Will the Real Internet Please Stand Up?
We start with a problem. The problem is that so frequently while discussing legal or regulatory issues related to The Internet, we have no idea what it is that we are talking about.
Countless courts, legislative bodies, and packs of pundits have sought to produce definitions of The Internet. Their attempts have at times been poor and misconstrued. Many definitions do not agree. Some talk about applications. Some talk about packets. And others are simply too vague to be of value. And yet, not comprehending the object of the policy, the lawyers go merrily forward constructing on faulty foundation new, imaginative, and perhaps misdirected policy and law.
Is it possible to formulate a good definition of The Internet? Is The Internet the technical specs that currently make up The Internet? Is The Internet based on the experience of The Internet by the user? Can a definition of The Internet reflect the robust and flexible nature, in all of its diversity, as it exists today and what it might become tomorrow? Is there something wrong with this simple question about the definition of The Internet that makes it so hard to answer?
This paper sets forth on a modest quest: make fun of previous definitions of The Internet; attempt to provide a foundational exploration of what a good understanding of The Internet might look like; and finally, look at why none of this (usually) should or does matter.
A response to this modest quest might be that what The Internet is depends upon why you are asking. There may be a degree of truth to this. The cubist will argue that there are multiple perspectives of a horse, all of which are valid. The modernist will argue that how we perceive of the horse depends on where we ourselves stand. Nevertheless, there is a horse there. While there may be multiple perspectives of a horse, looking at the bird sitting on the horse is not looking at the horse. Part of the mission here is to say to the courts or to any other legal body, stop looking at the bird.
What it Aint
We have perhaps all heard the popular and tedious definition of The Internet as "a network of networks."  Boring. This tells us little about The Internet. The telephone network is a network of networks. The cable television system is a network of networks. The lawyers in Washington, D.C. circulate in networks of networks. This definition provides us little useful information about The Internet (but perhaps this concept will have to be revisited later in the paper).
Nor is The Internet a network of "interoperable packet switched data networks."  This definition was the first codified as a part of the Communications Decency Act.  The first two statutory attempts to define the Internet come from the first two statutory attempts to censor the Internet - both of which have been declared unconstitutional.  The definitions remain in the wreckage of those laws. With regards to this first statutory definition, there are lots of packets switched networks using other protocols known as Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Frame Relay, or the ITU's X.25.  There can also be IP networks that are not themselves apart of The Internet. The Internet is just one packet switched network in a family of packet switched networks. A good definition of The Internet is something more than "a network of networks" and it is something more than "a network of packet switched networks."
The second attempt to censor The Internet, the Children's Online Protection Act, brought the second definition.  And although the CDA and COPA are codified in sections directly next to each other, the two definitions are different.
While legislators struggled with a definition of The Internet in terms of the network, some judges have blundered in a different direction. In a domain name trademark dispute, one district court judge concocted the following definition:
The Internet, or the World Wide Web, is a network of computers that allows people to access information stored on other computers within the network. … "Information on the Internet is lodged on files called web pages, which can include printed matter, sound, pictures, and links to other web pages. An Internet user can move from one page to another with just the click of a mouse."
What is wrong with this definition? This mistaken definition occurs with unsettling regularity.  This is a definition of The Internet network in terms of an application. There are many applications that can be utilized over the Internet: email, USENET, IRC, chat, games, streaming media, IP telephony, file transfer protocol, peer-to-peer file transfer (aka Napster), and many others. The Internet network was intentionally designed so that the network transmission capacity would be separate from, disinterested in, and have no involvement in the higher layer applications. The network just moves the bits creating an open platform for applications. What you do with that platform is your choice. You make this choice at your end of the network where you utilize the application of your choice.  And as this stupid network  is not optimized for any application, it means that the end user is empowered to utilize any application of desire.
Furthermore, there is a significant limitation in understanding the Internet in terms of a single application. Each application behaves differently. To conceive of how the network behaves by referencing one application is to fundamentally miscomprehend how the network will behave with another application. The interactivity of USENET is different than the interactivity of the World Wide Web which is different than the interactivity of telephony.
