WHEN the era of computer networking dawned with the first message on ARPANET, the precursor of the internet, on 29 October 1969, Vint Cerf was a 26-year-old graduate student in the data packet networking group at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has been a central figure in the evolution of the internet ever since. Together with Robert Kahn, he wrote TCP/IP, the Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol that underpin the functioning of the net. A long-time champion of an open internet, in 1992 he cofounded the non-profit with Kahn and others to help maintain that ideal. Since 2005, he has been .
You’re sometimes called the father of the internet. Can you explain what you did?
Advertisement
Of course, I didn’t go around planning to be called the father of the internet or a father of the internet. Bob Kahn and I got together in 1973 to solve an engineering problem that the US Department of Defense laid on the table. The only computer networking that had been successfully demonstrated was between machines in air-conditioned rooms. Our problem was to use satellite and mobile radio communication in addition to dedicated telephone centres to link computers together. In solving that problem, which took about six months, we developed a set of protocols, of procedures, formats and mechanisms for allowing computers to talk to each other.
Did you have an idea at the time how big that would be?
I think we believed that it was an extremely powerful technology, although I guarantee we didn’t know of all the applications that would emerge. But we designed the system to be ultra-flexible and amenable to the addition of new protocols, networks and networking technologies. We made it as open-ended as possible, and invited anyone to participate in the system’s implementation and evolution. We decided not to patent the technology at all, to remove any barrier to its adoption. I would say we were fairly successful in that decision.
Does that open ideal still exist in today’s internet, dominated by private interests and big companies?
That’s sort of a loaded question. Let me back up for a moment and say it’s very rare that you have an architecture that can manage the kind of growth the internet has seen. With regard to large companies, yes, there are certainly economies of scale. But there is a lot of competition and new players come along quite readily, even in China, where the Chinese government supposedly controls the internet nowadays. Look at [Chinese e-commerce giant] Alibaba, coming out of nowhere. And then we’ve seen companies that were very prominent decline: AOL, for example, and Yahoo. So people who get excited about successful companies should keep in mind that success isn’t guaranteed.
You’re currently Google’s chief internet evangelist. What does that mean?
All of my work has been aimed at getting more internet out there. I believe it’s better to have access to the internet than not. On a daily basis, I get a heck of a lot more utility out of the internet than I get disadvantage. This isn’t to argue there isn’t any misinformation and the like. It’s sort of like walking out in the streets of London: it’s dangerous if you don’t pay attention to what you’re doing.
Doesn’t that underplay the internet’s dangers?
Did you know that people find things in libraries about how to build bombs and make weapons? I mean, it’s shocking, isn’t it? The internet may make access to information more readily available, but I would argue strenuously that its beneficial effects outweigh the deleterious ones. The invention of the printing press brought similar problems: the American Revolution was partly stimulated by anonymous printed tracts. We came to terms with that and I believe we can come to terms with it online as well.
Is the answer more control over what people can and can’t do on the internet?
No. I think that would be very harmful. There are some regimes that don’t like it that people can use the internet to find information, to share information, to coordinate their activities. Anyone who watched the Arab Spring in 2011 will appreciate the use of mobile technology and social media to organise it. I look at things from the Western point of view, that connectivity and access to information is extremely valuable and should be encouraged. But it also leads to the promulgation of misinformation and disinformation. We have to figure out how to handle that without turning the internet into an authoritarian environment where people don’t feel free to express themselves.
Could companies such as Google be doing more?
Internet firms are working across financial and legal boundaries. We have a lot of work to do to get countries to collaborate with each other to deal with some of the abuses that we’ve seen. What we need is education. We need people who can think critically about what they see and do online, who are capable of analysing and dissecting bad quality information. And we need consequences for people who are deliberately misleading others.
You mentioned the importance of access. Is that battle being won?
We’re only halfway there. About half of the world is online, and much of the half that isn’t is rural parts of countries where it’s expensive to buy connectivity. You can see some of the responses to that problem in the form of large-scale satellite networks, as well as cables, not only to connect major continents, but even islands in the middle of the Pacific.
What most excites you about how the internet is evolving now?
Several things. First of all, that rapid increase in access to the network, the increasing amounts of Wi-Fi, certainly 4G and maybe 5G. Similarly, the internet of things, connecting all sorts of devices to the internet, in the sense of convenience and the possibilities, but also in the sense of the dangers. Inadequately protected devices, like webcams, become a security risk. Our increasing dependence on the internet may make things more brittle.
Have we fully thought through those issues with the internet of things – not just security, but the bandwidth and energy implications?
I’m less worried about power requirements and problems with carbon neutrality, because we can work on all sources of energy coming from green energy production. I’m much more worried about the vulnerabilities that these devices might have, especially if the people who make them don’t supply a way to update software or if they use outdated operating systems.
You’re a science fiction buff – with that hat on, fast forward another 50 years, and how will the internet have changed?
It might still be called the internet, but it may look very different. I think there will be widespread connectivity, and it will largely be invisible, like you just plug into it anywhere. It will be hard to escape access to the internet anywhere in the world, possibly from large satellite constellations. We already have internet protocols that are on board the International Space Station as well as those on Mars rovers. Without any doubt, in 50 years we will be running an interplanetary network, linking Earth, Mars and some of the other planets using protocols adapted to the variable delay and disruption associated with interplanetary communication.
Will it still be the original internet you designed?
I wish I could say that, but I can’t because we discovered that the TCP/IP didn’t hack it between planets. So, we developed a new protocol and called it the Bundle Protocol that can do interplanetary communication.
Any particular points of pride or regret looking back over 50 years?
I regret the malicious behaviour, of course. But that’s the human condition, and we have to deal with it. We haven’t changed in 50 years. But I’m very proud of the fact that what we did has scaled up as well as it has, and of what it has achieved. I would like to be remembered as someone who tried very hard to develop a better world.
Read the rest of our internet birthday special:
