The Internet At 50: It Has Enabled Many Wonderful Things, But We Have To Fight To Keep It That Way
from the there-is-much-to-be-done dept
Today has been declared the 50th anniversary of the internet, as on October 29th, 1969, a team at UCLA, lead by Leonard Kleinrock, sent a message to a team at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), representing the very first transmission over the then ARPANET, which later became the internet. This seems like a good moment to think about all that the internet has enabled -- but also just how far we may have strayed from its early promise and how far we might still be able to go. On the historical side, Kleinrock himself has posts at both ICANN and the Internet Society, and both are worth reading. The ICANN post is all about that first message transmission:
The ARPANET’s first host-to-host message was sent at 10:30 p.m. on October 29, 1969 when one of my programmers, Charley Kline, proceeded to “login” to the SRI host from the UCLA host.
The procedure was to type in “log,” and the system at SRI was clever enough to fill out the rest of the command, adding “in,” thus creating the word “login.”
Charley at our end and Bill Duvall at the SRI end each had a telephone headset so they could communicate by voice as the message was being transmitted. Note the irony that here we were using the telephone network to launch the new technology of packet switching which would destroy the telephone network!
At the UCLA end, Charley typed in the “l” and asked SRI “did you get the l?” “Got the l” came the voice reply. He typed in the “o,” “Did you get the o?” and received “Got the o.” UCLA then typed in the “g,” asked “Did you get the g?” at which point the system crashed! This was quite a beginning.
So, the very first message on the Internet was the prescient word “lo” (as in, “lo and behold!”). We hadn’t prepared a special message (as did, for example, Samuel Morse with “What Hath God Wrought”) but our “lo” could not have been a more succinct, a more powerful or a more prophetic message. Heck, we didn’t have a camera or even a voice recorder. The only record of this event is an entry in our IMP log recording.
The ARPANET and its successor, the Internet, had now been launched.
There's a lot more in that post about what happened prior to that to bring the ARPANET about in the first place and I recommend reading the whole thing. Kleinrock's piece for the Internet Society, on the other hand tries to look forward about what the internet might still become -- in particular, how the internet should become "invisible." It, too, is well worth reading. Here's a snippet.
Such an invisible Internet will provide intelligent spaces. When I enter such a space, it should know I entered and it should present to me an experience that matches my privileges, profile, and preferences. These spaces can be any location on earth, i.e., my room, my desk, my automobile, my fingernails, my body, my favorite shopping mall, London, or even the Dead Sea. Moreover, I should be able to interact with that space using human friendly interfaces such as speech, gestures, haptics and, eventually, brain-to-Internet interfaces. Indeed, what I am talking about is characterized by a pervasive global nervous system across this planet. The Internet will be everywhere and it will be invisible.
Vint Cerf, one of the architects of the original internet has a nice post detailing some of the key milestones of the internet. For a variety of reasons, I appreciate the second milestone:
1971: Networked electronic mail was created using file transfers as a mechanism to distribute messages to users on the Arpanet.
You don't say? Cerf, like Kleinrock, is also interested in what comes next. His final point gets to that as well:
2019-2069 (the next 50 years): In the next five decades I believe that computer communications will become completely natural. Like using electricity, you won’t think about it anymore. Access will be totally improved—think thousands of low Earth orbit satellites—and speeds will be higher, with 5G and optical fiber, and billions of networked devices with increased interactive capabilities in voice, gesture, and artificially intelligent systems. I also imagine an expansion of the Interplanetary Internet. But who knows, after everything that has been accomplished in the past 50 years, the only thing we can be certain about is that the possibilities are endless.
Note the similarity to Kleinrock's concept of an "invisible" internet to Cerf's idea that "you won't think about it anymore."
Meanwhile, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who did not help architect the original internet infrastructure, but did make it usable by the average human being with his 1991 invention of the World Wide Web, is also thinking about the future, but not just how it will be invisible, but how we can bring it back to some of its original underpinnings as "a force for good."
“It’s astonishing to think the internet is already half a century old. But its birthday is not altogether a happy one. The internet — and the World Wide Web it enabled — have changed our lives for the better and have the power to transform millions more in the future. But increasingly we’re seeing that power for good being subverted, whether by scammers, people spreading hatred or vested interests threatening democracy.
