Implementing Enemy
Technology:
Conflict in telecommunications and
the implications for Cuba’s Internet
Implementation
Implementing Enemy Technology:
Conflict in telecommunications and the
implications for Cuba’s Internet implementation
M.A. New Media & Digital Cultures
Media Studies
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Niels Van Doorn
Date of completion: 25 June 2014
Samantha Carter sauda.sc@gmail.com Student #: 10619798 Gevleweg 69A Amsterdam, Netherlands 1013AX
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my thesis advisor, Niels van Doorn, for guiding me through the process of writing this piece. The result is a reflection of his guidance, which has also strengthened my thinking. Thank you to my friends who read, edited, and showed complete faith in my abilities. Jovan, Quyen, Hodan, Josette, Rick and Ilene all took time out to read and give feedback. Thank you to my family who believes in me even when they do not quite know what I am doing. You all have helped me complete this research, and I am grateful to have such a community.
______________________________________________________________________________________
A B S T R A C T
The Internet is often attached to ideas of liberation and revolution. Cuban Internet (or lack thereof) is quickly dismissed as backwards or repressive. Yet, Western countries have largely determined the Internet’s development, architecture, and governance. The United States has a particularly strong role in determining the Internet’s direction. Given the strained relationship between the US and Cuba, how else can Cuban Internet implementation be understood? In this thesis, I examine geopolitical conflict as it manifests in telecommunications networks, focusing on the Internet. I use a critical historical analysis and autoethnography to answer my research question. My analysis begins in the 19th century and ends with speculation about the
future. In this thesis, I am concerned primarily with Internet architecture and governance, rather than individual usage. I explore the ways in which politics is materialized in Internet architecture. I point out relevant US-Cuban policies and legislation that come to bear on telecommunications in Cuba. I use my own experiences in both countries to pose questions and provide evidence. I theorize about how the Internet is a fundamentally different telecommunications system that enables new forms of control and freedom.
My analysis continues into the present examining what Geert Lovink might call a ‘Post Snowden world,’ and I conclude with a postcolonial analysis. I conclude that the Cuban government has shown an openness towards computer technology that has been complicated by US efforts to use telecommunications for regime change on the island. Throughout, I am also tracing a history of imperialism as it has been exercised and resisted and how technology has mediated that tension. For this reason, I use postcolonial analysis to point to the future and propose that the hopes of the Internet generation could be rebuilt from more grounded, inclusive material.
Keywords: US-Cuban Relations, Cuban Internet, Control Society, Cybernetics, Digital Divide ______________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Introduction………. 6
• Topic……….…………. 6
• Methodology……….………. 7
• Overview……….……….…... 10
Chapter I: History of US-Cuban relations……… 13
• Part I- Pre 1959……….. 13
• Part II- Post 1959……… 16
Chapter II: Early Internet Development……….. 25
• Part I- Theoretical Foundations…………. 25
• Part II- Practice……….. 29
Chapter III: Web Effects……….. 38
• Part I- Pre Web 2.0……… 38
• Part II- Post Web 2.0………. 43
Chapter IV: Cuba & the Internet……… 55
• Part I- Pre First Connection………..
55
• Part II- Post First Connection……… 58
Chapter V: Postcolonial & Onward……… 67
Conclusion………... 78
Notes……… 80
Bibliography……… 81
Introduction Topic
In 2013, I traveled to Havana, Cuba for the first time. Upon sharing the news of my journey with friends and family in the United States, the responses were varied though none unexpected. I was told to have fun and bring toilet paper, in reference to the difficulty of obtaining basic necessities. I was told that the poverty in Cuba could be difficult for someone with United States sensibilities and that I was brave to schedule my first trip for six weeks. Mainly, my community was
concerned about how I would survive six weeks without reliable Internet. It is not just that the connection is bad, they told me; it is almost non-existent. My computer (by which I mean the Internet) and I can be inseparable. Anyone who knew me was worried about how I would survive without Wi-Fi. They wondered if I would be able to make the transition back to the slowest of connections, dial-up, at prices that were still soaring. The faulty Internet did not discourage me.
My friends and family were correct; Cuba is not the place to go for a strong Internet connection. It has one of the lowest Internet penetration rates in the Western hemisphere, with only 26% of its population touching the Internet in 2012 according to the International
Telecommunication Union’s most recent statistics on global Internet usage. Much contact with the Internet is restricted to work or school access, thus it is not the casual surfing of the World Wide Web to which many in the United States and Europe are accustomed. On the other hand, I noticed many people gaining access to movies, television shows, and other digital content via USB drives. If you knew the right person, you could make a call to the United States through an illicit Internet connection. Like much in Cuba, the Internet is not easy to get to, but people find ways around restrictions. The result is an Internet culture that relies on personal networks, gets around the rules, and, at times, blends older media forms (letter writing) with new ones (transcribed into emails for a small fee).
After Cuba, I flew to Amsterdam to begin my graduate studies in the New Media & Digital Cultures program at the University of Amsterdam. My time in Cuba was transformative, and I arrived eager to combine all that I had learned during my time in Havana with the knowledge I was to acquire in my graduate studies. I was disappointed that the only time Cuba came up as a viable option for Internet study within the curriculum of the program was when we were discussing Internet censorship. The response I received from peers upon sharing my research interests was, ‘Do they even have Internet?’ Cuba’s lack of Internet is often attributed to the authoritarian nature of the current government. Only in 2008 did former president, Fidel Castro, turn over leadership to his younger brother Raul Castro with no electoral process after
almost 50 years of rule over the island nation. Fidel Castro openly admits to there being
limitations on freedom of speech. After a couple of visits there, the hesitation with which Cubans speak about sensitive topics is apparent.
I began to wonder, however, how much was missing in stories about Cuban Internet. Certainly, there was much I had witnessed that was deserving of more research. I became curious about the state of the Internet in Cuba. I wanted to know if there was more to the story than what I heard in responses from friends and family. Often neglected is the antagonistic relationship that the United States has had with Cuba for several decades, how telecommunications have featured in that conflict, the military origins of the Internet, the plethora of ways in which Cubans are making contact with the Internet, new initiatives by the government to increase connectivity, and the resources required (resources Cuba struggles to obtain) for Internet proliferation to name a few; all of these are deserving of further research. In my thesis, I seek to address some these factors, though my focus is answering my research question.
Through a theoretical analysis and thorough engagement with a wide variety of literature, this paper answers the following research question: how is Cuba’s antagonistic relationship with the United States articulated through infrastructural politics pertaining to telecommunication networks, and what are the implications of this politics for Cuba’s Internet implementation?
