The Amateur

Computerist

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

November 2022 Toward 25 Years of the Netizen Book (Part 3) Volume 35 No. 3

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

What is a Netizen? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

Net and Netizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6

Social Forces Behind Development of Usenet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41

Vision of Interactive Computing And the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 54

Untold Story of ARPANET & Computer Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 61

Introduction

mpact

The year 2022 marks the 25

Anniversary of the May 1, 1997 pub-

lication of the print edition of Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben. This issue

is again part of the celebration of that Anniversary. The articles here are

the Preface and Chapters 1, 3, 5 and 7 by Michael Hauben in that book.

The first article, the Preface asks, “What is a Netizen?” Michael

answers by telling some of how he came online on local hobbyist-run

computer bulletin board systems starting in 1985 and then on global Use-

net. He found Usenet discussions to be mentally invigorating and wel-

coming of thoughtful comments, questions and discussion. He became

aware that there was a new social institution, an electronic commons,

developing. He discovered from those who wrote to him that the people

he was writing about were citizens of the Net, or Netizens.

The second article, “The Net and Netizens” begins with his often

Page 1

quoted opening in 1994, “Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Netizen

(a Net Citizen), and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global

connectivity that the Net makes possible.” He includes his prediction, “We

are seeing a revitalization of society. The frameworks are being redesigned

from the bottom up. A new, more democratic world is becoming possi-

ble.” Much of the article are quotes from the people who wrote to Michael

which were Michael’s data from which he learned that many Usenet users

were acting as citizens of the Net.

The next article as the result of Michael’s searching for “The Social

Forces Behind the Development of Usenet.” The article is a tour through

ARPANET, Usenet and UNIX. It sees the Internet as providing a route for

the increased distribution of Usenet. Michael focuses on Usenet as a social

network whose very nature promotes change. His analysis leads to the

conclusion that Usenet is a democratic and technological breakthrough and

that the very nature of Usenet means people are going to be working for

its expansion.

In the fourth article. “The Vision of Interactive Computing And the

Future” Michael explains the role of the time-sharing mode of computer

use as a source of the vision. Sharing time on the same computer gave rise

to communities of researchers. Expanding that reality give rise to a view

of one grand public utility or connecting the communities by connecting

their computers. Michael centers the vision for what today we call the

Internet on J. C. R. Licklider and his advocacy and financial support as the

director of the Information Processing Technologies Office for interactive

computing. Licklider’s vision was of an “intergalactic network.” This

article documents what that meant to Licklider and those who developed

the ARPANET.

The last article in this issue is “Behind the Net: The Untold Story of

the ARPANET and Computer Science.” It is the story told in the ARPA-

NET Completion Report that the ARPANET was fundamentally connected

to and born of computer science rather than of the military. From the

founding of ARPA in response to the Soviet Union’s launch of the Sputnik

in 1957, through Licklider changing the emphasis from command and

control to the more fundamental level of interactive computing. The article

describes the work of the graduate students in the Network Working

Group (NWG) to develop the needed protocols and functionality to

Page 2

connect dissimilar computers and for the use for practical tasks. In this

process these students created a form for the open exchange of ideas

documented in reports called Requests For Comments (RFCs). Michael

concludes that the work of the NWG blazed the trail which the developers

of the TCP/IP protocol suit successfully followed. Fundamentally,

Licklider and the ARPANET researcher achieved their many successes

because they viewed the computer as a communication device.

[Editor’s Note: At the end of November 1995, Michael Hauben visited Japan for two

weeks. He was invited to speak at the COARA Hypernetwork '95, Beppu Bay Conference

in Beppu, Kyushu, Japan. The theme of the conference was “The Netizen Revolution and

the Regional Information Infrastructure.” He presented his speech “The Netizens and

Community Networks” on November 24, 1995 as part of the Netizens section. That

speech was the first version of the article below and can be seen online at:

https://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/feb/hauben.html. The version below appears

as the Preface of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben published in 1997 by the IEEE Computer Society

Press, pp. ix-xi.]

What is a Netizen?

The story of Netizens is an important one. In conducting research

five years ago online to determine people’s uses of the global computer

communications network, I became aware that there was a new social

institution, an electronic commons, developing. It was exciting to explore

this new social institution. Others online shared this excitement. I dis-

covered from those who wrote me that the people I was writing about were

citizens of the Net, or Netizens.

I started using local bulletin board systems in Michigan in 1985.

After seven years of participation on both local hobbyist-run computer

bulletin board systems and the global Usenet, I began to research Usenet

and the Internet. I found these online discussions to be mentally invig-

orating and welcoming of thoughtful comments, questions and discussion.

People were friendly and considerate of others and their questions. This

was a new environment for me. Little thoughtful conversation was en-

Page 3

couraged in my high school. Since my daily life did not provide places and

people to talk with about real issues and real world topics, I wondered why

the online experience encouraged such discussions and consideration of

others. Where did such a culture spring from, and how did it arise? During

my sophomore year of college in 1992, I was curious to explore and better

understand this new online world.

As part of course work at Columbia University, I explored these

questions. One professor encouraged me to use Usenet and the Internet as

places to conduct research. My research was real participation in the on-

line community, exploring how and why these communications forums

functioned. I posed questions on Usenet, mailing lists, and freenets. Along

with my questions, I would attach some worthwhile preliminary research.

People respected my questions and found the preliminary research helpful.

The entire process was one of mutual respect and sharing of research and

ideas, fostering a sense of community and participation. I found that on the

Net people willingly help each other and work together to define and

address issues important to them. These are often important issues that the

conventional media would never cover.

My initial research concerned the origins and development of the

global discussion forum Usenet. For my second paper, I wanted to explore

the larger Net, what it was, and its significance. This is when my research

uncovered the remaining details that helped me recognize the emergence

of Netizens. There are people online who actively contribute to the

development of the Net. These people understand the value of collective

work and the communal aspects of public communications. These are the

people who discuss and debate topics in a constructive manner, who e-

mail answers to people and provide help to newcomers, who maintain

FAQ files and other public information repositories, who maintain mailing

lists, and so on. These are the people who discuss the nature and role of

this new communications medium. These are the people who as citizens

of the Net I realized were Netizens. However, these are not all people.

Netizens are not just anyone who comes online. Netizens are especially

not people who come online for individual gain or profit. They are not

people who come to the Net thinking it is a service. Rather, they are the

people who understand it takes effort and action on each and everyone’s

part to make the Net a regenerative and vibrant community and resource.

Page 4

Netizens are people who decide to devote time and effort into making the

Net, this new part of our world, a better place. Lurkers are not Netizens,

and vanity home pages are not the work of Netizens. While lurking or

trivial home pages do not harm the Net, they do not contribute either.

The term Netizen has spread widely since it was first coined. The

genesis comes from net culture based on the original newsgroup naming

conventions. Network wide Usenet newsgroups included net.general for

general discussion, net.auto for discussion of autos, net.bugs for discussion

of Unix bug reports, and so on. People who used Usenet would prefix

terms related to the online world with the word net, similar to the news-

group terminology. So there would be references to net.gods, net.cops or

net.citizens. My research demonstrated that there were people active as

members of the network, which the words net citizen do not precisely

represent. The word citizen suggests a geographic or national definition

of social membership. The word Netizen reflects the new non-geograph-

ically based social membership. So I contracted net.citizen to Netizen.

Two general uses of the term Netizen have developed. The first is a

broad use to refer to anyone who uses the Net, for whatever purpose. Thus,

the term netizen has been prefixed in some uses with the adjectives good

or bad. The second use is closer to my understanding. This definition is

used to describe people who care about Usenet and the bigger Net and

work toward building the cooperative and collective nature which benefits

the larger world. These are people who work toward developing the Net.

In this second case, Netizen represents positive activity, and no adjective

need be used. Both uses have spread from the online community, ap-

pearing in newspapers, magazines, television, books and other off-line

media. As more and more people join the online community and contrib-

ute toward the nurturing of the Net and toward the development of a

great shared social wealth, the ideas and values of Netizenship spread. But

with the increasing commercialization and privatization of the Net, Neti-

zenship is being challenged. During such a period, it is valuable to look

back at the pioneering vision and action that made the Net possible and

examine the lessons they provide. That is what we have tried to do in these

chapters.

Michael Hauben

Page 5

New York and Beppu

November 1995

[email protected]

[Editor’s Note: The earliest version of the following article first appeared on Usenet in

three posts on July 6, 1993. A version also appeared as Chapter 7 of The Netizens and the

Wonderful World of the Net: An Anthology on January 12, 1994. A version is often cited

as Chapter 1 of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben published in 1997 by the IEEE Computer Society

Press, pp. 3-34.]

The Net and Netizens The Impact the

Net Has on People’s Lives

by Michael Hauben

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Netizen (a Net Citizen), and

you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global connectivity that the

Net makes possible. You consider everyone as your compatriot. You phys-

ically live in one country but you are in contact with much of the world via

the global computer network. Virtually, you live next door to every other

single Netizen in the world. Geographical separation is replaced by exis-

tence in the same virtual space.

The situation I describe is only a prediction of the future, but a large

part of the necessary infrastructure currently exists. The Net – or the Inter-

net, BITNET, FIDOnet, other physical networks, Usenet, VMSnet, and

other logical networks – has rapidly grown to cover all of the developed

countries in the world.

Every day, more computers are attached to the

existing networks, and every new computer adds to the user base – at least

twenty-seven million people are interconnected today.

We are seeing a revitalization of society. The frameworks are being

redesigned from the bottom up. A new, more democratic world is

becoming possible. As one user observed, the Net has “immeasurably in-

creased the quality of … life.” The Net seems to open a new lease on life

for people. Social connections that were never before possible, or rel-

Page 6

atively hard to achieve, are now facilitated by the Net. Geography and

time are no longer boundaries. Social limitations and conventions no

longer prevent potential friendships or partnerships. In this manner Neti-

zens are meeting other Netizens from far away and close by that they

might never have met without the Net.

A new world of connections between people – either privately, from

individual to individual, or publicly, from individuals to the collective

mass of many on the Net – is possible. The old model of distribution of

information from the central Network Broadcasting Company is being

questioned and challenged. The top-down model of information being

distributed by a few for mass consumption is no longer the only news.

Netnews brings the power of the reporter to the Netizen. People now have

the ability to broadcast their observations or questions around the world

and have other people respond. The computer networks form a new

grassroots connection that allows excluded sections of society to have a

voice. This new medium is unprecedented. Previous grassroots media have

existed for much smaller groups of people. The model of the Net proves

the old way does not have to be the only way of networking. The Net

extends the idea of networking, of making connections with strangers that

prove to be advantageous to one or both parties.

The complete connection of the body of citizens of the world that the

Net makes possible does not yet exist, and it will be a struggle to make

access to the Net open and available to all. However, in the future we

might see the expansion of what it means to be a social animal. Practically

every single individual on the Net today is available to every other person

on the Net. International connection exists on the same level with local

connection. Also, the computer networks allow a more advanced con-

nection between the people who are communicating. With computer com-

munication systems, information and thoughts are connected to people’s

names and electronic-mail addresses. On the Net, one can connect to

others who have similar interests or whose thought processes he or she

enjoys.

Netizens make it a point to be helpful and friendly – if they feel it

will be worthwhile. Many Netizens feel they have an obligation to be

helpful, answer queries, and follow up on discussions; to put their opinions

into the pot of opinions. Over a period of time the voluntary contributions

Page 7

to the Net have built it into a useful connection to other people around the

world. When I posted the question, “Is the Net a Source of So-

cial/Economic Wealth?” many people responded. Several corrected my

calling the Net a source of accurate information. They pointed out that it

was also a source of opinions. However, readers can train themselves to

figure out the accurate information from the breadth of opinions. Presented

here is an example of the broad range of views and opinions that I was

able to gather from my research on the Net. The Net can be a helpful

medium to help one understand the world. Only by seeing many points of

view can one figure out his or her position on a topic.

Net society differs from off-line society by welcoming intellectual

activity. People are encouraged to be thoughtful and to present their ideas

to the Net. People are allowed to be intellectually interesting and

interested. This intellectual activity forms a major part of the online infor-

mation that is carried by the various computer networks. Netizens can

interact with other people to help add to or alter that information. Brain-

storming among different types of people produces robust thinking.

Information is no longer a fixed commodity or resource on the Net. It is

constantly being added to and improved collectively. The Net is a grand

intellectual and social commune in the spirit of the collective nature

present at the origins of human society. Netizens working together con-

tinually expand the store of information worldwide. One person called the

Net an untapped resource because it provides an alternative to the normal

channels and ways of doing things. The Net allows for the meeting of

minds to form and develop ideas. It brings people’s thinking processes out

of isolation and into the open. Every user of the Net gains the role of being

special and useful. The fact that every user has his or her own opinions

and interests adds to the general body of specialized knowledge on the

Net. Each Netizen thus becomes a special resource valuable to the Net.

Each user contributes to the whole intellectual and social value and pos-

sibilities of the Net.

LICKLIDER’S VISION

The world of the Netizen was envisioned more than twenty-five

years ago by J.C.R. Licklider. Licklider brought to his leadership of the

Department of Defense’s ARPA Information Processing Techniques

Page 8

Office (IPTO) a vision of “the intergalactic computer network.” He shared

this vision with others when he spoke as a representative from ARPA.

Licklider was a prophet of the Net. In the 1968 paper, “The Computer as

a Communication Device” written with Robert Taylor, they established

several principles from their observations on how the computer would

play a helpful role in human communication.

They clarified their defi-

nition of communication as a creative process, differentiating between

communication and the sending and receiving of information. For

example, when two tape recorders send to or receive information from

each other, that is not communication. They wrote:

We believe that communicators have to do something nontrivi-

al with the information they send and receive. And … to inter-

act with the richness of living information – not merely in the

passive way that we have become accustomed to using books

and libraries, but as active participants in an ongoing process,

bringing something to it through our interaction with it, and

not simply receiving from it by our connection to it … . We

want to emphasize something beyond its one-way transfer: the

increasing significance of the jointly constructive, the mutually

reinforcing aspect of communication – the part that transcends

know we both know a fact that only one of us knew before.

When minds interact, new ideas emerge. We want to talk about

the creative aspect of communication.

Licklider and Taylor defined four principles for computers to make

a contribution toward human communication:

1. Communication is defined as an interactive creative process.

2. Response times need to be short to make the “conversation”

free and easy.

3. Larger networks form out of smaller regional networks.

4. Communities form out of affinity and common interests.

Licklider and Taylor’s understandings from their 1968 paper have

stood the test of time and do represent the Net today. In a later paper

Licklider cowrote with Albert Vezza, “Applications of Information Net-

works,”

they explore the possible business applications of information

networks. Licklider and Vezza’s survey of business applications in 1978

falls short of the possibilities Licklider and Taylor outlined in their 1968

Page 9

paper and represent but a tiny fraction of the resources the Net currently

embodies.

In the 1968 paper, Licklider and Taylor focused on the Net being

comprised of a network of networks. While other researchers at the time

focused on the sharing of computing resources, Licklider and Taylor kept

an open mind:

The collection of people, hardware, and software – the multi-

access computer together with its local community of users –

will become a node in a geographically distributed computer

network. Let us assume for a moment that such a network has

been formed … . Through the network of message processors,

therefore, all the large computers can communicate with one

another. And through them, all the members of the super-

community can communicate – with other people, with pro-

grams, with data, or with a selected combinations of those

resources.

Their concept of the sharing of both computing and human resources

matches the modern Net. The network of various human connections

quickly forms, changes its goals, disbands, and reforms into new col-

laborations. The fluidity of such group dynamics leads to a quickening of

the creation of new ideas. Groups can form to discuss an idea, focus in or

broaden out, and re-form to fit the new ideas that have been worked out.

Netnews, IRC (Internet Relay Chat), mailing lists, and

mud/mush/moo/m** (various of the discussion tools available on the Net)

are extremely dynamic. Most can be formed immediately for either short-

or long-term use. As interests form or events occur, discussion groups can

be created. (for example, the mailing list 9NOV89 – L was formed after

the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and continued in order to

discuss German unification.)

The virtual space created on noncommercial computer networks is

accessible universally. The content on commercial networks, such as

Compuserve or America Online, is only accessible to those who pay to

belong to that particular network. The space on noncommercial networks

is accessible from the connections that exist, whereas social networks in

the physical world generally are connected by limited gateways. So the

capability of networking on computer nets overcomes limitations inherent

Page 10

in non-computer social networks. This is important because it reduces the

problems of population growth. Population growth need not mean limited

resources any more – rather that very growth of population now means an

improvement of resources. Thus, growth of population can be seen as a

positive asset. This is a new way of looking at people in our society. Every

new person can mean a new set of perspectives and specialties to add to

the wealth of knowledge of the world. This new view of people could help

improve the view of the future. The old model looks down on population

growth and people as a strain on the environment rather than seeing the

intellectual contribution these individuals can make. However, access to

the Net will need to be universal for the Net to fully utilize the contribu-

tion each person can make. As long as access is limited, the Net and those

on the Net lose the full advantages it can offer. But also, the people on the

Net need to be active in order to bring about the best possible use of the

Net.

