[ih] Politics behind the Internet

[Jack Haverty]

On 7/21/24 04:47, Gergely Buday via Internet-history wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> when the American Congress realised the importance of the Internet?
>
> Back in the eighties we were listening the Radio Free Europe on shortwave
> radios. Congress supported that financially. Did it have similar thoughts
> concerning the Internet, that it would spread freedom politically and
> economically?
>
> Yours
>
> - Gergely

My slightly different perspective, all IIRC:

The US Congress has realized the importance of technology since Sputnik 
beat the US to space in the 50s.   That triggered the formation of ARPA, 
and led to the funding of the ARPANET, and then much of the early work 
on what now is the Internet.

During that era with the ARPANET, the importance of communications was 
well understood.   But the focus of those efforts was all inward.   
Communications was useful as an infrastructure for government-sponsored 
research.   Users of the ARPANET were limited to people who were working 
on some government contract.

The same constraint applied during the early days of the Internet and 
TCP/IP, and as the ARPANET evolved into the Defense Data Network.   
Again the communications infrastructure being built was intended for use 
by government systems, specifically Department of Defense and a few 
European allies.

IIRC, there was little talk of "spreading" either politically or 
economically.  Simply put, there was no relevant audience reachable 
through the networks.   All users were internal, working on or for 
government projects.

With Al Gore's involvement and the entry of the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), the Internet expanded beyond its original military 
deployment into the broader realm of education and research.   It was 
however still focussed inwards, building a communications infrastructure 
for use by scientific users, using the tchnology already proven by the 
military research.

At about that time, as KarlA noted, government (US at least) focus 
shifted to embrace "COTS" - Commercial Off The Shelf - solutions. IIRC 
this was somewhat driven by the stories at the time of "$600 hammers" 
and the like.  Instead of having custom-built, and therefore expensive, 
systems, the US government wanted to simply purchase commercial products.

NSF funded a lot of small networks which could be linked together using 
TCP technology.  However, they introduced a new constraint which the 
chosen contractors had to follow.   Funding would be provided to build 
and operate a network, but only for a few years. Then the network would 
have to become self-sufficient.   It might continue to operate providing 
service to its scientific users, but it would be funded by charges to 
those users' budgets, in a competitive environment.

That motivated the creation of the "ISP" (Internet Service Provider) 
industry, and the mechanisms for offering Internet service as a product 
available to the masses.   NSF was "kickstarting" networks, but forcing 
them to figure out how to become self-sufficient. A project would buy 
test tubes from their lab supplier, and Internet services from their 
chosen ISP.

At the same time, commercial startups and their products were becoming 
available to supply that COTS demand.  Cisco Systems is probably the one 
people remember most.

In addition, all sorts of companies and organizations were defining, 
building, and deploying their own solutions for a communications 
infrastructure.  This lead to SNA, DECNET, Netware, Banyan, Xerox, OSI, 
and more I've probably forgotten.   All of these competed to be the 
chosen "winner" and supply their technology to the world.  This led to 
concepts such as the "Global LAN", and the creation of "multiprotocol 
routers" that enabled organizations to build their own "intranets" for 
their own internal use.

Although "the Internet" was still growing, there were many other 
"intranets" taking advantage of the plethora of communications 
technologies available at the time.  TCP was usually there, but it was 
not alone.  Such "multiprotocol intranets" were a nightmare to build and 
operate.   I personally was involved in one of them, with network nodes 
in more than 100 countries.   Running such a network was a bit like the 
frenzied circus performers who keep lots of plates spinning on top of 
sticks.

Very little if any (that I knew about) of all that was funded by the US 
government, except as a customer for its own internal users in a wide 
range of different administrations and agencies.

Sometime in the early 1990s, corporations struggling with multiprotocol 
environments experimented to find solutions and rapidly coalesced into 
the one technology that was pervasive, seemed to work, and had a ready 
supply of technical expertise coming out of the universities' pipeline.  
TCP won the battle and multiprotocol systems are likely becoming if not 
already extinct.

There still wasn't much of an audience in the general public.  Some 
early adopters could participate by dialup, but the only function of 
much interest to the public was electronic mail.

Then the Web happened.

Through the 90s, the Internet, using the Web mechanisms, became the 
communications infrastructure for the general public, and spread 
throughout the world.  Electronic Commerce, Social Media, and general 
availability of all kinds of information created the public 
infrastructure for all sorts of public activities - good and bad.

AFAIK, the US government had little involvement in funding that 
transition.   It was however a user, with traditional government 
services to the public becoming accessible by using the Internet and the 
Web mechanisms.

One of Congress' thoughts might have been to use the Internet as a 
mechanism to "spread freedom", but I at least don't remember anything 
specific during the pre-Web era.  It wasn't until the Web brought the 
Internet to the public that there was an audience available for such things.

I'm not sure Congress, or anyone for that matter, even now realizes the 
importance of the Internet.   Some historian with expertise in 
government and politics would probably know more.

Hope this helps,
Jack Haverty

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240721/f21dfd64/attachment.asc>