Methodology
I start by describing my research questions and the answer I found it required. My research question is broad. It does not point to any specific phenomena. I did not have an original hypothesis, which would have enabled me to look for my answer through empirical research (Booth et al 68). Additionally, I wanted to give a descriptive answer that approached the questions from multiple angles. Thus, I used a blend of methods that enabled me to provide a descriptive answer. I acknowledge that there are multiple approaches to answering this research question. In this section, I explain how I went about finding and constructing an answer and how I made my choices. I describe the main theories that guide my research below. I also mention other theories that appear throughout my analysis. After, I describe the methods that I used to come to my answer and the reasons I chose those methods. I explain my choice of sources and the parameters I set in answering (and constructing) my research questions.
There are two main theories that guide my thinking throughout. Broadly, my research fits into what Christian Fuchs describes as Critical Internet Theory. Christian Fuchs places Critical Internet Theory in a Marxian tradition of critique. Christian Fuchs contributes this theory in
order to provide a framework for critique of the political economy of the Internet. Fuchs identifies three central aspects of Marxian critique: ontology, epistemology, and axiology. My ontological approach is inspired by Fuchs’ extension of Marxian ontology. To answer my research question, the Internet ‘needs to be embedded into the broader social context’ (Fuchs 73). In this broader social context one confronts US-Cuban relations. Thus, I take that social context as my starting point and question where Internet sits in a tense geopolitical conflict.
For an analysis of this social context, I use critical historical analysis as a method. I employ a strong conception of historical analysis, holding that making sense of the past is crucial to answering my research question and understanding contemporary phenomena. In The SAGE
Dictionary of Social Research Methods, it states that ‘a stronger conception of historical analysis sees it
as […] necessary technique in its own right, without which no account of phenomena in the present may be properly understood.’ I use several primary sources for my historical analysis, such as the Cuban constitution, the text of foreign policy documents, and doctrines. My temporal delineation is established in my research question and sets the parameters of my historical analysis. I see my analysis as a triangle (US-Cuba-Internet) moving chronologically through time, beginning in the 19th century and ending in 2014. The 19th century marks the early years of the
United States as an independent nation. From this point, I follow the development of the three nodes in the US-Cuba-Internet triangle up until 2014. I have selected historical events that are of significance for either node. At times, I focus on one node, at others I focus on the edges that connect two.
The epistemology Fuchs describes requires examining contradictory tendencies. As ‘[c]ritical theory rejects linear models,’ it accepts that all phenomena carry negative and positive possibility (Fuchs 70). Throughout my analysis, I highlight contradictions that I see in, for example, the distributed nature of the Internet and its centralized control. I challenge linear models as they present themselves in technology design and in notions of progress. To challenge linear models in technology design, I utilize Bijker and Pinch’s conception of the social
construction of technology, or the SCOT method. I describe this theory in detail in chapter II, when I discuss early networking options. Bijker and Pinch assert that technology design is multi-directional. That means that in the design process there are many options available. Problems and solutions are being identified according to social context. In this way, the SCOT method also fits my ontological approach. Their theory holds that technology is socially constructed, not just through usage and interpretation, but also in the design process. I find their concepts useful in thinking through how the social manifests in technology. I found this method useful in answering my research question, because I wanted to understand, not just how the conflict plays out on
blogs or through content, but how the antagonism gets into our devices. I wanted to examine how the conflict materialized. Here, I use many other new media theorists, such as Wendy Chun, Alexander Galloway, and John Cheney-Lippold to talk about the politics of Internet architecture. I also extend the SCOT method so that it might help disturb the consensus that forms around the tools we use. I end my thesis by looking towards the future.
The axiology of Fuchs’ Critical Internet Theory is to negate the negative. It holds that ‘structures of exploitation and oppression need to be questioned, criticized, and sublated’ (Fuchs 75). Towards the end of my thesis, I begin to theorize about the future of the Internet. At this juncture, I increasingly employ autoethnography as a method and apply postcolonial analysis to the US-Cuba-Internet triangle, as I have described it. To identify and criticize structures of exploitation and oppression I find it imperative to interrogate the role of imperialism. Imperialism, which I define as the practice of one group gaining power through control of another, operates at multiple levels. I theorize about that power exercised through technology design, foreign policy, Internet architecture, Intern governance, and ideology. In the last chapter, I critique linear models of progress and discuss how research can resist coloniality. I use authors such as Arturo Escobar, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Edward Said, and Y.Z. Ya’u. I go back to examine the history of modernity and the exploitation that constituted it in the 17th and 18th
century. Geert Lovink warned that the Edward Snowden leaks may mark the end of new media romanticism. I challenge that statement, by arguing that cyber utopia was only ever meant for a small fraction of the population. Still, if Western utopian dreams have been dashed, how might we replace them with ones that are more aware and more prepared to change the structures that continue to reproduce such exclusive utopias?
I find autoethnography a useful method for my purposes for multiple reasons.
Autoethnography is ‘an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal experience’ (Ellis et al). Given my experience on the island, I found it important to use elements of my own narrative to provide evidence, pose questions, and challenge.
Furthermore, autoethnography is a suitable method for a decolonial project. I have to distinguish here between postcolonial and decolonial. I use postcolonial analysis in that I use the thoughts of intellectuals theorizing after the end of most formal colonial relationships. My research is
decolonial as a project in accordance with the axiology of Critical Internet Theory, which calls for research whose goal is the sublation of exploitative, oppressive structures. Autoethnography is a way to ‘question canonical stories’ and ‘raise consciousness and promote cultural change’ (Ellis et al). Decolonial projects ‘[start] from the analytic assumption that […] hierarchies are constructed […] and specifically that they have been constructed in the very process of building the idea of
Western civilization and of modernity’ (Mignolo xv, xvi). Walter Mignolo asserts that decolonial epistemologies require a placement of the thinker. That is, ‘you constitute yourself (“I am”) in the place you think’ (Mignolo xvi). Autoethnography as a method serves a decolonial project. For example, ‘[b]y telling you I am a woman but also black, I am telling you that I am speaking as a black woman and, by so doing, breaking the Western code that has denied women and blacks both humanity and intelligence’ (Mignolo xvi).
Cuba was a natural object of study given my recent travels to the island. However, Cuba is a unique case that allowed me to explore new questions. The United States and Cuba are two countries that have been in conflict for at least the last half-century. Cuba is one of the most offline countries in the world. The Cuban government takes an explicit stance against
imperialism. The United States government has consistently made democratic transition in Cuba a national priority and placed telecommunications at the forefront of such efforts. That said, perhaps as with any research, I am left with ever more questions than answers. Above I have described my process, though I acknowledge this is one approach to a broad, multi-faceted set of questions. I do not analyze content in my work, though this is another approach. I was more interested in the political and ideological conflict as it takes place before someone is using a device. My limitation is that each angle I approach my research questions from requires
specializations I do not have. Thus, I would love to approach my theories with more knowledge of computer science, intellectual property, or the politics of Internet governance, for example. Still, I provide my research, analysis, and conclusions in this thesis and look forward to continuing or inspiring related projects.
