that respect, The Internet is
clearly a cultural icon of some sort.

 From the History of Science, we know that big ideas never
spring from just one source (story line). Mr. Peter's
work acknowledges this by commenting on an interesting
juxtaposition of serveral origin stories.

However, there is a fundamental missing piece, reflected as
a misapprehension in some of the comments he cites, which is
fundamental to The Internet as we know it.

The critical point missed is that in all of the "internet progenetors"
that actually contributed substantial "DNA" to Today's Internet
all fostered an environment where the creativity was at the *edge* of the 
network, not *inside* the network, per se.

They are environments were little if any "permission"
was required to innovate.  Whether that's NPL, PARC, SAIL, CAC,
UCI, MIT, or even Bell Labs (in spite of being the golden child of
that scion of centralized planning, AT&T), the onus was always on
innovation and how readily it could be done.

This trait remains the central driving force in The Internet - the
"sustainable rate of innovation" - and that is maximized,
generally speaking, by not requiring "permission" to attempt innovation.

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.

No, any comprehensive theory for "how the Internet came to be" must take
into account this very fundamental decentralization and the innovative
forces it unleashes.

It is the unrivalled "sustainable rate of innovation" which makes
The Internet what it is.

Moreover, any alternative "Mark 2" notion of "The Internet" which
does not maintain and leverage this force will be unable to compete
with another model which is in league with it.

At large scale, Biological Diversity beats Centralized Planning.

The rise of The Internet as innovation platform was the transition of
communications and comm infrastructure from the world of Centralized Planning
to a world where Biological Diversity drives the sustainable rate of innovation.

Intentional economic gerrymandering not withstanding, this is a hugely powerful 
force. That fundamental model transition marks the real birth of The Internet as 
she is known today.  All else was prelude.

?cheers,
?-mo






David Farber wrote:
> I know I will regret this posting, BUT lets have at it. djf

-------------------------------------
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/