Licklider foresaw that the Net would allow for people of common

interests, who are otherwise strangers, to communicate. Much of the magic

of the Net is the ability to make a contribution of your ideas and then be

connected to utter strangers. He saw that people would connect to others

via this Net in ways that had been much harder in the past. Licklider

observed as the ARPANET grew to span two continents that this physical

connection allowed for wider social collaborations to form. This was the

beginning of computer data networks facilitating connections of people

around the world.

My research on and about the Net was very exciting for me. When

posting inquiries, I usually received the first reply within a couple of

hours. The feeling of receiving that very first reply from a total stranger

is always exhilarating! That set of first replies from people reminds me of

the magic of electronic mail (e-mail). It is nice that there can be reminders

of how exciting this new form of communication really is – so that the

value of this new use of computers is never forgotten.

CRITICAL MASS

The Net has grown so much since its birth in the 1960s that a critical

mass of people and interests has been reached. This collection of indi-

viduals adds to the interests and specialties of the whole community. Most

Page 11

people can now gain something from the Net, while at the same time

helping it out. There are enough people online now that most anyone new

coming online will find something of interest. People are meshing

intellects and knowledge to form new ideas. Larry Press made this clear

by writing:

I now work on the Net at least 2 hours per day. I’ve had an

account since around 1975 but it has only become super

important in the last couple of years because a critical mass of

membership was reached. I no longer work in LA, but in

cyberspace.

Although the original users of the Net were from technical and

scientific communities, many of them found it valuable to explore the Net

for more than just technical reasons. Today, many different kinds of peo-

ple are connected to the Net. The original users of the Net (then several

test-beds of network research) were from only a few parts of the world.

Now people of all ages, from most parts of the globe, and of many

professions, make up the Net. The original prototype networks (the

ARPANET in the United States, the network of the National Physical

Laboratory in the United Kingdom, CYCLADES in France, and other

networks around the world) developed the necessary physical infrastruc-

ture for a fertile social network to develop. Einar Stefferud wrote of this

social connection:

The ARPANET has produced several monumental results.

First, it provided the physical and electrical communications

backbone for development of the latent social infrastructure we

now call “THE INTERNET COMMUNITY.”

Many different kinds of people comprise the Net. The university

community sponsors access for a broad range of people (students,

professors, staff, retired professors, etc.). Many businesses are also con-

nected. A “K-12 Net” that invites younger people to be a part of the online

community exists. Special bulletin-board software exists to connect

personal computer users to the Net. Various Unix bulletin-board systems

exist to connect other users. It is virtually impossible to tell what kinds of

people connect to public bulletin board systems (BBSs), as only a

computer (or terminal) and modem are the prerequisites to connect. Many,

if not all, FIDOnet BBSs (a very common BBS type) have at least e-mail,

Page 12

and many also participate in the larger Net through a gateway to Netnews.

Prototype community network systems are forming around the world (for

example, Cleveland Free-Net, Wellington Citynet, Santa Monica Public

Electronic Network (PEN), Amsterdam Digital City, Hawaii FYI, National

Capital Free-Net and others in Canada). Access via these community sys-

tems can be as easy as visiting the community library, and membership is

open to all who live in the community.

In addition to the living body of resources this diversity of Netizens

represents, there is also a continually growing body of digitized data that

forms another resource. Whether it is Netizens digitizing great literature

of the past (for example, the Gutenberg Project or Project Bartleby), peo-

ple gathering otherwise obscure or non-mainstream material (for example,

on various religions, unusual hobbies, gay lifestyle), or Netizens contribut-

ing new and original material, the Net follows in the great tradition of

other public institutions, such as the public library or the principles behind

public education. The Net shares with these institutions that it serves the

general populace. The data available is just part of the treasure. Often,

living Netizens provide pointers to this digitized store of publicly available

information. Many of the network access tools have been created on the

principle of being available to everyone. The best example is the method

of connecting to file repositories via FTP (File Transfer Protocol) by

logging in as an “anonymous” user. Most, if not all, World Wide Web

sites, Wide Area Information Systems (WAIS), and gopher sites are open

to all users of the Net. It is true that the Net community is smaller than it

will be eventually, but the Net has reached a point of general usefulness

no matter who you are.

This evidence is exactly why it is a problem for the Net to come

under the control of commercial entities. Once commercial interests gain

control, the Net will be much less powerful for the ordinary person than

it is currently. The interests of commercial entities are different from those

of the common person. Those pursuing commercial objectives are only

interested in making a profit. A user of Compuserve or a similar commer-

cial network pays for access by the hour. If this were extended to the

present-day Net, the Netiquette of being helpful would have a price tag

attached to it. If people had to pay by the minute during the Net’s devel-

opment, very few would have been able to afford the network time needed

Page 13

to be helpful to others.

The Net has only developed because of the hard work and voluntary

dedication of many people. It has grown because the Net is in the control

and power of the people at the grassroots level, and because these people

developed it. People’s posts and contributions to the Net have been the

developing forces.

GRASSROOTS

The Net brings people together. People connecting with other people

can be powerful. There is power in numbers. The Net allows individuals

to realize their power. The Net, uncontrolled by commercial entities, be-

comes the gathering, discussion, and planning center for many people. The

combined efforts of people interested in communication has led to the

development and expansion of the global communications system. What’s

on the Net? Usenet, Free-Net, e-mail, library catalogs, FTP sites, free

software, electronic newsletters and journals, Multi-User Do-

main/Dungeon (mud)/mush/moo, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), the multi-

media World Wide Web (WWW) and many kinds of data banks. Different

servers, such as WWW, WAIS, and gophers attempt to order and to make

it easier to utilize the vast variety of information. There are both public

and private services and sources of information. The public and free ser-

vices often have come about through the voluntary efforts of one or a few

people. These technologies allow a person to help make the world a better

place by making his or her unique contribution available to the rest of the

world. People who have been overlooked or have felt unable to contribute

to the world, now can. The networks allow much more open and public

interaction over a much larger body of people than possible before. The

common people have a unique voice that is now being aired in a new way.

This new communications system introduces every single person as

someone special and in possession of a useful resource. Several people

described how important is the ability to connect to others at a grassroots

level:

Simple – by access to a vast amount of information and an

enormous number of brains — Brian May

For a geographically sparse group as it is, MU* allows people

Page 14

to get to know one another, the relevant newsgroup gives a

sense that there’s a community out there and things are hap-

pening, and an associated FTP site allows art and writing to be

distributed. — Simon Raboczi

In summary, nets have helped enormously in the dissemination

of information from people knowledgeable in certain areas

which would be difficult to obtain otherwise.

— Brent Edwards

I get to communicate rapidly and cheaply with zillions of

people around the world. — Rosemary Warren

The following examples show how this is possible. People are norm-

ally unprotected from the profit desires of large companies. Steven

Alexander from California uses the Net to try to prevent overcharging at

gas stations, a good example of the power of connecting people to uphold

what is fair and in the best interest of the common person in society.

From: Steven Alexander

I have started compiling and distributing (on the newsgroup

ca.driving) a list of gas prices at particular stations in Califor-

nia to which many people will contribute and keep up to date,

and which, I hope, will allow consumers to counteract what

many of us suspect is the collusive (or in any case, price

gouging) behavior of the oil companies.

A user from Germany also reported using the Net to muckrake:

A company said they were a [nonprofit organization] … .

Someone looked them up in the [nonprofit] … Register …

[and] they did not exist there … . Another one said, that he had

contact with the person who sent the letter … only [under]

another company-name, and that he simply ignored this person

since he looked like a swindler. So they are swindlers, and

people from the Net proved it to us, we then of course did not

engage with them at all.

Page 15

The Net has proven its importance in other contemporary critical

situations. As the only available line of communication with the rest of the

world, the Net helped defeat the attempted coup in the former Soviet

Union in 1990. The members of the coup either did not know about or

understand the role the Russian RELCOM network could play. The

connections proved resilient enough for information about the coup to be

communicated inside and out of the country in time to inform the world

and encourage resistance.

The Net has also proven its value by providing an important medium

for students. Students participating in the Chinese pro-democracy move-

ment have kept in touch with others around the world via their fragile

connection to the Net. The Net provided an easy way of evading govern-

ment censors to get news around the world about events in China and to

receive encouraging feedback. Such feedback is vital when fighting on

seems impossible or wrong. Similarly, students in France used the French

Minitel system to organize a successful fight against plans by the French

government to restrict admission to government-subsidized universities.

The information flow on the Net is controlled by those who use the

Net. Users actively provide the information they and others want. There

is much more active participation than what is provided for by other forms

of mass media. Television, radio, and magazines are all driven by those

who own them and who determine who will write. The Net gives people

a medium they can control. This control of information is a great power

not available before to the common person. For example, Declan

McCreesh describes how this makes possible access to the most up-to-date

information.

From: Declan Mccreesh

You get the most up to date info. that people around the world

can get their hands on, which is great. For instance, the media

report who wins a Grand Prix, what happened and not a great

deal more. On the net, however, you can get top speeds, latest

car and technology developments, latest rumors, major debates

as to whether Formula 1 or Indy cars are better, etc.

The Net helps to make the information available more accurate

Page 16

because of the many-to-many or broadcast and read and write capability.

That new capability, which is not normally prevalent in our society, allows

an actual participant or observer to report something. This gives the power

of the reporter to the individual, allowing the source to report. This new

medium allows everyone online to make a contribution. The old media

instead controls who reports and what they say. The possibility of

eyewitness accounts via the Net can make the information more accurate.

This also opens up the possibility of a grassroots network, where

information is passed from person to person around the world. Thus,

German citizens learned about the Chernobyl explosion from the Net

before the government decided to release the information to the public

through traditional media. The connection is people to people rather than

government to government. Citizen journalists can now distribute to more

than those they know personally. The distribution of the writings of

ordinary people is the second step after the advent of the inexpensive per-

sonal computer in the early 1980s. The personal computer and printer

allowed anyone to produce mass quantities of documents. Personal pub-

lishing is now joined by wide personal distribution.

Not only is grassroots reporting possible, but the assumption that

filtering is necessary has been challenged. People can learn to sort through

the various opinions themselves. Steve Welch disagreed that the Net is a

source of more accurate information, but agreed that people develop

discriminatory reading skills.

From: Steve Welch

When you get more information from diverse sources, you

don’t always … get more accurate information. However, you

do develop skills in discerning accurate information … . Or

rather, you do if you want to come out of the info-glut jungle

alive.

Governments that rule based on control of information will succumb

eventually to the tides of democracy. As Dr. Sun Yat-Sen of the Chinese

Democracy Movement (c. 1919) once said, “The worldwide democratic

trend is mighty. Those who submit to it will prosper and those who resist

it will perish.” The Net reintroduces the basic idea of democracy as the

Page 17

grassroots people power of Netizens. Governments can no longer easily

keep information from people.

Many groups that do not have an established form of communica-

tions available to them have found the Net to be a powerful tool. For

example, for people far away from their homeland, the Net provides a new

link.

From: Godfrey Nolan

The Net has immeasurably increased the quality of my life. I

am Irish, but I have been living in England for the past five

years. It is a lot more difficult to get information about Ireland

than you would expect. However a man called Liam Ferrie

who works in Digital in Galway, compiles a newspaper on the

weeks events in Ireland and so I can now easily keep abreast

of most developments in Irish current affairs, which helps me

feel like I’m not losing touch when I go home about twice a

year. It is also transmitted to about 2000 Irish people all over

the first and third worlds.

From: Madhur K. Limdi

I read your above posting and wanted to share my experience

with you. I have been a frequent reader of news in usenet

groups! Such as soc.culture.indian misc.news.southasia and

both of these keep me reasonably informed about the happen-

ings in my home country India.

Also in the United States, the Net has provided stable communica-

tions for people of various religious and sexual persuasions. Many other

communities have also found the Net to be a excellent medium to help

increase communication.

From: Gregory G. Woodbury

We will be going to a march on Washington and are coordinat-

ing our plans and travel with a large number of other folks

around the country via e-mail and conversations on Usenet.

From: Jann Vanover

Page 18

I’m a member of a Buddhist organization and just found a man

in Berkeley who keeps a Mailing List that sends daily guid-

ance and discussions for this group. So I get a little religious

boost when I log on each day.

From: Carole E. Mah

For me and for many of my friends, the Net is our main form

of communication. Almost every aspect of interpersonal com-

munication on the network has a gay/lesbian/bi aspect to it that

forms a tight and intimate acquaintanceship which sometimes

even boils over into arguments and enmities. This network of

connections, friends, enemies, lovers, etc. facilitates political

goals that would not otherwise be possible (organizing letter-

writing campaigns about the Gays in the Military Ban via the

ACT-UP list, being able to send e-mail directly to the White

House, finding out about activism, bashing, etc. in other states

and around the world, etc.).

From: Robert Dean

As a member of the science fiction community, I’ve met quite

a few people on the net, and then in person.

COMMUNICATION WITH NEW PEOPLE

In many Netizens’ lives the Net has alleviated feelings of loneliness,

which seem common in today’s society. The Net’s ability to help people

network both socially and intellectually makes it valuable and irreplace-

able in their lives. This is forming a group of people who want to keep the

Net accessible and open to all.

The Net brings together people from diverse walks of life and makes

it easier for these people to communicate. It brings them together in the

same virtual space and removes the impact or influence of first impres-

sions.

From: Malcolm Humes

I’m in awe of the power and energy linking thousands into a

virtual intellectual coffee-house, where strangers can connect

Page 19

without the formalities of face to face rituals (hello, how are

you today …) to allow a direct-connect style of communica-

tion that seems to transcend the “how’s the weather” kind of

conversation to just let us connect without the bullshit.

Strangers are no longer strange on the Net. People are free to com-

municate without limits, fears, or apprehension. It used to be that there

was a rather generous atmosphere that thrived on the Net and that wel-

comed new users. People were happy to help others, often as a return for

the help they had received. Things have changed, and the welcome to new-

comers is not as universally friendly, but there are still many online who

are helpful to new users, and goodwill still overpowers any unfriendly

comments.

From: Jean-françois Messier

My use of the Net is to get in touch with more people around

the world. I don’t know for what, when, how, but that’s im-

portant for me. Not that I’m in a small town, far from every-

body, but that I want to be able to establish links with others.

In fact, because of those nets I use, I would !NOT! want to go

to a small town, just because the phone calls would be too

expensive. I have to say that I’m not an expressive person. I’m

not a great talker, nor somebody who could make shows … .

I’m more an “introvert.”

Yet Jean-François wrote me. This is just one example of the social

power of the Net. Another Netizen comments on how the Net helped her

befriend strangers.

From: Laura Goodin

Last summer I was traveling to Denver and I used a listserv

mailing list to find out whether a particular running group I run

with had a branch there. They did, and I had a wonderful time

meeting people with a common interest (and drinking beer

with them); I was no longer a stranger.

BROADENED AND WORLDLY PERSPECTIVES

Easy connection to people and ideas from around the world has a

Page 20

powerful effect. Awareness that we are members of the human species,

which spans the entire globe, changes a person’s point of view. It is a

broadening perspective. It is easy for people to assume a limited point of

view if they are only exposed to certain ideas. The Net brings the isolated

individual into contact with other people, experiences, and views from the

rest of the world. Exposure to many opinions gives a person the chance to

consider multiple views before settling on a specific opinion. Having

access to the “marketplace of ideas” allows a person to make a reasoned

judgment.

From: Jean-françois Messier

My attitudes to other peoples, races and religions changed,

since I had more chances to talk with other peoples around the

world. When first exchanging mail with people from Yellow-

knife, Yukon, I had a real strange feeling: Getting messages

and chatting with people that far from me. I noticed around me

that a lot of people have opinions and positions about politics

that are for themselves, without knowing others.

Because I have a much broader view of the world now, I

changed and am more conciliatory and peaceful with other

people. Writing to someone you never saw, changes the way

you write, also, the instancy of the transmission makes the

conversation much more “live” than waiting for the damn slow

paper mail. Telecommunications opened the world to me and

changed my visions of people and countries … .

From: Anthony Berno

I could not begin to tell you how different my life would be

without the Net. My life would be short about a dozen people,

some of them central, I would be wallowing in ignorance on

several significant subjects, and my mind would be lacking

many broadening and enlightening influences.

From: Henry Choy

More things to look at. Increased perspective on life. The

computer network brings people closer together, and permits

Page 21

them to speak at will to a large audience. I recommend that the

telecommunications and computer industry make large scale

computer networking accessible to the general public. It’s like

making places accessible to the handicapped. People brought

closer together will release some existing social tensions.

People need to be heard, and they need to hear.

From: Paul Ready

You don’t have to go to another country to meet people from

there. It is not the same as personally knowing them, but I

always pay special attention to information from people

outside the States. They are likely to have a different perspec-

tive on things.

From: Leandra Dean

I love to study people, and the Net has been the best possible

resource to this end. The Net is truly a window to the world,

and without it we could only hope to physically meet virtually

thousands of people every day to gain the same insights. I

shudder to think about how different and closed in my life

would be without the Net.