“A year ago, I called for a new Contract for the Web, bringing together governments, companies and citizen groups to come up with a clear plan of action to protect the web as a force for good. In a month’s time that plan will be ready. This birthday must mark the moment we take on the fight for the web we want.”
I think these perspectives are important. With so much attention being paid these days to the problems brought about by the internet, we shouldn't lose sight of two key things: (1) the internet has brought about many, many wonderful things as well and (2) it's still the early days. Many of the discussions about today's internet seem to act as if it's a static thing that exists in stone, and the problems of today's internet need to be dealt with via heavy handed regulations, rather than allowing technology, social pressure, and the market to work. Perhaps, in the long run, they will be proven correct, but the fact that even those who were around in the earliest days are thinking about how to continue to improve the technology, I have much more faith in letting these things play out.
The internet we have today is a different one than what was initially envisioned. In some ways it's better than the early expectations, and in some ways it's much, much worse. But the promise and opportunity remains, and many of us are focused on using that promise as a guiding star towards where the internet needs to be pushed. Over the last 50 years, amazing things have been accomplished, but the promise of the internet is only partially visible today. We need to work to bring back that promise and, as Tim Berners-Lee notes, make sure the internet remains a force for good.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: internet, internet at 50, leonard kleinrock, tim berners-lee, vint cerf
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The railroads were routing 1000-ton "packets" LONG BEFORE.
Besides telegraphy, and The Phone Company (that means ATT, not the pitiable furriners). -- Did you know that facsimile goes WAY back? Over a hundred years, depending on what count.
Anyhoo, all the basics of communications -- especially of avoiding collisions over a single circuit -- were worked out long before weenies got to it. And as pointed out, they relied on The Phone Company for hardware.
And now we're being masnicked into a Panopticon system! Right off Drudge: "KLEINROCK: I helped invent. How did it go so wrong?" and "Tim Berners-Lee warns power for good 'under threat'..." -- No link because those, being written by corporatized media, missthe overwhelming danger of corporate control, such as "GOOGLE Funds 29 Journalism Projects That Swing Left..." and "FACEBOOK Censoring Conservatives; Company Blames 'Moderation Mistakes'..."
If you find any joy in future prospects it's only because you're a total corporatist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You put the ignorant in ignorant motherfucker
Hey blueballs. That means you’ve spent 20% of the entire life of the Internet bitching and moaning on this website. And all you have to show for it, is a trail of broken promises, 10,000 posts that document your gradual cognitive decline, and a grudge about a joke you didn’t get.
How’s that feel bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So?
Again, so?
And birds worked out the mechanics of flight long before any single human flew through the air. So?
....so?
Wut?
Because that's a reliable source of news.
This is actually an opinion piece in the LA Times. Did you actually read that article? He's actually complaining about the people who use the internet to do bad things, like DDoS attacks, malware attacks, and mass spam. Not whatever you were thinking of.
Yes, by governments and malicious actors. This was a talk he gave at UCLA. Again, nothing to do with whatever you're thinking of.
Don't need one. I have Google and I refuse to find it on Drudge.
Well the first article wasn't written by corporatized media. It was written by Leonard Kleinrock. And the second article was a report of what Sir Tim Berners Lee said during a speech he gave. Also not written by corporatized media. No single corporation controls the internet. Not only is it just not reality, it's impossible. Anyone who knows how the internet works would know this.
I go back to my earlier refrain: so? There's a bazillion more that they don't fund.
I assume then that you could successfully moderate 2 billion people's posts (hint, that's more than 2 billion posts a day) with 100% accuracy? I look forward to your new social media company that never gets any moderation wrong.
There is NO evidence that social media is censoring conservatives. If it were true, why is Fox News still on social media?
Or we're not delusional and recognize that generally the world has gotten better over time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"So?"
He means that he's a deeply pathetic soul whose life is so empty that he has to spend a large portion of his life attacking the very medium that allows the rest of us to read his words. The fact that most of his points are irrelevant, even idiotic, is secondary to need to be attacking something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The railroads were routing 1000-ton "packets" LONG BEFORE.
There once was an out of the blue
Who hated the process of due
Each railroad he'd made
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"heavy handed regulations" and TAX THE HELL OUT OF THE RICH.
Which YOU immediatly answer: Perhaps, in the long run, they will be proven correct,
BET ON IT. Even you admit that those are the obvious way to deal with problems!
