[ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet'

[Noel Chiappa]

Dear Science News editors:

I was extremely saddened to see, in the latest issue of 'Science News', that
you all have apparently succumbed to the fashion of using 'internet' to refer
to the Internet. While I expect to see this sort of error in general
publications, it's most unfortunate to see a magazine focused on technical
matters make the same mistake.

Let me explain.

An 'internet' is a generally, and widely, accepted technical term for a
collection of disparate physical networks (fiber optic links, wireless
network, Ethernets, etc) connected together with a particular type of packet
switch, called 'routers'. (There are other kinds of packet switch, but they
have mostly fallen into desuetude now.)

The 'Internet' is the massive internet to which most people of the world now
have access. (See how that sentence doesn't make sense without distinguishing
one with the capital?)

There are, however, still many other internets, which are not connected to the
Internet. (Google "air gap" if you aren't aware of this - and again, the
different spelling is crucial to the sentenced being comprehensible.)

The people who invented internets, and the Internet, carefully chose to use
the capital precisely to distinguish between the two. (I recall the
discussion.) The Internet Engineering Task Force, the body responsible for the
technical specifications for internets and the Internet, continues to use that
distinction.

Just as there are many 'white houses', but only one 'White House', there is an
important distinction between 'internet(s)' and the 'Internet'.

So I hope you will update your editorial guidlines to note that the term for
_the_ Internet is spelled with a capital.

Noel

[Alan Maitland]

+1

Post by Noel Chiappa
I was extremely saddened to see, in the latest issue of 'Science News', that
you all have apparently succumbed to the fashion of using 'internet' to refer
to the Internet. While I expect to see this sort of error in general
publications, it's most unfortunate to see a magazine focused on technical
matters make the same mistake.
Let me explain.
An 'internet' is a generally, and widely, accepted technical term for a
collection of disparate physical networks (fiber optic links, wireless
network, Ethernets, etc) connected together with a particular type of packet
switch, called 'routers'. (There are other kinds of packet switch, but they
have mostly fallen into desuetude now.)
The 'Internet' is the massive internet to which most people of the world now
have access. (See how that sentence doesn't make sense without distinguishing
one with the capital?)
There are, however, still many other internets, which are not connected to the
Internet. (Google "air gap" if you aren't aware of this - and again, the
different spelling is crucial to the sentenced being comprehensible.)
The people who invented internets, and the Internet, carefully chose to use
the capital precisely to distinguish between the two. (I recall the
discussion.) The Internet Engineering Task Force, the body responsible for the
technical specifications for internets and the Internet, continues to use that
distinction.
Just as there are many 'white houses', but only one 'White House', there is an
important distinction between 'internet(s)' and the 'Internet'.
So I hope you will update your editorial guidlines to note that the term for
_the_ Internet is spelled with a capital.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Joe Touch]

The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too.

At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning.

Joe

Post by Noel Chiappa
+1

Post by Noel Chiappa
I was extremely saddened to see, in the latest issue of 'Science News', that
you all have apparently succumbed to the fashion of using 'internet' to refer
to the Internet. While I expect to see this sort of error in general
publications, it's most unfortunate to see a magazine focused on technical
matters make the same mistake.
Let me explain.
An 'internet' is a generally, and widely, accepted technical term for a
collection of disparate physical networks (fiber optic links, wireless
network, Ethernets, etc) connected together with a particular type of packet
switch, called 'routers'. (There are other kinds of packet switch, but they
have mostly fallen into desuetude now.)
The 'Internet' is the massive internet to which most people of the world now
have access. (See how that sentence doesn't make sense without distinguishing
one with the capital?)
There are, however, still many other internets, which are not connected to the
Internet. (Google "air gap" if you aren't aware of this - and again, the
different spelling is crucial to the sentenced being comprehensible.)
The people who invented internets, and the Internet, carefully chose to use
the capital precisely to distinguish between the two. (I recall the
discussion.) The Internet Engineering Task Force, the body responsible for the
technical specifications for internets and the Internet, continues to use that
distinction.
Just as there are many 'white houses', but only one 'White House', there is an
important distinction between 'internet(s)' and the 'Internet'.
So I hope you will update your editorial guidlines to note that the term for
_the_ Internet is spelled with a capital.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Miles Fidelman]

I remember those conversations too.

+1

Post by Noel Chiappa
+1

Post by Noel Chiappa
I was extremely saddened to see, in the latest issue of 'Science News', that
you all have apparently succumbed to the fashion of using 'internet' to refer
to the Internet. While I expect to see this sort of error in general
publications, it's most unfortunate to see a magazine focused on technical
matters make the same mistake.
Let me explain.
An 'internet' is a generally, and widely, accepted technical term for a
collection of disparate physical networks (fiber optic links, wireless
network, Ethernets, etc) connected together with a particular type of packet
switch, called 'routers'. (There are other kinds of packet switch, but they
have mostly fallen into desuetude now.)
The 'Internet' is the massive internet to which most people of the world now
have access. (See how that sentence doesn't make sense without distinguishing
one with the capital?)
There are, however, still many other internets, which are not connected to the
Internet. (Google "air gap" if you aren't aware of this - and again, the
different spelling is crucial to the sentenced being comprehensible.)
The people who invented internets, and the Internet, carefully chose to use
the capital precisely to distinguish between the two. (I recall the
discussion.) The Internet Engineering Task Force, the body responsible for the
technical specifications for internets and the Internet, continues to use that
distinction.
Just as there are many 'white houses', but only one 'White House', there is an
important distinction between 'internet(s)' and the 'Internet'.
So I hope you will update your editorial guidlines to note that the term for
_the_ Internet is spelled with a capital.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Brian E Carpenter]

Dear Noel,

(Cc:s intentionally intact)

I think you should have addressed your letter to "Dear science news editors".
Clearly, if the Internet doesn't need to be capitalised, neither does
"Science News". For that matter, you could write a similar letter to the
editor of the economist, or of the times.