MATERIAL CHANGES TO PEOPLE’S

LIVES AND LIFESTYLES

The time spent online can affect the rest of a person’s life. The

connections, interfaces, or collaborations between times on and off line

form an interesting area of study. Netizens attest to the power of the Net

by explaining the effect the Net has had on their lives. Because of the

information available and the new connections possible, people have

changed the way they live their lives. There are examples of both changes

in the material possessions and changes in lifestyle. The changes in

lifestyle are probably the more profound changes, but the new connections

made possible are also important. Often the material gains are not

financial. Rather, worthwhile goods can be redistributed – from those to

whom the goods may have lost personal value to those who would value

Page 22

them.

NETIZEN COMMENTS ON MATERIAL CHANGES

From: William Carroll

Primarily because of the information and support from

rec.bikes, three years ago I gave up driving to work and started

riding my bike. It’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.

Response Received via E-mail

When I started using ForumNet (a chat program similar to

IRC, but smaller – [Now called icb]) back in January 1990, I

was fairly shy and insecure … . I had a few close friends but

was slow at making new ones. Within a few weeks, on Forum-

Net, I found myself able to be open, articulate, and well-liked

in this virtual environment. Soon, this discovery began to

affect my behavior in “real” face-to-face interaction. I met

some of my computer friends in person and they made me feel

so good about myself, like I really could be myself and con-

verse and be liked and wanted.

Of course, computer-mediated social interaction is not prop-

erly a crutch to substitute for face-to-face encounters, but the

ability to converse via keyboard and modem with real people

at the other end of the line has translated into the real-life

ability for me to reach out to people without the mediating use

of a computer. My life has improved. I wouldn’t trade my

experience with the Net for anything.

From: Jack Frisch

I must begin my comments on the Internet with one simple yet

significant statement: the availability and use of the Internet is

changing my life profoundly.

From: Carole E. Mah

I also used to facilitate a vegetarian list, which radically altered

many people’s lives, offering them access to mail-order foods,

recipes, and friendship via net-contact with people who live in

Page 23

areas where non-meat alternatives are readily available.

From: Jann Vanover

Well, the first thing I thought of is purchases I’ve made

through the Net which have “changed my life.” I drove my

Subaru Station wagon until last fall when I acquired a VW

Camper van that I saw on a local Net ad. I wasn’t looking for

a van, wasn’t even shopping for another vehicle, but the

second time this ad scrolled by me, I looked into it and

eventually bought it. I will certainly say that driving a 23-year-

old VW camper van has changed my life! I thought I would be

ridiculed, but have found that people have a lot of respect and

admiration for this car!

Through the Net, I heard that Roger Waters was going to

perform “The Wall” again, an event I had promised myself not

to miss, so I made a trip to Berlin (East and West) in 1990 to

see this concert. This was CERTAINLY a life changing event,

seeing Berlin less than one week after the roads were open

with no checkpoints required. I don’t think I would have

known about it soon enough if not for the Net.

From: Robert Dean

As for me, my main hobby is and was playing wargames and

role-playing games. Net access has allowed me to discuss

these games with players across the world, picking up new

ideas, and gathering opinions on new games before spending

money on them. In addition, I’ve been able to buy and sell

games via Net connections, allowing me to adjust my collec-

tion of games to meet my current interests, and get games that

I no longer wanted to people who do want them, whether they

live down the road from me in Maryland, or in Canada,

Austria, Finland, Germany or Israel. I have also taken an

Esperanto course via e-mail, and correspond irregularly in

Esperanto with interested parties world wide.

From: Caryn K. Roberts

Page 24

Usenet & Internet … are available to me at work and by dial-

up connection to work from home. I have been materially

enriched by the use of the Net. I have managed to sell items I

no longer needed. I have been able to purchase items from

others for good prices. I have saved money and am doing my

part to recycle technology instead of adding burdens to the

municipal waste disposal service.

Using the Net I have also been enriched by discussions and

information found in numerous newsgroups from sci.med to

sci.skeptic to many of the comp.* groups. I have offered

advice to solve problems and have been able to solve problems

I had by using information in these forums.

THE NET AS A SOURCE OF ENORMOUS RESOURCES

Before the Net was widely seen as an enormous social network,

some were experimenting with the sharing of computing resources. The

following are some examples of ways Netizens utilize the information

resources available on the Net:

From: Tim North

I’m faculty here at … University and I use the Net as a major

source of technical information for my lectures, up-to-date pro-

duct information, and informed opinion. As such I find that I

am constantly better informed than the people around me.

(That sounds vain, but it’s not meant to be. It’s simply meant

to emphasize how strongly I feel that the Net is a superb infor-

mation resource.)

From: R. J. White

I used the Net to find parts for my 1971 Opel GT. I was living

in North America at the time, and going through the normal

channels, like GM, are no good. The Net was like an untapped

resource.

From: John Harper

(My] uses of the network [1] I once asked a question about an

Page 25

obscure point in history of maths on the sci.math newsgroup

and got a useful answer from Exeter, U.K. Beforehand I had no

idea where anyone knowing the answer might be. I had drawn

a blank in Oxford. [2] I asked a question about a slightly less

obscure point on comp.lang.fortran which generated a long

(and helpful) discussion on the Net for a week or two.

From: Paul Ready

Yes, it is a worldwide rapid distribution center of information,

on topics both popular and obscure. It may not make the infor-

mation more valuable, but it certainly increases the informa-

tion, and the propagation of information. To those connected,

it is a valuable resource. Flame wars aside, a lot of generally

inaccessible information is readily available.

From: Lee Rothstein

Usenet and mailing lists create a group of people who are

motivated and capable of talking about a specific topic. The

software allows deeply contextual conversations to occur with

a minimum of rehash. As experience develops with the me-

dium, each user realizes that the other that he talks to or will

talk to generally help him/her, and can do him/her no harm

because of the remoteness imposed by the cable.

From: Lu Ann Johnson

Hi! Usenet came to my rescue – I’m a librarian and was

working with a group of students on a marketing project. They

were marketing a make-believe product – a compact disc of

“music hits of the 70's.” They needed a source to tell them how

much it cost to produce a CD – without mastering, etc. I ex-

hausted all my print resources so I posted the question in a

business newsgroup. Within hours I learned from several com-

panies that it cost about $1.50 to produce a CD. :) The students

were very grateful to get the information.

From: Laura Goodin

Page 26

I teach self-defense, and in rec.martial-art someone posted

information about a study on the effectiveness of Mace for

self-defense that I had been looking for years.

From: Cliff Roberts

I have been using Internet through a program in New Jersey to

bring the fields of Science and Math to grammar school chil-

dren grades K-8. We have implemented a system where the

classrooms are equipped with PC’s and are able to dial in to a

UNIX system. There they can send e-mail and post questions

to a KidsQuest ID. The ID then routes the questions to volun-

teers with accounts on UNIX. The scientists then answer or

give advice of where to find the information they want.

Another well accepted feature is to list out the soc.penpals list

and e-mail people in different countries that are being studied

in the schools.

From: Joe Farrenkopf

I think Usenet is a very interesting thing. For me, it’s mostly

just a way to pass … time when bored. However, I have gotten

some very useful things from it. There is one group in particu-

lar called comp.lang.fortran, and on several occasions when

I’ve had a problem writing a program, I was able to post to this

group to get some help to find out what I was doing wrong. In

these cases, it was an invaluable resource.

COLLABORATIVE WORK

As new connections are made between people, more ideas travel

over greater distances. This allows either like-minded people or comple-

mentary people to come in touch with each other. The varied resources of

the networks allow these same people to keep in touch even if they would

not have been able to be in touch before. Electronic mail allows enough

detail to be contained in a message that most, if not all, communications

can take place entirely electronically. This medium allows for new forms

of collaborative work to form and thrive. New forms of research will pro-

bably arise from such possibilities. Here are some examples:

Page 27

From: Wayne Hathaway

One “unusual” use I made of the Net happened in 1977 … .

Along with five other “Net Folks” I wrote the following paper:

“The ARPANET TELNET Protocol: Its Purpose, Principles,

Implementation, and Impact on Host Operating System

Design,” with Davidson, Postel, Mimno, Thomas, and Walden:

Fifth Data Communications Symposium, Snowbird, UT;

September 27-29, 1977. What’s so unusual about a collabora-

tive paper, you ask? Simply that the six of us never even made

a TELEPHONE call about the paper, much less had a meeting

or anything. Literally EVERYTHING – from the first ideas in

a “broadcast” mail to the distribution of the final “troff-ready”

version – was done with e-mail. These days this might not be

such a deal, but it was interesting back then.

From: Paul Gillingwater

… in Vienna was an on-line computer mediated art forum …

with video conferencing between two cities, plus an on-line

discussion in a virtual MUD type conference later that eve-

ning.

Response Received via E-mail

In response to your question about having fun on the net, and

being creative, one incident comes to mind. I had met a woman

on ForumNet (a system like IRC). She and I talked and talked

about all sorts of things. One night, we felt especially artistic.

We co-wrote a poem over the computer. I’d type a few words,

she’d pick up where I left off (in the middle of sentences or

wherever) and on and on. I don’t think we had any idea what

it was going to be in the end, thematically or structurally. In

the end, we had a very good poem, one that I would try to

publish if I knew her whereabouts anymore … .

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE

Information flow can take various shapes. The strangest and perhaps

Page 28

most interesting one is how emotion can be attached to information flow,

although they often seem like two very different things. I received a large

number of responses that reported real-life marriages arising from Net

meetings. The Net facilitates the meeting of people of like interests. The

newness of the Net means we cannot fully understand its impact. How-

ever, it is worth noting that people have also broken up online. So while

it is a new social medium, a range of dynamics will exist.

From: Caryn K. Roberts

I have found friends on the Net. A lover. And two of the

friends I met, also met online and got married. I attended the

wedding (in California).

From: Scott Kitchen

I think I can add something for your paper. I met my fiancee

4 years ago over the net. I was at Ohio State, and she was in

Princeton, and we started talking about an article of hers I’d

read in rec.games.frp. We got to talking, eventually met, found

we liked each other, and the rest is history. We were married

31 December 1994.

From: Gregory G. Woodbury

I met the woman who became my wife when I started talking

to the folks at “phs” (the third site of the original Usenet)

during the development of Netnews. I would not have been

wandering around that area if I hadn’t been interested in the

development of the net.

From: Laura Goodin

And now, the BEST story: about eight months ago I was

browsing soc.culture.australia and I noticed a message from an

Australian composer studying in the U.S. about an alternative

tune to “Waltzing Matilda.” I was curious, so I responded in e-

mail, requesting the tune and just sort of shooting the breeze.

We began an e-mail correspondence that soon incorporated

voice calls as well. One thing led inexorably to another and we

Page 29

fell in love (before we met face to face, actually). We did

eventually meet face to face. Last month he proposed over the

Internet (in soc.culture.australia) and I accepted. Congratula-

tory messages came in from all over the United States,

Australia, and New Zealand. Houston (that’s his name) and I

keep our phone bills from resembling the national debt by

sending 10 or 12 e-mails a day (we’re well over 1400 for eight

months now), and chatting using IRC. A long distance rela-

tionship is hellish, but the pain is eased somewhat by the

Internet.

From: Chuq von Rospach

Oh, and in the “how the Net made my non-net life better”

category, I met my wife via the net. Does that count?

WORK

The fluid connections and the rapidly changing nature of the

networks make the Net a welcome medium for those who are job hunting

and for those who have jobs to offer. The networks have a large number

of people who are looking for jobs. Placing job announcements is easy,

and they can be kept available for as long as the job is offered. Résumés

can be sent quickly and easily by e-mail. Companies can respond quickly

and easily to such submissions, also by e-mail.

Besides finding work, the Net helps people who are currently em-

ployed perform their job in the best manner. Many people utilize the Net

to assist them with their jobs. Several examples of each follow:

From: Laura Goodin

My division successfully recruited a highly-qualified consul-

tant (a Finn living in Tasmania) to do some work for us; the

initial announcement was over Usenet; subsequent negotia-

tions were through e-mail.

From: JJ

I’ve hired people off the net, and from meeting them in muds,

Page 30

when I find somebody who can THINK. People who can think

are hard to find anywhere.

From: Diana Gregory

I have learned to use UNIX, and as a result may be able to

keep/advance in my job due to the ‘net’.

From: Neil Galarneau

It helps me do my job (MS Windows programming) and it

helps me learn new things (like C++).

From: Kieran Clulow

The Internet access provided me by the university has greatly

facilitated my ability to both use and program computers and

this has had the direct result of improving my grades as well as

gaining me a good job in the computer field. Long live the

Internet (and make it possible for private citizens to get

access!)

From: Mark Gooley

I got my job by answering a posting to a news-group.

From: Anthony Berno

I develop for NEXTSTEP, and the Net is very useful in getting

useful programming hints, info on product releases, rumors, et

cetera.

From: Gregory G. Woodbury

Due to contacts made via Usenet and e-mail, I got a job as a

consultant at BTL in 1981 after I lost my job at Due. Part of

the qualifications that got me in the door was experience with

Usenet.

IMPROVED COMMUNICATIONS WITH FRIENDS

Another way of improving daily life is by making communications

Page 31

with friends easier. The ease of sending e-mail is bringing back letter

writing. However, the immediacy of e-mail means less care need be taken

in the process of writing. E-mail, IRC, and Netnews make it much easier

to keep in touch with friends outside one’s local area.

NETIZEN COMMENTS ON IMPROVED COMMUNICATIONS

From: Bill Walker

I also have an old and dear friend (from high school) who lives

in the San Francisco area. After I moved to San Diego, we

didn’t do very well at keeping in touch. She and I talked on the

phone a couple of times a year. After we discovered we were

both on the net, we started corresponding via e-mail, and we

now exchange mail several times a week. So, the Net has

allowed me to keep in much closer touch with a good friend.

It’s nothing that couldn’t be done by phone, or snail mail, but

somehow we never got around to doing those things. E-mail is

quick, easy and fun enough that we don’t put it off.

From: Anthony Berno

Incidentally, it is also one of my primary modes of communi-

cation with my sister (who lives in N.Z.) It’s more meditative

than a phone call, faster than a letter, and cheaper than either

of them.

From: Carole E. Mah

It also facilitates great friendships. Most of my friends, even in

my own town, I met on the network. This can often alleviate

feelings of loneliness and “I am the only one, I must be a

pervert” feelings among queer people just coming out of the

closet. They have a whole world of like-minded people to turn

to on Usenet, on Bitnet lists, on IRC, in personal e-mail, on

BBSs and AOL type conferences, etc.

From: Jann Vanover

Apart from purchases, I have been contacted by: 1) a very

good friend from college who I’d lost track of. She got married

Page 32

to a man she met in a singles newsgroup (they’ve been married

2 years+) 2) someone who went to my high school, knew a lot

of the same people I did, but we didn’t know each other. We

are now “mail buddies” 3) an old girlfriend of my brothers.

They went out for eight years, but I learned more about her

from ONE e-mail letter than I had ever learned when meeting

her in person.

From: Godfrey Nolan

Above all it helps me keep in touch with friends who I would

inevitably lose otherwise. The Net helps those that move

around for economic reasons to lessen the worst aspects of

leaving your friends in the series of places that you once called

home. It’s the best thing since sliced bread.

PROBLEMS

With all of the positive uses and advantages of the Net, it is not

perfect. The blind view of people on the Net seems to shield most, but not

everyone. For example, there is a relatively large male-to-female

population ratio on the Net. Women online can feel the effects of this

difference. Women who have easily identifiable user names or IDs are

prone to be the center of much attention. While that might be good, much

of that attention can be of a hostile or negative nature. This attention may

be detrimental to women who try to be active on the Net. Net harassment

can spread against users for other reasons as well. People with unpopular

ideas need to be strong to withstand the abuse they may receive from

others.

The worst non-people problem seems to be information overflow.

Information adds up very quickly, and it can be hard to organize and sort

through it all. Technology is now being developed to handle this problem.

From: Scott Hatton

There is a problem with this brave new world in that a lot of

people don’t appreciate there’s another human being at the

other keyboard. Flaming is a real problem – especially in

Page 33

comp.misc. This is all a new facet of the technology as well.

People rarely trade insults in real life like they do on Internet.

There’s a tendency to stereotype your opponent into catego-

ries. I think this is because you’re not around to witness the

results. I find this more on Internet newsgroups than on

CompuServe. I think this is down to maturity – a lot of folk on

the Internet are students who aren’t paying for their time on the

system. Those on CompuServe are normally slightly older, not

so hotheaded and are paying for their time. Damn. Now I’m at

stereotyping now. It just goes to show … .

From: Joe Farrenkopf

There is something else I’ve discovered that is really rather

fascinating. People can be incredibly rude when communicat-

ing through this medium. For example, some time ago, I

posted a question to lots of different newsgroups, and many

people felt my question was inappropriate to their particular

group. They wrote to me and told me so, using amazingly

nasty words. I guess it’s easier to be rude if you don’t have to

face a person, but can say whatever you want over a computer.

From: Brad Kepley

I get a little irritated with people always claiming someone else

is “wasting bandwidth” because they disagree with them.