Overview
I give a general outline of my thesis in methodology. In this section, I provide a clear map and explanation of how my argument proceeds. Every chapter but the last is divided into two parts. Each part has about two to three sections. Most of the thesis proceeds by moving the US-Cuba-Internet triangle chronologically through time. I found this the best way to organize my research.
The first chapter begins with the relationship between the United States and Cuba. I start in the 19th century. At this time, the United States was a young nation and Cuba was fighting
Spanish colonization. I use the historical work of authors like Jane Franklin in this chapter. This chapter continues up until roughly the 1960’s, discussing major relevant events such as the Monroe Doctrine, the Cuban Revolution, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I conclude with descriptions of two key policies in the US embargo against Cuba. I describe two policies enacted in the 1990’s. Though this is a jump in time, these two policies exemplify typical
embargo policy that has been in place since the 1960’s. They are also most relevant to my research question.
The second chapter begins with Internet development in the 1960’s. I return briefly in time to World War II to explain some of the theoretical foundations of the Internet. Most of the chapter proceeds from the late 1960’s and continues until the end of the millennium. I discuss major developments such us ARPANET, TCP/IP, the web, and the commercialization of the Internet. Much of that information I gathered from a brief history written by people considered to be Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf. I theorize about concepts as they enter the historical narrative. Thus, I bring in network and protocol theory in this chapter. To do so, I use new media theorists such as Alexander Galloway, Wendy Chun, and Eugene Thacker.
Chapter three traces the history from the early 2000’s and then places the Internet as we know it today in 2014. I discuss events such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the emergence of multinational Internet corporations. I use John Cheney-Lippold’s concept of cybernetic categorization to hypothesize about what is ‘new’ about new media and what impact that
might have on a country such as Cuba. I also engage with Michel Foucault’s concept of biopower and, together with Cheney-Lippold’s argument, theorize about how we might apply such ideas to geopolitical conflict between the US and Cuba.
Chapter four is focused on the development of the Internet in Cuba. Chapter three ends in the present, but chapter four will jump back to the 1960’s again, and provide extensive details about how the Cuban government has implemented the Internet given political, economic, and cultural developments in both countries. For example, the 1990’s was home to the equivalent of the Great Depression in Cuba. At the same time, Cuba confronted a series of strong embargo policies from the United States. This chapter focuses on Cuba’s side of the narrative, thus briefly bringing the triangle back in time and then ending again in the present. The work of Bert Hoffman, Cristina Venegas, and Nelson Valdés inform this chapter, all of whom are Cuban Internet specialists within academia.
Chapter five is full of theoretical suppositions about the future. Thus, this chapter does not follow a chronological structure. Geert Lovink claimed that perhaps the Edward Snowden leaks mark the end of an era. I take chapter five as a moment to examine what the Internet generation’s dreams were made of. I apply a postcolonial analysis, using authors such as Walter Mignolo, Linda Tuhiwai-Smith, and Ngugi wa Thiong’o, to theorize about how imperialism constituted modernity. I use authors such as Sandra Harding and Y.Z. Ya’u to discuss what that means for technology and ICT implementation in a country like Cuba. I think of it as looking back at the end of this era, and proposing ideas about directions we might look towards as we
begin to rebuild. What realities must this generation confront, so that we might build our dreams with more perspective? I end by questioning linear models in notions of progress and calling on future research on Cuban Internet to be more self-reflective.
Chapter I: History of US-Cuban relations
‘But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.” John Quincy Adams (6th president of the United States)
Part I- Pre-1959 History
The first step is to explain a tension that is manifested in the United States economic embargo against Cuba. As such, I begin with a brief history of the relationship between the two countries. The modern schism between the United States and Cuba can be traced back to the end of the 19th century. United States influence has had a permanent impact on Cuba that is apparent in
Cuba’s love of baseball and their well-known classic American cars. On the other hand, US influence led to violent dictatorships and severe inequality. The Cuban Revolution of 1959 cannot be understood apart from Cuba’s struggle for independence, first from Spain and then from the United States. A complete history must begin before the success of the Cuban revolution in 1959. I provide a thorough history in this chapter.
19th Century US- Cuban Relations
Cuba and the United States have a long history. As the epigraph that opens this section illustrates, the two have been geographically and politically tied since the United States’ early years as a nation. Cuba is mere kilometers south of the coast of Florida. I have been told that on a good day one can see Key West from Havana shores. Politically, the 19th century gave rise to ideas such as
the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, issued in 1823 asserted the United States’ right to control the Western hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine was an agreement to stay out of
European affairs, and a warning to Europe to do the same. The Doctrine stated that ‘[The United States] should consider any attempt on [Europe’s] part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to [the United States’] peace and safety’ (Monroe). At the heart of this historical moment, however, was a genuine belief that neighboring territories were destined to fall into US hands. The first leaders of the newly formed United States considered Cuba to be an inevitable addition to the country.
John Quincy Adams’ grandson, Henry Adams, put it succinctly when he said in 1869 that ‘the whole continent of North America and all its adjacent islands must at last fall under the control of the United States’ (Schlesinger 44). Of course, at that time, Cuba was still a colony of
Spain. The United States sought ways around that. Towards the end of his presidency in 1808, Thomas Jefferson sent General James Wilkinson to Cuba to inquire about Spain’s willingness to give the territory to the United States. In 1854, with what was called the Ostend Manifesto, United States diplomats working in Europe attempted to convince Spain to cede control. Though efforts remained unsuccessful, they were by all means consistent. Cuba was a part of a historical moment in which the United States was asserting its proclaimed rights over all surrounding territory; accordingly, Spain’s claim to Cuba was an obstacle. To put it succinctly, the two countries were bound in part by US imperialistic intentions in the 19th century.
Cuba’s War of Independence from Spain
Cuba gained independence from Spain before the close of the 19th century, after several years of
armed rebellion. From 1868 to 1878, large bands of rebels fought against the Spanish army in what is called the ‘Ten Year’s War.’ Cuba did not gain complete independence after the Ten Year’s War. In 1895, the Second War for Cuban Independence began at the behest of Jose Martí’s Cuban Revolutionary Army. Jose Martí is a Cuban national hero, known for his writing and his role in Cuba’s struggle for independence from Spain. In January 1898, the United States ‘[used] rumors of danger to US citizens in Cuba as reason for dispatching the USS Maine to Havana’ (Franklin 8). When the USS Maine blew up in Havana’s harbor, the United States blamed Spain and used the event as justification to declare war against them. By December of 1898, Spain signed the Treaty of Paris, giving the US control over Cuba.