Regards
Brian Carpenter

Post by Noel Chiappa
I was extremely saddened to see, in the latest issue of 'Science News', that
you all have apparently succumbed to the fashion of using 'internet' to refer
to the Internet. While I expect to see this sort of error in general
publications, it's most unfortunate to see a magazine focused on technical
matters make the same mistake.
Let me explain.
An 'internet' is a generally, and widely, accepted technical term for a
collection of disparate physical networks (fiber optic links, wireless
network, Ethernets, etc) connected together with a particular type of packet
switch, called 'routers'. (There are other kinds of packet switch, but they
have mostly fallen into desuetude now.)
The 'Internet' is the massive internet to which most people of the world now
have access. (See how that sentence doesn't make sense without distinguishing
one with the capital?)
There are, however, still many other internets, which are not connected to the
Internet. (Google "air gap" if you aren't aware of this - and again, the
different spelling is crucial to the sentenced being comprehensible.)
The people who invented internets, and the Internet, carefully chose to use
the capital precisely to distinguish between the two. (I recall the
discussion.) The Internet Engineering Task Force, the body responsible for the
technical specifications for internets and the Internet, continues to use that
distinction.
Just as there are many 'white houses', but only one 'White House', there is an
important distinction between 'internet(s)' and the 'Internet'.
So I hope you will update your editorial guidlines to note that the term for
_the_ Internet is spelled with a capital.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
.

[Richard Bennett]

Cute. I remind the offenders of this rule:

Although capitalization rules can be a bit tricky, rules for capitalizing proper nouns <http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/nouns/Types-of-Nouns.html> are pretty straightforward. First, though, it's important to understand the difference between common nouns and proper nouns.

Common nouns are the general names of people, places, and things. These types of nouns are usually not capitalized (unless they begin a sentence or are part of a title).
Proper nouns are the names of a specific person, place, or thing. The basic capitalization rule of proper nouns is that the first letters are capitalized.
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/rules-for-capitalizing-proper-nouns.html <http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/rules-for-capitalizing-proper-nouns.html>

RB

Post by Brian E Carpenter
Dear Noel,
(Cc:s intentionally intact)
I think you should have addressed your letter to "Dear science news editors".
Clearly, if the Internet doesn't need to be capitalised, neither does
"Science News". For that matter, you could write a similar letter to the
editor of the economist, or of the times.
Regards
Brian Carpenter

Post by Noel Chiappa
I was extremely saddened to see, in the latest issue of 'Science News', that
you all have apparently succumbed to the fashion of using 'internet' to refer
to the Internet. While I expect to see this sort of error in general
publications, it's most unfortunate to see a magazine focused on technical
matters make the same mistake.
Let me explain.
An 'internet' is a generally, and widely, accepted technical term for a
collection of disparate physical networks (fiber optic links, wireless
network, Ethernets, etc) connected together with a particular type of packet
switch, called 'routers'. (There are other kinds of packet switch, but they
have mostly fallen into desuetude now.)
The 'Internet' is the massive internet to which most people of the world now
have access. (See how that sentence doesn't make sense without distinguishing
one with the capital?)
There are, however, still many other internets, which are not connected to the
Internet. (Google "air gap" if you aren't aware of this - and again, the
different spelling is crucial to the sentenced being comprehensible.)
The people who invented internets, and the Internet, carefully chose to use
the capital precisely to distinguish between the two. (I recall the
discussion.) The Internet Engineering Task Force, the body responsible for the
technical specifications for internets and the Internet, continues to use that
distinction.
Just as there are many 'white houses', but only one 'White House', there is an
important distinction between 'internet(s)' and the 'Internet'.
So I hope you will update your editorial guidlines to note that the term for
_the_ Internet is spelled with a capital.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
.

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

[Joe Touch]

Rules like this fail for two reasons:
- disagreement over the rule itself (English in notorious for its exceptions)
- disagreement over how to apply the rule

Consider the cases of the “moon” vs. “the White House”?

in some cases, capitalization has meaning:
"A White House painting” (i.e., an image constructed of paint displayed inside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave) is different from “a white house painting” (e.g., the application of paint to a white house”.

in others, capitalization is not used but the definite vs. indefinite article or other cues provide context:
“The moon’s orbit” (of our moon) is different from “a moon’s orbit” (e.g., of a moon around Mars), but that *requires use of a different article* to be clear.

For the (public) Internet:
capitalization has meaning:
“An Internet user” is different from “an internet user”
but
use of definite vs indefinite article doesn’t:
“The internet was attacked” and “an internet was attacked” both refer to what we would call ‘intranets using the Internet protocols”, so use of a definite article doesn’t help.

The best argument I have been able to make is that both variants have different, established meanings.

