<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br style="font-size: 15px;" class=""><div style="font-size: 15px;"><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Jack Haverty <<a href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" class="">jack@3kitty.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hi Joe,<br class=""><br class="">Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on<br class="">the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority<br class="">of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"<br class="">wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on<br class="">something else, if not the Internet?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 15px;"><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 15px;">Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves. </div><div style="font-size: 15px;"><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 15px;">The same is true here. There’s a distinct difference between “access to Internet information” and “Internet access”. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a “distilled” product only.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the<br class="">Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 15px;"><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 15px;">Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that’s partly what net neutrality is all about.</div><div style="font-size: 15px;"><br class=""></div><div style="font-size: 15px;">Joe</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">/Jack<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 10/04/2018 07:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Jack Haverty <<a href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" class="">jack@3kitty.org</a><br class=""><<a href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" class="">mailto:jack@3kitty.org</a>>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">...<br class=""><br class="">At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP<br class="">addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use<br class="">in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through<br class="">computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,<br class="">etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,<br class="">Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I would call that “accessing Internet content”, but definitely NOT being<br class="">“on the Internet” (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all<br class="">consumer access because of NATs).<br class=""><br class="">Being “on the Internet” IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these<br class="">as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004:<br class=""><br class="">Internet User “Bill of Rights"<br class=""><br class="">The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting<br class="">parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,<br class="">insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other<br class="">parties. The following is a list of specific rights to that end:<br class=""><br class="">1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from<br class="">anywhere on the Internet.<br class=""><br class="">2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS<br class="">name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that<br class="">matches that address.<br class=""><br class="">3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,<br class="">using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up<br class="">to the limits of their local resources and network connection.<br class=""><br class="">4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any<br class="">valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port<br class="">(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources<br class="">of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.<br class=""><br class="">5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for<br class="">traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint<br class="">regarding violations of any of these rules. <br class=""><br class="">——<br class="">Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but<br class="">undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols<br class="">themselves. That’s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from<br class="">still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.<br class=""><br class="">Calling that “the Internet” isn’t evolution of terms to common usage.<br class="">It’s misleading advertising.<br class=""><br class="">Joe<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>