The United States calls the war that led to Spanish relinquishment of Cuba the ‘Spanish-American War.’ In Cuba, the same war is known as ‘the US intervention in Cuba’s War of Independence’ (Franklin 9), two names that foretell what would unfold in the first half of the 20th
century. That is to say, the US arose from their conflict with Spain with possession of Cuba. Cuba, on the other hand, did not gain the full independence for which they had long been fighting. When Spain and the United States began official meetings to resolve their war, Cuba was not in attendance. What followed was immense control over Cuban markets, US military occupations of the island, supervised elections, and US owned real estate companies selling Cuban land to US citizens. Cuba achieved independence from Spain only to enter into a neo colonial relationship with its ‘native tree’ to the North.
US Neo Colonialism
Crucial to the understanding of democracy in Cuba is knowing the extent to which the United States was able to exert power over the island through electoral processes. The United States
openly endorsed General Gerarado Machado Morales who was initially elected and later became a notorious dictator. Machado was ‘known to the US business community as a friend,’ became president in May 1925, ‘[got] himself reelected, and [declared] that this [would] be a six-year presidential term’ (Franklin 12). ‘Machado’s police [became] notorious for torture and killing’ (Franklin 12). After facing extreme internal opposition, Machado resigned. Thereafter, Cuba witnessed a series of regime changes. The United States made consistent attempts to install a leadership friendly to their interests. The second dictator was General Batista, who in March 1952, ‘[staged] a coup, [suspended] the constitution, [canceled] the elections and [became] dictator,’ which ‘the Truman administration quickly [recognized]’ (Franklin 15). Thus, definitions of democracy in Cuba diverged in that electoral processes were considered tools that served an elite class. The revolutionary leaders defended their form of democracy by claiming to directly fulfill the will of the people.
One result of US influence in Cuba was an advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Before the revolution, the Island followed a capitalist model, though one heavily dependent upon the United States. This model resulted in a relative level of economic wealth in comparison to other Latin American countries. Severe inequality was also a feature of US influence. These facts can be seen in Cuba’s telecommunications infrastructure, which was the most advanced before the revolution in 1959, but unequally distributed. Professor Bert Hoffman, director of the Institute for Latin American studies in Hamburg, Germany, notes that ‘before 1959 […] Cuba ranked first among all Latin American countries in the diffusion of mass media’ (Hoffman 150). Before the revolution, United States companies such as the United Fruit Company and International
Telephone and Telegraph largely controlled the Cuban economy. The result is that ‘Cuba was an early leader in Latin American telecommunications,’ as ‘US investment […] ensured a modern system through the time of the 1959 revolution’ (Boas & Kalathil 50). On the other hand, access to such a modern system was not shared. Access to television and the telephone was dependent upon where you lived. Most luxuries were concentrated in Havana. Havana at the time contained 20% of the country’s population, but ‘73 percent of telephones’ (Hoffman 135). Within Havana, there was a large gap between the rich and the poor, worsened by racial discrimination that had deepened during US neo colonialism.1
The media before the revolution in 1959 represents the condition that Cuba was in under US control. US corporations invested in the Cuban economy, thus there was relative wealth. That wealth, however, was concentrated in the hands of a few, primarily located in Havana. In the rural areas of the country, the literacy rate was only slightly over 50%. Medical facilities were scarce and ‘living conditions were miserable’ (Hoffman 135). Thus, while Cuba had an advanced
telecommunications infrastructure, much of the population had no access to basic resources. Cuba’s economy was characterized by wealth and extreme disparity. After Batista’s rise to power, Fidel Castro and other revolutionaries began a campaign to overthrow Batista that culminated successfully in 1959. The Cuban revolution can be credited with alleviating some of this disparity and improving the standard of living, particularly in the rural parts of the country. Along with those successes also came severe sacrifices and failures. I now turn to look at Cuba during the revolution and after.
Part II- Post 1959 History
In this section, I continue providing historical context. The part that precedes provides
background for a pivotal moment in history to which I now turn. The Cuban Revolution of 1959 marked a drastic shift in the relationship between the countries. The Cuban Revolution was the first to take place in a neo colony and its revolution cannot be understood apart from US influence exerted in the first half of the 20th century. Sovereignty and freedom from foreign
influence are themes in Cuban foreign policy. These themes are not unique to Cuba, as every country asserts its right to self-govern. In Cuba, however, their particular history with foreign influence means the themes are pronounced. Freedom from imperialism is a major source of legitimacy for the Cuban regime. At times, these themes serve as justification for severe internal repression on the part of the Cuban government. Such repression is often justified on the grounds that it threatens Cuba’s sovereignty and feeds the ‘enemy.’ The current antagonism is a
consequence of the revolution’s explicit break from US economic and political interests. The alignment of the Cuban Revolution with the Soviet Union threw Cuba into a Cold War rivalry that was reaching disaster by the 1960’s.
Though now we use the Internet to communicate with friends and post pictures on Instagram, originally the importance of a global network was a matter of national security. From the soil of the Cold War rivalry that Cuba became a key part of, the Internet finds its roots. I have given a historical context for the relationship between the United States and Cuba. Next, I begin addressing another component of my research question, which is how that antagonism manifests through the Internet. I combine an overview of the relationship beginning in the 1960’s with the origin story of the Internet in the United States. At that time, the conflict between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Cuba had led to a very real threat of nuclear war. I turn back in time slightly to give details about the Cuban Revolution and lead into the 1960’s.
1959 Cuban Revolution
Fulgencio Batista held power in 1953 when Fidel Castro, along with a group of 160 rebels, attacked the Moncada military barracks in Santiago de Cuba. The attack on the Moncada barracks was unsuccessful. Fidel Castro and others were captured and imprisoned for their participation. Upon release, they traveled to Mexico, where they met up with Ernesto Che Guevara and other revolution-minded activists. In 1956, a group of about 70 revolutionaries sailed back to the East of Cuba on a boat called the Granma to begin a guerilla insurgency in the Sierra Maestra Mountains. The Moncada attack, which took place on July 26th, 1953, marks the
beginning of the Cuban revolution in the public imagination. It is the source of the name of the revolutionary movement that ultimately overthrew Batista on January 1st, 1959. Initially, the
United States government recognized the government of Fidel Castro. The new government immediately began implementing a series of sweeping changes that fundamentally transformed the island, global politics, and its relationship with the United States.