However, AFAICT, news outlets feel that the Internet is becoming positively lunar (looney? ;-)

Joe

Post by Richard Bennett
Although capitalization rules can be a bit tricky, rules for capitalizing proper nouns <http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/nouns/Types-of-Nouns.html> are pretty straightforward. First, though, it's important to understand the difference between common nouns and proper nouns.
Common nouns are the general names of people, places, and things. These types of nouns are usually not capitalized (unless they begin a sentence or are part of a title).
Proper nouns are the names of a specific person, place, or thing. The basic capitalization rule of proper nouns is that the first letters are capitalized.
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/rules-for-capitalizing-proper-nouns.html <http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/rules-for-capitalizing-proper-nouns.html>
RB

Post by Brian E Carpenter
Dear Noel,
(Cc:s intentionally intact)
I think you should have addressed your letter to "Dear science news editors".
Clearly, if the Internet doesn't need to be capitalised, neither does
"Science News". For that matter, you could write a similar letter to the
editor of the economist, or of the times.
Regards
Brian Carpenter

Post by Noel Chiappa
I was extremely saddened to see, in the latest issue of 'Science News', that
you all have apparently succumbed to the fashion of using 'internet' to refer
to the Internet. While I expect to see this sort of error in general
publications, it's most unfortunate to see a magazine focused on technical
matters make the same mistake.
Let me explain.
An 'internet' is a generally, and widely, accepted technical term for a
collection of disparate physical networks (fiber optic links, wireless
network, Ethernets, etc) connected together with a particular type of packet
switch, called 'routers'. (There are other kinds of packet switch, but they
have mostly fallen into desuetude now.)
The 'Internet' is the massive internet to which most people of the world now
have access. (See how that sentence doesn't make sense without distinguishing
one with the capital?)
There are, however, still many other internets, which are not connected to the
Internet. (Google "air gap" if you aren't aware of this - and again, the
different spelling is crucial to the sentenced being comprehensible.)
The people who invented internets, and the Internet, carefully chose to use
the capital precisely to distinguish between the two. (I recall the
discussion.) The Internet Engineering Task Force, the body responsible for the
technical specifications for internets and the Internet, continues to use that
distinction.
Just as there are many 'white houses', but only one 'White House', there is an
important distinction between 'internet(s)' and the 'Internet'.
So I hope you will update your editorial guidlines to note that the term for
_the_ Internet is spelled with a capital.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
.

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
Internet Policy Consultant
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Noel Chiappa]

Post by Joe Touch
The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too.

I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed.

Post by Joe Touch
At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning.

This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see
if it helps.

BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing,
but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One
doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House
hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet
hosts'.

Noel

[Joe Touch]

Hi, Noel,

Agreed. Note some other issues I’ve seen:

"The Internet Protocol” (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), but “the Internet’s protocols”

“IPsec”, not “IPSec”, “IPSEC”, or “ipsec”

Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet evangelist, e.g.)

Joe

Post by Noel Chiappa

Post by Joe Touch
The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too.

I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed.

Post by Joe Touch
At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning.

This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see
if it helps.
BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing,
but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One
doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House
hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet
hosts'.
Noel

[Paul Ruizendaal]

I generally concur with the arguments made, but just to voice a contrarian view: maybe ‘Internet' has crowded out ‘internet' in its original meaning, along with ‘network’ changing its meaning over time.

One could argue that both ‘Internet' and ‘internet' now refer to the Internet. What used to be called an internet would now be referred to as a 'network’. What used to be called a network would now be referred to as a network segment, or some such. So we used to speak of an internet of networks, but now we would talk of a network of network segments (in both cases stitched together by switches, bridges and routers). Networks consisting of a single segment, i.e. networks that are not internets are probably few and far between these days.

It is not all that uncommon for words to change their meaning over time:
https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/

Paul

Post by Joe Touch
Hi, Noel,
"The Internet Protocol” (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), but “the Internet’s protocols”
“IPsec”, not “IPSec”, “IPSEC”, or “ipsec”
Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet evangelist, e.g.)
Joe

Post by Noel Chiappa

Post by Joe Touch
The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too.

I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed.

Post by Joe Touch
At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning.

This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see
if it helps.
BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing,
but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One
doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House
hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet
hosts'.
Noel

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Alexander Goldman]

Agree. While OED, the authority, makes the distinctions described in this
discussion (http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/248411), Webster,
which may reflect more common usage, does not:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet

Post by Paul Ruizendaal
I generally concur with the arguments made, but just to voice a contrarian
view: maybe ‘Internet' has crowded out ‘internet' in its original meaning,
along with ‘network’ changing its meaning over time.
One could argue that both ‘Internet' and ‘internet' now refer to the
Internet. What used to be called an internet would now be referred to as a
'network’. What used to be called a network would now be referred to as a
network segment, or some such. So we used to speak of an internet of
networks, but now we would talk of a network of network segments (in both
cases stitched together by switches, bridges and routers). Networks
consisting of a single segment, i.e. networks that are not internets are
probably few and far between these days.
https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/
Paul

Post by Joe Touch
Hi, Noel,
"The Internet Protocol” (not Internet protocol or internet protocol),

but “the Internet’s protocols”

Post by Joe Touch
“IPsec”, not “IPSec”, “IPSEC”, or “ipsec”
Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet

evangelist, e.g.)

Post by Joe Touch
Joe

Post by Noel Chiappa

Post by Joe Touch
The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too.

I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed.

Post by Joe Touch
At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct

meaning.

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Noel Chiappa
This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized.

Let's see

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Noel Chiappa
if it helps.
BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the

thing,

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Noel Chiappa
but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One
doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House
hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from

'internet

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Noel Chiappa
hosts'.
Noel

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Joe Touch]

Webster may be reflecting the AP. We shouldn’t assume deliberate consideration of the alternative where it isn’t in print.

Joe

Agree. While OED, the authority, makes the distinctions described in this discussion (http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/248411), Webster, which may reflect more common usage, does not: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet

I generally concur with the arguments made, but just to voice a contrarian view: maybe ‘Internet' has crowded out ‘internet' in its original meaning, along with ‘network’ changing its meaning over time.
One could argue that both ‘Internet' and ‘internet' now refer to the Internet. What used to be called an internet would now be referred to as a 'network’. What used to be called a network would now be referred to as a network segment, or some such. So we used to speak of an internet of networks, but now we would talk of a network of network segments (in both cases stitched together by switches, bridges and routers). Networks consisting of a single segment, i.e. networks that are not internets are probably few and far between these days.
https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/
Paul

Post by Joe Touch
Hi, Noel,
"The Internet Protocol” (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), but “the Internet’s protocols”
“IPsec”, not “IPSec”, “IPSEC”, or “ipsec”
Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet evangelist, e.g.)
Joe

Post by Noel Chiappa

Post by Joe Touch
The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too.

