<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Excellent response, David Reed. Don't forget that the FCC's Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on
Internet regulation quotes me re: the fact that Pouzin invented the
framework that we find in the Internet protocols and four other systems
of that era.<br>
<br>
BTW, I'm not participating on this e-mail list as part of my job, but
I'm sure David Reed will go ahead and try to get me fired again for
having the nerve to question his reasoning; it's been about a week
since he did that, so it's probably time again. <br>
<br>
Meanwhile, I'm revising my "Designed for Change" paper for publication.
The discussion about rhetoric and all has been very illuminating
regarding the motivation for the paper what has been claimed to fuel
the debate on Internet regulation, but to me the paper seems to be a
more a creature of some of the fashions of its age (RISC and all that
sort of thing.) Some applications have worked out well, others not; do
we know why?<br>
<br>
RB<br>
<br>
David P. Reed wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4AE5B0E7.8090107@reed.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
On 10/25/2009 10:04 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4AE503C1.8040903@bennett.com" type="cite">37
years of networking history boils down to this: <br>
</blockquote>
...<br>
<blockquote type="cite">13. Angry old hippies go "Right on, FCC, your
daddy's Internet is good enough for you!" <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">What a warped
interpretation
of history... it discredits itself, in my opinion only, of course. If
this were a forum for discussing policy matters, I'd engage in
debunking it. It is not such a forum, however. This is a research
forum, loosely associated with the IRTF, and Bennett's comments (true
or not) have not contributed to this forum.</font><br>
<br>
With regard to historical analysis, Bennett (and his informants) are
welcome to write an article for ACMs Annals in the History of
Computing, where actual historians apply peer review to such claims and
submissions.<br>
<br>
The use of the phrase "rhetorical trick" is offensive to me
personally. Bennett persists in this claim, and John Day surprisingly
(to me) joins him in this warped idea that our paper was written as a
move in a battle (war) that some would claim was relevant to today.
That it offends me personally doesn't matter that much in the scheme of
things - certainly Bennett's strange historical analysis of "causation"
wouldn't stand a test against facts.<br>
<br>
However, it is clear we must take Bennett seriously: Jon Peha (FCC
Chief Technologist), Robert Pepper (former FCC senior exec and Cisco
senior exec), Rob Atkinson (progressive political activist and friend
of Blair Levin), and several Congress members (including Darryl Issa)
support the organization that employs Bennett as a Senior Fellow where
he makes this set of claims (ITIF) *as part of his job*. That
organization claims to be a "non-partisan think tank" devoted to
research and analysis. So I'd suggest that this analysis be subjected
to rigorous review - but NOT on an IRTF list. Perhaps Bennett's claim
(made in his online resume) that he was "responsible" for major
networking standards, "including ... WiFi and UWB" will also be
reviewed rigorously, again, not on this list, but elsewhere, perhaps by
the FCC. Many people on this list know some of the people who are
given credit for 802.11 in the community -- you're welcome to ask them
about Bennett.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>