Many measures were implemented that would lead to the longest lasting single foreign policy measure in US history, the United States embargo against Cuba. When the Cuban government began seizing assets under the Agrarian Reform Law issued in 1959, all private property was expropriated, including that of wealthy Cubans and foreign individuals who owned most of Cuba’s best land. United States business owners who had a stake on the island lost their assets during this process. Thousands of mostly wealthy or middle class Cubans fled the island within the first few years of the new government. The majority of those who left traveled to the southern part of Florida where the largest population of Cubans outside of Cuba live today. This group of emigrants would come to form a politically and economically strong exile community. Many of those who left lost possessions in the immediate expropriations that began in the early 60’s. Others were opposed to the changes that were taking place. This formed the basis of the notoriously active Cuban exile community, which is important for two reasons. The first is that upon resettling in the United States, the Cuban exile community began concerted efforts to force regime change in Cuba. The second is that the first mass exodus separated many families. The need for communication in Cuba is also unique in this sense, as many Cubans have close family abroad.
The 1960’s was also home to what Che Guevara termed ‘Cuban Internationalism,’ which was the idea that Cuba should align itself with revolutionary forces across the globe in order to divide and weaken imperial efforts. The land reforms combined with policies aimed at exporting the Cuban revolution were seen as a direct threat by the United States. Thus, not only was the
threat now in their backyard, but it was determined to spread itself throughout a hemisphere to which the United States had deemed itself rightfully in charge. The Cuban Revolution was a ‘violation of its long-standing political and economic interests’ and an ‘intolerable breach of the Monroe doctrine’ (Hoffman 134). The United States began efforts to overthrow Fidel Castro.
The Radio and The Bay of Pigs Invasion
In one of his lectures in Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, Michel Foucault explained the relationship between discourses of power and truth. Foucault asserts that power requires discourses of truth and is simultaneously dependent upon power for its production. ‘Power cannot be exercised unless a certain economy of discourses of truth functions in, on the basis of, and thanks to, that power’ (Foucault 24). Che Guevara, who used the radio in guerilla warfare, echoed a similar point in his discussion of the role of radio in strengthening a guerilla movement. Guevara wrote that ‘the radio should be ruled by the fundamental principle popular propaganda, which is the truth’ (Guevara Loc 1765). The July 26th resistance movement
established a secret radio station, Radio Rebelde, in the mountains on the Eastern part of the island to inform and organize supporters. Che Guevara’s participation in the Cuban Revolution took place more than a decade before Foucault’s lecture, but his actions indicate an
understanding of the role of discourses of truth in the exercise of power.
Thus, leaders of the Cuban Revolution knew that media could be used to challenge existing power structures. Fidel Castro was well aware of the power of telecommunications. He used radio as part of the July 26th resistance movement against Fulgencio Batista. In fact, ‘the
radio […] played a key role in political organizing against Batista’ (Venegas Loc 1116). That explains one of the first actions taken by the leadership after January 1st, 1959. Following the
success of the revolution, one of the leadership’s first acts was to ‘[establish] control of the mass media and telecommunications through expropriation, intimidation, and economic sanctions’ (Boas & Kalathil 48). The media was used as a tool to strengthen post revolutionary culture and contend with foreign cultural values. Within a few years of 1959, the United States began attempts to undermine the regime using the radio.
A couple of years following the Cuban Revolution, ‘Fidel Castro became increasingly concerned about […] foreign radio broadcasts’ (Frederick 5). The station that led to Castro’s concerns was called Radio Swan. There was substantial reason to question the ownership and purpose of Radio Swan, as Castro did. For example, the radio station was owned by the Gibraltar Steamship Company. The president of the company was Thomas Dudley Cabot. Cabot was ‘former President of United Fruit, and, in 1951, director of the State Department’s Office of
International Security Affairs’ (Frederick 6). The company had not owned a steamship in more than a decade. In typical United States fashion, the government used a private company to proceed with covert operations. In 1960, Gibraltar Steamship Company began operating a radio station run by Cuban exiles directed at the Caribbean. The programming for the station was overtly anti-Castro. The following year, Radio Swan was used in the first invasion attempt on behalf of the United States.
The United States invasion of Cuba in 1961, known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the United States, is a pointed historical example where the antagonism came to a peak and telecommunications was used in a concerted effort to oust the Cuban government. The Central Intelligence Agency financed and trained Brigade 2506, a group of Cuban exiles. Brigade 2506 consisted of about 1,500 troops, trained in Mexico. Their invasion was launched from Guatemala on April 16th. On the day of the invasion, Radio Swan broadcast messages to the island 24 hours
a day. The messages were meant to let counter-revolutionaries in Cuba know when the invasion would begin. They made statements including: ‘an army of liberation is in the island of Cuba to fight with you against the Communist tyranny’ (Frederick 6). The radio was used to send instructions to members of Brigade 2506 and to encourage Cubans living on the island to rebel, because military assistance was on the way.
The Cuban army defeated the Bay of Pigs Invasion within days, but its impact was permanent. The triumph of the Cuban military over the United States sponsored and trained invaders solidified the Cuban government’s legitimacy. The radio was a component of the Bay of Pigs invasion, a concrete example of telecommunications used in battle. I want to highlight this point in preparation for further conversation about the Internet. The use of Radio Swan during the Bay of Pigs invasion exemplifies the use of communications mediums in combat. It is also an example of the overt use of force with the radio serving as a military tool during the attack. Though this attack was blatant and short-lived, the radio continued to feature widely in the conflict between the United States and Cuba. The United States was not the only perpetrator.
Before the invasion, Fidel Castro alerted the United Nations that the United States was planning to use Radio Swan in an attack. In response, Fidel Castro began efforts to start Radio Havana Cuba. ‘Radio Havana Cuba had begun experimental broadcasts in February 1961 and was identified on the air at that time’ (Frederick 8). Immediately, the radio began condemning the planned attack on Cuba’s territory. After the attack, Cuba allowed United States dissidents to use Radio Havana Cuba for their own programming. Later in the 1960’s, anti-war activists were allowed to use the station to condemn the United States’ entrance into the Vietnam War. Black American leader Robert Williams worked with Fidel Castro to establish Radio Free Dixie, which
was used to ‘exhort revolution among American Blacks’ (Frederick 31). US Radio Martí, established in 1985, still ‘[beams] anti-Castro programming at the island’ with ‘TV Martí […] added to the mix in 1990’ (Boas & Kalathil 48). Both Cuba and the United States have used various forms of media to exert power over their opponent’s population. Later, Cuba’s concerns for future invasions led to the decision to accept weapons from Russia. That decision would culminate in a missile crisis.
Cuban Missile Crisis
The Cuban Missile Crisis is the closest the world has ever been to a nuclear war. After the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban government was concerned that there would be another invasion attempt. Consequently, they were in search of a solution that would help them defend themselves in case of future attacks. At the same time, the United States had placed nuclear weapons in Turkey, aimed at Moscow. In 1962, Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev, then leader of the Soviet Union, decided that if the Soviet Union placed weapons in Cuba, it would deter a US strike on either part of the world. Soviet Union ‘arms and men [began] arriving in Cuba’ (Frederick 17). The arms included ‘medium- and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles’ (Frederick 17). The decision was also an attempt to balance power between the Soviet Union and the United States, as there were already weapons placed near the Soviet Union. For thirteen days in 1962, the world waited for potential devastation. Then US president John F. Kennedy
quarantined Cuba and demanded that any ships headed towards Cuba be turned around immediately. Kennedy announced that any missile launched from Cuba would be considered a first nuclear strike on the part of the Soviet Union.