I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed.

Post by Joe Touch
At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning.

This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see
if it helps.
BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing,
but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One
doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House
hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet
hosts'.
Noel

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Joe Touch]

PS - my wife (IMO) rightly points out that Webster's may be less “more common usage” than “CliffsNotes”, in comparison to the OED ;-)

Joe

Post by Joe Touch
Webster may be reflecting the AP. We shouldn’t assume deliberate consideration of the alternative where it isn’t in print.
Joe

Agree. While OED, the authority, makes the distinctions described in this discussion (http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/248411 <http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/248411>), Webster, which may reflect more common usage, does not: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet>
I generally concur with the arguments made, but just to voice a contrarian view: maybe ‘Internet' has crowded out ‘internet' in its original meaning, along with ‘network’ changing its meaning over time.
One could argue that both ‘Internet' and ‘internet' now refer to the Internet. What used to be called an internet would now be referred to as a 'network’. What used to be called a network would now be referred to as a network segment, or some such. So we used to speak of an internet of networks, but now we would talk of a network of network segments (in both cases stitched together by switches, bridges and routers). Networks consisting of a single segment, i.e. networks that are not internets are probably few and far between these days.
https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/ <https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/>
Paul

Post by Joe Touch
Hi, Noel,
"The Internet Protocol” (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), but “the Internet’s protocols”
“IPsec”, not “IPSec”, “IPSEC”, or “ipsec”
Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet evangelist, e.g.)
Joe

Post by Noel Chiappa

Post by Joe Touch
The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too.

I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed.

Post by Joe Touch
At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning.

This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see
if it helps.
BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing,
but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One
doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House
hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet
hosts'.
Noel

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>

[Jack Haverty]

IMHO it's more complicated than just defining means of the words. In
particular, context changes the meaning, and The Internet (how's that
for yet another term) is more than just the Internet.

I'm not sure how things have evolved since the 90s when I last delved
into the innards. There was of course a public Internet, with all the
same residents we know today - CNN, yahoo, etc.

But in addition, even then there were many private internets, where
people had simply bought equipment and circuits, downloaded appropriate
software, and built their own.

At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

Other organizations did the same. It had started with military and
governmental clones, and corporate IT organizations followed their lead.

So, within an organization, the term 'internet' depended on the context.
Most commonly, 'the internet' or 'the net' or even 'the Internet'
referred to the corporate system, i.e., *our* internet. But if the
conversation was about something happening in the broader world outside
the organization, 'the internet' et al meant the public Internet.

Sometimes we said 'the Oracle Internet' or 'the ARPA internet' to
disambiguate. The term 'intranet' was popular for a while. But most
commonly you could, and had to, infer the meaning from the context.

If anything, it's gotten even more complicated. I've encountered many
people who are 'on the Internet', with very different meanings. E.g.,
to some people, 'on the Internet' means the friends they can interact
with on Facebook. Or websites they can use, ... but only if they have
an account.

I have a tiny internet in my house, with routers, hosts, file servers,
TVs, attic fans, and other devices on my internet. They don't have
unique world-wide IP addresses (because of NAT). Some of them can
communicate with things out on the public Internet. But not all
(hopefully). Some can even communicate with computers inside someone
else's otherwise private Internet - exactly who my devices talk to is
very difficult to tell.

Perhaps it's all about connectivity? Does the ability to exchange IP
packets define that 2 devices are on the same internet? Or email? Or
tweets? Or posts? Or ...?

I can establish voice links between my mobile phone, my landline phone
and my desktop computer. Does that mean all telephone handsets are on
the Internet|internet?

I can't send an IP packet from my tablet to the camera on the ISS. But
I can fire up an app which puts a realtime image on my tablet of the
world flowing by below the ISS right now. Are my tablet and the ISS
camera on the Internet?

All of this is what I at least think of as 'The Internet', and
terminology of the inner pieces is still unclear.

What is the Internet? How do you tell if your particular device is
connected to it? The dictionary definitions seem incomplete.

The Internet is Kleenex becoming kleenex.

/Jack Haverty

[Joe Touch]

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that “accessing Internet content”, but definitely NOT being “on the Internet” (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all consumer access because of NATs).

Being “on the Internet” IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004:

Internet User “Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other parties. The following is a list of specific rights to that end:

1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from anywhere on the Internet.

2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that matches that address.

3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up to the limits of their local resources and network connection.

4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.

5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint regarding violations of any of these rules.

——
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols themselves. That’s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.

Calling that “the Internet” isn’t evolution of terms to common usage. It’s misleading advertising.

Joe

[Jack Haverty]

Hi Joe,

Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

/Jack

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet.  But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that “accessing Internet content”, but definitely NOT being
“on the Internet” (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being “on the Internet” IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User “Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules. 
——
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That’s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that “the Internet” isn’t evolution of terms to common usage.
It’s misleading advertising.
Joe

[Dave Crocker]

Post by Jack Haverty
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s.

merely because of your phrasing...

To Be "On" the Internet
March 1995
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1775/?include_text=1

d/

[Joe Touch]

Dave,

Very nice. If I ever get around to writing that stuff up in more detail, I’ll certainly cite this.

Joe

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Jack Haverty
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s.

merely because of your phrasing...
To Be "On" the Internet
March 1995
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1775/?include_text=1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

[Joe Touch]

Post by Jack Haverty
Hi Joe,
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves.

