Not The Internet, but This Internet: How Othernets Illuminate Our Feudal Internet Paul Dourish Department of Informatics University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3440, USA [email protected] ABSTRACT built – the Internet, this Internet, our Internet, the one to What is the Internet like, and how do we know? Less which I’m connected right now? tendentiously, how can we make general statements about the Internet without reference to alternatives that help us to I ask these questions in the context of a burgeoning recent understand what the space of network design possibilities interest in examining digital technologies as materially, might be? This paper presents a series of cases of network socially, historically and geographically specific [e.g. 13, alternatives which provide a vantage point from which to 15, 36, 37]. There is no denying the central role that “the reflect upon the ways that the Internet does or does not digital,” broadly construed, plays as part of contemporary uphold both its own design goals and our collective everyday life. Wireless connectivity, broadband imaginings of what it does and how. The goal is to provide communications, and computational devices may be a framework for understanding how technologies embody concentrated in the urban centers of economically promises, and how these both come to evolve. privileged nations, but even in the most “remote” corners of the globe, much of everyday life is structured, organized, Author Keywords and governed by databases and algorithms, and “the digital” Network protocols; network topology; naming routing; still operates even in the central fact of its occasional media infrastructures. absence, the gap that renders particular spots “off grid.” ACM Classification Keywords Where digital technologies were once objects of primarily H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): engineering attention, their pervasive presence has meant Miscellaneous. that other disciplines – anthropology, political science, communication, sociology, history, cultural studies, and INTRODUCTION more – have had to grapple with the question, “what are the What does it mean to say, as many have, that “the Internet cultural consequences of ‘the digital’?” The problem, treats censorship as damage and routes around it” [14]? Or however, has been to get a grip up on what ‘the digital’ what does it mean to argue, as is also common, that the itself is. Rather too often, ‘the digital’ is taken simply as a Internet is a democratizing force as a result of its metaphor for regimentation and control, or it is used to decentralized architecture [8]? Or that it’s a platform for name some amorphous and unexamined constellation of grass-roots community-building rather than mass media representational and computational practices. The messaging [35]? somewhat casual assertion that “the Internet” has some Statements like these have been critiqued for their treatment particular properties runs this danger. It’s difficult to know of topics such as democracy, censorship, broadcasting, or how to read or assess these assertions without, for example, community – all complicated terms that are perhaps understanding something of the scope of what is being invoked and conjured more than they are critically claimed through some kind of differential analysis of “the examined [19]. However, the term that I want to focus on in not-Internet.” We need to take an approach to “the Internet” these statements is “the Internet”. When we attribute that begins with an understanding of its technical reality, characteristics to the Internet, specifically, what do we although not one that reduces it to simply that. In other mean? Do we just mean “digital networks”? Do we mean words, we want to maintain a focus on the social and digital networks that implement the Internet protocols? Or cultural reality of technologies such as Internet, but in a do we mean the one very specific network that we have way that takes seriously its material specificities. Two Transitions Copyright© 2015 is held by the author(s). Publication rights licensed to To make this argument more concrete, let me begin by Aarhus University and ACM describing two cases from my own working history, two 5th Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives digital transitions that illustrate the complexity of talking August 17 – 21, 2015, Aarhus Denmark about the Internet as a force for decentralization. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21200 The first of these transitions occurred in the early 1990s when I worked for Xerox. Xerox had been a pioneer in 157 digital networking. Early research on Ethernet and operated. Since XNS was the dominant technology for distributed systems constituted an important precursor to organizational communication, it wasn’t entirely possible the development of the Internet Protocol (IP) suite, and the for people using TCP/IP to “route around” the corporate research systems such as PUP [4] and Grapevine [3] had network, but it started to provide some independence. subsequently given rise to a protocol suite called XNS The second transition was also a transition to IP, but in a (Xerox Network Services), which was the basis of a line of very different context. This transition was going on while I digital office systems products that Xerox sold in the briefly worked at Apple in the late 1990s. As at Xerox, the marketplace. Xerox’s own corporate network spanned the rise of the Internet in general was reflected in the increasing globe, linking thousands of workstations and servers use of TCP/IP in a network that had originally been put together using the XNS protocols. In the 1990s, as Unix together through a different network protocol – in this case, workstations began to dominate the professional AppleTalk. AppleTalk was a proprietary network suite that workstation market, and as the arrival of distributed Apple developed to connect Macintosh computers; it had information services such as Gopher, WAIS, and WWW evolved over time to operate over the Ethernet networks spurred the accelerated growth of the Internet, many inside commonly deployed in corporate settings, although it had Xerox became interested in using TCP/IP on internal originally been developed for linking computers together in networks too. Particular at research and development relatively small networks. One important feature of the centers, various groups began to run TCP/IP networks Appletalk networking protocols is their so-called “plug- locally and then increasingly looked for ways to connect and-play” approach, which allows a network to be deployed them together using the same leased lines that carried XNS with minimal manual configuration. For example, traffic between sites. What began as renegade or illicit Appletalk does not require that network addresses be pre- actions slowly became organizationally known and assigned or that a server be available for network resource tolerated, and then organizationally supported as TCP/IP discovery; these features are managed directly by the became a recognized aspect of internal corporate networked computers themselves. Accordingly, setting up networking within Xerox. Appletalk networks requires little or no administrative XNS was a protocol suite designed for corporate intervention. TCP/IP networks, on the other hand, do environments. Although technically decentralized, it require some services to be set up – DHCP servers to depended on an administratively centralized or managed allocate addresses, name servers to resolve network model. The effective use of XNS was tied together by a addresses, and so on. (In fact, the contemporary networking distributed database service known as the Clearinghouse, technologies known as Bonjour or Zeroconf are which was responsible for device naming, address mechanisms designed to re-introduce Appletalk’s plug-and- resolution, user authentication, access control, and related play functionality into TCP/IP networking.) So, where the functions. Users, servers, workstations, printers, email lists, transition from XNS to TCP/IP was a decentralizing organizational units, and other network-relevant objects transition at Xerox, one that increased people’s were all registered in the Clearinghouse, which was independence from corporate network management, the implemented as a distributed network of database servers transition from Appletalk to TCP/IP at Apple moved in the linked via a so-called “epidemic” algorithm by which they other direction, creating more reliance on network would keep their database records up to date. Access infrastructure and hence on network administration. control mechanisms distinguished administrators, who These examples illustrate two important concerns that could update Clearinghouse databases, from regular users, animate this paper. The first is that statements about “the who could look up names but couldn’t introduce new ones. Internet” and its political and institutional character suffer The Clearinghouse service was central enough to the for a lack of contrast classes (“critical alternatives,” if you operation of XNS services that this administrative access will). The Internet may well be decentralized – but was needed for all sorts of operations, from adding new compared to what, exactly? More decentralized users to installing new workstations. internetworks could be imagined and have existed. We By contrast, the TCP/IP network, and the Unix workstations might be able to make some more fruitful observations if that it generally linked,