This week we concluded reading Where Wizards Stay Up Late and finished our discussion on the history of the Internet. It was quite a fascinating discussion, as we discussed how the original founders moved forward from the first networks. During the early days of the Internet, along with the ARPAnet, a plethora of other networks, using different technologies, popped up around the world, including a satellite-based network and the ALOHAnet, which relied on radio waves. These new networks all ran with different technologies and nuances, causing them to not be able to communicate with each other, highlighting a common theme in the creation of the internet, the lack of standardization. The reason the ARPAnet was originally created was to connect computers that were running different systems and talked different languages. Now, there were different networks using different protocols. To fix this problem, networkers created gateways, similar to a router today, to connect two networks together into the modern Internet. These gateways transformed a signal from one network’s technology, such as the ARPAnet’s phone lines, to another network’s technology, such as the ALOHAnet’s radio waves. The consequences of the gateways were immense, as all the disparate networks were now connected. It was revolutionary. Additionally, along with the gateways, new protocols such as TCP/IP and DNS were needed to facilitate the greater size of the Internet.
Today, the government no longer runs the Internet; rather, private Internet service providers are responsible for connecting most of the world to the Internet. What is most interesting about the Internet currently, is that the privatization of the Internet has lead to monopolies similar to those of the landline phone companies and a consequent lack of innovation. Most households in the United States have on average one internet service provider to choose from, often Comcast, Time Warner Cable, or AT&T. Because of this, most ISPs do not feel the need to update their infrastructure, causing overpriced Internet services that under deliver on performance. This lack of innovative is most clearly highlighted by the strides made by the cellular industry, which is an extremely competitive market currently. With cell phone carriers revamping their networks with 4G service and soon implementing 5G service, cellular internet speeds have become comparable to those of broadband. Additionally, ISPs are hiking the price of internet service, with some provides boasting a 97 percent profit margin, causing high speed Internet to be for the privileged. However, it doesn’t have to be this way. Companies, such as Google Fiber, are breaking into and disrupting the market, offering fiber optic networks capable of delivering gigabit network speeds, pushing ISPs to slowly upgrade their infrastructure.
Furthermore, while access to the Internet has almost become a given in the United States today, much of the world still does not have access. There are innovative, inexpensive projects working to resolve this issue though, hoping to deliver free Internet access to developing countries. Some of this innovative projects include Google’s Project Loon, which is basically a hot air balloon that broadcasts network service, and Facebook’s Internet.org. These initiatives display an interesting point; while the Internet has vastly increased in its reach in the past 50 years, there is still much room for growth. The Internet is still not the universal equalizer that it has the potential to become.
Can you connect the dots for me? What happens if Google or Facebook become the sole Internet provider in a developing country? Will their other businesses allow (force?) them to keeping delivering free Internet access? Are there parallels from history we can use to think about these questions?
Honestly, I do not think Google or Facebook will ever become the sole Internet providers in developing companies. I believe they are just paving the way for other companies and governments to more easily provide Internet access in their countries. For instance, Google describes itself as an engineering company at heart. Besides the services it already provides, Google works on innovative, groundbreaking projects that are called Ten X projects, which are meant to make a ten times impact in ten years. Project Loom is a classified as a Ten X project. Thus, I believe the purpose of Project Loom and similar projects is to develop the technology and infrastructure that could then be expanded on a large scale as an effective solution for Internet access. This is quite similar to Google Fiber. Google Fiber was constructed to develop faster, gigabit Internet network speeds and stimulate the stagnant, conservative ISP industry. Their intention was never to overtake the ISP industry but rather to force the major ISPs and smaller ones alike to update their infrastructure. Consequently, similarly to how the Internet was initially a governmental project that was privatized, I think Google and Facebook’s projects will head in the same direction. However, Google and Facebook are such massive companies with immense capital that they could be the ones to provide Internet access to developing countries. Additionally, both companies have lucrative reasons to do so. With Google and Facebook making most of their money through advertisements, the increased consumers and advertising revenue that would result from free Internet in developing countries could offset the cost of developing the infrastructure. Thus, while the services they provide may be “free” they are actually making an investment in expanding their consumer base and revenues.
Great answers! This will be interesting to watch over the coming years!