The crisis was resolved on October 28th, 1962 when Nikita Khrushchev agreed to
dismantle the weapons in Cuba. In exchange, the United States publicly agreed that they would never invade Cuba again. In private, however, the United States also agreed to dismantle the weapons they had placed in Turkey and Italy. This event is significant to my research question for two reasons. One reason is that the theoretical foundations of the Internet were in part a result of a military priority to prepare for the aftermath of a nuclear war. The second reason brings us back to Foucault, who proposed in the same lecture series that politics could be seen as an
extension of warfare. ‘Politics is the continuation of war by other means’ (Foucault 15). Foucault’s statement is an inversion of a famous quote by German political scientist Carl von Clausewitz: ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means.’ Political power is about waging a war through what Foucault calls ‘civil peace.’ The point of political power is to ‘reinscribe that relationship of force […] in institutions, economic inequalities, language, and even the bodies of individuals’
(Foucault 16). Using Foucault’s proposition, I argue that when United States policy toward Cuba Cuba shifted to economic pressure through an embargo, it signaled a conspicuous transition to another form of warfare.
Before I turn to the development of the Internet, I take time to elaborate on the United States Embargo against Cuba. The embargo is best described as a series of policies that constitute a full economic blockade of the island. Thus far, my historical account has remained mainly chronological. Some of the policies I mention in the next section were implemented in the 1990’s, but they are all part of the embargo. I explain these two policies because they are representative of embargo policy in general and most relevant to my research. Each one bears upon Internet adoption in Cuba in various ways and feature again in chapter four of my thesis. In the proceeding section, I focus on components of the embargo that weigh specifically on Cuba’s telecommunications infrastructure.
The United States Embargo Against Cuba
The embargo is an economic war meant to topple the Cuban government by isolating them from the world market. I think of it as a ‘drying out’ strategy. There is no easy way to summarize the nature of the United States embargo against Cuba. Since the 1960’s a series of foreign policies have culminated in an economic, commercial, and financial blockade of the island. The policies range from severe restrictions to importation and exportation to travel and remittance
restrictions. Each United States president since Dwight Eisenhower has changed the policies slightly, but none have radically changed the nature of foreign policy towards Cuba since the 1960’s. On October 19th, 1960 the United States placed on embargo on virtually all exports to
Cuba. The embargo has had huge ramifications for the economic system in Cuba, as is the goal. Of course, the Cuban people suffer the consequences of this isolation most. The jokes about toilet paper and scarce resources that my family warned me about can be partly attributed to the harsh sanctions that the United States imposes on US companies, subsidiaries, and even foreign
businesses.
The second time I traveled to Cuba in December 2013, I made the grave mistake of forgetting my toothbrush. I searched for days at various stores with no success. This simple story illustrates the basic items that can be difficult to acquire. The scarcity in Cuba is complex, but undoubtedly connected to the embargo. The embargo is also an obstacle the Cuban government confronts when updating and adopting tools such as the Internet. Simply put, there is not enough (of much of anything) to go around. Later, I will illustrate how that impacts the Cuban
embargo policies have served as windows of opportunities as well. The problem is that, for better or worse, the policies are attached to strict US demands. In response to these demands, the Cuban government tends to adopt a defensive position. As I have shown, the ‘Revolution in Cuba was so deeply anchored in the historic struggle for national independence that nationalism has always been a trump card for the socialist government’ (Hoffman 133). In other words, the US government punishes and makes relief from that punishment conditional on Cuba’s compliance. Cuba sees conditions as an infringement to its national sovereignty. All the while, Cubans struggle to acquire basic necessities for survival.
Below I outline two pertinent examples of the embargo policy in which the above pattern is visible. I have chosen the following policies mainly for three reasons. One is that they exemplify the nature of embargo policies more broadly. Second, they are often invoked to justify restrictions placed on Cuba. Lastly, I find they have the most significant impact on telecommunications development on the island.
1. Cuban Democracy Act of 1992: The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is often referred to as the ‘Torricelli Act,’ in reference to the US congressman who sponsored the bill, Robert Torricelli. The purpose of the Cuban Democracy Act is to apply sanctions that promote a democratic transition in Cuba. Based on the general finding that ‘there is no sign that the Castro Regime is prepared […] to undertake any form of democratic opening’ (Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, Title XVII, Sec. 1702, 4) the act states that United States policy should ‘seek peaceful transition to democracy […] through the careful application of sanctions’ (ibid. Sec. 1703, 1). To this end, the act states that the United States will encourage other countries to abide by the same policy and can apply sanctions to any country that chooses to assist Cuba. In section 1705 of the Cuban Democracy Act, telecommunications is explicitly exempted from any sanctions. The act states that ‘telecommunications facilities are authorized […] to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba’ (Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, Title XVII, Sec. 1705, 2).
2. Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996: This act gets its more common name, Helms-Burton Act of 1996, from its two sponsors, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Representative Dan Burton of Indiana. I think of this act as a hammer hitting a nail for the final time. Primarily, the Helms-Burton Act brings all of the sanctions and embargo policies to bear again. Amongst the act’s findings is that ‘the Cuban
Government […] continues to pose a national security threat to the United States’ and that failing to assist the Cuban people to end ‘the tyranny that has oppressed them for 36 years […] constitutes ethically improper conduct by the international community’ (Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, Title IV, Sec. 2, 27-28). The act also reiterates that ‘Radio Martí and Television Martí have both been effective vehicles for providing the people of Cuba with news and information’ (ibid. Sec. 2, 7). Thus, the Helms-Burton act brings all of the tension between the two countries squarely into the modern era.
These two policies are a drop in the embargo bucket so to speak. That is to say, they are part of a much larger repertoire of policies that condemn the Cuban government, impose sanctions, pressure compliance from the international community, and position telecommunications as a strategy for bringing about desired changes in Cuba.