Finally, these applications are not particular to The Internet. Email, chat, telephony, even the World Wide Web can be provisioned over networks that are not The Internet.
In some ways it is an understandable mistake. People comprehend a thing by what they can observe about a thing. People comprehend the Internet by what they observe, which is the applications. An end user interacting with a computer is conscious not so much of the Internet as the end user is conscious of the email application being used or the web page from which the user is gathering information. The Internet is made manifest through the applications that are visible on a computer screen. However, like the man behind the curtain, the Internet is not, in fact, those applications
With a given degree of regularity, The Internet is described as The Public Internet.  In looking at what The Internet aint, it is useful to note that The Internet aint public.
There are perhaps four relevant definitions of "public" in this context.
(1) Communications Networks - public communications networks are common carriers regulated under Title II of the Communications Act. 
(2) Government Owned - certain property is described as public in that it is government owned and used for the benefit of the public. This includes, for example, public parks.
(3) Trespass - this is a concept of physical access to a space. Where access to a space is highly restricted, it is said to be private. Where access to a space is free and open, it is said to be public.
(4) Service - Institutions which serve the public such as stores or restaurants might be considered public and fall under certain laws with regard to the public such as forbidding discriminatory service. 
We are not without a good definition with which to start. In 1995, the Federal Networking Council came up with the following definition:
On October 24, 1995, the FNC unanimously passed a resolution defining the term Internet. This definition was developed in consultation with members of the internet and intellectual property rights communities.
The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term "Internet".
"Internet" refers to the global information system that --
(i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons;
(ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and
(iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein. 
Perhaps the preeminent defining characteristic of The Internet is the Internet Protocol. This is where The Internet gets its name. Where you have IP, you can have The Internet; where you do not have IP, you cannot have The Internet (right?).
Figure 1: In a simplified example: (1) User at a computer requests the retrieval of certain content. Computer turns request into data packets and injects them into The Internet over a telephone line. These packets hit a router and are forwarded to the next router on an Internet path over wireless. Here the packets are routed over the last Internet path over fiber. (2) The server responds by delivering the content. The content is broken down into packets and is transmitted back through the network (not necessarily over the same paths) back to the computer making the request. The logical network exists from one end to another. It is overlayed over physical networks. The physical networks vary at different legs of the journey.
Extensions, Follow-ons, Successors
In response to the above discussion, an imaginary proponent of the FNC definition might argue, "well yes, but the FNC definition was not limited to TCP/IP. It anticipated evolution of the protocol with the phrase 'subsequent extensions/follow-ons.' The FNC was not so daft as to think that the network protocol was static; but recognized that it evolved with time and that the heirs of the Internet protocol ought properly be considered likewise The Internet."
The FNC lists as a definition criteria that the network is logically linked. The Internet is a "network of networks." Ack! Having previously denigrated use of that phrase, how can I now use it? The phrase does get to an important concept (although in and of itself the phrase is entirely insufficient and vague). The concept is interconnection. IP creates a virtual or logical network over the different physical network, logically linking together edge devices and creating the ability for these computers to interact with one another.
The FNC definition states that The Internet "is logically linked together by a globally  unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP)." It is compelling to think of a network in terms of its address space. One of the tell-tale signs of what network one is using is how the network is addressing the traffic. The Public Telephone System uses the North American Numbering Plan, in other words, telephone numbers.  To utilize the public telephone system, one needs a telephone number. This number is entered into the network in order to transmit communications from point A to point B. If you are communicating with people using telephone numbers, this is a good indicator that you are on the Pubic Telephone Network.  If an end point lacks a telephone number, it is not on the Public Telephone Network.
What is the "unique address space" of The Internet? It is the unique set of IP number addresses. Each device on The Network is assigned an IP number. Internet packets traveling from one device to another are addressed with the IP number of the destination and the IP number of the originating device. To be visible a device must be associated with an address; if a device is not associated with an address, it cannot be reached and cannot be said to be on the network.