About half the time it turns out that the person being told to

shut up was right after all. Then again, when you look at things

like alt.binaries.pictures.erotica and other “non-bandwidth-

wasting” activities, it seems almost comical to me when some-

one says this. There is nothing more wasteful than 95% of

what Usenet is used for. it’s a joke to say that a particular

person is ‘wasting’ it. To say that they are off-topic makes

more sense. I guess this is just a gripe rather than what you are

looking for. Wasting bandwidth again. : )

CONCLUSION

Page 34

For the people of the world, the Net provides a powerful means for

peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly allows people to take control of

their lives, rather than that control being in the hands of others. This power

deserves to be appreciated and protected. Any medium or tool that helps

people hold or gain power is something special that has to be protected.

The Net has made a valuable impact on human society. My research

has demonstrated that people’s lives have been substantially improved via

their connection to the Net. This sets the basis for providing access to all

in society. Using similar reasoning, J. C. R. Licklider and Robert Taylor

believed that access to the then-growing information network should be

made ubiquitous. They felt that the Net’s value would depend on high

connectivity. In their 1968 article, “The Computer as a Communication

Device,” they argued that the network’s impact upon society will depend

on how available the network is to society as a whole.

Society will improve if Net access is made available everyone. Only

if access is universal will the Net itself advance. Ubiquitous connection is

necessary for the Net to encompass all possible resources. One Net

visionary, Steve Welch, responded to my research by calling for universal

access:

If we can get to the point where anyone who gets out of high

school alive has used computers to communicate on the Net or

a reasonable facsimile or successor to it, then we as a society

will benefit in ways not currently understandable. When access

to information is as ubiquitous as access to the phone system,

all Hell will break loose. Bet on it.

Steve is right. “All Hell will break loose” in the most positive of

ways imaginable. The philosophers Thomas Paine and Jean Jacques

Rousseau, and all other fighters for democracy would have been proud.

Similar to past communications advances such as the printing press,

mail, and the telephone, the Global Computer Communications Network

has already fundamentally changed our lives. Licklider predicted that the

Net would fundamentally change the way people live and work. It is

important to try to understand the Net’s impact, so as to help extend and

reinforce this achievement.

Page 35

NOTES

1. See Internet Society News 2 (Spring 1993) inside back cover for a map showing Net

penetration around the world. Larry Landweber maintains and posts updated connectivity

maps and tables. See, for example,

https://mappa.mundi.net/maps/maps_011/landweber

_map2.html.

2. J. C. R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor, “The Computer as a Communication Device,”

reprinted in In Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider 1915-1990 (Palo Alto, Calif: Digital Systems

Research Center, 1990); originally published in Science and Technology, April 1968.

Available online at

http://memex.org/licklider.html.

3. Ibid., 21.

4. Proceedings of IEEE 66 (November, 1978): 43-50.

5. Licklider and Taylor, 32.

6. Stefferud, Einar et al., “Quotes from Some of the Players,” ConneXions – The

Interoperability Report 3 (10): 21.

7. See article by Larry Press posted on the comp.risks newsgroup, September 6, 1991.

8. Licklider and Taylor, 40.

Much thanks is owed to the many who contributed Usenet posts and e-mail

responses to requests for examples of how the Net has changed people’s lives. Only a few

of the many replies received could be quoted but all contributed to this work.

The following people who were quoted indicated that their e-mail addresses be

included:

Jim Carroll

[email protected]

Kieran Clulow u103625[email protected]

Robert Dean [email protected]

Jack Frisch frischj@gbms01.uwgb.edu

Scott Hatton 100114.1650@compuserve.com

Lu Ann Johnson [email protected]su.edu

Jean-François Messier messier@igs.net

Larry Press [email protected]

Clifford A. Roberts [email protected]

Chuq Von Rospach chuqui@plaidworks.com

Gregory G.Woodbury news@wolves.durham.nc.us

An early version of this chapter by Michael Hauben was made available online in

Summer 1993. A revised version was printed in the Amateur Computerist 6 (Fall/Winter

1994-1995).

Appendix to Chapter 1

The Posts for the Research

1. Is the Net a Source of Social/Economic Wealth? & Other Thoughts

2. The Magic of E-Mail – Beginnings

Page 36

3. Does the Net Bring Real-Life Advantages?

4. Looking for Exciting Uses of the Net

5. Connecting Others to the Net

6. Looking for Stories of Net Harassment

7. Does the Net Help You Be Creative or Have Fun?

IS THE NET A SOURCE OF SOCIAL/ECONOMIC WEALTH? & OTHER

THOUGHTS

POST:

Newsgroups: news.misc, alt.culture.usenet, alt.amateur-comp, sci.econ, comp.misc,

soc.misc, comp.org.eff.talk

Subject: Is the Net a Source of Social/Economic Wealth? & Other Thoughts.

There are some notes I have made in trying to form a proposal for a paper I am

writing for an Independent Project in College. I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions

in e-mail. Please send e-mail to me at: hau[email protected]

The points I would most like some feedback on are 1-6.

However, it might be useful if anyone is interested in the question of whether or

not the Net (and its users) is a source of creation of economic, social, or intellectual

wealth. This might make an interesting discussion via public follow-ups.

My Proposal

I want to understand this idea of Internetworking and cooperative attitude. The

social connections and collaborations that the Internet and other parts of the global

computer network make possible are new and very important. This more widespread

communication brings the general populace of the world in better intersection/global

social intercourse.

Question about Battle for use and right to utilize. And people have taken the battle

up in order to keep access open and for all. Forces for restriction and censorship. Only

through battle that net has stayed open. Net *inherently* allows people choice to speak.

Is it secret that Usenet did restrict corporations/private from abusing Net as it is

research-oriented and developed only via because it was an experiment? (NOT A

FLAME)

*****1. What does communication over the networks mean? Is it “value-added”

somehow in that any response might bring something added into the amount of infor-

mation or value. Does communication via the Net represent the quicker building by peo-

ple on other people’s work thus representing advancements (in ideas, products, pro-

duction, etc.)

*****2. Does the Net represent intellectual wealth? Does the net represent the growth and

increase in Gross National Product /Wealth or Wealth of Nations? (What if any

theoretical background is there to this?) William Petty maybe Bacon, or Royal Society.

*****3. What does the Net make possible? Is the “Communication” on the net different

than normal/before modes of communication? Does the widespread of connections and

zero-time (Ability to turnaround information and/or publication or exchange of

Page 37

information in almost no time) of producing things prove revolutionary?

*****4. Provides a Forum that facilitates Intellectual Ferment.

*****5. Net makes knowing real conditions of society possible – because you have a

“direct” connection to “many” people – the masses.

*****6. Accurate Information (similar to point 5)

7. How does the network make these “connections” possible easier than before? (These

connections being finding people in the world to enjoy exchanging information, debating,

connecting intellectually or whimsically – helping to find people who you can or want to

interact/communicate with.)

8. Who has access and can gain the advantage of this service/connection/re-

source/revolution? Is this only an advantaged group of people, or is it growing quickly?

Or should it grow quicker? What direction is access going toward for? What is

Clinton/etc. doing? (Business?) Is there a fight against the continued openness and/or

growing openness of letting the great body of people communicate accurate information

that is normally controlled in normal modes of mass media.

Thanks,

– Michael Hauben

THE MAGIC OF E-MAIL – BEGINNINGS

POST:

Subject: The Magic of E-Mail – Beginnings

Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc, alt.amateur-comp, alt.folklore.computers, soc.college,

alt.culture.usenet, news.misc

Do you remember the first e-mail message you sent? Do you remember the first

e-mail you replied to? Do you remember the first response you received in e-mail? Do

you remember the first e-mail response you received seemingly before you sent out the

original message? <chuckle> – Do you remember the magic?

Excitement is a key word, as is immense usefulness. Whether you are a scientist,

a student or a casual user, person-to-person communication via the computer is *VERY*

exciting. Remember your first time and write it down. Keep your memory and save it for

posterity. You … We … are all part of what is a relatively early period of the computer

communications revolution. Save your experience in order to help recognize and

remember this period of change – this beginning.

And if you do write down (or type in) your first (or first couple) of real *exciting* e-mail

beginnings please e-mail them to me. I will try to post a summary to Usenet. And talk

about e-mail from e-mail or e-mail in response to Usenet, or e-mail in connection with

something before the current e-mail or what you think might come in the future.

Thanks,

– Michael

DOES THE NET BRING REAL-LIFE ADVANTAGES?

POST:

Page 38

Article 891 of alt.amateur-comp:

Newsgroups: soc.singles, rec.autos, soc.college, alt.amateur-comp, soc.culture.usa,

comp.misc

From: [email protected]mbia.edu (Michael Hauben)

Subject: Does the Net Bring Real-Life Advantages?

Message – ID: <C5II5[email protected]lumbia.edu>

Summary: Has the Net improved or broadened your off-line world?

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 06:31:58 GMT

How has the Net changed your life? Has anyone who has used the Net actually

been able to add to their off-line life successfully? I am doing research for a paper for

college, and I am interested in the material changes that the Net helps develop through

the increased communication.

Has access to the Net and your participation on it allowed you to do something that

you wouldn’t have done before – offline? Anything would be interesting – meeting

people/new friends, marrying someone from on-line, joining groups, certain opportunities

that were there because of the connection via the Net, etc.. I am interested in hearing

about actions caused by use of any part of the Net (Usenet, talk, e-mail, etc.). The *KEY*

point is that the cause or facilitator of the event needs to be because of the Net somehow.

If you have any interesting, or useful stories, or ideas please either e-mail them to me, or

post a follow-up to this message!

Thanks,

– Michael

LOOKING FOR EXCITING USES OF THE NET

POST:

Subject: Looking for Exciting Uses of the Net

I am doing research for a paper for a college independent study about the net and

communications. I would appreciate hearing about using any part of the net: Usenet

News/Netnews, IRC, e-mail, mailing-lists, Freenets, FTP, WAIS, gopher, etc.

I would like to know about people’s uses of the network(s) that have been

especially interesting, valuable and/or exciting. I want to hear about people’s delights and

also about disappointments using the Net. Please do NOT send me information about use

by businesses or corporations for commercial purposes. I am NOT interested in

commercial or proprietary uses. I AM interested in uses that serve the public, that are

open, that serve science, research, education, and social aims and objectives. I am also

interested in uses that serve to help people personally on their work (programming, et al.)

or hobbies.

Either e-mail me at [email protected]bia.edu or post a public follow-up. Both if

possible.

Thanks,

– Michael Hauben

CONNECTING OTHERS TO THE NET

Page 39

Subject: Connecting Others to the Net

Newsgroups: news.misc, alt.culture, Usenet, alt.amateur-comp, comp.misc, soc.misc

Hi,

I would like to hear from people the various ways in how they have introduced

others to Usenet and the Internet. What ways have been successful and relatively

inexpensive in getting family, friends, and other associates connected?

I am interested because I am interested in people’s attempts (consciously or

unconsciously) to further the expansion of the Net.

To the further expansion of the Net! : )

– Michael Hauben

LOOKING FOR STORIES OF NET HARASSMENT

POST:

Subject: Looking for Stories of Net Harassment

Newsgroups: alt.censorship, news.misc, comp.mail.misc, alt.amateur-comp

Have you ever experienced harassment on the net? Have you tried to utilize the

communicative aspects of Usenet, E-mail or other computer networking capabilities but

wound up discouraged? Please let me know if you have been the victim of censorship,

harassment or some kind of blocking at some point in your usage of computer-facilitated

communication. If so, do you think this “discouragement” was wrong or vicious, or

malicious.

Thank you,

– Michael

And lastly maybe it would be helpful to find out why you thought you were treated

such.

DOES THE NET HELP YOU BE CREATIVE OR HAVE FUN?

POST:

Subject: Does the Net Help You Be Creative or Have Fun?

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa, talk.bizarre, alt.mud, alt.irc, news.misc, alt.culture.usenet,

alt.amateur-comp, rec.music.misc, rec.arts.misc

I am conducting research for an independent study about computer and com-

munication for college. So far I have asked and received many “serious” answers and

replies dealing with work, keeping in touch with friends around the world, etc. However

I am also interested in what effect the Net (Netnews, the Internet, other Nets, FTP, IRC,

gopher, etc.) has on either creative endeavors you might have, or just plain silly or fun

things. Has access to the Net helped you in any creative hobbies you might have, or just

given you a chance to have fun?

For example. have your music tastes expanded, or do you know about more plays

happening, have you learned about other who are musicians, or artists or writers? And if

so, have you gotten a chance to jam, paint, write, or somehow help each other? Have there

been any on-going creative collaborative music/art/literary experiments? How has the

computer assisted communication helped you be creative or expanded your boundaries?

Page 40

The other side is, have you found more ways to just have fun, or of new ways of

having fun.

As I am not exactly sure where to post this message, I would appreciate any

suggestions as to other groups to post the message to.

Thanks!

– Michael Hauben

[Editor’s Note: A version of the following article first appeared online on November 30,

1992. It had been prepared for a Computer and Society class at Columbia University. A

version appeared online as Chapter 3 of the net book, The Netizens and the Wonderful

World of the Net: An Anthology on January, 12, 1994. A later version appears as Chapter

3 of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by Michael Hauben

and Ronda Hauben published in 1997 by the IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 48-58.]

The Social Forces Behind the

Development of Usenet

by Michael Hauben

Right at this moment, somewhere in the world, someone is being

helpful (or someone is being helped). At the same time, others are

participating in online discussions and debates. A new communications

medium is currently in its infancy. Over the past two decades a global

computer telecommunications network has been developing. One element

of this network is called Usenet (also known as Netnews). The original

carrier of this news was called UUCPnet (or just UUCP).

The basic element of Usenet is a post. Each individual post consists

of a unique contribution from a user, placed in a subject area called a

newsgroup. In Usenet’s beginning (and still to some extent today), posts

were transferred using the UUCP utility distributed with Unix. This utility

allows the use of phone lines to transmit computer data among separate

computers.

Usenet grew from the ground up in a grassroots manner. Originally,

there was no official structure. What began as two or three sites on the

network in 1979 expanded to 15 in 1980, to 150 in 1981, to 400 in 1982.

The very nature of Usenet is communication. Usenet greatly facilitates

Page 41

inter-human communication among a large group of users. The rawest

principle of Usenet is its importance. In its simplest form, Usenet repre-

sents democracy.

Inherent in most mass media is central control of content. Many

people are influenced by the decisions of a few. Television programming,

for example, is controlled by a small group of people compared to the size

of the audience. The audience has very little choice over what is empha-

sized by most mass media. Usenet, however, is controlled by its audience.

Usenet should be seen as a promising successor to other people’s presses,

such as broadsides at the time of the American Revolution and the penny

presses in England at the turn of the nineteenth century. Most of the

material written to Usenet is contributed by the same people who actively

read Usenet. Thus, the audience of Usenet decides the content and subject

matter to be thought about, presented, and debated. The ideas that exist on

Usenet come from the mass of people who participate in it. In this way,

Usenet is an uncensored forum for debate where many sides of an issue

come into view. Instead of being force-fed by an uncontrollable source of

information, the participants set the tone and emphasis on Usenet. People

control what happens on Usenet. In this rare situation, issues and concerns

that are of interest, and thus important to the participants, are brought up.

In the tradition of amateur radio and Citizen’s Band radio, Usenet is the

product of the users’ ideas and will. Amateur radio and CB, however, are

more restricted than Usenet. The range of Usenet connectivity is interna-

tional and quickly expanding into every nook and cranny around the

world. This explosive expansion allows growing communication among

people around the world.

In the 1960s, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of

the Department of Defense funded research of fundamental importance to

the development and testing of computer communications networks.

ARPA sponsored research laid the groundwork for the development of

other net works such as UUCPnet. ARPA funded an experiment to attempt

to connect incompatible mainframe computers.

This experimental con-

nection of computers was called the ARPA Computer Network or the

ARPANET. ARPA’s stated objectives were:

1. To develop techniques and obtain experience on intercon-

necting computers in such a way that a very broad class of

Page 42

interactions were possible and

2. To improve and increase computer research productivity

through resource sharing.

ARPA was sponsoring both communications research and the study

of how to conserve funds by avoiding duplication of computer resources.

Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN), a Cambridge, Massachusetts company,

was chosen to construct the IMP subnetwork, and AT&T was chosen to

provide the communications lines. The ARPANET was needed because

it was found that a data connection over existing telephone voice lines was

too slow and not reliable enough to make a useful connection.

Packet

switching was developed for use as the protocol for exchanging informa-

tion over the lines. Packet switching is a communications process in which

all messages are broken up into small data packets which are transmitted

interspersed and reassembled. In this way, short, medium and long mes-

sages get transferred with minimum delay.

The ARPANET was a success. It contributed several advances to

communications research. ARPANET researchers were surprised at the

enthusiastic adoption of electronic mail (e-mail) as the primary source of

communication early on. E-mail was a source of increased productivity

through the use of the ARPANET.

By 1983, the ARPANET officially

shifted from using NCP (Network Control Program) to TCP/IP (Transmis-

sion Control Protocol/Internet Protocol.) A key part of TCP/IP’s success

lies in its simplicity. It is easy to implement over various platforms, and

this simplicity has accounted for its continued existence as a defacto

Internet standard up to the present. The ARPANET’s lasting contribution

was demonstrating how a backbone infrastructure can serve as a connec-

tion between gateways. A gateway is a computer or part of a computer

programmed to receive messages from one network and transfer them onto

another network.