The one thing certain is that "the market" is controlled by The Rich, and they are now almost explicitly Feudal Tyrants. Definitely won't be improved if left to their own good will.
No, as I show from Drudge, they're asking how the hell were we so stupid as to let corporations seize control of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you put the idiot into useful idiot
“No, as I show from Drudge”
You misspelled “spread right wing nutjob propaganda outlet bro.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm confused. I thought you were a conservative. Isn't that a very liberal thing to say?
Obviously you do not understand or comprehend the English language. The use of "perhaps" denotes that this is a hypothetical musing to a question that the author does not the outcome or answer to.
You've been wrong on everything so far. Why should we listen to you?
Obviously you do not understand or comprehend the English language. Nowhere did he state this. Also, obvious ways of dealing with problems are not always the best ways of dealing with problems.
Facts and data or you are blowing hot air.
Um, last I checked feudalism died out a few hundred years ago. Care to explain why you think the year is 1100 instead of 2019?
No, which is why there are rules and regulations controlling what companies can and can't do and why private citizens should continue to be well educated, informed, and speak up and out when companies start stepping out of line.
And as I showed from actually reading those articles (but from their primary source, not Drudge) that is not what they said at all. Instead they were lamenting that governments and marketing agencies got in there and gummed up the works by oppressing and spying on citizens, writing malware, and sending out spam email. In one article he actually mentioned Amazon in a positive light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"(but from their primary source, not Drudge)"
That's always one step too far for him. Reading primary sources exposes him to factual information, which may not comply with his preconceived notions of the world. So, he retreats into echo chambers where someone's already spun the news to conform to what he wants the world to be, not how it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TAX THE HELL OUT OF THE RICH.
Sure. Let's tax the hell out of the rich.
Starting with Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TAX THE HELL OUT OF THE RICH.
Sure. Let's tax the hell out of the rich.
Starting with Donald Trump.
Ooo, bad news. From the early leaks on his tax returns he either lied about how rich he was or is a massive tax dodger. (Likely both.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAX THE HELL OUT OF THE RICH.
Trump bought Manhattan real estate in the 1970s, when anyone who did that got rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that means absolutely nothing if you turn around and blow it all through bad business decisions and mismanagement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey
Just so you know, I invented the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey
Hey Techdirt why don’t you move to China?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Internet in 1999; this is established Earth canon. Someone get the author on the phone, they can settle this.
[off-stage whispers]
…“God isn’t accepting phone calls”? Not an excuse! Keep trying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But he did push hard to make the Internet open to commerce, ergo, here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
puberty very blue's
Its right here on the internet that i discovered why all my ex girlfriends always left after the first week. Its because i was quite small somewhere very personal. 2.5 inches to be exact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the rest of have to fight for honesty and integrity, absent here altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honesty and Integrity do not mean that everybody agrees with your point of view, or that they want to listen to you. If that is what you want, you are talking about proselytizing, rather than being part of a discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given how conservatism these days feels more like a religion than a mere political ideology, that’s probably not too far from the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought it was a cult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just look at the comments when Trump is criticized, you would think that some people think that criticism is the same as heresy, and deserving of burning at the stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet, those same people had no problem rabidly attacking Obama (or Clinton, or whoever their perceived opponent is) for things that seem trivial in comparison with what Trump has actually done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well he did say, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters, okay?". And for around 30% of our country, that's true. I would even say, "Trump could rape a voter's daughter and they would still vote for him". It's that bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trump said that out of frustration that he was trying to lose the election and couldn't. His goal was to finish a close second and bow out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Naw, he said that out of egotism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah. I truly believe he wanted to lose, because he wanted to set up a big right-wing-media television network with his name on it and grift all the suckers who voted for him. That he won, and (ostensibly) had to give up all the profits he would’ve made were he not president, was probably the worst thing that could’ve happened to him.
If he had lost, well, he’d be a racist blowhard asshole grifter and his reputation would’ve essentially been untarnished from what it was before the election. Him winning means his name will go down in the history books as one of the country’s worst presidents—if not the worst—on top of him being a racist blowhard asshole grifter. Trump won the election, but it cost him far more than his (alleged) fortune could ever buy back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Nah. I truly believe he wanted to lose, because he wanted to set up a big right-wing-media television network with his name on it and grift all the suckers who voted for him."