Behind the Curtain: NATs & PBXs
The criteria of addresses begs the following question: there are devices on the telephone network that are behind PBXs. There are devices on the Internet that are behind NAT boxes. The PBX permits access to devices behind it through adjuncts to regular telephone number addresses. The NAT box permits access to devices behind it through adjuncts to the IP number addresses. The devices behind the curtain otherwise have interconnection to the networks.
The Internet has an interesting network addressing system. The devices on the network are reachable using IP numbers. Those are the network addresses. But for all practical purposes, the humans are unaware of those network addresses. Instead, recognizing years ago that the IP numbers are difficult for the humans, the domain name system (DNS) was developed.
Another defining characteristic as noted by the FNC is the end-to-end design of the network. The Internet religious among us will suggest that end-to-end is an essential characteristic of The Internet.  The Internet protocol is a very thin and stupid protocol. It does very little beyond pass packets back and forth. It does not care what physical network the packets originate on. It does not care what application they are from. The Internet Protocol virtual network simply transmits the packets back and forth to destinations on the network without change in form or content of the data transmitted by the network itself. There is no interactivity or interference with content at this layer.
Of course The Internet is not just any network; it is a unique network in history. Unlike, for example, cable, where there is a wide assortment of different cable networks out there, there is one unique network in history with the name The Internet. The Internet was born on an October day in 1969. On that day, a pack of geeks located at UCLA sent the first transmission over The ARPANet to another pack of geeks at Stanford. By the end of that year, there were four nodes on The ARPANet. By 1971, there were 15 nodes.  This unique networked community continued to grow, adding networks, devices, and users.
So enough of making fun of other people's definitions. What is The Internet?
Even if "what is the definition of The Internet" is the wrong question, when confronted with a bunch of wires and boxes and blinking lights, one would like to have the ability to understand whether these things are The Internet and how this Internet thing is distinguished from anything else.
· On October 25, 1969, the network comprised of two end points. At the end of the year it had 4 end points. Slowly this networked community grew and in the year 2002 it is estimated that there are 580 million individuals on the network. 
· In 1983, this Network migrated to the Internet Protocol, from which it got its name.
· The Network is logically linked using the unique address space based on IP, currently managed by IANA.
· The Network is a computer network overlayed over physical networks.
· The Network supports higher layer applications following the end-to-end principle.
[The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999] is not technology-neutral, but applies only to Internet gambling while leaving the existing prohibition on gambling over "wire communication facilities" in general unchanged. While the Department is generally concerned about legislation designed for particular technologies such as the Internet, it is specifically troubled here by the creation of two inconsistent gambling prohibitions - one expressly for the Internet and a different one for the use of wire communication facilities (which includes the Internet).
In response to the endeavor to define The Internet comes the begged question, "why are you asking." Perhaps the answer is, "you should not be asking." If the legal concern is for activity in the application or content layers (gambling), then focus the legal solution on the layer where the problem exists, the application or content layer. The underlying network layers can be swapped arbitrarily, and yet the policy concern with the activity (the application) likely remains the same. Laws inconsistently applied in different spaces ought to be greeted with a raised eyebrow.
But wait, having said that The Internet should does not matter, I back peddle to suggest that there are times when it does. Circumstances where a proper understanding of The Internet is necessary include (1) First Amendment law, and (2) communications law. There are certainly other occasions where the unique environment of online communications leads to unique legal concerns (but even here, the law may wish to consider general online concerns as opposed to specific Internet concerns).
