[2029] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Balkanization
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Laws)
Sat Jan 18 20:23:17 1992
Date: Sat 18 Jan 92 17:22:58-PST
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@ai.sri.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
> From Bill Gunshannon:
> I fear we may someday want to access dialog.com and
> have to ask first "Which INTERNET are they on and does our INTERNET talk
> to their INTERNET?"
As a user, of course I want a unified address space. But it
would not be a major problem to have multiple "internets"
as long as each had its own address syntax. Addresses like
bill@tuatara.uofs.edu would indicate one network; addresses
like bill%dialog.com might indicate another. (Or choose
whatever syntax seems acceptable. Maybe bill!dialog!com.)
My computer would be smart enough to use the appropriate
network, so it would all be transparent to me.
While there's benefit in asking what the network SHOULD
look like, we have to be realistic about the evolutionary
paths that are available. A "single phone company" model
is intuitively appealing, but unwise. Capitalism works
best when there are at least three comparable suppliers
plus free entry for any others who wish to unseat them.
That's why we have three major TV networks, three major
U.S. auto makers, and similar choices of military aircraft
suppliers, computer chip manufacturers, etc. It's a pain
having to decide which brand of pancake mix to buy, but
I prefer our system to one where the government makes the
choice for me. Likewise, when a company connects to the
net it should have a choice of nets to connect to. (And
the same should be true for RE companies! A government-
subsidized network for RE sounds like a great idea, but
what happens after commercial networks evolve to provide
better service at lower cost -- as happened to the ARPANET.
Do we really want to lock universities INTO their own
clique and OUT OF cultural or technical compatibility
with industry?)
-- Ken
-------
