[ih] A revolution in Internet point-of-view - Was Re: Internet analyses (Was Re: IPv8...)

[Jack Haverty]

There was a different climate in the 1960s/1970s.  That was the era of 
the Vietnam War and associated protests and events such as Kent State.  
Lots of pushback especially from young folks.  Even the resignation of a 
POTUS, under threat of removal from office.  Lots of distrust of 
government.  Lots of anger.

Is it so different now?

But I don't recall that as the dominating factor in the 60s/70s/80s.  
The USG did not "give away" the Internet.  The Internet (and previously 
the ARPANET) was always considered an Experiment.  That followed the 
charter of ARPA - "Advanced" Research projects Agency.  Research 
produces ideas.  Experiments build prototypes to test theories.  
Research produces knowledge.  Freely sharing that knowledge would be 
beneficial to the "real systems" that followed.  Artifacts, such as 
protocols, algorithms, equipment designs, software, and such concrete 
items are at best prototypes for the real systems of the future.

The "real system" was expected to be OSI.  Of course that didn't 
happen.   But it was The Plan.  Even the USG had a program called GOSIP 
(Government OSI Profile?) to plan for the use of OSI throughout USG.  As 
long as The Internet was considered just a research experiment, it had 
no long-term value and giving it away didn't raise significant 
objections.  It might even help OSI development.  OSI was the target.

Instead, what happened was an explosion of industry-led alternatives to 
both The Internet and the OSI promises.  In the "multiprotocol router" 
stage of the late 1980s and 1990s, all sorts of other schemes were 
produced by companies, each hoping that their technology would be the 
winner to create the communications infrastructure of the future, and 
all the others would just fade away.  Most of them had some ambition of 
global domination, e.g., by offering products to create a "global LAN".  
But the users were impatient, and selected the only technology which was 
available to them at the time to tie all their IT into a cohesive 
infrastructure - The Internet and TCP/IP.   Its adoption by the USG 
established confidence that The Internet would live long and prosper.

It was straightforward for a corporation to build its own clone of The 
Internet, separate from but perhaps connected to The Internet for 
electronic mail service.   So lots of corporations did just that.  The 
IT industry noticed, and itself adopted The Internet as its product 
architecture.   A similar history might be told of Unix and Linux, 
becoming the base IT environment for all those servers on The Internet.

So, ... is it so different today?

The Internet has clearly won at the levels of datagrams and web. TCP/IP 
and HTTP and their friends are the de facto standard.

But a similar war is now happening at levels where AI and Social Media 
live, on top of The Internet.  I see lots of corporations creating 
competing AI services or social media platforms, each hoping to be the 
winner and become the infrastructure of the future.  Even electronic 
mail has fragmented into a blizzard of ways for people to communicate.

But unlike the situation 50 or 60 years ago, I haven't noticed any 
ARPA-like effort to do the research and "give away" the results for 
others to use.  Such things are what The Internet considers "apps" and 
outside their scope?   Perhaps such research organizations exist, other 
than in corporate walled gardens, and I just haven't been looking hard 
enough.    There may be no technology "waiting in the wings" for users 
to embrace until one of them becomes the clear winner.

Is that an "attitude of society"?

/Jack Haverty


It seems to me that today's

On 5/10/26 11:36, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2026, at 6:13 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> Tempted as I am to editorialize about what this might mean for the Internet (I am profoundly depressed about it), I wonder whether those who where involved in the Internet's earliest developments have any reflections on the attitudes of the societies at the time.  For instance, kc claffy once observed to me that it was an inspired bit of industrial policy that led the USG (partly it seems to me at the prodding of Al Gore, despite all the grief he gets about the topic) to give away the Internet rather than lock it into any particular corporate ownership.  I know there is another thread that has discussed the BSD-TCP/IP importance, but I guess I'm asking for something different: was there a different _social_ environment, in your estimation and upon reflection, than there is (say) today such that the USG could give such a technology away as they did?  I find it impossible to imagine that happening today, when every organization either public or private seems to be orieted entirely towards maximum short-term financial return on investment, ignoring the longer term benefits.  (And, to avoid any doubt, let me be clear that this is not a particular swipe at the current USG or any people in charge of it.  This has seemed obvious to me for a decade or more.)
>>
> I would also include the Linux importance. [1] [2] Quite a bit of TCP/IP became available via open source due to Linux.
>
> --gregbo
>
> [1] https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/
> [2] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
>

-------------- 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/20260510/b723bbc7/attachment.asc>