Conclusion
In this chapter I explain the history of the relationship between the United States and Cuba. I begin in the 19th century. The 19th century is the beginning of the United States as a modern
nation. For most of the 19th century, Cuba is a Spanish colony. This time period was also home to
US imperialistic ideas such as the Monroe Doctrine, that asserted the right of the US to control of the Western hemisphere. Thus, from the 19th century, the United States has sought ways to
control Cuba. After gaining independence from Spain, Cuba became a neo colony of the United States. US citizens controlled Cuban resources and politics until the Cuban Revolution of 1959. The revolutionary government that took power in 1959 began a series of reforms that ultimately put the new government at odds with US interests. The United States began efforts to overthrow the Cuban government in the early 1960’s. The US embargo against Cuba is an example of one of many efforts to undermine the current Cuban government. I think of the embargo as attempt to ring Cuba dry, so to speak. That is, to create such dire economic circumstances that the government in place cannot function. Other efforts of the 1960’s included a direct invasion called the Bay of Pigs Invasion. In 1962, the tension between the two nations reached a climax with the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union placed missiles directed at the United States in Cuba. Cuba accepted out of a desire to protect against future invasions. The Soviet Union found this idea appealing given that the US had placed weapons in both Turkey and Italy. To end the conflict, the US agreed not to invade Cuba (though attempts to oust the government continue) and the Soviet Union and the US agreed to dismantle their weapons.
The legacy of their tension continues. The Internet is a part of that legacy as well. After World War II, the United States entered into the Cold War with the Soviet Union. During this time, military ties to academia increased in multiple ways. For one, many academic institutions were already involved in World War II military efforts. Additionally, the US, in Cold War competition, continued to invest heavily in research they deemed crucial to national security at the time. Funds were poured into computer technology research that was crucial to the
development of the Internet. In the next chapter, I move to early development of the Internet in the US in the 1960’s. I continue tracing the US-Cuba-Internet triangle from the 1960’s to up until the beginning of the 21st century. In chapter two, however, I focus mainly on the edge connecting
Chapter II: Early Internet Development
Part I- Theoretical Foundations
The Cuban Missile Crisis illustrates the danger that the world was in as a direct result of the conflict between Cuba, the United States, and the Soviet Union. Within the context of international tension, the Internet began to form under the supervision of the United States military in the 1960’s. Such a history has particular implications for Cuba, which has had hostile relations with the United States since before the birth of the Internet. This is relevant to my research question because it explains the political climate in which the Internet was designed. In this chapter, I discuss the beginnings of the Internet in the climate of the Cold War.
First, I go back in time to slightly before World War II. During this time, the US academy and military collaborated on research to give the United States and Allied Forces a strategic advantage. After the war, this relationship between the academy and the military continued to grow, but the enemy changed. The threat changed from Nazi Germany and the Japanese to the Soviet Union and communism.
World War II and Cybernetics
The Internet does not have such a clear-cut beginning. Like all inventions, the Internet was made possible through the work of many, building upon already existing knowledge and architecture. The historical account that I provide highlights moments crucial to the development of the Internet and my research question. For example, many theories that contributed to the formation of the early Internet were derived from a science called cybernetics. Cybernetics is a science that evolved after World War II. There is no easy way to define cybernetics, perhaps precisely because it ‘became the public philosophy of a whole set of scientific practices growing out of the wartime mobilization of research’ (Mirowski 54). Cybernetics aimed to make predictions about an ‘enemy other’ by combining expertise from multiple fields.
Norbert Wiener is known today as ‘the spokesman and advocate of cybernetics’ (Galison 231). Wiener coined the term in the 1940’s after his work at MIT during World War II. In response to Nazi bombing, Wiener wanted to contribute to the war effort with his research. He began to investigate how to improve antiaircraft technology. Wiener wanted to predict where an enemy aircraft would be in advance so that antiaircraft artillery could be used more effectively in combat. The task was dependent upon the convergence of multiple fields of study. Thus, ‘faced with the problem of hitting fast maneuverable bombers with ground-based artillery, Wiener
brought to bear his own established interest in feedback mechanisms’ and ‘communication technology’ (Galison 232). Cybernetics pertains to the Internet in several ways.
Cybernetics posits a system that is constantly in flux due to this input of new information and consequently changing output. Thus, as Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker assert in ‘Protocol, Control, and Networks,’ computer protocols regulate flows of information, which can be attributed to their origins in World War II research such as cybernetics. Cybernetics
contributed to the theoretical foundations of computer and biological science. It concerns itself with information feedback loops. The system makes predictions about future action based on information about past action. Additionally, the conflation between man and machine lent itself to the development of the digital computer, while at the same time, became the source of Wiener’s concerns about the direction of wartime research.
Attempts to predict the actions of a human pilot made the distinction between man and machine less clear. ‘Wiener came to […] a new understanding of the human-machine
relationship’ and began to see them more as ‘a single integrated system’ (Galison 235). When the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, however, Wiener confronted serious guilt about his participation in wartime research. Afterwards, he turned away from military research. Nevertheless, after World War II, military funding of science and technology research remained strong. The enemy shifted to communism, but the strategic importance of technological
advancement remained important in the proceeding Cold War research efforts. Even from its theoretical foundations then, we see that the development of the Internet has deep military origins. ‘Can the cybernetic vision be so easily detached from its military historical origins?’ (Galison 260).
Cold War Competition
When World War II ended, the common goal of defeating the Nazis dissolved, and left in its place a competition between totalitarian communism and capitalist democracy. The Soviet Union and the United States entered into a war that was waged primarily through technological competition. At the close of World War II, the investment in scientific and technological innovation continued to grow as part of the Cold War. It is called the Cold War precisely because it was less a physical altercation and more of a battle of military potential. As we have seen in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, however, this confrontation had very real implications. It is from this period that the term ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ (M.A.D.) was coined, to describe the impact of a war between these two competing superpowers. The competition between the US and the Soviet Union led to substantial (quick) advancement in both countries. The beginning of Internet development is most
often traced to this period. Quick development can be attributed to the Cold War competition and the looming threat of a nuclear war.
In October 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first satellite into space, called Sputnik. ‘The “Sputnik shock” prompted the US Department of Defense to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in the late 1950’s’ (Hoffman 14). The Sputnik shock changed
educational priorities in the US more broadly as well. The National Science Foundation gave money to improve math and science education in US schools.2 I provide this information because
it exemplifies how military concerns began to shape and collaborate with the US education system. ARPA was established as a direct response to the Soviet demonstration of technological sophistication. Initial research on ‘a decentralized communications system invulnerable to nuclear attack’ was commissioned by the United States Air Force as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis (Hoffman 14). The distributed nature of the Internet can be partly attributed to research commissioned to design a communications system that would survive if components of it were destroyed. The goal was thus to ensure that an independent set of users (or nodes) could connect directly without any main center of control. The necessity for such a system was urgent in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis. At this time, an attack was a real possibility, especially since Cuba had aligned itself with the Soviet Union and installed weapons that could reach the United States quickly. The research was completed by the US RAND Corporation. In 1962, ‘On Distributed Communications Networks’ by Paul Baran was published. Later, ARPA took this theoretical study and began putting it into practice. Before moving on to the result, I explain the significance of Paul Baran’s findings, which contributed to the theoretical foundations of the Internet.