In different circumstances, the federal government has greater ability to restrict speech than in others. On television and radio, the government has been able to restrict the broadcast of "The Seven Dirty Words," a monologue by George Carlin.  Conversely with printed matter such as newspapers and books, the government has significantly reduced ability to restrict the dissemination of adult content. According to the Supreme Court as stated in Sable,  the First Amendment analysis depends upon a proper understanding of the medium. Broadcast spectrum is scarce and held in the public trust, therefore the FCC has authority to restrict the broadcast of mature content to later hours. Printed matter is a highly competitive medium, with great diversity, which is not invasive in your home. While with a TV, you set the channel and passively absorb whatever pours from the set, reading material must be affirmatively acquired by the reader. Likewise, with the Internet, the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU stated that the nature of the medium is crucial.  The Internet is not scarce. It is not held in the public trust. It is not invasive. Rather the Internet is a broad and diverse medium where the user goes out and selects the content of that user's choosing. Given the nature of the medium, censorship by the government would be inappropriate.
Communications law is not uniform but is rather broken into silos. Title II of the Communications Act  regulates the telephone network. Title III regulates wireless services. Title VI regulates cable. While convergence of the mediums is making these silos arcane, nevertheless for the time, regulation applicable to a given communications medium is dependent on what that communications medium is. In communications terms, it is important that The Internet is The Internet, an information service, and not a telephone service or a cable service. This is at the center of several FCC proceedings. 
 Views express are likely those of the author but could not conceivably be the views of anyone else, including but not limited to his employers, the FCC, TPRC, or his dogs.
 The US Supreme Court put forth a definition similar to this. See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 850 (1997) ("The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers that enables tens of millions of people, if not more, to communicate with one another and to access vast amounts of information from around the world."). This definition was subsequently cited by Bihari v. Gross, No. OO Civ. 1664 (SAS), 1 (SDNY Sept 25, 2000); OBH, Inc., v. Spotlight Magazine, Inc., No. 99-CV-746A, 86 F.Supp.2d 176, 178-79 (WDNY Feb. 28, 2000); Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1044 (9th Cir.1999). See also In Re Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Inter-Carrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, CC Docket No. 96-98, CC Docket No. 99-68, Declaratory Ruling ¶ 3 (Feb. 26, 1999); In Re GTE Telephone Operators GTOC Tariff No. 1 GTE Transmittal No. 1148, Memorandum Opinion And Order, CC Docket No. 98-79 ¶ 2 (October 30, 1998), recon. denied (February 26, 1999). Several other courts have put forth their own versions of the network of networks definition. See Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573, n. 1 (2d Cir. 2000) ("The Internet is a vast system of interconnected computers and computer networks."); Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F.Supp. 282, 287 n. 2 (D.N.J.1998) ("The Internet is not a physical or tangible entity, but rather a giant network which interconnects innumerable smaller groups of linked computer networks. It is thus a network of networks."); Zeran v. AOL, Civil Action 96-952-1, n. 1 (ED VA March 21 1997) ("The 'Internet,' as the term is used here, refers to the immeasurable network of computers interconnected for the purpose of communication and information exchange.").
 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(1). See also Blumenthal v. Drudge, CA No. 97-1968, n. 6 (DDC April 22, 1998) (citing Sec. 230); In re Application of WorldCom, Inc. and MCI Communications Corporation for Transfer of Control of MCI Communications Corporation to WorldCom, Inc., Report and Order, CC Docket No. 97-211 ¶ 143 (September 14, 1998) ("The Internet is an interconnected network of packet-switched networks."); In re Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report to Congress, FCC 98-67 ¶ 64 (April 10, 1998) ("The Internet is a distributed packet-switched network, which means that information is split up into small chunks or "packets" that are individually routed through the most efficient path to their destination.").
 The CDA was passed as an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, Sec. 501 (1996). The Telecom Act vastly reformed the communications landscape in the United States. It anticipated tremendous telecommunications advances, changes in broadcast, and advances in spectrum. It did not, other than this censorship provision, anticipate the disruptive explosion of The Internet on the communications scene.
 See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (overturning CDA as unconstitutional); Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293, __ U.S. __ (May 13, 2002) (On May 13, 2002, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a lower court's decision where the lower court had held that the "community standard" of COPA made it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court specifically did not speak to whether COPA might be unconstitutional on other grounds. As a result, the injunction against enforcement remains in place and COPA remains unconstitutional).
