[ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet'

[Joe Touch]

> On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
> the Internet" back in the 80s.  But today, I suspect the vast majority
> of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
> wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria.  So they must be all on
> something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves. 

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.

> 
> Meanings of words are determined by how people use them.   I think "the
> Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.
> 

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.

Joe

> /Jack
> 
> 
> On 10/04/2018 07:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org
>>> <mailto:jack at 3kitty.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
>>> addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
>>> in the public Internet.  But we were connected to the Internet through
>>> computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
>>> etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
>>> Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.
>> 
>> I would call that “accessing Internet content”, but definitely NOT being
>> “on the Internet” (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
>> consumer access because of NATs).
>> 
>> Being “on the Internet” IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
>> as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004:
>> 
>> Internet User “Bill of Rights"
>> 
>> The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
>> parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
>> insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
>> parties. The following is a list of specific rights to that end:
>> 
>> 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
>> anywhere on the Internet.
>> 
>> 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
>> name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
>> matches that address.
>> 
>> 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
>> using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
>> to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
>> 
>> 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
>> valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
>> (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
>> of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
>> 
>> 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
>> traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
>> regarding violations of any of these rules. 
>> 
>> ——
>> Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
>> undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
>> themselves. That’s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
>> still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
>> 
>> Calling that “the Internet” isn’t evolution of terms to common usage.
>> It’s misleading advertising.
>> 
>> Joe
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20181004/55845d15/attachment.htm>