The US government resisted the Internet, instead of supporting it
Summary: President Obama claims the US government invented the Internet so companies could profit from it. In fact, the US government mandated support for a rival networking system, OSI, and tried to avoid adopting the Internet's protocols
The question of "Who really invented the Internet?" has been one of the technological issues in the current US presidential election. This is odd, because the Internet's history has been well documented, and most of the people involved are still alive. However, the controversy has less to do with technology than with the endless battle between publicly-funded good works and private enterprise.
President Obama has identified the Internet as a public good produced by the US government. In a campaign speech, he said: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
The first two parts of that statement are true, and the final part isn't. The Internet (a network of networks) was created directly as a part of the research efforts of DARPA, the US government's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. However, it wasn't done so that anybody could make money from it. Indeed, in the net's early days, it was specifically reserved for non-commercial use, and the idea of making money from it was sometimes described as illegal.

Briefly, the Internet was made possible by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, when they developed TCP, the Internet protocol. Both men had worked on the development of the ARPANET network from about 1968. Also, while working for BBN, Kahn had developed the ARPANET IMP (Interface Message Processor), an early packet switch. The next step was to connect the ARPANET to other research networks such as NSFNET (the National Science Foundation network), NASA's SPAN (the space physics network), and MILNET to create a network of networks. That needed a common protocol, and they all had to be persuaded to support TCP/IP.
None of this means that the US government, or its various agencies, wanted the Internet. In fact, they tried to avoid adopting it.
The US and European Union governments adopted a different networking strategy, based on a complex seven-layer Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model. This was developed in Europe as an international standard (ISO/IEC 7498-1), and it had a vast number of supporting standards. These included ITU (International Telecommunications Union) X standards such as X.25 packet switching and X.400 email.
US and EU government support for OSI led to the publication of GOSIP (Government Open Systems Interconnection Profiles) as a requirement for government procurements. In other words, commercial companies would be forced to support the local GOSIP before governments would buy their stuff.
This had a laudable aim. Most governments had bought vast quantities of incompatible equipment from global IT manufacturers such as IBM, DEC and Data General, as well as "national champions" such as ICL in the UK, Honeywell-Bull in France, Siemens and Nixdorf in Germany, and so on. They wanted it to work together, and setting an open standard was the best way to do it.
Companies had fair warning, and worked on their OSI interoperability from the early 1980s. However, the first US government specification requiring OSI protocols, FIPS 146-1, wasn't published until 1990.
In other words, the US government mandated OSI networking seven years after TCP/IP had been installed on its own research networks on January 1, 1983.
The US government didn't officially change its mind until 1995, when the new FIPS 146-2 profile allowed ITU, ISO and — crucially — IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) standards. That enabled US government departments, commercial companies and individuals to unite behind Internet standards for the first time.
I reported OSI's development for many years, and was aware that the Internet Protocol (IP) had had to overcome tremendous resistance. I raised the point with Vint Cerf when I interviewed him for the Guardian in November 2000 (Surfing through space). He said:
"It's true, many people resisted it. Its predecessor, the ARPANET, was considered a silly idea that wouldn't work, and it was ridiculed by people who grew up in the telephone tradition. Most of the computer science communities also rejected the idea of connecting up, and ARPA had to insist.
"When it came time to convert from the old ARPANET protocols to the new Internet protocols, in January 1983, there was tremendous resistance. Finally, we had to force it on people by turning off the old protocols, so we jammed it down their throats. Then came the lengthy debate between the OSI and Internet protocols, and again, that was a 10-year battle."
President Obama is right to say that "The Internet didn't get invented on its own," and we all owe a huge debt to DARPA in particular. It was US government research funding and sponsorship from 1968 through 1995 that made the Internet a success.
But the idea that the US government did this knowingly and with commercial foresight, like building a new highway system, just isn't true. The networking system that the US government knowingly supported with commercial foresight was OSI, and that failed.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Precis
However I do believe the USA invented the term "BS" ;-)
Then again I could be wrong ... it could be that the USA simply invented the term "BS" to make money. That sounds more plausible :-(
Count 'em
Lol
Agreed
Robert Hahn ....maybe you should tell us tell us what the BUSHES did
Steady on there with the profanity.
Sounds more like a EU insistence for the OSI model rather than a US push
To leave Berners-Lee and CERN out of the Internet equation
Not reallt EU insistence
It was the US however, where GOSIP was shining ... in it's absurdity.
What is ironic is that although TCP/IP was developed "in the US" (in fact, everything Internet has always been multinational and more precisely multi-individuals effors), it was Europe, where Internet first saw light outside accademics and research. For several years, Internet services were offered in Europe on commercial basis, to anyone -- while in the US, this was strictly prohibited by policy. Then of course, the concept was borrowed by our US colleagues and they quickly created the so called dot.com revolution.
"The first two parts of that statement are true, and the final part isn't."
Partly correct, but wrong at the front side...
Funny
Hmm
As Wikipedia conforms to my understanding, and, since, as a high school junior in 1973, I was shown a rack at UCSB Engineering described as the school's internet node, and as a few months earlier an ad I saw at the back of Scientific American showing the nine or so nodes of Arpanet, including the one in my home town of Santa Barbara, I'm finding your description of what happened forty years back to be less than convincing.
The heavy hand
Partial Ire for Partially Wrong
We also know that government has legislated prohibitions against municipal wi-if, ostensibly to support the free market, but in effect a protection of de facto monopolies.