 See Tony Rybczynski, Nortel Networks, Future of Packet Switching, Communications Solutions Magazine (October 2001) <www.nortelnetworks.com/solutions/opt_ethernet/ collateral/csm_fop.pdf> (discussing history and future of packet switched networks).
 47 U.S.C. § 231(e)(3). See also In re Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report to Congress, FCC 98-67 ¶ 62 (April 10, 1998) ("The Internet is a loose interconnection of networks belonging to many owners. It is comprised of tens of thousands of networks that communicate using the Internet protocol (IP).").
 Examples of large networks that use IP but are not The Internet include international telephone networks that have concluded that IP is superior and migrated their networks to it. But these networks are for telephony and are not interconnected to the rest of The Internet. You cannot get to the website of your favorite local coffee house using the IP service of the long distance telephone network.
 There is also a problem with the phrase "any successor protocol" which will be discussed on page 11 .
 See 47 U.S.C. § 1127 (“The term ‘Internet’ has the meaning given the term is section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1))”); AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, SEC. 3005. DEFINITIONS ("The term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1))").
 See Internet Tax Freedom Act, Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. C, tit 11, § 1101(e)(3)(C) ("The term 'Internet' means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which comprise the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio."); The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. C, tit 13, § 1302(6) ("The term 'Internet' means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which comprise the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/ Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio."). See also In Re Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, CC Docket No. 02-33, CC Dockets Nos. 95-20, 98-10, NPRM n. 16 (Feb. 15, 2002) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-42A1.doc ("Fundamentally, the Internet is a global, packet switched network that enables interconnection between networks using Internet Protocol (IP).").
 Morrison & Foerster LLP, v. Brian Wick and American Distribution Systems, Inc., No. CIV.A.00-B-465., 94 F.Supp.2d 1125, 1126 (D.Co. April 19, 2000).
 See, e.g., Sporty's Farm L.L.C., V. Sportsman's Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 492 (2nd Cir. 2000) ("The Internet is a network of computers that allows a user to gain access to information stored on any other computer on the network. Information on the Internet is lodged on files called web pages, which can include printed matter, sound, pictures, and links to other web pages. An Internet user can move from one page to another with just the click of a mouse."); Bihari v. Gross, No. OO Civ. 1664 (SAS), 1 (SDNY Sept 25, 2000) ("The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers that enables tens of millions of people, if not more, to communicate with one another and to access vast amounts of information from around the world. See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 850 (1997). Information on the Internet is housed on webpages."). A number of regulatory decisions also conceive of the Internet in terms of the World Wide Web. See also In Re GTE Telephone Operators GTOC Tariff No. 1 GTE Transmittal No. 1148, Memorandum Opinion And Order, CC Docket No. 98-79 ¶ 3 (February 26, 1999), recon. denied (February 26, 1999) ("Accordingly, we concluded that ISP traffic must be analyzed as a continuous transmission from the end user to a distant Internet website."); In re GTE Telephone Operators GTOC Tariff No. 1 GTE Transmittal No. 1148, Memorandum Opinion And Order, CC Docket No. 98-79 ¶ 22 (February 26, 1999), recon. denied (February 26, 1999) ("Having concluded that the jurisdictional treatment of GTE's ADSL service offering is determined by the nature of the end-to-end transmission between an end user and the Internet website accessed by the end user, we now must decide whether that transmission does in fact constitute an interstate telecommunication."); In Re Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Inter-Carrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, CC Docket No. 96-98, CC Docket No. 99-68, Declaratory Ruling ¶ 12 (February 26, 1999) ("Consistent with these precedents, we conclude, as explained further below, that the communications at issue here do not terminate at the ISP's local server, as CLECs and ISPs contend, but continue to the ultimate destination or destinations, specifically at a Internet website that is often located in another state.").
 See discussion of End-to-End, infra, page 16 .
 See David Eisenberg, Rise of the Stupid Network, Computer Telephony, August 1997, pg 16-26, available at http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html.