The ARPANET quickly grew to more than 50 nodes between Hawaii

and Norway.

However, it did not extend to all who could utilize it.

Computer scientists at universities without Department of Defense

contracts noticed the advantages and petitioned the National Science

Foundation (NSF) for similar connectivity. CSnet was formed to service

these computer scientists. CSnet was initially financed by the NSF. Very

quickly, the desire for interconnection spread to other members of the

Page 43

university community. Soon CSnet grew to serve other scientists in

addition to computer scientists at universities and came to mean “Com-

puter and Science Network” rather than just “Computer Science Net-

work.”

By the mid-1980s, the ARPANET was phased out by the Department

of Defense and was replaced by various internal networks (such as

MILNET). The role of connecting university communities and regional

networks was taken over by the NSF-funded NSFnet, which originated as

a connection for university researchers to the five National Supercomputer

Centers. CSnet and NSFnet were made possible by the research on the

ARPANET. The NSFnet became the U.S. backbone for the global network

known as the Internet.

ARPANET research was pioneering communications research.

Researchers discovered the link between computer interconnection and

increased productivity from human communication. The sharing of re-

sources was proven as a way to save money and to increase computer use

and productivity. The development of packet switching revolutionized the

basic methodology of connecting computers.

The source of these discoveries were the people involved. The

people involved in the ARPANET project were very intelligent and for-

ward looking. They recognized that they were developing future technolo-

gies, and thus did not develop products that commercial industry could

(and would) develop. Instead, they understood that the communications

technologies they were developing had to come from a not-for-profit body.

ARPA researchers had no proprietary products to support and no com-

mercial deadlines to meet. Either requirement would have made develop-

ing networks of incompatible computers impossible or limited. Current

users of international computer networks are in debt to the pioneers of the

ARPANET.

The ARPANET was successful in its attempt to connect various

spatially remote computers, and, thus, more importantly, the people who

used those computers. However, these people were either professors at

universities with Department of Defense research contracts or employees

of a limited number of defense industry companies. There were still many

people who wanted a connection but were not in a position to gain one.

Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were

Page 44

two such locations. In these underprivileged fertile grounds the grassroots

computer communications breakthrough, Usenet, originated and devel-

oped.

The Unix operating system provides the basic tools needed to share

information between computers. Unix

was developed as “a system

around which a fellowship would form.”

One of the programmers of

Unix, Dennis Ritchie, wrote that the intended purpose of Unix was to

“encourage close communication.”

Unix’s general principles thus

conceptually foreshadowed the basic tenet of Usenet. How else should one

go about designing communications programs but on an operating system

designed with the basic principle of encouraging communication? The

Unix utility UUCP was created at Bell Labs in 1976 by Mike Lesk. It was

further developed by David Nowitz and later by Nowitz, Peter Honeyman,

and Brian Redman. UUCP provided a simple way of passing files between

any two computers running Unix and UUCP. One of AT&T’s motivations

in developing Unix was to make software production cheaper in order to

bring down the cost of telephone service. Unix’s popularity also arose

from AT&T’s prohibition from profiting from sources other than its main

business, phone services, under the terms of the 1956 Consent Decree.

Unix was thus available on a “no cost” (or very low cost) basis. The

operating system was seen as an “in-house” tool on DEC and other com-

puters and was in use throughout Bell Labs. Many universities used the

same type of computer and were licensed by AT&T to utilize Unix. It thus

spread widely. Schools picked it up, and computer science students used

it to learn about operating systems, as Unix was a model of elegance and

simplicity compared to most operating systems of the time. Unix became

a widely used operating system in the academic world, paving the way for

an international public communications system.

When Usenet was developed in 1979, it was created as a “Unix

Users Network.” The developers thought Usenet would provide a forum

for people to solve problems they had in using Unix, as AT&T initially

provided little external support for Unix. In an early handout, Usenet was

referred to as a “poor man’s ARPANET.”

In an e-mail message, Stephen

Daniel explained that people who didn’t have access to the ARPANET

were hungry for similar opportunities to communicate.

Usenet has been full of surprises from the beginning. The originators

Page 45

of Usenet underestimated the hunger of people for meaningful communi-

cation. As Usenet was originally intended to provide an easy method of

communicating with other users at the same site, the programmers thought

people would want to have local bulletin boards.

However, people were

attracted by the possibility of communicating with others outside the local

community as well. Even today, the global communication it makes

possible is part of what makes Usenet so enticing. It was also thought

Netnews would be useful as a method of communication at individual

locations, and between sites close to each other.

Usenet grew as a

grassroots connection of people. The people who utilized Netnews wanted

to communicate, and communicate they did! People have a fundamental

need to communicate and Usenet aptly fills the bill.

By early 1981, the gap between the ARPANET and Usenet was

bridged. The University of California at Berkeley had connections to both

the ARPANET and Usenet. This allowed Usenet pioneer Mark Horton to

bring mailing-list discussions from ARPANET mailing lists into Usenet

news groups.

This was a significant achievement. Communities other

than ARPA sponsored researchers were finally able to see what the

ARPANET had made possible. The gatewaying of ARPANET mailing

lists into Usenet attracted a wave of people when two ARPANET mailing

lists (SF-Lovers and Human Nets) began to appear on Usenet. These lists

provided interesting material and discussions. The size of the news feed

(that is, the raw data of Usenet) thus became larger and provided more for

people to read. Later, other sites would serve as gateways to even more

discussion lists from the ARPANET. Netnews was also seen as a superior

method of holding discussions. Gatewaying these FA (From ARPANET)

newsgroups proved to be politically courageous. The ARPANET had been

accessible to only a certain group of people, and these gateways chal-

lenged that notion. The effect on the ARPANET was important, as Steve

Bellovin, another of the Usenet pioneers, wrote:

The impact of Usenet on the ARPANET was more as a

(strong) catalyst to force reexamination (and benign neglect)

on the strict policies against interconnection. UUCP mail into

the ARPANET became a major force long before it was legit.

And it was obviously known to, and ignored by, many of the

Powers that Were.

Page 46

Usenet, a network made possible by UUCP, expanded to connect

people between two countries when the University of Toronto Zoology

Department joined the Net in May 1981.

Two companies, AT&T and

DEC, proved helpful by distributing Netnews and electronic mail long

distance. Each UUCP site had to either pay the phone bill to connect to the

next system, or arrange for the other system to make the phone call.

System administrators at AT&T and DEC did the legwork necessary to

take e-mail and news where it might not have reached. However, easy

connections were not always available. In one instance, Case Western Re-

serve University graduate students had to route mail across the continent

twice in order to send mail through UUCP to reach their professors who

were connected to the ARPANET next door.

Usenet encouraged

connectivity to the ARPANET. Gradually, the ARPANET was intercon-

nected with other networks, eventually functioning more as a backbone to

other networks than as a self-contained network.

Contributed effort is the crucial foundation of UUCPnet and Usenet.

There are those who donate time and energy by contributing to Usenet’s

content – writing messages and answering messages or participating in

debate. Without the time and effort put in by its users, Usenet would not

be what it is today. Also important to Usenet’s success are the system

administrators who make the functioning of Usenet possible. Netnews

takes up disk space on computers throughout Usenet, and in some cases

phone calls must be made to transfer the raw data of the news. In

particular, system administrators at AT&T and DEC found it worthwhile

to transport Netnews across the country. Certain sites emerged as clearing

houses for Usenet and UUCP e-mail.

These computers served as major

relay stations of both news and e-mail. A structure grew that became the

“backbone” of “the Net.” Backbone sites formed the trunk of the cir-

culatory system of news and e-mail. A backbone site would connect to

other central distribution computers and to numerous smaller sites. These

central backbone sites provided a crucial organization to the Usenet

communications skeleton, but people formed the center of these connec-

tions. For example, ihnp4 at AT&T existed mainly because of [AT&T

Research Engineer] Gary Murakami’s effort and only partially because of

management support. Usenet services and support were not officially part

of Murakami’s job description. After Murakami left the Bell Labs Indian

Page 47

Hill Laboratory in Naperville, Illinois, Doug Price put in the time and

effort to keep things running smoothly. Certain system administrators in

universities also picked up the responsibility for distributing Netnews and

e-mail widely. Often these individuals would find ways of having their site

pick up the phone bill. Sometimes sites would bill the recipients. Also,

those who received a free connection were expected to provide the same

to others.

At the beginning, expansion of the number of sites receiving Usenet

was slow.

Why was this? Initially, Usenet was only transported via

UUCP connections. Soon other resources were used, such as the airmail-

ing of magnetic tape data to provide connectivity.

Today, Usenet travels

over all types of connections. The evolving ARPANET (and now the

Internet) provided a faster way of transporting Netnews. However, a large

number of Usenet recipients still only have connectivity via UUCP.

Universities and certain businesses can afford to connect to the Internet,

but many individuals also want a connection. Even as late as 1992, when

60 percent of Usenet traffic was carried over the Internet via the instanta-

neous Network News Transport Protocol (NNTP), 40 percent of Usenet

was still carried via the slower UUCP connections. There are still many

examples of various types of connections using UUCP. These representa-

tives of the “fringe” provide a clue as to what the early days of this com-

munication were like.

The number of sites receiving Usenet is continually increasing,

demonstrating its popularity. People are attracted to Usenet because of

what it makes possible. People want to communicate and enjoy the thrill

of finding others across the country (or across the world) who share a

common interest or with whom to be in contact. Besides the common

thrill, it is possible to form serious relationships online. Usenet makes this

discovery possible because it is a public forum. People expose their ideas

broadly, making it possible to find compatriots in thought. The same

physical connections which carry Usenet often also transport private

electronic mail. However, the interactions and discoveries are only made

possible by the public aspect of Usenet. Mailing lists have as wide a range

of discussion, but are available to much smaller groups. Being on Usenet

can become tiresome at times,

but it is rare that anyone leaves it per-

manently. Unless, of course, a person’s life changes and this change

Page 48

means that time once spent online is no longer available. As more

universities, schools, libraries, businesses, and individuals connect, the

value of Usenet grows. Each new person can eventually add his or her

unique opinion to the collection of thoughts and information that Usenet

already has. Each new connection also increases the area where new

connections can be made through cheap local phone calls. The potential

for inexpensive expansion is limited only by the oceans, other natural

barriers, or perhaps by mistaken government policies.

The ARPANET was supplemented by CSnet and eventually replaced

by U.S. government funding of its successor, NSFnet. Both CSnet and

NSFnet were created by the U.S. government in response to research

scientists’ and professors’ pleas to have a network similar to the ARPA-

NET. The NSFnet was also created to provide access to the five supercom-

puter computing centers around the country. The NSFnet, as the backbone

of the U.S. portion of the Internet, provided another route for the dis-

tribution of Usenet. Similar to the ARPANET, NSFnet was a constant

connection run over leased lines. One of the ways Netnews is distributed

is using the NNTP protocol over connections. This allows for Netnews and

e-mail to be distributed quickly over a large area. Internet connections also

assist in carrying Usenet and e-mail internationally. The Internet-class

networks and connections include the established government and

university sponsored connections. However individuals at home are often

connected by phone lines using SLIP, PPP, and various versions of UUCP

There are also commercial services that, for a fee, provide connections for

electronic mail and Usenet access, as well as access to the Internet.

Much of the development of Usenet owes a big thanks to the early

restrictions on commercial uses. Where else in our society has the com-

mercial element been so clearly separated from any entity? Forums of

discussion and communication become clogged and congested when

advertisements use space. Because of the voluntary actions of those who

use and redistribute Netnews and e-mail, many people on Usenet feel it

wrong to assist commercial ventures. When people feel someone is

abusing the nature of Usenet, they let the offender know through e-mail

and in public messages. In this manner, users work to keep Usenet a forum

free from commercial exploitation. Usenet has not been allowed to be

abused as a profit-making venture for any one individual or group. Rather,

Page 49

people are fighting to keep it a resource that is helpful to society as a

whole.

On what was the ARPANET and afterward the NSFnet portion of the

Internet, there were Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) that existed because

these networks were initially founded and financed by public money. On

these networks, commercial usage was prohibited, which meant it was also

discouraged on other networks that gatewayed into the NSFnet. Unfortu-

nately, the NSF encouraged privatization of the NSFnet backbone.

However, the discouragement of commercial usage of the global Usenet

is separate and developed differently from the AUP.

The social network that Usenet represents supersedes the physical

connection it rides on. The current Netnews rides on many of the physical

networks that exist today. However, if ever there were the need, Usenet

could reestablish itself outside of the current physically organized net-

works. The essence of Usenet means it will survive because of its users’

determination. Usenet draws its strength from being a peer-to-peer net-

work. People who use Usenet do so because they wish to communicate

with others. This communal wish means that people on Usenet find it in

their own and in the community’s interest to be helpful. In this way,

Usenet exists as a worldwide community of resources ready to be shared.

Where else today is there so much knowledge that is freely available?

Usenet represents a living library and is an important part of the world-

wide computer network.

The very nature of Usenet promotes change. Usenet was born outside

of established “networks” and transcends any one physical network. It

exists of itself and through other networks. It makes possible the distribu-

tion of information that might otherwise not be heard through “official

channels.” This role makes Usenet a herald for social change. Because of

the inherent will to communicate, people who do not have access to

Usenet will want access when they become exposed to it, and people who

currently have access will want Usenet to expand its reach so as to further

even more communication. Usenet could grow to provide a forum through

which people influence their governments, allowing for the discussion and

debate of issues in a mode that facilitates mass participation. This dis-

cussion becomes a source of independent information. An independent

source is helpful in the search for the truth.

Page 50

Administrators and individuals who handle the flow of information

have been predicting the “imminent death of the Net” since 1982.

The

software that handles the distribution of Netnews has gone through several

versions to handle the ever-increasing amount of information. People who

receive Netnews have either had to decrease the number of days individual

messages stay at the site or the number of newsgroups they receive; or

they have had to allocate more disk space for the storage of Netnews.

Despite all predictions and worries, the desire for communication has

helped this social network develop and expand. Brad Templeton once

wrote, “If there is a gigabit network with bandwidth to spare that is willing

to carry Usenet, it has plenty more growth left.”

Various research labs

have been working on producing usable gigabit networks.

Usenet is a democratic and technological breakthrough. The com-

puter networks and Usenet are still developing. People need to work

toward keeping connections available and inexpensive, if not free, so as

to encourage the body of users to grow. There is a growing number of

cities across the world where the public has access to computer networks

as a civic service. This direction should be encouraged. Exclusive

arrangements for access are to be discouraged. The very nature of Usenet

means people are going to be working for its expansion. Others will be

working for the expansion for their own gain, and some forces will be an

active force against expansion of Usenet. I can only ask that people

attempt to popularize and encourage the use of and fight for Usenet.

Notes

1. “In September 1969, the embryonic (one-node!) ARPANET came to life when the first

packet-switching computer was connected to the Sigma 7 computer at UCLA. Shortly

thereafter began the interconnection of many main processors (referred to as HOSTS) at

various university, industrial, and government research centers across the United States.”

(Leonard Kleinrock, “On Communications and Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Com-

puters C-25 (December 1976): p. 1328).

2. F. Heart, A. McKenzie, J. McQuillan, and D. Walden, ARPANET Completion Report.

Washington, D.C.: DARPA and BBN, 1978, pp. II-2.

3. Alexander McKenzie and David C. Walden, “ARPANET, the Defense Data Network,

and Internet” in The Encyclopedia of Telecommunications, Volume 1, Fritz E. Froehlich,

Allen Kent and Carolyn M. Hall, eds. (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1991), p. 346.

4. Lawrence G. Roberts, “The ARPANET and Computer Networks “ in A History of

Page 51

Personal Workstations, Adele Goldberg, ed. (New York: ACM Press, 1988), p. 145.

5. Kleinrock, p. 1327.

6. McKenzie and Walden, p. 357.

7. Heart et al., pp. II-25.

8. McKenzie and Walden, p. 369.

9. “For many of the people in government, at the major contractors, and in the par-

ticipating universities and research centers the development of the ARPANET has been

an exciting time which will rank as a high point in their professional careers. In 1969 the

ARPANET project represented a high risk, potentially high impact research effort. The

existence of the net in practical useful form has not only provided communications

technology to meet any short term needs, but it represents a formidable communications

technology and experience base on which the Defense Department as well as the entire

public and private sectors will depend for advanced communications needs. The strong

and diverse experience base generated by the ARPANET project has placed this country

ahead of all others in advanced digital communications science and technol-

ogy.”ARPANET Completion Report, pp. III-109.

10. Unix was born in 1969, the same year as the ARPANET.

11. Dennis. M. Ritchie, “The Evolution of the UNIX Time-Sharing System,” Bell Systems

Technical Journal, Volume 63, number 8, part 2 (October 1984): p. 1578.

12. Ibid.

13. Stephen Daniel, James Ellis, and Tom Truscott, “USENET – A General Access UNIX

Network,” unpublished leaflet, Durham, North Carolina, Summer 1980.

14. Stephen Daniel, personal communication, November 1992.

15. Steve M. Bellovin and Mark Horton, “USENET – A Distributed Decentralized News

System,” unpublished manuscript, 1985.

