"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dear Rhonda,
>>And the Internet isn't "private computer networks".
>>...
>>The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is
>I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the
>constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure,
>it is private. Most others are.
It can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of
the Internet.
If you want a private network, have your private network.
If you want to be part of the Internet, then you have become
something different from your private network, you have
become part of an internetworking of networks.
You are *no* longer private.
This issue came up on early Usenet and got clarified.
Those sites that wanted to be private, couldn't be on Usenet.
Once one was on Usenet, one announced one's site, agreed
to be part of the communication with others etc.
Usenet was a public entity.
If AOL or your network Tony, want to be private, then have your
network.
By agreeing to collaborate the way the Internet requires one
collaborate, one doesn't change the internal nature of ones
network, but one becomes part of a larger entity, and thus
not a private self contained entity.
The point is that Compuserve or the Source were private networks.
People signed onto them and had the benefit of what they provided.
But until they became part of the Internet their users couldn't
communicate with other users on other networks.
If you want a private network, why be part of the Internet?
Why not just have your private network?
The point is that if you are part of the Internet you agree to
be part of a people-computer-network communication system
that is something bigger than your private network.
If you don't want that, then have your private network and
perhaps figure out how to have a gateway to some other private
network that also wants to be private.
That is different from being part of an Internet.
>>The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all.
>
>>They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity.
>Is routing an essential function? How does it occur?
>Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential
>function?
Isn't there something public? Isn't it that the participating
networks are there to make the routing possible?
What about the IP numbers?
What about the root server system?
If these are essential for the Internet to function then the
private entity who will control them will control the Internet.
Then it will *no* longer be an Internet, but a privately controlled
entity which must be obedient to the whims and wiles of who
controls the IP numbers.
Then the open architecture concept that is the foundation of
the Internet is no longer functioning. It is no longer that
any network that wants to join can join, it is that there
is the power to decide who will join which will reside in
whoever controls the IP numbers.
Similarly if the root server system becomes private then
he who controls the root server system will control who will
have access and who won't.
Either these are public functions that mean that they are
in the public domain and have certain obligations and procedures
can be required to make sure that all have access, or they
are in the private control of the one who grabs the control.
>>The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private.
>Can't a private medium be used for communication
>among the general public?
But that isn't the Internet.
Tony, what is an Internet to you?
My point is that the Internet is a system that is made up
of a number of diverse parts that make it possible for there
to be communication. It depends on cooperation of those
diverse parts and of contributions from those diverse parts.
Once we start with something private we have a different paradigm.
We no longer have an Internet.
>--tony
Ronda
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