The same is true here. There’s a distinct difference between “access to Internet information” and “Internet access”. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a “distilled” product only.

Post by Jack Haverty
Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that’s partly what net neutrality is all about.

Joe

Post by Jack Haverty
/Jack

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that “accessing Internet content”, but definitely NOT being
“on the Internet” (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being “on the Internet” IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User “Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
——
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That’s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that “the Internet” isn’t evolution of terms to common usage.
It’s misleading advertising.
Joe

[Toerless Eckert]

IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as
a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless
someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear
definition ha always annoyed me.

I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts
that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure
connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document
definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT,
application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't
be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the
variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet".

Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ?
None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers
but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker.
Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ?

Cheers
Toerless

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Jack Haverty
Hi Joe,
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves.
The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only.

Post by Jack Haverty
Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about.
Joe

Post by Jack Haverty
/Jack

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being
???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User ???Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
??????
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage.
It???s misleading advertising.
Joe

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Brian E Carpenter]

Toerless,

Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky
question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for
consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation
you put on the phrase "network neutrality".

Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many
hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that
was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000".
Today??

In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on
running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three
others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the
routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed
IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router.

Regards
Brian

Post by Toerless Eckert
IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as
a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless
someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear
definition ha always annoyed me.
I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts
that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure
connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document
definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT,
application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't
be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the
variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet".
Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ?
None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers
but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker.
Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ?
Cheers
Toerless

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Jack Haverty
Hi Joe,
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves.
The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only.

Post by Jack Haverty
Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about.
Joe

Post by Jack Haverty
/Jack

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being
???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User ???Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
??????
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage.
It???s misleading advertising.
Joe

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Toerless Eckert]

Thanks, Brian

Quick browsing makes me think that doc is quite orthogonal and the
"On the Internet" terminology could well be added to it given how
it really only would talk about a host as an IP L4 endpoint and
its properties and not delve into the more complex issues of higher
layers. If i consider the specific of many companies
work computers, then that work computer can easily be "On the
Internet" with its L4, but i as a poor user subject to all
type of crazy policies and restrictions am certainly NOT ON THE INTERNET
with it ;-))

IMHO, your example:
- one gateway that is "On the Internet"
- one gateway that is "On the IPv6 Internet"
- if you have set up your filtering rules accordingly,
you also have three more computers that are "On the IPv6 Internet"

At least can't come up with a clean way trying to figure out
how to define a sane entity that expands across both IPv4 and IPv6,
Maybe John can...

Oh, and congratulations for being back On the Internet ;-)

Cheers
Toerles

Post by Brian E Carpenter
Toerless,
Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky
question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for
consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation
you put on the phrase "network neutrality".
Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many
hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that
was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000".
Today??
In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on
running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three
others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the
routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed
IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router.
Regards
Brian

Post by Toerless Eckert
IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as
a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless
someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear
definition ha always annoyed me.
I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts
that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure
connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document
definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT,
application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't
be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the
variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet".
Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ?
None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers
but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker.
Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ?
Cheers
Toerless

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Jack Haverty
Hi Joe,
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves.
The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only.

Post by Jack Haverty
Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about.
Joe

Post by Jack Haverty
/Jack

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being
???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User ???Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
??????
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage.
It???s misleading advertising.
Joe

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Joe Touch]

Interesting and absolutely complex - but perhaps because it takes pains to explain all the varieties of “how” rather than focusing on a much simpler “what”.

IMO, Internet access is defined by two properties, each of which can be “full”, “partial”, or “none”:

FIRST CLASS - Internet protocol participant
these nodes can participate and Internet protocol network in any role (client, server, peer) for any service AND can reach the root DNS servers

SECOND CLASS - Internet information access
these nodes can access information provided by any node in set (A), but are not themselves in set (A)

Most home Internet service is “partial SECOND CLASS”, i.e., can’t run as a server at all (so not FIRST CLASS) and some ports blocked for SECOND CLASS.

However, most hosted web servers are “partial FIRST CLASS”, i.e., run as a server but not on all ports (most hosting services block certain ports).

AFAICT, the only meaningful variants are:
full first class (which implies full second class too, trivially)
partial first class (which implies full second class because you can always contact a first class node on at least one port and get access to anything)
full second class (implies no first class)
partial second class (implies no first class)
no access at all

Further, note that full first-class nodes can help other nodes become any class except itself.
I would thus define "the Internet" as "those nodes that are first-class AND connected to the DNS roots".

I would never say that second class nodes are “on the Internet”, but rather “can access the Internet”.

Joe

Post by Brian E Carpenter
Toerless,
Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky
question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for
consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation
you put on the phrase "network neutrality".
Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many
hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that
was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000".
Today??
In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on
running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three
others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the
routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed
IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router.
Regards
Brian

Post by Toerless Eckert
IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as
a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless
someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear
definition ha always annoyed me.
I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts
that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure
connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document
definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT,
application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't
be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the
variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet".
Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ?
None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers
but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker.
Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ?
Cheers
Toerless

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Jack Haverty
Hi Joe,
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves.
The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only.

Post by Jack Haverty
Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about.
Joe

Post by Jack Haverty
/Jack

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being
???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User ???Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
??????
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage.
It???s misleading advertising.
Joe

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Toerless Eckert]

Interesting and absolutely complex - but perhaps because it takes pains to explain all the varieties of ???how??? rather than focusing on a much simpler ???what???.
FIRST CLASS - Internet protocol participant
these nodes can participate and Internet protocol network in any role (client, server, peer) for any service AND can reach the root DNS servers

Agreed. This is i think what your initial "On the Internet" means,
and thats what i thought was easy and good to "The Internet" / "The IPv6
Internet"

SECOND CLASS - Internet information access
these nodes can access information provided by any node in set (A), but are not themselves in set (A)

Right. And "Internet Access" might be the simple term to use here.
Not sure about exact definition. "can exchange data" might be a
better term because i fear "information" would be read by non-technical
people more like "Facebook" or the like.