16. Ibid.

17. See, for example, Gregory G. Woodbury’s “Net Cultural Assumptions,” reprinted in

Amateur Computerist, Volume 6 (Winter/Spring 1994-1995), p. 7.

18. “Correct. The original concept was that most of the traffic would be the form now

known as UNIX wizards (or whatever it’s called this week). Growth was slow until Mark

started feeding the mailing lists in because there was nothing to offer prospective

customers. Given a ready source of material, people were attracted.” Comment from

Steve Bellovin, October 10, 1990, Usenet History Archive,

http://www.duke.edu/~mg/usenet.hist/nethist.901010.Z (no longer available)

19. Steve Bellovin, October 10, 1990, Usenet History Archives,

http://www.duke.edu/~mg/usenet.hist/nethist.901010.Z (no longer available)

20. Henry Spencer, Usenet History Archives,

http://www.duke.edu/~mg/usenet.hist/history.Z (no longer available)

21 . Amand a Walker, Oct.16, 1990, Usenet His to ry Archive s,

http://www.duke.edu/~mg/usenet.hist/nethist.901016.Z (no longer available)

22. “Indeed, during a typical measurement period in June 1988, over 50% of the active

ARPANET hosts were gateways, and they accounted for over 80% of the traffic.”

McKenzie and Walden, p. 369.

Page 52

23. At AT&T, the computers research, then allegra, then ihnp4 served as major mail

and/or news distribution sites. At DEC, decvax gradually increased its role (for example,

decvax in New Hampshire would call long distance to San Diego, California.)

24. For example, Duke University fed Usenet data to Greg Woodbury who in turn gave

“feeds” to others who requested them from him. See “Net Cultural Assumptions.”

25.

Year Number of Sites Articles/Day Megabytes/Day

1979 3 ~2 -

1980 15 ~10 -

1981 150 ~20 -

1982 400 ~50 -

1983 600 ~120 -

1984 900 ~225 -

1985 1,00 ~375 1+

1986 2,500 ~500 2+

1987 5,000 ~1,000 2.5+

1988 11,000 ~1,800 4+

26. Andy Tannenbaum is quoted as saying something similar to “Never underestimate the

bandwidth of a station wagon full of nine-track tape (or magnetic tape).”

27. Usenet began with a spirit that still exists today. On several newsgroups I posted

asking how users were connected to Usenet. In return I received numerous wonderful

answers. One new pioneer was going to use packet radio to send e-mail up to the CIS’s

orbiting Mir Space Station. Others around the world sent me information about their

connection. These responses show how the world is still in the infancy of this communi-

cations interconnectivity!

28. “Flame wars” (highly emotional attacks) can become annoying. There are ebbs and

flows of interesting posts. Even though Usenet is addictive, it can also be overwhelming.

29. See, for example, the U.S. Office of Inspector General’s Report “Review of NSF-

NET” (March 1993) for documentation of the process set in motion to implement the

privatization of the NSFnet.

30. Usenet History Archives, http://www.duke.edu/~mg/usenet.hist/ (no longer available)

31. Usenet History Archives, http://www.duke.edu/~mg/usenet.hist/posthist.Z (no longer

available)

Special thanks to Bruce Jones for establishing and archiving the Usenet History Archives

at ftp://weber.ucsd.edu/pub/usenet.hist/ Also thanks to the Usenet pioneers for getting

Usenet off to the right start.

[Editor’s Note: An early version of the following article appeared online in Spring 1993.

A later version appears as Chapter 5 of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

Page 53

and the Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben published in 1997 by the IEEE

Computer Society Press, pp. 69-75.]

The Vision of Interactive Computing

And the Future

by Michael Hauben

What is the reality behind all the talk about the so called “Informa-

tion Superhighway”? This is an important question which U.S. govern-

ment policy makers seem to be ignoring. However, understanding the his-

tory of the current global computer networks is a crucial step toward

building the network of the future. There is a vision that guided the origin

and development of the Internet, Usenet and other associated physical and

logical networks. What is that vision?

While the global computer networks are basically young – the

ARPANET started in 1969 – their 25 plus years of growth has been

substantial. The ARPANET was the experimental network connecting the

mainframe computers of universities and other contractors funded and

encouraged by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S.

Department of Defense. The ARPANET started out as a research test-bed

for computer networking, communication protocols, computer and data

resource sharing, etc. However, what it developed into was something

surprising. The widest use of the ARPANET was for computer facilitated

human-human communication using electronic mail (e-mail) and

discussion lists. (Popular lists included Human-Nets, Wine-Tasters and

Sci-Fi Lovers lists.) The human communications achievements of ARPA-

NET research continue to be today’s most popular usage of the Net by a

growing number and variety of people through e-mail, Usenet discussion

groups, mailing lists, internet relay chat, and so on. The ARPANET was

the product of previous U.S. government funded research in interactive

computing and time-sharing of computers.

Until the 1960s, computers operated almost exclusively in batch

mode. Programmers punched or had their programs punched onto cards.

Then the stack of punched cards was provided to the local computer

center. The computer operator assembled stacks of cards into batches to

Page 54

be feed to the computer for continuous processing. Often a programmer

had to wait over a day in order to see the results from his or her input. In

addition, if there were any mistakes in the creation of the punched cards,

the stack or part of it had to be punched again and resubmitted, which

would take another day. Bugs in the code could only be discovered after

an attempt to compile the code and therefore “debugging” was a slow

process. This batch processing mode was a very inefficient way of

utilizing the power of the computer. People began thinking of ways to alter

the interface between people and computers. The idea of time-sharing

developed among some in computer research communities. Time-sharing

makes it possible for people to utilize a computer (then predominately the

IBM mainframe) simultaneously. Time-sharing operates by giving the

impression that the each user is the only one using the computer. This is

executed by having the computer divvy out slices of CPU time to all the

users in a rapid, sequential manner.

Crucial to the development of today’s global computer networks was

the vision of researchers interested in time-sharing. These researchers

began to think about social issues related to time-sharing. They observed

the communities that formed from the people who used time-sharing

systems and considered the social significance of these communities. Two

of the pioneers involved in research in time-sharing at MIT, Fernando

Corbato and Robert Fano, wrote:

The time-sharing computer system can unite a group of in-

vestigators in a cooperative search for the solution to a com-

mon problem, or it can serve as a community pool of knowl-

edge and skill on which anyone can draw according to his

needs. Projecting the concept on a large scale, one can con-

ceive of such a facility as an extraordinarily powerful library

serving an entire community in short, an intellectual public

utility.

Research in time-sharing started in the early 1960s around the

country at different research centers. Some examples were CTSS

(Compatible Time-sharing System) at MIT, DTSS (Dartmouth Time-

sharing System) at Dartmouth, a system at BBN, Project GENIE at the

University of California at Berkeley, and so on. J. C. R. Licklider, the

founding director of ARPA’s Information Processing Techniques Office

Page 55

(IPTO) thought of time-sharing as interactive computing. Interactive com-

puting meant the user could communicate and respond to the computer’s

responses in a way that batch processing did not allow.

Licklider was one of the first users of the new time-sharing systems,

and took the time to play around with them. Examining the uses of this

new way of communicating with the computer enabled Licklider to think

about the future possibilities. This was helpful because Licklider went on

to establish the priorities and direction for ARPA’s IPTO research monies.

Many of the interviewees in a series of interviews conducted by the

Charles Babbage Institute (CBI) said that ARPA's money was given in

those days under Licklider’s guidance to seed research which would be

helpful to society in general and only secondarily helpful to the military.

Both Robert Taylor and Larry Roberts, future successors of Licklider

as director of IPTO, pinpoint Licklider as the originator of the vision

which set ARPA’s priorities and goals and basically drove ARPA to help

develop the concept and practice of networking computers.

In one of the CBI interviews, Roberts said:

What I concluded was that we had to do something about com-

munications, and that really, the idea of the galactic network

that Lick talked about, probably more than anybody, was

something that we had to start seriously thinking about. So in

a way networking grew out of Lick’s talking about that,

although Lick himself could not make anything happen

because it was too early when he talked about it. But he did

convince me it was important.

Taylor, also in a CBI conducted interview, pointed out the impor-

tance of Licklider’s vision to future network development:

I don’t think anyone who’s been in that DARPA position since

[Licklider] has had the vision that Licklider had. His being at

that place at that time is a testament to the tenuousness of it all.

It was really a fortunate circumstance. I think most of the

significant advances in computer technology, especially in the

systems part of computer science were simply extrapolations

of Licklider’s vision. They were not really new visions of their

own. So he’s really the father of it all.

Taylor also described how research in time-sharing led to surprising

Page 56

results. He was one of the Directors who succeeded Licklider of the IPTO

at ARPA. A phrase that J. C. R. Licklider frequently used to express his

vision was “an Intergalactic Network.” Taylor explains that Licklider used

this phrase to describe the potential community that he realized would

emerge from the interconnection of the local communities of Net users

that develop from time-sharing. At first, Taylor notes ARPA supported

research had as its goal achieving compatibility and resource sharing

across different computer systems. However, he explains:

They were just talking about a network where they could have

a compatibility across these systems, and at least do some load

sharing, and some program sharing, data sharing that sort of

thing. Whereas, the thing that struck me about the time-sharing

experience was that before there was a time-sharing system,

let’s say at MIT, then there were a lot of individual people who

didn’t know each other who were interested in computing in

one way or another, and who were doing whatever they could,

however they could. As soon as the time-sharing system

became usable, these people began to know one another, share

a lot of information, and ask of one another, ‘How do I use

this? Where do I find that?’ It was really phenomenal to see

this computer become a medium that stimulated the formation

of a human community. And so, here ARPA had a number of

sites by this time, each of which had its own sense of commu-

nity and was digitally isolated from the other one. I saw a

phrase in the Licklider memo. The phrase was in a totally dif-

ferent context something that he referred to as an ‘intergalactic

network.’ I asked him about this … in fact I said, ‘Did you

have a networking of the ARPANET sort in mind when you

used that phrase?’ He said, ‘No, I was thinking about a single

time-sharing system that was intergalactic’

As Taylor explains, the users of the time-sharing systems would

form, usually unexpectedly, a new community. People were connected to

others who were also interested in these new computing systems.

The vision driving ARPA inspired bright researchers working on

computer related topics. Roberts explains that Licklider’s work (and that

of the IPTO’s directors after him) educated people who were to become

Page 57

the future leaders in the computer industry. Roberts describes the impact

that Licklider and his vision made on ARPA and future IPTO directors:

Well, I think that the one influence is the production of people

in the computer field that are trained, and knowledgeable, and

capable, and that form the basis for the progress the United

States has made in the computer field. That production of

people started with Lick, when he started the IPTO program

and started the big university programs. It was really due to

Lick, in large part, because I think it was that early set of

activities that I continued with that produced the most people

with the big university contracts. That produced a base for

them to expand their whole department, and produced excite-

ment in the university.

Roberts describes how ARPA-supported university research had a

significant impact on the computer industry as well.

So it was clear that that was a big impact on the universities

and therefore, in the industry. You can almost track all those

people and see what effect that has had. The people from those

projects are in large part the leaders throughout the industry.

Licklider’s vision was of an “Intergalactic Network,” a time-sharing

utility that would serve the entire galaxy. This early vision of time-sharing

spawned the idea of interconnecting different time-sharing systems by

networking them together. This network would allow those on geographi-

cally separated time-sharing systems to share data, programs, research,

and later other ideas and anything that could be typed out. In the article,

“The Computer as a Communications Device,” Licklider and Taylor pre-

dicted the creation of a global computer network. They wrote:

We have seen the beginnings of communication through a

computer – communication among people at consoles located

in the same room or on the same university campus or even at

distantly separated laboratories of the same research and

development organization. This kind of communication –

through a single multiaccess computer with the aid of tele-

phone lines – is beginning to foster cooperation and promote

coherence more effectively than do present arrangements for

sharing computer programs by exchanging magnetic tape by

Page 58

messenger or mail.

They point out how the interconnection of computers leads to a

much broader class of connections than might have been expected. A new

form of community is generated:

The collection of people, hardware, and software the multi-

access computer together with its local community of users

will become a node in a geographically distributed computer

network. Let us assume for a moment that such a network has

been formed. Through the network of message processors,

therefore, all the large computers can communicate with one

another. And through them, all the members of the super

community can communicate with other people, with pro-

grams, with data, or with a selected combinations of those

resources.

Licklider and Taylor consider more than just hardware and software

when they write about the new social dynamics that the connections of

dispersed computers and people will create. They explain:

[These communities] will be communities not of common

location, but of common interest. In each field, the overall

community of interest will be large enough to support a

comprehensive system of field-oriented programs and data.

In exploring this community of common affinity, they describe the

main advantages that come from connecting to and being part of these new

computer facilitated communities. Life will be enriched for those people

who can communicate on-line with others who have similar goals and

interests, as they won’t be limited by geography. Communication will be

more productive and thus more enjoyable. And the kind of programs that

those on-line will have access to will be customized to one's interests and

abilities, and thus more satisfying. And they describe the advantages to

society that the increased opportunities and resources made possible by the

Net can provide for everyone.

Since the advantages that computer networks make possible for

society will only happen if these advantages are available to all who want

to make use of them, Licklider and Taylor realize there is a crucial

challenge put on the agenda of our times by the development of the Net.

They conclude their article with a prophetic question: Will ‘to be on line’

Page 59

be a privilege or a right?”

They argue that it must be a right. Otherwise,

instead of providing all the many benefits it makes possible, it will only

increase the inequities of intellectual opportunity that currently exist.

The challenge they raise is one of access. The authors point out that

the positive effects of computer networking will only come about if the

networks are made easy to use and available to all. They argue that access

should be made available because of the global benefits that would ensue.

They conclude by describing how humankind can benefit immeasurably

from the educational opportunities the Net makes possible, “if the network

idea should prove to do for education what a few have envisioned in hope

… surely the boon to humankind would be beyond measure.”

Licklider and Taylor raise the important point that access should be

made available to all who want to use the computer networks. Therefore

it is important to ask if the National Information Infrastructure is being

designed with the principle of equality of access. The vision of the inter-

connection and interaction of diverse communities guided the creation of

the original ARPANET. In the design of the expansion of the Net, it is

important to keep the original vision in mind to consider if the vision was

correct, or if it was just important in the initial development of networking

technologies and techniques. However, very little emphasis has been

placed on either the study of Licklider’s vision or the role and advantages

of the Net up to this point. In addition, the public has not been allowed to

play a role in the planning process for the new initiatives which the U.S.

government is currently undertaking. This is a plea to you to demand more

of a part in the development of the future of the Net!

Notes for Chapter 5

1. “Time-sharing on Computers,” in Information, A Scientific American Book, San

Francisco, 1966, p. 76.

2. Lawrence G. Roberts, Interview by Arthur L. Norberg, 4 April 1989, San Mateo,

California, Charles Babbage Institute, The Center for the History of Information Pro-

cessing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, p. 29.

3. Robert W. Taylor, Interview by William Aspray, 28 February 1989, Palo Alto,

California, Charles Babbage Institute, The Center for the History of Information Pro-

cessing, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, Minnesota, p. 8.

4. Ibid., p. 24.

5. Lawrence G. Roberts Interview, p. 29.

Page 60

6. Ibid., p. 30.

7. “The Computer as a Communication Device,” in: In Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider:

1915-1990, p. 28.

8. Ibid., p. 32.

9. Ibid., p. 38.

10. Ibid., p. 40.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

[Editor’s Note: A draft of the following article appeared in three parts on Usenet in the

alt.amateur.computerist newsgroup on Dec 28, 1993. A version appeared online as

Chapter 6 of the net book, The Netizens and the Wonderful World of the Net: An

Anthology on Jan, 12, 1994. The article also appears as Chapter 7 of Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben

published in 1997 by the IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 96-114.]

Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the

ARPANET and Computer Science

by Michael Hauben

The global Internet’s progenitor was the Advanced Research Projects

Agency Network (ARPANET), financed and encouraged by the U.S.

Department of Defense. This is important to remember, because the

support and style of management by ARPA of its contractors was crucial

to the success of the ARPANET. As the Internet develops and the struggle

over the role it plays unfolds, it will be important to remember how the

network developed and the culture with which it was connected. The

culture of the Net as a facilitator of communication is an important feature

to understand.

The ARPANET Completion Report, published jointly in 1978 by

BBN of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and ARPA, concludes by stating:

… it is somewhat fitting to end on the note that the ARPANET

program has had a strong and direct feedback into the support

and strength of computer science, from which the network

itself sprung.

Page 61

In order to understand the wonder that the Internet and various other

components of the Net represent, we need to understand why the ARPA-

NET Completion Report ends with the suggestion that the ARPANET is

fundamentally connected to and born of computer science rather than of

the military.

The History of ARPA Leading Up to the ARPANET

A climate of scientific research surrounded the entire history of the

ARPANET. ARPA was formed to fund basic research, and thus was not

oriented toward military products. The formation of this agency was part

of the U.S. government’s response to the then Soviet Union’s launch of

Sputnik in 1957.

One area of ARPA-supported research concerned the

question of how to utilize the military’s investment in computers to do

Command and Control Research (CCR). J. C. R. Licklider was chosen to

head this effort. Licklider came to ARPA from BBN in October 1962.