HTML came out of CERN, which I believe is a public sector entity. Xerox PARC provided key technologies and didn't really profit for having done so. AOL and Compuserve and Microsoft had a different vision for the internet in the mid-90s, one built around their collection of tolls for access. It would be worse today if they got their way or if Xerox had aggressively managed an ip portfolio so as to keep alive patents on ethernet, postscript, WIMP, etc..
Here's the real point. A categorical "The public sector [or government] does not create jobs." is a bit of fundamentalist cant that relies on an ignorance of history or revisionism. Monetary gain is an important motive for progress. It is also a powerful motive for impeding others bringing progress to market, as example, I cite late 90s Microsoft's actions regarding java and other browsers' perceived threats to the desktop. But, altruism and curiosity are also motivators. Development without immediate payback and long-term capital projects where the value captured goes to the customers (for example, the TVA) are public sector activities, because the private sector won't see a quick-enough or large-enough payoff. This means it can't get loans from private bankers or create a persuasive prospectus for potential investors.
Not everything turns into something: this is known as risk. Government and public sector entities do not rely directly on customers generating the wealth that is available for building the future. This can be abused by charlatans, but being in the private sector is no immunity to suckerism.
Once the internet became something where monetization could be imagined, out came the usual suspects to try and influence government so as to gain advantage. Besides, the government is a very large consumer and sometimes politics interfere with purchasing decisions and standards. Sometimes well meaning people in government make decisions that are poor in retrospect, but mainly because the priorities of the moment suggested an approach and the future is unpredictable. Sometimes the government is afraid of future technology because it looks like surveillance is made more difficult.
Partial Ire for Partially Wrong
We also know that government has legislated prohibitions against municipal wi-if, ostensibly to support the free market, but in effect a protection of de facto monopolies.
HTML came out of CERN, which I believe is a public sector entity. Xerox PARC provided key technologies and didn't really profit for having done so. AOL and Compuserve and Microsoft had a different vision for the internet in the mid-90s, one built around their collection of tolls for access. It would be worse today if they got their way or if Xerox had aggressively managed an ip portfolio so as to keep alive patents on ethernet, postscript, WIMP, etc..
Here's the real point. A categorical "The public sector [or government] does not create jobs." is a bit of fundamentalist cant that relies on an ignorance of history or revisionism. Monetary gain is an important motive for progress. It is also a powerful motive for impeding others bringing progress to market, as example, I cite late 90s Microsoft's actions regarding java and other browsers' perceived threats to the desktop. But, altruism and curiosity are also motivators. Development without immediate payback and long-term capital projects where the value captured goes to the customers (for example, the TVA) are public sector activities, because the private sector won't see a quick-enough or large-enough payoff. This means it can't get loans from private bankers or create a persuasive prospectus for potential investors.
Not everything turns into something: this is known as risk. Government and public sector entities do not rely directly on customers generating the wealth that is available for building the future. This can be abused by charlatans, but being in the private sector is no immunity to suckerism.
Once the internet became something where monetization could be imagined, out came the usual suspects to try and influence government so as to gain advantage. Besides, the government is a very large consumer and sometimes politics interfere with purchasing decisions and standards. Sometimes well meaning people in government make decisions that are poor in retrospect, but mainly because the priorities of the moment suggested an approach and the future is unpredictable. Sometimes the government is afraid of future technology because it looks like surveillance is made more difficult.
Everyone Helps, Everyone Interferes
We also know that government has legislated prohibitions against municipal wi-if, ostensibly to support the free market, but in effect a protection of de facto monopolies.
HTML came out of CERN, which I believe is a public sector entity. Xerox PARC provided key technologies and didn't really profit for having done so. AOL and Compuserve and Microsoft had a different vision for the internet in the mid-90s, one built around their collection of tolls for access. It would be worse today if they got their way or if Xerox had aggressively managed an ip portfolio so as to keep alive patents on ethernet, postscript, WIMP, etc..
Here's the real point. A categorical "The public sector [or government] does not create jobs." is a bit of fundamentalist cant that relies on an ignorance of history or revisionism. Monetary gain is an important motive for progress. It is also a powerful motive for impeding others bringing progress to market, as example, I cite late 90s Microsoft's actions regarding java and other browsers' perceived threats to the desktop. But, altruism and curiosity are also motivators. Development without immediate payback and long-term capital projects where the value captured goes to the customers (for example, the TVA) are public sector activities, because the private sector won't see a quick-enough or large-enough payoff. This means it can't get loans from private bankers or create a persuasive prospectus for potential investors.
Not everything turns into something: this is known as risk. Government and public sector entities do not rely directly on customers generating the wealth that is available for building the future. This can be abused by charlatans, but being in the private sector is no immunity to suckerism.
Once the internet became something where monetization could be imagined, out came the usual suspects to try and influence government so as to gain advantage. Besides, the government is a very large consumer and sometimes politics interfere with purchasing decisions and standards. Sometimes well meaning people in government make decisions that are poor in retrospect, but mainly because the priorities of the moment suggested an approach and the future is unpredictable. Sometimes the government is afraid of future technology because it looks like surveillance is made more difficult.
Governments are People
Obama is full of it
Everyone knows Al Gore invented the damn thing. Even Al. And it was for the good of mankind, er, peoplekind, er, humankind, er ... and that's the way it is. And always will be.
Revisionist rubbish
I recommend Googling up something like "Brief History of the Internet" by the Internet Society for something a little bit less on the revisionist rubbish side of things.