A device will one day be available that makes the internet mobile, that reduces the clunky, inconvenient computer into an elegant, intuitive, all encompassing, communications tool. Since we can forecast this next communications invention, why wasn’t it more apparent that the internet would follow radio, television, and the telephone as a popular medium. Since, the goal of communications is to connect more humans with more humans, shouldn’t an internet have been what the communications industry was aiming for?
With the popularity of television, it seems obvious that a television like device that would allow for user input along with the broadcast capabilities of television would be developed and would flourish; however, Howard Rheingold tells us the people capable of providing funding were reluctant to believe interactive computers and an internet would be useful and popular devices, as the internet creators struggled to get someone to listen to their ideas. Even though I have the advantage of living in today’s age and first-hand experiencing the benefits of inter-connected and interactive computer networks, I struggle to understand how the benefits of this new communication medium were not apparent back then.
All we’ve done with computers, and their network connections, is advance the idiot box(TV) to the smart box(PC), by providing access to receive and send messages. If you consider it in those terms the progression seems small, but the effect is tremendous. The most shocking fact of the development, deployment, and revolution of the internet is that the people behind it are thought of as visionaries for thinking a medium that allows everyone to access and publish texts would be valuable. Isn’t that just using logic to forecast that the progression of, and demand for, improvements in communications technology after the telegraph would be exponential? Even today, people want video on their iPods, songs on their cell-phones, GPS in their cars, and more fluent human interaction between distances.
How was the concept of communicating, interacting and sharing information with people across the globe not seen as a revolution that would be infinitely popular? Who were the figures that decided no one would ever be interested in sending pictures and videos to relatives in other countries, that businesses wouldn’t want a medium for storing and transferring their intellectual property? Who thought guys wouldn’t want to order flowers for their girlfriends and wives for Valentine’s Day while sitting in their living room? The fact that it took ten years for Engelbert’s ideas to find an approving recipient shows the need for a system that connects people and distributes information. Imagine Engelbert proposing his ideas to a venture capitalist and then saying “Well, if my idea was already implemented I wouldn’t need you or your money! I could post my theory and quickly find someone who agrees on its benefits.” I assumed people would agree that the improvement in communications from a global network easily accessible and manipulated through a human-friendly input/output system would be of great benefit and value to the general public and the commercial sector.
From my personal experiences with the internet, I already knew that many ideas and technologies have less popular and less successful ancestors; before there was Google there was AltaVista, before IM there was IRC, before Napster there was Usenet, before Windows there was Macintosh and before Macintosh there was PARC. So Rheingold’s comment that “The most important parts of the Net piggybacked on technologies that were created for very different purposes.”doesn’t surprise me. In the virtual world of the internet, technologies that have a benefit but are either poorly executed or used improperly are numerous sources of inspiration for future, better versions of the underlying concepts. The openness of the internet and tweakability of computer code make this process natural. So, the two chapters, and the numerous cases of this situation they explore, such as ARPANET leading to the Internet and UUCP leading to Usenet came as affirmation of this assumption.
It may be classified as a biased use of hindsight, but it shocks me that when Engelbert and Licklider proposed computers that allowed users to interact on a global network that this idea wasn’t immediately applauded and funded. This lack of investment enthusiasm found in the early days of the Internet’s history may be the biggest reason for the growth and success of the Internet. If one company or one government entity controlled the internet from the start up to today, it might have had more restrictions and less innovations. The grassroots, independent feel of the internet is one of its main drawing points, and without this freedom, the Internet may not have advanced to the critical and popular communication medium it is today. The individuals most enthusiastic and most capable of the project were given full responsibility for its implementation and use; because the ideal match of talent with relevant tasks worked, we may now use the internet to better facilitate such ideal conditions more often.
0 Responses to “The Inevitability of the Internet and the Idiots who Delayed it”