[2776] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
re: The future of the Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig Partridge)
Sun May 31 15:55:46 1992
To: drw@bourbaki.mit.edu
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Reply-To: Craig Partridge <craig@aland.bbn.com>
From: Craig Partridge <craig@aland.bbn.com>
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 12:49:38 -0700
Dale:
Thanks for your perspective on the future of the Internet. I think
you've hit some nails square on the head, but allow me to suggest that
you've missed a few as well.
> 1. The Internet will become truly world-wide: The United States (even
> if you include Canada and Mexico) accounts for only about 1/3 of the
> population and economy of the industrialized world. Thus, North
> America will account for only about 1/3 of the Internet hosts and
> traffic once the Internet has reached its full potential.
I wouldn't be quite this glib. I seem to recall that measured according
to some economic indicies, North America has more than 1/3 of the world's
wealth, disposable income, etc. Still, it is true that North America
will become an increasingly smaller piece.
> 3. The Internet will be sold as a service for a fee, rather than being
> delivered by a club-like consortium effort between a small number of
> widely scattered users.
Access already is sold as a service for a fee. What's the point here?
> B. Serious thought ought to be given to the development, interaction,
> and economics of commercial Internet providers. Should they be
> regulated as public utilities? What happens when the density of users
> starts becoming comparable to that of telephones? What sort of
> charging schemes are possible, and how do they affect the competitive
> interaction between providers?
Ask not, lest ye shall receive. More seriously, I think this is one
of the key questions. A concern is public utility commissions don't
understand the beast and probably could kill it through any one of a
number of bad decisions. So becoming a public utility is probably *not*
a virtue. (Think of this idea another way -- what if the US Postal Commission
was suddenly given authority over the rates of the various package
carriers such as UPS, Fed Ex, etc. -- would this be a good thing?
Would it improve service?)
> C. Should ubiquitous service be a goal? When the merchant sends a
> credit card number to be verified, why not do it by Internet?
I believe they already use private TCP/IP and/or X.25 networks. I know
that several of the major credit card networks were built by prominent
internetworking vendors. As for whether the credit card companies prefer
a private network or a public one, that's presumably their choice, yes?
Just as one can have virtual private networks for your phone service.
> D. How would a ubiquitous Internet compete with ISDN? Should Internet
> service be provided by telephone companies (which leads to certain
> efficiencies of organization)?
Actually, the Internet should compete quite well -- especially since ISDN
isn't a service until you connect your ISDN channel to something (and isn't
the Internet a rational thing to connect to?). As for phone companies,
gee - that's tough to say. Historically phone companies have demonstrated
they really don't understand data networking. They're trying hard to learn
because data communications is becoming an important part of their revenue
stream, but they ain't there yet. (This is not to say that there aren't
a large number of very good data communications types in the phone companies
these days -- but the vast majority of them are still junior and any good
business text will tell you the dangers of having a senior management that
doesn't understand a product you're trying to sell...).
Craig