Centralized, Decentralized, and Distributed Networks
Decentralization and user control were fundamental to the first conceptions of the Internet and those values present themselves in the Internet’s design. We often interact with it as if it were a natural fact, but the design of the Internet ‘reveals how the network was shaped by social considerations such as a preference for decentralized organization and a concern for military “survivability”’ (Abbate v). In preparation for an attack, there was a need for a communications system that did not rely too heavily on a central command to function. If that command were controlled, the system would be rendered obsolete. Thus, decentralized and distributed networks offered more strength in the face of a potential attack. In other words, they had more
survivability. In this section, I explain networks and the various forms they can take in relation to the goals of the 1960’s.
Put simply, a network is a connection between entities. The term is not exclusive to the world of computers. Humans form social networks through their circle of friends, their families, and co-workers. As the Internet demonstrates, however, networks do not have to be composed of human entities. ‘Networks can be composed of almost anything: computers (Internet), cars (highways), people (communities), […] and so on’ (Galloway & Thacker, Protocol 13). Graph theory presents a network as a series of nodes and edges. Take two networked computers as an example. Two nodes, or vertices, would represent the computers. A line, or edge, would represent their
connection. Networks can take three forms: centralized, decentralized, and distributed. Each form has a different set of consequences, with which Paul Baran was concerned in his paper for the RAND Corporation. I explain these forms in more detail below:
1. Centralized: Paul Baran called this network a ‘star.’ In a centralized network, there is a ‘primary node’ to which many edges are connected. The centralized network is weak because ‘destruction of the central node destroys intercommunication between the end stations’ (Baran 3). In other words, if the communications system is dependent upon a central command, it has a low level of survivability.
2. Decentralized: Decentralized networks are similar to centralized networks in that there are still a few nodes with many edges. One could think of it as a network in which there are multiple primary nodes, but ‘complete reliance upon a single point is not always required’ (Baran 3). Differently put, in a decentralized communications system, there may be more than one main command. This system still has a low level of survivability, however, because ‘destruction of a small number of nodes in a decentralized network can destroy communications’ (Baran 3).
3. Distributed: In a distributed communications system, each node has a similar amount of edges. Thus, the communications system could survive even if multiple nodes were attacked. Distributed networks have a high level of survivability.
Distributed networks are durable in that they are not dependent upon too many command centers. In addition, information in a distributed network can travel along a variety of paths to reach its destination. That means that if one path is inaccessible, the information will move down an alternate set of edges. Today, these attributes are still foundational to the Internet. I often take for granted the act of sending a PDF to a friend at my discretion, but such a task is made possible
through the Internet’s design. I can understand how the Internet came to be associated with ideas of liberation. The distributed network gives each node more agency in the communications system. Galloway and Thacker aptly note, however, that ‘it will not do simply to assign a political content to a network form’ (Galloway & Thacker, The Exploit 13).
Part II- Practice
ARPA (whose name would later be changed to Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA) became a major funder of computer science in the United States in the early 1960’s. J.C.R. Licklider of MIT became the head of the computer program at ARPA in 1962. Licklider shared his enthusiasm about the idea of networking with proceeding leaders of the program such as Lawrence G. Roberts. After MIT’s Leonard Kleinrock published a book about packet
switching theory in 1964, he worked with Roberts to replace circuits with packets. Packet switching offered a new way to package and transmit information over a network. It enabled the creation of a preliminary computer network. By the late 1960’s, ARPA had begun the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). ARPANET began on August 30th, 1969, when
the first ‘supercomputer’ was installed the University of California- Los Angeles. This made UCLA the first official ‘node’ on ARPA’s network. As more campuses joined, ARPANET grew as a network connecting super computers on college campuses across the United States. Many of those crucial to the development of the Internet in the United States, such as Vint Cerf, Bill Naylor, and Jon Postel, were involved in that initial installation at UCLA. From the beginning, ARPANET was a blend of the US military and the US academic community. Though, the same was true in the case of cybernetics, where the research of MIT students proved fundamental to wartime defense strategies. ARPANET was an experimental space in which researchers and technicians could test many concepts that would later lead to the creation of the Internet, such as packet switching and connecting differing computer systems. ARPANET researchers also began communicating with each other using electronic mail, or email, one of the first popular features of the Internet. Though the goals of ARPANET did not entirely overlap with those of Paul Baran with the RAND Corporation, much of Baran’s research was put into practice with ARPANET. There is controversy today over the history of the Internet, but certain things stand out to me as true in a variety of accounts:
1. Much of the research that ARPANET built upon had direct correlations to the goals of the military and national defense at the time
2. ARPANET provided a playground, so to speak, where different ideas could be put to the test
3. Though ARPANET was perhaps a crude original version of the Internet we know today, much of what is fundamental about the system can be traced back to ARPANET
ARPANET took the theoretical work of scientists and engineers such as Paul Baran and began putting them into practice. J.C.R. Licklider at MIT gave us the first description of the networks that were in development through Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Licklider ‘envisioned a globally interconnected set of computers through which everyone could quickly access data and programs from any site’ (Leiner et al 23). The technical choices were made in accordance with ARPA’s goals, thus it ‘incorporated military priorities into civilian technologies, and established norms for computer communications that favored independent, technically sophisticated computer owners and users’ (Abbate 6). The US Department of Defense funded and guided the research (both theoretical and practical) that led to the formation of the Internet. It must be remembered that there were ‘many networking techniques available’ and ‘networking did not have a single fixed meaning, technique, or purpose’ (Abbate 8,11). The distributed nature of the Internet as a communications network, for example, does not lend itself to centralized control. The Cuban Constitution, however, requires state control of the media. Furthermore, given the United States’ role in developing the Internet, they are in a better position to leverage it to their benefit. Cuba, on the other hand, is left to implement a technology whose construction they were not a part of.
The Internet in its original conception was a network that needed ‘no global control at the operations level’ and enabled users to send information ‘from source to destination at the
discretion of the participating hosts’ (Leiner et al 25). It was distributed by design. This brings me to the next major development: protocols. Network topology describes the possible relationships between nodes. Protocols enable communication between them. ‘In a technical sense, computer networks consist of nothing but schematic patterns describing various protocols and the
organizations of data that constitute those protocols’ (Galloway & Thacker, ‘Protocols, Control, and Networks’ 14). There are four layers that make up the Internet Suite of Protocols. The four layers are: application, transport, Internet, and link. In the following section I explain the two most important protocols that were created in the 1960’s. I also explain the layers of the Internet at which they function and the purpose of this layer. My goal is to focus on the details important to my research question and elaborate accordingly. In addition I explore how control is exercised through protocols. Protocols replace the need for a centralized communications system with a