I'm of the same opinion. He did have the Trump network ready to go, an army of sycophants ready to subscribe, the "election was robbed" narrative was already in progress and he seemed to be doing a lot of things that would have crashed anyone else's campaign in seconds. If it weren't for the quirks of the electoral college, he'd have lost hard, and spent the rest of his days doing a 3rd rate Alex Jones impression - and I think that was what he really wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, do they have sharia law in your homeland? You should consider moving to a country with a different political system if you need to escape rampant religious conservatism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Ah, do they have sharia law in your homeland?"
Well, there are cities in the South where Christians have a heck of a lot of influence in the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How much different are Sharia law and Christian law?
I think they have a lot in common, misogyny for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I remember reading some things during the US healthcare debate where people were interviewed about what was in the proposed new healthcare act. When they were told about the individual components, or referred to it as the ACA, they were all for it. But, as soon as someone mentioned the exact same thing under the name "Obamacare", they were against it.
Often, this seems to be the same thing here. Some types of fundamentalist Christians love individual aspects of Sharia law, but baulk at it when the top of it refers to Allah. They're OK with an oppressive theocracy, so long as they're the ones doing the oppressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, if you want to find real Christian law mandated by a state still it is only the Vatican. There the pope is the absolute monarch so whatever he wants is law I guess. That's the extent of modern Christian law.
There are states with forms of Christianity as a state religion though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"And the rest of have to fight for honesty and integrity, absent here altogether."
Why did you chose the word "fight" when other words probably are better suited for your point to be made?
Honesty ... you mean like telling the truth? Some people think "the truth" is what they believe rather than what actually occurred and therefore they are no longer interested in exactly what happened as they already know what happened and anyone further exploring the data is an activist, antagonist, hoaxer ... anything with negative connotation works here.
Integrity ... you mean like following thru with what you promised? Many make promises, commitments that they can not meet and as things change it is common for prior commitments to not work out. Most people acknowledge these things and take responsibility for their prior commitments while others not so much, they make excuses and get very upset when called out on it. How dare you!!! is quite common.
Absent here? I really can not say because I do not have access in order to do a complete evaluation ... how would you do such a review? Can AI search and find honesty? Can AI search and find integrity? Are these things subject to interpretation?
I doubt you care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I doubt you care.
I'm not sure I care - what was your post actually asking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fighting for honesty and integrity when we do not agree upon what that means is rather silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
John Steele getting arrested was a huge blow to you, wasn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[You] speak for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
truth be told
I don't believe in computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Blasphemy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hexetic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah, look at what it has become. more than anything, a means to allow giant corporations that refuse to join the internet/technology age to sue everyone they feel like, in particular those who cannot afford to defend themselves. a means by which those above can bribe law offices and employees to due as they demand rather than to follow the law and the 'innocent until proven guilty' that a democracy is supposed to be built on. a means whereby the ordinary people can discover and share information, in particular about the heads of corporations, industries and governments who are more wrapped up in lining their own pockets at the expense of ordinary people. the main thing though, to me is that because it is so good are this last part that the heads of the giant corporations, industries and governments are going to any lengths they can think of to take control of the Internet, thereby preventing this spread of information that is 'unpalatable' to them but is the dogs bollocks when it can be used against us, the ordinary people! it wasn't meant for this purpose when invented and probably wouldn't have been had it not been for the likes of those above being so concerned in protecting themselves and wanting to boot us off it that the info side flourished. now it's biting them in the ass but they still aren't content with leaving things alone and must have the last say! plums!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, that would be our legal system that provides the means to sue whoever they feel like. They could do this long before the internet was a thing.
And again, the means is not the internet, it's called money and our legal system. This was also happening long before the internet.
This is true. But it is also so much more than that.
Neither was the hammer meant to kill people or break into cars but it's used that way by people with ill intent. That's the thing about tools, they can be used for good or bad and you can only do so much to prevent their use for bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to keep it OUT of the hands of the government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You want the Internet to disappear?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government invented it you dolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"(the next 50 years): —and speeds will be higher, with 5G and optical fiber"
5G should be available for our grandchildren? Sounds optimistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
⠀
⠀
[ link to this | view in chronology ]