Most home Internet service is ???partial SECOND CLASS???, i.e., can???t run as a server at all (so not FIRST CLASS) and some ports blocked for SECOND CLASS.
However, most hosted web servers are ???partial FIRST CLASS???, i.e., run as a server but not on all ports (most hosting services block certain ports).
full first class (which implies full second class too, trivially)
partial first class (which implies full second class because you can always contact a first class node on at least one port and get access to anything)
full second class (implies no first class)
partial second class (implies no first class)
no access at all

Why introduce partial first class ? Any form of data access to
the Internet that does not fully meet the definitions of
"On the Internet" is simply "Internet Access".

Further, note that full first-class nodes can help other nodes become any class except itself.

Well, the interesting explanations for laymen are something like:

A users computer is called a "Host" in the Internet technology.
A Computer/Host is called "on the Internet" if its connection to the
Internet meets the following requirements ...

A computer "On the Internet" can only extend the Internet
to allow more computers to be "on the Internet" if it can
become a "Router on the Internet". A home gateway for example
can not do this when it just has IP because then it
only gets one IP address and because to be "on the internet"
every computer needs its own Internet IP address, the home
gateway needs to give private IP addresses to computer behind
it, granting them only more limited "access to the Internet".
With IPv6 on the other hand, the home gateway can become
a router "On the (IPv6) Internet" and make computers behind
it be Hosts "On the (IPv6) Internet".

I would thus define "the Internet" as "those nodes that are first-class AND connected to the DNS roots".
I would never say that second class nodes are ???on the Internet???, but rather ???can access the Internet???.

Right

Cheers
Toerless

Joe

Post by Brian E Carpenter
Toerless,
Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky
question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for
consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation
you put on the phrase "network neutrality".
Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many
hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that
was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000".
Today??
In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on
running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three
others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the
routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed
IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router.
Regards
Brian

Post by Toerless Eckert
IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as
a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless
someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear
definition ha always annoyed me.
I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts
that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure
connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document
definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT,
application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't
be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the
variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet".
Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ?
None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers
but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker.
Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ?
Cheers
Toerless

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Jack Haverty
Hi Joe,
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves.
The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only.

Post by Jack Haverty
Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about.
Joe

Post by Jack Haverty
/Jack

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being
???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User ???Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
??????
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage.
It???s misleading advertising.
Joe

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Joe Touch]

Post by Toerless Eckert

Interesting and absolutely complex - but perhaps because it takes pains to explain all the varieties of ???how??? rather than focusing on a much simpler ???what???.
FIRST CLASS - Internet protocol participant
these nodes can participate and Internet protocol network in any role (client, server, peer) for any service AND can reach the root DNS servers

Agreed. This is i think what your initial "On the Internet" means,
and thats what i thought was easy and good to "The Internet" / "The IPv6
Internet"

SECOND CLASS - Internet information access
these nodes can access information provided by any node in set (A), but are not themselves in set (A)

Right. And "Internet Access" might be the simple term to use here.
Not sure about exact definition. "can exchange data" might be a
better term because i fear "information" would be read by non-technical
people more like "Facebook" or the like.

Most home Internet service is ???partial SECOND CLASS???, i.e., can???t run as a server at all (so not FIRST CLASS) and some ports blocked for SECOND CLASS.
However, most hosted web servers are ???partial FIRST CLASS???, i.e., run as a server but not on all ports (most hosting services block certain ports).
full first class (which implies full second class too, trivially)
partial first class (which implies full second class because you can always contact a first class node on at least one port and get access to anything)
full second class (implies no first class)
partial second class (implies no first class)
no access at all

Why introduce partial first class ? Any form of data access to
the Internet that does not fully meet the definitions of
"On the Internet" is simply "Internet Access”.

Largely to allow for the case where some ports are blocked and to avoid a debate on “which ports” and whether they’re important or not. See below regarding home gateways.

Post by Toerless Eckert

Further, note that full first-class nodes can help other nodes become any class except itself.

To me, FWIW, a layperson only needs to know:

- can you control your content, how it is served, and how it is logged 100%? (first class)
- can you get at Internet data managed by others, either reading or writing that data, but not under your control? (second class)

We can’t get down into the definition of a ‘host’ for laypeople.

Post by Toerless Eckert
A users computer is called a "Host" in the Internet technology.
A Computer/Host is called "on the Internet" if its connection to the
Internet meets the following requirements ...
A computer "On the Internet" can only extend the Internet
to allow more computers to be "on the Internet" if it can
become a "Router on the Internet”.

Strictly speaking, routers don’t need IP addresses themselves (unless they start also acting as hosts, e.g., to participate in protocols for in-band configuration, etc.)

Post by Toerless Eckert
A home gateway for example
can not do this when it just has IP because then it
only gets one IP address and because to be "on the internet"
every computer needs its own Internet IP address, the home
gateway needs to give private IP addresses to computer behind
it, granting them only more limited "access to the Internet”.

A home gateway doesn’t 'give away' addresses; it translates addresses and ports.

Arguably, if the public side of a home gateway has a real, public IP address, then NAT’d devices behind it CAN be ‘partial first class’, e.g., for some subset of ports assigned to each private-side host.

