I pretty much concur... with the caveat as you mention the slow but supposedly impending move to IP v 6... and with the idea that the functionality of TCP/IP actually being replaced.... by an equivalent or better protocol/protocol defining mechanism. The functional idea of the TCP/IP (that I am pointing to) whether ip v4 or v 6 is that we have a basic protocol and from this sessions can be initiatied and more importantly new protocols can be defined. And so we have agreement on protocols and means of defining and referencing further protocols ... and we have networks that agree (peering) to handle such traffic in certain ways. Now I dont know if in this loosely framed statement I'm taking an essentialist approach, but I think it is very important to see the Internet in this way ... in order to defend the Internet conceptually.... in the realm of public opinion, academic research and in legal contest (legislative, judiciary and other institutional fronts (e.g. FCC)) ... If we study discourse on connectivity/broadband/Internet we see these terms often conflated, sometimes strategically/intentionally, sometimes not (accident of insufficient clarity). Broadband has a set of legal definitions too... and the gap between the public and political discourse on this and the legal definitions (per FCC, et al) is quite stark. Over-all this connects to the broader topics of commercial speech and the gap between what is allowable as commercial speech and what is understood from commercial speech. I raise the issue of Broadband in relation to Internet because as people fight for connectivity and political leaders make hay out of the issue ... they run the risk of not getting what they think they are pushing for. As researchers and public intellectuals we have a role in this process, and we should take pains to make the distinctions clear .. for example when legislation calls for Broadband deployment, we should ask why it doenst explicitly call for Broadband Internet deployment? The Internet ... TCP/IP networks with peering agreements has a certain character because of it's technical specification and the peering agreements based on that specification. That character is defined in a manner such that connection speeds are not central... rather it is the notion of a stack (OSI) where different layers are accorded different roles. As we hear the cry for Broadband or Big Broadband with greater and greater speeds (comparing with the bandwidth available in other countries, or in other regions (whatever the unit of comparison)) the focus shifts away from what is central to the Internet, and establishes a basis on which to extend our capacity in such a way that we move away from the essential character of the Internet. Another way we risk this shift away from the Internet is in the calls for building more "Intelligence" into the network (sometimes with 'security' being the driving wedge). Reading David Isenberg's work on the "Rise of the Stupid Network" we see the virtues of the TCP/IP based networks as one where the intelligence of the network is by design at the edges. I'd also point to conceptual work of Garth Graham - taking the TCP/IP as a form of social contract... where we are all peers. Imagine a reconceptualization of politics in such a frame... I know a number of us are. Regards to all. -MM On 10/17/06, Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/17/06, Michael Maranda <mmaranda@afcn.org> wrote:
Yes, in my brief phrase "Internet as an agreement(s)" I think we lead towards an understanding of this ... it's an agreement around TCP/IP ... that TCP/IP be a protocol over which we can define additional protocols, and around peering agreements by which traffic will be carried through networks held by others.
Is TCP/IP really a core, defining feature of the Internet? Wouldn't it still be "the Internet" if we could somehow replace TCP/IP with something functionally equivalent? I have a difficult time making the current networking protocols selected out of the middle of the networking stack a defining feature of what I view as a merely a means of linking disparate networks. Couldn't we rightfully say that a device on the other side of a bridge linking a non-IP network to the Internet is just as much on the Internet as a device on an IP network? I certainly don't deny (a) the major historical role that TCP/IP has played and continues to play in the development and operation of the Internet and (b) the dominance of TCP/IP in the majority of computer networks. But it just seems to me that TCP/IP as the underlying protocol of the majority of the Internet is a historical accident. Other protocols that provided the same functionality could just as easily been used. An Internet with some other functionally-equivalent protocol would still be the Internet just as my LAN at home is still essentially the same despite moving from Ethernet over Cat5 to 802.11g over the air. It also seems to me that the slow-moving-but-supposedly-imminent move to IPv6 provides some support for my argument since we are replacing one of the core protocols used on the Internet with another protocol but it's still going to be the Internet. I am also uncomfortable conflating the effects and uses of the Internet with its definition. Your initial thoughts related to "agreements" seems to me to be the closest to what I would call a "good" definition.
Kevin _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org