 See, e.g., GTE.Net LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc., 185 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1143 (SDCal 2002) (defendant stating that Excite@Home was responsible for "the entire Internet Protocol (IP) network from the Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) located in each cable headend, and from there over an engineered private network to interconnection points on the public Internet.” (emphasis added)); Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., 104 F.Supp. 427, 439 (DNJ 2000) (stating "Its first software product, a 'firewall' (described below), was designed to address the issue posed by a company's private network ("intranet") connection to a very public Internet..." (emphasis added)); In re Implementation of Section 11 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CS Docket No. 98-82, 16 FCC Rcd 17,312, 17,371 n. 38 (September 21, 2001) ("Although cable, wireless and satellite currently are the only technologies in use for distribution of subscription video services, other technologies may become commercially viable. Streaming video over the public Internet or over private, non-cable, fiber-optic networks are examples of such technologies." (emphasis added)).
 Communications Act of 1934, as amended (codified in title 47, United States Code, Title II).
 These definitions are the author's creation based on listening to what I think people are saying as they use the world. By way of contrast, compare Websters' definition of public:
1 a : exposed to general view : OPEN b : WELL-KNOWN, PROMINENT c : PERCEPTIBLE, MATERIAL 2 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation 3 a : of or relating to people in general : UNIVERSAL b : GENERAL, POPULAR 4 : of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : SOCIAL 5 : devoted to the general or national welfare : HUMANITARIAN 6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market -- often used with go
Merriam-Webster Online, Collegiate Dictionary, Public (2002) <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary>. Also compare the definition from Black's Law Dictionary:
Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 1104 (1979).
 There is some discussion whether the Internet ought to be a communications common carrier. See Barbara Cherry, Utilizing "Essentiality of Access" Analyses to Mitigate Risky, Costly and Untimely Government Interventions in Converging Telecommunications Technologies and Markets, TPRC 2002 <http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/archive-search-abstract.cfm?PaperID=140>; James Speta, A Common Carrier Approach to Internet Interconnection, 54 FCLJ 225 (2002) <http://law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v54/no2/Speta.pdf>. Regardless of what ought to be, The Internet is not currently classified as a communications common carrier.
 Robert Cannon, The Legacy of the Computer Inquiries, 55 FCLJ __ (2003) (forthcoming).
 FNC Resolution: Definition of "Internet" 10/24/95 <http://www.itrd.gov/fnc/Internet_res.html>. Unfortunately, there is not a record of any discussion presenting the rationale for this definition, so we do not necessarily know why they perceived these to be the defining criteria.
 TCMHC: Internet History 1962-1992 at http://computerhistory.org/exhibits/internet_history/index_page; The Past and Future History of the Internet, Communications of the ACM, 102, 103 (Feb 1997); PBS Nerds 2.0.1 Timeline www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/timeline/.
 PBS Nerds 2.0.1 Timeline <www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/timeline/> (citing Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn, A Protocol for Packet Network Interconnection, IEEE Transactions on Communications Technology (1974)). At this time the network protocol was merely TCP. It would not be broken into TCP/IP for another few years.
 The Internet Protocol provides for the creation and transmission (routing) of packets of data. The Transmission Control Protocol provides for error correction in order to ensure that packets get to their destination (retransmitting packets that do not make it or slowing down the transmission rate where packets are being transmitted at a rate faster than can be received).
 CHM: Internet History 1962-1992 <computerhistory.org/exhibits/internet_history/index_page>; PBS Nerds 2.0.1 Timeline <www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/timeline/>.
 Barry Leiner, Vinton Cerf, David Clark, Robert Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel Lynch, Jon Postel, Lawrence Roberts, Stephen Wolff, The Past and Future History of the Internet, Communications of the ACM, p. 105 (February 1997).
 Richard T. Griffiths, The Origin and Growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web (October 2001); PBS Nerds 2.0.1 Timeline <www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/timeline/>; Barry Leiner, Vinton Cerf, David Clark, Robert Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel Lynch, Jon Postel, Lawrence Roberts, Stephen Wolff, The Past and Future History of the Internet, Communications of the ACM, p. 105 (February 1997).