Post by Toerless Eckert
With IPv6 on the other hand, the home gateway can become
a router "On the (IPv6) Internet" and make computers behind
it be Hosts "On the (IPv6) Internet”.

IPv6 alone doesn’t magically allow a home gateway to become a router; this still requires that your ISP not block the addresses of your “private side” hosts (which they can do, and I suspect will do unless you pay more money for “”commercial service”). Yes, the point of IPv6 is to allow that to happen, but ISPs can still interfere...

Joe

Post by Toerless Eckert

I would thus define "the Internet" as "those nodes that are first-class AND connected to the DNS roots".
I would never say that second class nodes are ???on the Internet???, but rather ???can access the Internet???.

Right
Cheers
Toerless

Joe

Post by Brian E Carpenter
Toerless,
Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky
question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for
consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation
you put on the phrase "network neutrality".
Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many
hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that
was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000".
Today??
In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on
running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three
others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the
routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed
IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router.
Regards
Brian

Post by Toerless Eckert
IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as
a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless
someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear
definition ha always annoyed me.
I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts
that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure
connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document
definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT,
application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't
be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the
variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet".
Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ?
None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers
but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker.
Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ?
Cheers
Toerless

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Jack Haverty
Hi Joe,
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves.
The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only.

Post by Jack Haverty
Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about.
Joe

Post by Jack Haverty
/Jack

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being
???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User ???Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
??????
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage.
It???s misleading advertising.
Joe

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

--
---

[Toerless Eckert]

Post by Toerless Eckert
Why introduce partial first class ? Any form of data access to
the Internet that does not fully meet the definitions of
"On the Internet" is simply "Internet Access???.

Largely to allow for the case where some ports are blocked and to avoid a debate on ???which ports??? and whether they???re important or not. See below regarding home gateways.

So whats the unambiguous distinction between partial first class and
second class ?

Post by Toerless Eckert

Post by Joe Touch
Further, note that full first-class nodes can help other nodes become any class except itself.

- can you control your content, how it is served, and how it is logged 100%? (first class)
- can you get at Internet data managed by others, either reading or writing that data, but not under your control? (second class)

Yeah not very happy with this. Definitely difficult to find the most
simple laymen example of benefits for being "On the Internet" vs.
"Access to the Internet". Maybe:

The Internet is a place of innovation. If you have a computer "On the
Internet" then the only roadblock to partake in a new service on the
Internet is whether your Computer is supported. If your computer
just has "Access to the Internet", then there will be additional
equipment that may inhibit your computer to use the service. For example
if your computer has "Access to the Internet" via a home gateway with
IPv4, your new service may require you to buy a new home gateway,
or maybe there will never be a home gateway through which the new
service will work. If your computer is "On the Internet" because you
use IPv6 across the Home Gateway, there is no such problem.
Of course, most new services try to design themselves so that they
work across all those old gateways and allow use from as many as
possible "Access to the Internet" computers, but that really stifles
innovation, creates security and privacy risks, makes services more
expensive and complex.

We can???t get down into the definition of a ???host??? for laypeople.

No, not the definition. Just introducing the term as equivalent to
a computer "On the Internet", which IMHO is good enough.

Post by Toerless Eckert
A computer "On the Internet" can only extend the Internet
to allow more computers to be "on the Internet" if it can
become a "Router on the Internet???.

Strictly speaking, routers don???t need IP addresses themselves (unless they start also acting as hosts, e.g., to participate in protocols for in-band configuration, etc.)

Sure. I didn't say they need IP addresses.

Post by Toerless Eckert
A home gateway for example
can not do this when it just has IP because then it
only gets one IP address and because to be "on the internet"
every computer needs its own Internet IP address, the home
gateway needs to give private IP addresses to computer behind
it, granting them only more limited "access to the Internet???.

A home gateway doesn???t 'give away' addresses; it translates addresses and ports.

Sure, but it gives the rfc1918 address (e.g.: via DHCP) to the computers
with "access to the Internet".

Arguably, if the public side of a home gateway has a real, public IP address, then NAT???d devices behind it CAN be ???partial first class???, e.g., for some subset of ports assigned to each private-side host.

See above. Not enough gained IMHO to define this "partial class A"
rarther makes the definition of "On the Internet" unnnecessarily more
complex and soft edged.

Post by Toerless Eckert
With IPv6 on the other hand, the home gateway can become
a router "On the (IPv6) Internet" and make computers behind
it be Hosts "On the (IPv6) Internet???.

IPv6 alone doesn???t magically allow a home gateway to become a router; this still requires that your ISP not block the addresses of your ???private side??? hosts (which they can do, and I suspect will do unless you pay more money for ??????commercial service???). Yes, the point of IPv6 is to allow that to happen, but ISPs can still interfere...

Sure. Though this was implied by 'can'. Else it would have ben
'can always'.

Cheers
Toerless

Joe

Post by Toerless Eckert

Post by Joe Touch
I would thus define "the Internet" as "those nodes that are first-class AND connected to the DNS roots".
I would never say that second class nodes are ???on the Internet???, but rather ???can access the Internet???.

Right
Cheers
Toerless

Post by Joe Touch
Joe

Post by Brian E Carpenter
Toerless,
Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky
question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for
consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation
you put on the phrase "network neutrality".
Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many
hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that
was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000".
Today??
In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on
running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three
others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the
routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed
IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router.
Regards
Brian

Post by Toerless Eckert
IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as
a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless
someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear
definition ha always annoyed me.
I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts
that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure
connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document
definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT,
application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't
be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the
variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet".
Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ?
None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers
but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker.
Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ?
Cheers
Toerless

Post by Joe Touch

Post by Jack Haverty
Hi Joe,
Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority
of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on
something else, if not the Internet?

Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves.
The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only.

