Interesting People mailing list archives
: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:35:36 -0500
Begin forwarded message:
From: Shane Greenstein <greenstein () KELLOGG NORTHWESTERN EDU> Date: December 2, 2009 9:44:48 AM EST To: CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical InfrastructureReply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM >
Bob Cannon raises an interesting nuance about the history of the Internet. He is right that about ownership -- there is no particular reason why the government or private industry should own it. The military is perfectly capable of running its own Internet, for example, just as are private firms. Indeed, the Internet began its life as a military network. That is true. But one nuance is missing from his historical response below. There is a common after-the-fact reasoning about why the NSF gave the Internet backbone to private industry, and it is misleading.Let's be clear about three things:First, by the time the NSF walked away from the Internet the network had a very decentralized operational structure. Even during the research days, the NSF only managed the backbone, while regional cooperatives managed the regional networks, and thousands of universities and research labs managed their own networks. This happened for simple budgetary reasons; the NSF did not have a budget to run the whole thing. In short, it was possible for the NSF to privatize the Internet because, in fact, most of the assets already were privatized, owned and operated by others. It was nothing sacred about private enterprise that mattered, just simple budgetary facts on the ground.Second, NSF is not allowed to start new industries. That is outside its charter, which only pertains to supporting basic research in the US. And talk to any NSF administrator. While they are proud of their role in developing the Internet, they are very precise about their surprise at the economic impact of the NSF privatization. They were not trying to start a new industry or a new economic revolution built around it. Indeed, to aspire to that in any way shape or form would have been outside their charter, and would have led to massive Congressional investigation. They were supporting basic research, and sometimes it leads to new stuff in private industry, but the latter is outside what they are allowed to influence.Third, Steve Wolf (the primary administrator for the backbone) is very up front about why he thought privatization was a good idea. For one, the technology was refined enough so that any engineer could operate it; and for two, he forecast that sharing the technology with private users would increase scale of use, which would bring down costs, and the research community could benefit from the lower costs. It is a small point, but crucial. Private industry could supply both government and private users in 1995, but government could not. In the decentralized structure of the mid 1990s, there was no other option for achieving that scale other than privatization.So, while it is nice to talk about ownership of the Internet by public entities and private entities in the abstract, we should recognize what part of that abstract debate actually mattered for historical events. In practice, this was close to a private technology before it officially privatized in the US. And, it is no surprise (to me) that the Internet is a government operation in the countries who adopted later and where the institutions push that way already (such as China). Oh well. So it goes.Shane ________________________________________From: Telecom Regulation & the Internet [CYBERTELECOM- L () LISTSERV AOL COM] On Behalf Of Robert Cannon [rcannon100 () YAHOO COM]Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:44 PM To: CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COMSubject: Re: [CYBERTEL] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical InfrastructureFor sure if "The Internet" was nationalized (a crazy notion, but China seems to be doing it OK), then there would be no need for regulation.The Internet was a DOD project from 1969 to 1990. Originally a DARPA project, day to day operations were transferred in 1975 to the Defense Communications Agency. In 1983, DOD migrated these networks to TCP/IP.In 1985, the National Science Foundation stepped in and funded NSFNET. NSFNET ran pursuant to NSF funding and direction until 1995.NSF originally set up the contracts for the operations of the DNS and IP numbering functions. That authority was transferred to Dept of Commerce NTIA in the late 1990s, which beget ICANN. This authority continues today which it has evolved.The Internet was born of USG effort.But as to the second part, whether regulation would be needed, that is not true either. It depends on the structure and arrangement - there are procurement regulations - there are regs that deal with funding. The postal service faces its own regulatory regimes. Just because something does not fit within title II of the Telecom Act does not mean "its not regulated."Finally, as a footnote, I would note that all telephone networks including AT&T was nationalized during WWI and were managed by the Post Office.The reason The Internet is not a federal entity is because of who we are. In the U.S., private enterprise is valued and cherished. However, if thingsThe Internet was a government project for the majority of its existence. Yes, private enterprise is valued, but we need to be careful not to be mythical about the Internet.http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/internet_history.htm B
------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure Dave Farber (Dec 02)