 See Ikedam and Yamada, Glocom, Is IPv6 Necessary? (March 2002) <www.glocom.org/tech_reviews/tech_bulle/20020227_s2/index.html>; ISOC Briefing Paper 6: The Transition to IPv6 (Jan 2002) <www.isoc.org/briefings/006/isocbriefing06.pdf>.
 The Layered Model of Regulation sets forth a policy framework that divides communications problems into (1) the physical network layer, (2) the logical network layer (aka CODE or transport layer), (2) the application and service layer, and (4) the content layer. See Kevin Werbach, A Layered Model for Internet Policy, presented at Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (Fall 2000), http://www.tprc.org/abstracts00/layered.pdf; Robert M Entman, Rapporteur, Transition to an IP Environment, The Aspen Institute (2001); Michael L. Katz, Thoughts on the Implication of Technological Change for Telecommunications Policy, The Aspen Institute (2001); Douglas C. Sicker and Joshua L. Mindel, Refinements of a Layered Model for Telecommunications Policy (unpublished 2002); Douglas C. Sicker, A Layered Model to Address The Voice Over IP Regulatory Dilemma (unpublished 2002).
 See Barry Leiner, Vinton Cerf, David Clark, Robert Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel Lynch, Jon Postel, Lawrence Roberts, Stephen Wolff, The Past and Future History of the Internet, Communications of the ACM, p. 103-04 (February 1997).
 See, e.g., In re Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorization by Time Warner Inc and America Online, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, CS Docket No. 00-30, 16 FCCR 6547, 6551 (Jan 22, 2001).
 See Webopedia, UPD (2002) <http://www.pcwebopaedia.com/TERM/U/UDP.html>.
 Robert Cannon, The Legislative History of Senator Exon's Communications Decency Act: Regulating Barbarians on the Information Superhighway, 49 FCLJ 51 n. 6 (November 1996) <law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v49/no1/cannon.html>.
 Merriam-Webster Online, Collegiate Dictionary, Beer (2002) <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary>.
 Mr. Webster tells us that Welsh Rarebit is "melted often seasoned cheese poured over toast or crackers " Merriam-Webster Online, Collegiate Dictionary, Welsh Rarebit (2002) <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary>.
 See Red Dwarf, Talkie Toaster <http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/>.
 It can also lead to difficulties under the 1st and 5th Amendments.
 Merriam-Webster Online, Collegiate Dictionary, definition (2002) <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary>.
 See Nerds 2.0.1, Surfing the Net (1998) <http://www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/networking_nerds/tcpip.html>; CHM: Internet History 1962-1992 <www.computerhistory.org/exhibits/internet_history/internet_history_70s.page>.
 Compare, David Crocker, IETF Informational RFC 1775, To Be "On" the Internet (March 1995) <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1775.txt>.
 As Vint Cerf is fond of point out, the Internet has passed beyond the reach of the global. Vint Cerf, Cerf's Up: Interplanetary Internet (2002) <http://www1.worldcom.com/global/resources/cerfs_up/interplanetary_internet/>.
 See 47 C.F.R. Part 52 (North American Numbering Plan); 47 U.S.C. § 251(e).
 This of course begs the question of ENUM. ENUM is a innovation based on the Domain Name System where telephone numbers are entered into an ENUM device (somehow, there are different scenarios), the device converts this into a domain name, a DNS look up is conducted, and information contained in the DNS records are returned. This information can be anything, such as an IP telephony address, or a house address. The key for this purpose is that the ENUM number is not itself a network address - it may have the same numerical pattern as a telephone number - but the ENUM number is a number used in a database for the purpose of accessing the data in the database. With ENUM, it is the data in the database, not the ENUM number, that constitute the network addresses. See Robert Cannon, ENUM: The Collision of Telephony and DNS Policy, TPRC Book (2001) <www.arxiv.org/pdf/cs.GL/0110018>.