Post by Jack Haverty
Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the
Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.

Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about.
Joe

Post by Jack Haverty
/Jack

Post by Jack Haverty
...
At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through
computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.

I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being
???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all
consumer access because of NATs).
Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these
Internet User ???Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion,
insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS
name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up
to the limits of their local resources and network connection.
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
??????
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.
Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage.
It???s misleading advertising.
Joe

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

--
---

[Johan Helsingius]

So according to those definitions, my home is on the internet, but
individual devices (apart from the access router) only have access
to the internet.

Julf (from ICANN 63)

[Joe Touch]

Post by Johan Helsingius
So according to those definitions, my home is on the internet, but
individual devices (apart from the access router) only have access
to the internet.

In most cases, yes.

I.e., Yes if your router has a real IP address on the public side; no if
not (in that case, even your router might only just have Internet
access).

I.e., a single device inside your house might be considered to have full
access if your access device is configured as a bridge and if your ISP
gives out real IP addresses.

The case where your access router is a NAT and you setup a DMZ to a
single private-side device is more subtle; some might claim it is on the
Internet but I would say only "Internet access" because even the NAT +
DMZ might fail in some ways a direct connection wouldn't.

Joe

[Joe Touch]

Post by Joe Touch
I would call that “accessing Internet content”, but definitely NOT
being “on the Internet” (note: I appreciate this also applies to
nearly all consumer access because of NATs).

I mostly agree.
Comments inline below.

Post by Joe Touch
Being “on the Internet” IMO has minimum requirements; I presented
Internet User “Bill of Rights"
The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting
parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, insofar
as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other parties. The
1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from
anywhere on the Internet.

Re: SOHO NAT - I believe typical home users do have access to /a/ single
""unrestricted (more below) IP. Choosing to put a NAT in place
themselves via the SOHO NATing router is their choice. They could put a
single machine online using the provided IP and not have the
restrictions related to NAT.
Carrier Grade NAT is different because it is ISP imposed. (Insofar as
the subscriber chooses a plan that is subject to CGN.)

Post by Joe Touch
2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse
DNS name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that
matches that address.

I have no objection to this. But I've never heard about this being
something that needed to be on an Internet bill of rights.

It matters for some services. For example, if you access a web server that gates access by DNS name, then your access will take a hit while the DNS times-out. The same is true for some name-based security tokens.

Post by Joe Touch
3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet,
using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable),
up to the limits of their local resources and network connection.

I mostly agree with this.

Post by Joe Touch
4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any
valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port
(if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources
of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.

I want to agree with this. But I believe that there are some specific
types of traffic that the Internet community at large has decided that
should be blocked in some situations, particularly end user situations.

The requirement is “right to send”, not necessarily that it will get through. The point is that you shouldn’t be harassed as “attacking the network” merely by sending a small number of packets to ANY port or address. IMO, it’s not the network’s job to gate those ports either - port numbers have meaning ONLY at endpoints, so blocking what you think is NetBIOS may be something else (or, more to the point, NetBIOS can be run on any port as long as the endpoints agree, so you’re not “blocking NetBIOS” by blocking port 137, necessarily.

· SMTP traffic originating from endpoints not passing through a
legitimate mail server. (Common effort to block spam and viruses.)
· NetBIOS traffic - ports 137, 138, 139, and 445
I frequently see restricting these nine destination ports as egress
filtering imposed by reputable ISPs.
I do think that ISP subscribers should have a way to get this filtering
removed, particularly for people / SOHOs running on premises mail
servers. - I'm okay with that being an upgrade from a residential
service plan to a business service plan. (Assuming the cost of doing so
is not tantamount to extortion.)

Post by Joe Touch
5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
regarding violations of any of these rules.
——
Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but
undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols
themselves. That’s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from
still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.

Using IP is different than using / accessing the Internet. There are a
number of networks using IP that have zero Internet connectivity.

Oh, certainly - this list is a set of properties that allow you to connect meaningfully to the public Internet.

Joe

Post by Joe Touch
Calling that “the Internet” isn’t evolution of terms to common
usage. It’s misleading advertising.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Scott Brim]

Post by Noel Chiappa
BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing,
but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One
doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House
hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet
hosts'.

What I did for this, to make the meaning crystal clear and perhaps
informative, was to avoid adjectival forms. Instead of "Internet hosts",
"hosts on the Internet".

[Noel Chiappa]

A recent change to lowercase "i" in internet is to correspond with AP's
new ruling on the word.

Ah, I thought that might be it. The AP, alas, is wrong - and let me explain why.
(And if you could pass this along too, I'd be grateful.)


Discussion on the internet-history e-mail list brought up what is hopefully a
telling point: the words 'internet' and 'Internet' have _different meanings_.
Thus, one simply _cannot_ substite one form of the word for the other.

So, in the technical world, 'Internet' is likely to persist. I would hope that
a magazine focused on science and technology will follow along. Use of
'internet' is as grating to professionals in the information technology world
as use of 'germ' in place of 'bacteria' and 'virus' would be among biologists.


The argument made in some media spheres (e.g. the NYT) that new technologies
are often introduced with a capital, and then lower-cased at they become
common ("phonograph" was one example I saw) ignores the facts of i) the
different meanings, and ii) the fact there is only one 'Internet' (and thus
well suited to following the standard English rule that proper nouns are
capitalized), whereas with most new technologies, there are multiple
instances (there are - or were! - many phonographs).

There are many white houses, but only one White House.

Thanks!

Noel

[Noel Chiappa]

From: Johan Helsingius
my home is on the internet

On the _Internet_! _I_nternet!!

The internet in your house is attached to the Internet. (See how that doesn't
parse well, without the differentiation?)

Noel