His

educational background was a combination of engineering studies and

physiological psychology. His multi-disciplinary experiences provided

Licklider with a perspective uncommon among engineers.

As a result of Licklider’s arrival, the Agency’s contracts were shifted

from nonacademic contractors toward “the best academic computer

centers.”

The then-current method of computing was batch processing.

Licklider saw that improvements could be made in CCR only from work

that would advance the current state of computing technology. He

particularly wanted to move forward into the age of interactive computing,

and Defense Department contractors were not moving in that direction. In

an interview, Licklider described how at one of the contractors, System

Development Corporation (SDC), the computing research being done

“was based on batch processing, and while I was interested in a new way

of doing things, they [SDC] were studying how to make improvements in

the ways things were done already.”

To reflect the changed direction

Licklider was bringing to ARPA-supported research, his division of ARPA

was renamed the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPT or

IPTO). The office “developed into a far-reaching basic research program

in advanced technology.”

The Completion Report Draft states that “Prophetically, Licklider

nicknamed the group of computer specialists he gathered the ‘Intergalactic

Page 62

Network.’”

Before work on the ARPANET began, the foundation had

been established by the creation of the Information Processing Techniques

Office of ARPA. Robert Taylor, Licklider’s successor at the IPTO, reflects

on how this foundation was based on Licklider’s interest in interconnect-

ing communities:

Lick was among the first to perceive the spirit of community

created among the users of the first time-sharing systems … .

In pointing out the community phenomena created, in part, by

the sharing of resources in one time-sharing system, Lick made

it easy to think about interconnecting the communities[,] the

interconnection of interactive, on-line communities of peo-

ple… .

The “spirit of community” was related to Licklider’s interest in

having computers help people communicate with other people.

Licklider’s vision of an “intergalactic network” connecting people rep-

resented an important conceptual shift in computer science, This vision

guided the researchers who created the ARPANET. After the ARPANET

was functioning, the computer scientists using it realized that assisting

human communication was a major fundamental advance that the ARPA-

NET made possible.

As early as 1963, a commonly asked question of the IPTO directors

by the ARPA directors about IPTO projects was “‘Why don’t we rely on

the computer industry to do that?’, or occasionally more strongly, ‘We

should not support that effort because ABC (read, ‘computer industry’)

will do it – if it’s worth doing!’”

This question leads to an important

distinction: ARPA research was different from what the computer industry

had in mind to do, or was likely to undertake. Since Licklider’s creation

of the IPTO, the work supported by ARPA/IPTO continued his explicit

emphasis on communications. The Completion Report Draft explains:

The ARPA/IPTO theme … is that the promise offered by the

computer … a communication medium between people,

dwarfs into relative insignificance the historical beginnings of

the computer as an arithmetic engine.

The Completion Report Draft goes on to differentiate the research

ARPA supported from the research done by the computer industry:

The computer industry, in the main, still thinks of the com-

Page 63

puter as an arithmetic engine. Their heritage is reflected even

in current designs of “their communication systems.” They

have an economic and psychological commitment to the

arithmetic engine model, and it can die only slowly … .

The Completion Report Draft further analyzes this problem by tracing it

back to the nation’s universities:

… furthermore, it is a view that is still reinforced by most of

the nation’s computer science programs. Even universities, or

at least parts of them, are held in the grasp of the arithmetic

engine concept … .

ARPA’s IPTO was responsible for the research and development

which led to the success of first the ARPANET, and later the Internet.

Without this support and commitment, such a development might never

have happened. One of ARPA’s criterion for supporting research was that

the research had to offer an order of magnitude of advance over the current

state of development. Such research is never immediately profitable. In

society, therefore, there is the need for organizations that do not pursue

profit as their goal, but rather work on furthering the state of the art.

Computer networking was developed and spread widely in an environment

outside of commercial and profit considerations, an environment that

supported such research.

Others understood the communications promise of computers. For

example, in RFC-1336, David Clark, a senior research scientist at MIT’s

Laboratory for Computer Science, describes the impact of the Internet in

making possible new means of human-to-human communication:

It is not proper to think of networks as connecting computers.

Rather, they connect people using computers to mediate. The

great success of the Internet is not technical, but in human

impact. Electronic mail may not be a wonderful advance in

Computer Science, but it is a whole new way for people to

communicate. The continued growth of the Internet is a tech-

nical challenge to all of us, but we must never lose sight of

where we came from, the great change we have worked on the

larger computer community, and the great potential we have

for future change.

Research predating the ARPANET had been done by Paul Baran,

Page 64

Thomas Marill and others.

This led Lawrence Roberts and other IPTO

staff to formally introduce the topic of networking computers of differing

types (that is, incompatible hardware and software) together in order to

make it possible for ARPA’s Principal Investigators (PI) to share re-

sources. The ARPA Principal Investigators meeting was held annually for

university and other contractors to summarize results of the previous year

and discuss future research. In the Spring of 1967 it was held at the

University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Networking was one of the topics

brought up at this meeting. As a result of discussion at this meeting, it was

decided that there had to be agreement on conventions for character and

block transmission, error checking and re-transmission, and computer and

user identification. These specifications became the contents of the inter-

host communication’s “protocol.” Frank Westervelt was chosen to write

about this protocol, and a communication group was formed to study the

questions.

In order to develop a network of varied computers, two main pro-

blems had to be solved:

1. To construct a “subnetwork” consisting of telephone circuits

and switching nodes whose reliability, delay characteristics,

capacity, and cost would facilitate resource sharing among the

computers on the network.

2. To understand, design, and implement the protocols and

procedures within the operating systems of each connected

computer, in order to allow the use of the new subnetwork by

those computers in sharing resources.

After one draft and additional work on this communications position

paper were completed, a meeting was scheduled in early October 1967 by

ARPA at which the protocol paper and specifications for the Interface

Message Processor (IMP) were discussed. A subnetwork of IMPs, ded-

icated minicomputers connected to each of the participant’s computers,

was the method chosen to connect the computers (hosts) to each other via

phone lines. This standardized the subnet to which the hosts connected.

Researchers at each site would have to write the software necessary to

connect their local host computer to the IMP at their site. ARPA picked 19

possible participants in what was now known as the “ARPA Network.”

From the time of the 1967 PI meeting, various computer scientists

Page 65

who were ARPA contractors were busy thinking about the planning and

development of the ARPANET. Part of that work was a document out-

lining a beginning design for the IMP subnetwork. This specification led

to a competitive procurement for the design of the IMP subnetwork.

By late 1967 ARPA had given a contract to the Stanford Research

Institute (SRI) to write specifications for the communications network

they were developing. In December of 1968, SRI issued the report, “A

Study of Computer Network Design Parameters.” Elmer Shapiro played

an important role in the research for this report. Based on this work,

Lawrence Roberts and Barry Wessler of ARPA wrote the final ARPA

version of the IMP specification.

This specification was ready to be

discussed at the June 1968 PI meeting.

The Program Plan, “Resource Sharing Computer Networks,” was

submitted June 3, 1968 by the IPTO to the ARPA Director, who, with

unusual speed, approved it on June 21, 1968. It outlined the objectives of

the research and how the objectives would be fulfilled. The proposed

network was impressive, as it would prove useful to both the computing

research centers that connected to the network and to the military. The

proposed research requirements would provide immediate benefits to the

computer centers the network would connect. ARPA’s stated objectives

were to experiment with varied interconnections of computers and the

sharing of resources in an attempt to improve productivity of computer

research. Justification was drawn from technical needs in both the

scientific and military environments. The Program Plan developed into a

set of specifications. These specifications were connected to a competitive

Request for Quotation (RFQ) to find an organization that would design

and build the IMP subnetwork.

Following the approval of the Program Plan, 140 potential bidders

were mailed the Request for Quotation. After a bidders conference, 12

proposals were received and from them ARPA narrowed the field to four

bidders. BBN was the eventual recipient of the contract.

The second technical problem, as defined by the ad hoc Communica-

tions Group, still remained to be solved. The set of agreed upon communi-

cations settings (known as a protocol), which would allow the hosts to

communicate with each other over the subnetwork, had to be developed.

This work was left “for host sites to work out among themselves.”

This

Page 66

meant that the software necessary to connect the hosts to the IMP

subnetwork had to be developed. ARPA assigned this duty to the initially

designated ARPANET sites. Each of the first sites had a different type of

computer to connect. ARPA trusted that the programmers at each site

would be capable of modifying their operating systems in order to connect

their systems to the subnetwork. In addition, the sites needed to develop

the software necessary to utilize the other hosts on the network. By

assigning them responsibilities, ARPA made the academic computer

science community an active part of the ARPANET development team.

Stephen Crocker, one of graduate students involved with the

development of the earliest ARPANET protocols, associates the placement

of the initial ARPANET sites at research institutions with the fact that the

ARPANET was ground-breaking research. He wrote in a message

responding to questions on the com-priv mailing list:

During the initial development of the ARPANET, there was

simply a limit as to how far ahead anyone could see and

manage. The IMPs were placed in cooperative ARPA R&D

sites with the hope that these research sites would figure out

how to exploit this new communication medium.

The first sites of the ARPANET were picked to provide either

network support services or unique resources. The key services the first

four sites provided were:

SITE SERVICE OR RESOURCE

UCLA Network Measurement Center

SRI Network Information Center

UCSB Culler-Fried interactive mathematics

Utah graphics (hidden line removal)

Crocker recounts that these four sites were selected because they were

“existing ARPA computer science research contractors.” This was

important because “the research community could be counted on to take

some initiative.”

The very first site to receive an IMP was UCLA. Professor Leonard

Kleinrock of UCLA was involved with much of the early development of

the ARPANET. His work in queuing theory gave him a basis to develop

measurement techniques used to monitor the ARPANET’S performance.

This made it natural that UCLA received one of the first nodes, as it would

Page 67

be important to measure the network’s activity from early on – one of the

first two or three sites had to be the measurement site in order for the

statistics to be based on correct data for analysis purposes and UCLA

accordingly came to be the Network Measurement Center (NMC).

The Network Working Group

Once the initial sites were chosen, representatives from each site

gathered together to talk about how to solve the technical problem of

getting the hosts to communicate with each other. The Completion Report

Draft tells us about this beginning:

To provide the hosts with a little impetus to work on the host-

to-host problems, ARPA assigned Elmer Shapiro of SRI “to

make something happen,” a typically vague ARPA assign-

ment. Shapiro called a meeting in the summer of 1968 which

was attended by programmers from several of the first hosts to

be connected to the network. Individuals who were present

have said that it was clear from the meeting at that time, no

one had even any clear notions of what the fundamental host-

to-host issues might be.

This group, which came to be known as the Network Working Group

(NWG), was exploring new territory. The first meeting took place several

months before the first IMP was configured. The group had to begin with

a blank slate. In Crocker’s recollections of the important developments

produced by the NWG which were provided as the introduction to RFC-

1000, the reader is reminded that the thinking involved was ground-

breaking and thus exciting. Crocker remembers that the first meeting was

chaired by Elmer Shapiro of SRI, who initiated the conversation with a list

of questions.

Also present at this first meeting were Steve Carr from the

University of Utah, Crocker from UCLA, Jeff Rulifson from SRI, and Ron

Stoughton from UCSB. These attendees, most of them graduate students,

were the programmers described in the Completion Report Draft.

According to Crocker, this was a seminal meeting. The attendees

could only be theoretical, as none of the lowest levels of communication

had been developed yet. They needed a transport layer or low-level com-

munications platform to build upon. BBN would not deliver the first IMP

until August 30, 1969. It was important to meet before this date, as the

Page 68

NWG “imagined all sorts of possibilities.”

Only once they started

thinking together could this working group actually develop anything.

These fresh thoughts from fresh minds helped to incubate new ideas. The

Completion Report Draft properly acknowledges what this early group

helped accomplish. “Their early thinking was at a very high level.”

concrete decision made at the first meeting was to continue holding

meetings similar to the first one. This set the precedent of holding ex-

change meetings at each of their sites.

Crocker, describing the problems facing these networking pioneers,

writes:

With no specific service definition in place for what the IMPs

were providing to the hosts, there wasn’t any clear idea of

what work the hosts had to do. Only later did we articulate the

notion of building a layered set of protocols with general

transport services on the bottom and multiple application-

specific protocols on the top. More precisely, we understood

quite early that we wanted quite a bit of generality, but we

didn’t have a clear idea how to achieve it. We struggled

between a grand design and getting something working

quickly.

The initial protocol development led to DEL (Decode-Encode

Language) and NIL (Network Interchange Language). These languages

were more advanced than what was needed and could not be implemented

at the time. The basic purpose was to form an on-the-fly description that

would tell the receiving end how to understand the information that would

be sent. The discussion at this first set of meetings was extremely abstract

as neither ARPA nor the universities had conceived of an official charter.

However, the lack of a specific charter allowed the group to think broadly

and openly.

BBN had provided details about the host-IMP interface specifica-

tions from the IMP side. This information gave the group some definite

starting points to build from. Soon after BBN provided more information,

members of the NWG, of BBN, and of the Network Analysis Corporation

(NAC) met for the first time on Valentine’s Day, 1969. The NAC had

been invited because it had been contracted by ARPA to specify the

topological design of the ARPANET and to analyze its cost, performance,

Page 69

and reliability characteristics.

As all the parties had different priorities,

the meeting was a difficult one. BBN was interested in the lowest level of

making a reliable connection. The programmers from the host sites were

interested in getting the hosts to communicate with each other either via

various higher-level programs. Even when the crew from BBN did not

turn out to be the “experts from the East,” members of the NWG still

expected that “a professional crew would show up eventually to take over

the problems we were dealing with.”

A step of great importance that began the open documentation

process occurred as a result of a “particularly delightful” meeting a month

later in Utah. The participants decided it was time to start recording their

meetings in a consistent fashion. What resulted was a set of informal notes

titled “Request for Comments” (RFC). Crocker writes about their for-

mation:

I remember having great fear that we would offend whomever

the official protocol designers were, and I spent a sleepless

night composing humble words for our notes. The basic

ground rules were that anyone could say anything and that

nothing was official. And to emphasize the point, I labeled the

notes “Request for Comments.” I never dreamed these notes

would be distributed through the very medium we were

discussing in these notes. Talk about Sorcerer’s Apprentice!

Crocker replaced Shapiro as the Chairman of the NWG soon after

the initial meeting. He describes how they wrestled with the creation of the

host-host protocols:

Over the spring and summer of 1969 we grappled with the

detailed problems of protocol design. Although we had a

vision of the vast potential for intercomputer communication,

designing usable protocols was another matter. A custom

hardware interface and custom intrusion into the operating

system was going to be required for anything we designed, and

we anticipated serious difficulty at each of the sites. We looked

for existing abstractions to use. It would have been convenient

if we could have made the network simply look like a tape

drive to each host, but we knew that wouldn’t do.

The first IMP was delivered to UCLA in late August, 1969. The next

Page 70

was delivered to SRI a month later in October.

As soon as more than one

IMP existed, the NWG had to implement a working communications

protocol. The first set of pairwise host protocols included remote login for

interactive use (Telnet), and a way to copy files between remote hosts

(FTP). Crocker writes:

In particular, only asymmetric, user-server relationships were

supported. In December 1969, we met with Larry Roberts in

Utah, [and he] made it abundantly clear that our first step was

not big enough, and we went back to the drawing board. Over

the next few months we designed a symmetric host-host

protocol, and we defined an abstract implementation of the

protocol known as the Network Control Program. (“NCP” later

came to be used as the name for the protocol, but it originally

meant the program within the operating system that managed

connections. The protocol itself was known blandly only as the

host-host protocol.) Along with the basic host-host protocol,

we also envisioned a hierarchy of protocols, with Telnet, FTP

and some splinter protocols as the first examples. If we had

only consulted the ancient mystics, we would have seen

immediately that seven layers were required.

The NWG went on to develop the protocols necessary to make the

network viable. The group grew as more and more sites connected to the

ARPANET. The group became large enough (around 100 people) that one

meeting was held in conjunction with the 1971 Spring Joint Computer

Conference in Atlantic City. A major test of the NWG’s work came in

October 1971, when a meeting was held at MIT. Crocker continues the

story:

[A] major protocol “fly-off” – Representatives from each site

were on hand, and everyone tried to log in to everyone else’s

site. With the exception of one site that was completely down,

the matrix was almost completely filled in, and we had reached

a major milestone in connectivity.

The NWG was creating what was called the “host to host protocol.”

Explaining why this was important, the authors of the Completion Report

Draft wrote:

… [T]he problem is to design a host protocol which is suffi-

Page 71

ciently powerful for the kinds of communication that will

occur and yet can be implemented in all of the various differ-

ent host computer systems. The initial approach taken involved

an entity called a “Network Control Program” which would

typically reside in the executive of a host, such that processes

within a host would communicate with the network through

this Network Control Program. The primary function of the

NCP is to establish connections, break connections, switch

connections, and control flow. A layered approach was taken

such that more complex procedures (such as File Transfer

Procedures) were built on top of similar procedures in the host

Network Control Program.