 See Jon Postel Tribute at Postel Center for Experimental Networking <www.postel.org/jonpostel.html>.
 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (Aug. 25, 2002) at http://www.iana.org.
 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Sept. 23, 2002) at http://www.icann.org.
 See Milton Mueller, Ruling the Root, p. (2002).
 The DNS can go far beyond this but for purpose of this paper the inquiry is restricted to Internet addressing.
 See. e.g., Larry Lessig, The Future of Ideas (2002).
 See J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark, End-to-End Arguments in System Design, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (November 1984) <www.ana.lcs.mit.edu/anaweb/PDF/saltzer_reed_clark_e2e.pdf>.
 See J. Mark Pullen, Understanding Internet Protocols Through Hands-On Programming, Chapter 1 The Internet Protocol Stack and the Network Workbench (Wiley 2000).
 See Robert H'obbes' Zakon, Hobbes' Internet Timeline v5.6 (2002) <www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/>.
 The first IETF RFC with "Internet" in the title was V. Cerf, Y. Dalal, C. Sunshine, IEFT RFC 675, Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program (Dec-01-1974).
 See Webopedia, NSFNet (2002) at http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/N/NSFnet.html; TCMHC: Internet History 1962-1992 computerhistory.org/exhibits/internet_history/index_page.
 ISP-Planet, ISP Association Directory: Commercial Internet eXchange (Aug 20, 2001) at http://www.isp-planet.com/business/associations/cix.html
 See W3C, A Little History of the World Wide Web (2002) <www.w3.org/History.html>.
 See Merriam-Webster Online, Collegiate Dictionary, Define (2002) <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary> (" to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word)").
 See Merriam-Webster Online, Collegiate Dictionary, Term (2002) <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary> ("a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or subject ").
 See Merriam-Webster Online, Collegiate Dictionary, Proper Noun (2002) <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary> ("a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English -- called also proper name ").
 See Merriam-Webster Online, Collegiate Dictionary, Frisbee (2002) <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary> (note that "Frisbee" is the trademark name for the product known as a "flying disc." There are other companies that produce flying discs by other names, such as the Discraft Ultrastar).
 NUA, How Many Online: Worldwide (May 2002) <www.nua.com/surveys/how_many_online/world.html>.
 There are other factors that have led to differentiating the Internet. In the FCC's Computer Inquires, it was not the technology of computer networks that set them apart and led to separate policy, it was the markets. The computer network market was highly competitive with low barriers to entry, in contrast to the telephone network market which was a consolidated bottleneck market. See Robert Cannon, Legacy of the Computer Inquiries, 52 FCLJ __ (2003) (forthcoming).
 See Cybertelecom, Legislation 107th Congress <www.cybertelecom.org/legis/legis.htm> (providing list of legislative proposals related to the Internet back to the 101st Congress).
 18 USC § 1084.
 Testimony of Kevin V. Di Gregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Addressing Internet Gambling Before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary (March 9, 2000) <www.cybercrime.gov/kvd0309.htm>. See also Testimony of Kevin V. Di Gregrory, Deputy Assistance Attorney General, Addressing Internet Gambling Before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary (June 20, 2000) <www.cybercrime.gov/kvd0600.htm>.
 See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) (upholding FCC authority to regulate broadcast of George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Word’s monologue over radio).
 See Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 109 S. Ct. 2829 (1989).
 See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
 The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (codified in title 47, United States Code).
 See In re Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to the Internet over Cable and other Facilities, CS Docket 02-52, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (March 15, 2002) available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.pdf; In re Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, CC Docket 02-33, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (February 14, 2002) available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-42A1.doc.
Web services provided by
: ADA : Broadband : Crime : Copyright : DNS : ECommerce : EGovt : First Amendment : Digital Divide :
: Network Neutrality : Intl : Privacy : Security : SPAM : Statistics : VoIP : Vote : And Much More! :
:: Feedback : Disclaimer ::