As the ARPANET grew, the number of users bypassed the number

of developers, signaling the success of these networking pioneers. Crocker

appointed Alex McKenzie and Jon Postel to replace him as chairmen of

the Network Working Group. The Completion Report Draft details how

this role changed:

McKenzie and Postel interpreted their task to be one of codi-

fication and coordination primarily, and after a few more

spurts of activity the protocol definition process settled for the

most part into a status of a maintenance effort.

ARPA was a management body which funded academic computer

scientists. ARPA’s funding paved the way for these scientists to create the

ARPANET. BBN helped by developing the packet switching techniques

which served as the bottom level of transmitting information between

sites. The NWG provided an important development in its “Request for

Comments” documentation which made possible developing the new

protocols.

RFCs as “Open” Documentation

The open exchange of ideas initiated from the very first meeting of

the Network Working Group was continued in the Request For Comments.

As meeting notes, the RFCs were meant to keep members updated on the

status of various developments and ideas. They were also meant to gather

responses from people. RFC-3, “Documentation Conventions,” documents

the “rules” governing the production of these notes beginning with the

Page 72

open distribution rule:

Documentation of the NWG’s effort is through notes such as

this. Notes may be produced at any site by anybody and

included in this series.

These opening sentences invite anyone willing to be helpful into the

protocol definition process. This is important because all restrictions are

lifted by these words, allowing for the open process aimed for. (RFC-3 is

reproduced in the appendix at the end of this chapter.) The guide goes on

to describe the rules concerning the content of the RFCs:

The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion,

etc. related to the HOST software or other aspect of the

network. Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than

polished. Philosophical positions without examples or other

specifics, specific suggestions or implementation techniques

without introductory or background explication, and explicit

questions without any attempted answers are all acceptable.

The minimum length for a NWG note is one sentence.

In RFC-3, Crocker continues to explain the philosophy behind the

perhaps unprecedented openness represented:

These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two

reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement

as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the ex-

change and discussion of considerably less than authoritative

ideas. Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something

unpolished, and we hope to ease this inhibition.

This open process encouraged and led to the exchange of information.

Technical development is only successful when information is allowed to

flow freely and easily between the parties involved. Encouraging par-

ticipation is the main principle that made the development of the Net

possible.

Statements like the ones contained in RFC-3 are democratic in their

support of a process of openness. They were written during the late 1960s,

a time of popular protest for freedom of speech. People were demanding

more of a say in how their countries were run. The open environment

needed to develop new technologies is consistent with the cry for more

democracy that students and others raised throughout the world during the

Page 73

1960s. What is amazing is the collaboration of the NWG (mostly graduate

students) and ARPA (a component of the military) during the 1960s and

1970s. This seems unusual given the active student anti-war movement.

Robert Braden of the Internet Activities Board reflects on this collabora-

tion:

For me, participation in the development of the ARPANET

and the Internet protocols has been very exciting. One impor-

tant reason it worked, I believe, is that there were a lot of very

bright people all working more or less in the same direction,

led by some very wise people in the funding agency. The result

was to create a community of network researchers who

believed strongly that collaboration is more powerful than

competition among researchers. I don’t think any other model

would have gotten us where we are today.

Such collaboration is why the work of these computer scientists led to

such amazing and democratic achievements, the Net and the cooperative

culture of the Net.

Calling their notes a “Request for Comment” established a signifi-

cant tradition. It predates the Usenet post, which in a fashion could also be

called a “request for comment.” Both are the presentation of a particular

person’s ideas, questions, or comments to the general public for com-

ments, criticism, or suggestions. Early RFCs established this tradition.

Many RFCs are in fact comments on previous RFCs.

Conclusion

How were the developments of the ARPANET made possible? None

of the participants had previous solutions to any of the problems they

faced in establishing a working packet-switched test bed with host-to-host

connectivity. They had to put much thought and work into their research.

As the resulting ARPANET was tremendously successful and fulfilled

ARPA’s project objectives, it is important to see what can be learned from

the research and research methods from which it emerged. Bernie Cosell,

who worked at BBN during this early period, describes the importance of

an open process in a developmental situation:

*no *one* had the necessary expertise [and vision] to figure

any of this out on their own. The cultures among the early

Page 74

groups were VERY different [–] multics, sigma-7, IBM … at

Rand … PDP-IOs at BBN and SRI … [and possibly] UCSB

and Utah had pdp-1O’s, too. The pie-in-the-sky applications

ranged over a WIDE landscape, with no one knowing quite

where it would lead. Some kind of free, cross-cultural info/idea

exchange *had* to happen.

The computer scientists and others involved were encouraged in

their work by ARPA’s philosophy of gathering the best computer

scientists working in the field and supporting them.

IPT usually does little day-to-day management of its contrac-

tors. Especially with its research contracts, IPT would not be

producing faster results with such management – research

must progress at its own pace. IPT has generally adopted a

mode of management which entails finding highly motivated,

highly skilled contractors, giving them a task, and allowing

them to proceed by themselves.

The work of the Network Working Group was vital to the develop-

ment of the ARPANET. Vinton Cerf, another of the graduate students

involved with the early protocol development and still closely connected

to the Internet, echoed this sentiment in his paper “An Assessment of

ARPANET Protocols”:

The history of the Advanced Research Project Agency re-

source sharing computer network (ARPANET) is in many

ways a history of the study, development, and implementation

of protocols.

Cerf supports Cosell’s opinion about the uncertainty and newness of the

entire project:

The tasks facing the ARPANET design teams were often

unclear, and frequently required agreements which had never

been contemplated before (e.g., common protocols to permit

different operating systems and hardware to communicate).

The success of the effort, seen in retrospect, is astonishing, and

much credit is due to those who were willing to commit

themselves to the job of putting the ARPANET together.

The NWG’s work blazed the trail which the developers of the

TCP/IP suite of protocols (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet

Page 75

Protocol) successfully followed when the need to expand and include

other networks based on technologies other than NCP arose. The

principles embodied in RFC-3 and the open RFC documentation process

provided a strong foundation which began with NCP and was continued

by the work on TCP/IP. NCP was developed in the field, and versions of

it were released early in its development so various programmers could

work on implementing and improving the protocol. In addition, all

specifications were free and easily available for people to examine and

comment on. Through this principle of early release, problems and kinks

were found and worked out in a timely manner. The future developers of

TCP/IP learned from the developers of NCP a practice of developing from

the bottom up. The bottom-up model allows for a wide range of people

and experiences to join in and perfect the protocol and make it the best

possible.

The public funding of the ARPANET project meant that the docu-

mentation could be made public and freely available. The documentation

was neither restricted nor classified. This open process encouraging

communication was necessary for these pioneers to succeed. Research in

new fields of study requires that researchers cooperate and communicate

in order to share their expertise. Such openness is especially critical when

no one person has the answers in advance. In his article, “The Evolution

of Packet Switching,” Larry Roberts described the public nature of the

process:

Since the ARPANET was a public project connecting many

major universities and research institutions, the implementa-

tion and performance details were widely published.

The people at the forefront of development of these protocols were

the members of the Network Working Group, many of whom came from

academic institutions, and who therefore had the support and time needed

for the research. In summing up the achievements of the process that

developed the ARPANET, the Completion Report Draft explains:

The ARPANET development was an extremely intense activ-

ity in which contributions were made by many of the best

computer scientists in the United States. Thus, almost all of the

“major technical problems” already mentioned received con-

tinuing attention and the detailed approach to those problems

Page 76

changed several times during the early years of the ARPANET

effort.

Fundamental to the ARPANET, as explained by the Completion

Report, was the discovery of a new way of looking at computers. The

developers of the ARPANET viewed the computer as a communications

device rather than only as an arithmetic device.

This new view, which

came from research conducted by those in academic computer science,

made the building of the ARPANET possible. Such a shift in under-

standing the role of the computer was fundamental in advancing computer

science. The ARPANET research has provided a rich legacy for the further

advancement of computer science, and it is important that the significant

lessons learned be studied and used to further advance the study of

computer science.

Notes

1. F. Heart, A. McKenzie, J. McQuillan, and D. Walden, ARPANET Completion Report

(Washington, D. C.: DARPA and BBN, 1978) III-132 (hereafter, Completion Report).

2. ARPANET Completion Report Draft, September 9, 1977, unpublished manuscript, III-

6. (Hereafter, Completion Report Draft).

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., III-7.

5. “Interview with J.C.R. Licklider” conducted by William Aspray and Arthur L.

Norberg, tape recording, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 28 October 1988, OH 150, Charles

Babbage Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

https://conservancy

.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/107436/oh150jcl.pdf

6. Completion Report Draft, III-7.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., III-21.

9. See, for example, J.C.R. Licklider and Robert Taylor, “The Computer as a Communi-

cation Device,” in In Memoriam: J.C.R. Licklider 1915-1990 (Palo Alto, CA.: Digital

Systems Research Center, 1990), originally published in Science and Technology, April

1968.

10. Completion Report Draft, III-23.

11. Ibid., III-24.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. RFC-1336, “Who’s Who in the Internet,” G. Malkin, May 1992, 15.

15. Completion Report, section 1.1.2, starting on III-9.

16. Completion Report Draft, III-25, III-26.

Page 77

17. Completion Report, II-7-II-8.

18. Completion Report Draft, III-3-III-33.

19. Ibid., 1III-35 and Completion Report, II-2.

20. Completion Report Draft, III-35, III-36.

21. Ibid., III-67.

22. Ibid., III-39 and personal discussion with Alex McKenzie, November 1, 1993.

23. E-mail message to com-priv mailing list ([email protected]). Subject: “Re: RFC-

1000 (Partial response to part 1).” Date: Nov. 27, 1993.

24. Vinton G. Cerf, private e-mail correspondence, dated Nov. 27, 1993. Subject: “Re:

Early Days of the ARPANET and the NWG.”

25. “The Origins of RFCs” by Stephen D. Crocker is contained in J. Reynolds and J.

Postel, RFC-1000, 1.

26. The following quotes show some of the reasoning that went into the choice of the

initial ARPANET sites:

“CCN’s (The Campus Computing Network of UCLA] chance to obtain a connection to

the ARPANET was a result of the presence at UCLA of Professor L. Kleinrock and his

students, including S. Crocker, J. Postel, and V. Cerf. This group was not only involved

in the original design of the network and the Host protocols, but also was to operate the

Network Measurement Center (NMC). For these reasons the first delivered IMP was

installed at UCLA, and ARPA was thus able to easily offer CCN the opportunity for

connection (Completion Report Draft, III-689).

UCLA was specifically asked to take on the task of a ‘Network Measurement Center’

with the objective of studying the performance of the network as it was built, grown, and

modified; SRI was specifically asked to take on the task of a ‘Network Information

Center’ with the objective of collecting information about the network, about host

resources, and at the same time generating computer based tools for storing and accessing

that collected information (Completion Report Draft, II-16).

The accessibility of distributed resources carries with it the need for an information

service (either centralized or distributed) that enables users to learn about those resources.

This was recognized at the P1 meeting in Michigan in the spring of 1967. At the time,

Doug Engelbart and his group at the Stanford Research Institute were already involved

in research and development to provide a computer-based facility to augment human

interaction. Thus, it was decided that Stanford Research Institute would be a suitable

place for a ‘Network Information Center’ (NIC) to be established for the ARPANET.

With the beginning of implementation of the network in 1969, construction also began

on the NIC at SRI” (Completion Report Draft, III-60).

27. Completion Report Draft, III-67.

28. E-mail message to com-priv mailing list. Subject: “Re: RFC-1000 (End of response

to part 1),” Date: Nov. 27, 1993.

29. RFC-1000.

30. Completion Report Draft, III-67.

31. E-mail message to com-priv mailing list. Subject: “Re: RFC-1000 (Response to part

2),” Date: Nov. 27, 1993.

Page 78

32. Completion Report, III-30.

33. RFC-1000, 3.

34. Ibid.

35. In RFC-1000, Stephen Crocker reports on the process of the installation of the first

IMP:

“[T]ime was pressing: The first IMP was due to be delivered to UCLA September 1,

1969, and the rest were scheduled at monthly intervals.

At UCLA we scrambled to build a host-IMP interface. SDS, the builder of the Sigma 7,

wanted many months and many dollars to do the job.

Mike Wingfield, another grad student at UCLA, stepped in and offered to get the interface

built in six weeks for a few thousand dollars. He had a gorgeous, fully instrumented

interface working in five and one-half weeks. I was in charge of the software, and we

were naturally running a bit late. September 1 was Labor Day, so I knew I had a couple

of extra days to debug the software. Moreover, I had heard BBN was having some timing

troubles with the software, so I had some hope they’d miss the ship date. And I figured

that first some Honeywell people would install the hardware – IMPs were built out of

Honeywell 516s in those days – and then BBN people would come in a few days later to

shake down the software. An easy couple of weeks of grace.

BBN fixed their timing trouble, air shipped the IMP, and it arrived on our loading dock

on Saturday, August 30. They arrived with the IMP, wheeled it into our computer room,

plugged it in and the software restarted from where it had been when the plug was pulled

in Cambridge. Still Saturday August 30. Panic time at UCLA.

The second IMP was delivered to SRI at the beginning of October, and ARPA’s interest

was intense. Larry Roberts and Barry Wessler came by for a visit on November 21, and

we actually managed to demonstrate a Telnet-like connection to SRI.”

36. RFC-1000, 4.

37. Ibid.

38. Completion Report Draft, II-24.

39. Ibid., III-69.

40. RFC-3, “Documentation Conventions,” Stephen Crocker, April 1969, 1.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. RFC-1336, 5.

44. This democratic community is in danger of being fundamentally altered. This study

of the history of the development of the ARPANET is meant to help people understand

where the Net has come from, in order to defend it, and try to fight to keep it open and

democratic – “the eighth wonder of the world,” as some call the Internet.

45. Some examples of comments upon comments include:

RFC-1 Crocker, S. Host software, 1969 April 7

RFC-65 Walden, D. Comments on Host/Host Protocol document #1

RFC-36 Crocker, S. Protocol notes, 1970 March 16

RFC-38 Wolfr, S. Comments on network protocol from NWG/RFC-36

RFC-39 Harslem, E.; Heaftier,J. Comments on protocol re: NWG/RFC-36

Page 79

RFC-33 Crocker, S. New Host-Host Protocol, 1970 February 12

RFC-47 Crowther,W. BBN’s comments on NWG/RFC-33 1970 April 20

46. Bernie Cosell, “Re: RFC-1000 – Questions about the Origins of ARPANET Protocols

2/2,” alt.folklore.computers, Nov. 23, 1993.

47. Completion Report Draft, III-47.

48. Vinton Cerf, “An Assessment of ARPANET Protocols,” Infotech Education Ltd.,

Stanford University, California, (n.d.), 1.

49. Ibid.

50. Lawrence Roberts, “The Evolution of Packet Switching,” Proceedings of the IEEE

66 (November 1978): 267.

http://dx.doi .org/10.1109/PROC.1978.11141

51. Completion Report Draft, II-24-II-25.

52. Ibid., III-24.

Special thanks to Alexander McKenzie of BBN, Stephen Crocker of TIS, and

Vinton Cerf of MCI for making research materials available.

Appendix

Network Working Group 4689

RFC-3 April 1969

Steve Crocker

UCLA

DOCUMENTATION CONVENTIONS

The Network Working Group seems to consist of Steve Carr of Utah, Jeff Rulifson

and Bill Duvall at SRI, and Steve Crocker and Gerard Deloche at UCLA. Membership

is not closed.

The Network Working Group (NWG) is concerned with the HOST software, the

strategies for using the network, and initial experiments with the network.

Documentation of the NWG’s effort is through notes such as this. Notes may be

produced at any site by anybody and included in this series.

CONTENT

The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. related to the

HOST software or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to be timely rather

than polished. Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics, specific

suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or background ex-

plication, and explicit questions without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The

minimum length for a NWG note is one sentence.

These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two reasons. First, there

is a tendency to view a written statement as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to

promote the exchange and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas.

Page 80

Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something unpolished, and we hope to ease

this inhibition.

FORM

Every NWG note should bear the following information:

1. “Network Working Group” “Request for Comments:” x, where x is a serial number.

Serial numbers are assigned by Bill Duvall at SRI

2. Author and affiliation

3. Date

4. Title. The title need not be unique.

DISTRIBUTION

One copy only will be sent from the author’s site to:

1. Bob Kahn, BB&N

2. Larry Roberts, ARPA

3. Steve Carr, UCLA

4. Jeff Rulifson, UTAH

5. Ron Stoughton, UCSB

6. Steve Crocker, UCLA

Reproduction if desired may be handled locally.

OTHER NOTES

Two notes (1 & 2) have been written so far. These are both titled HOST Software

and are by Steve Crocker and Bill Duvall, separately.

Other notes planned are on:

1. Network Timetable

2. The Philosophy of NIL

3. Specifications for NIL

4. Deeper Documentation of HOST Software.

Note: This document is available at:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not neces-

sarily the opinions of the Amateuvemberr Computerist newsletter. We

welcome submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.

Page 81

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben (1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.

Articles can be submitted via e-mail:

mailto:[email protected]

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in a non profit publication

provided credit is given, with name of author and source of article cited.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All issues of the Amateur Computerist are online.

All issues can be accessed from the Index at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 82