The Internet as a communication network

If we compare the evolutionary history of the communication networks discussed so far, an important difference is immediately visible: earlier networks were created specifically for communication purposes; however, the creation of computer networks was initiated in order to facilitate a secure and fast (military purpose) connection between computers. Electronic mail, rigs, chat channels, and especially websites which present the army in a negative light and the like were not included at all in the project founded by the United States Department of Defense at the be-ginning of the 1960s; what is more, not even the stirring perspective of cyber warfare – at least as far as we can know from studying the publicly accessible data of the secret military research programs (Zakon 2005; Hauben – Hauben 1997; Net-History; LivingInternet; Internet Society; Grier – Campbell 2000). The potentials of connecting computers to each other became clear only gradually. The decisive step was probably when (in 1982, more than fifteen years after the first attempts to connect computers to each other, after ten years of unregulated use) an agreement was reached about the “linguistic conditions” of communication through computers, and the standard

Communication in the late modern age

system of TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) was accepted, developed by Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn, through which secure data transmission became possible betweenvarious computer networks. As a consequence, computers immediately became communication media, and in this role they showed an astonishingly fast and varied development, as a consequence of which the Internet as we know it today was born.

From a technological point of view, the Internet is the interconnected network of computer networks (consisting of various elements with a different purpose, structure and function). The network has an “open architecture”, in other words, the structure of interconnectedness “has no center”, that is, it can practically be expanded as we please, and the data transmission between the units also does not need to be controlled centrally. This is achieved by the fact that individual deliveries (bigger ones are divided into several parts and the pieces are treated as independent packages) contain the address to be reached – largely as in the case of a traditional letter – and each computer that comes into contact with the delivery decides, on the basis of the encoded address, which direction to forward the package, and finally the receiving computer reassembles the message from the received packages.

From a communicative point of view, the Internet is the network of individual communication machines (program-mable digital computers) which have a situation creating power by themselves. The individual units of the network of the Internet areactiveparticipants of communication (computers make control over communication situations possible); it is notable that their activity manifests itself both on the level of communication between computers connected into the networks and on the (meta-communicative) level of the whole of the network. Practically, this means that we have to prepare our computer connected to the network for communication withother computers (by using hardware and software developed for this purpose), but at the same time we also have to make it able to represent the Internetfor us– which can be achieved by the parallel use of additional hardware and software. With the help of the control operated on both levels, we can determine when, how, and with which other computers we initiate or allow contact, what kind of communication channels we wish to make use of, whether we want to maintain a direct or an indirect, synchronous or asynchronous, one-way or interactive, permanent or temporary, stationary or mobile connection with our communication partner (or partners) and so on. The possibilities of the

“settings” of a communication situation are numerous, and perhaps what is even more important, we can control all of them with an appropriate license. Of course, the parties communicating through the network are usually satisfied with the personal usage of a few licenses with a key significance and they mostly leave the control over the possibilities to their “providers” who give them Internet access, but this is not a necessary concession.

Note that situation shaping control has a very peculiar nature. It operates locally, that is, in the connection between our computer connecting into the network and the “network environment” surrounding it. But the network envir-onment has a quite strange structure (in fact, for all computers participating in it). The immediate envirenvir-onment is given for our computer, but as a result of the open architecture of the network, the “further” details of the network are unknown (for each computer). Regardless of this fact, the messages sent to the “realm of the unknown” still arrive precisely at their destination.⁴⁷We could say that, resulting from the peculiar organization of the network, the communication situation virtually expands; we can bridge the however extended realm of the unknown with the help of programs which coordinate the delivery of our message, and we can enter into a “direct” communicative connection with the (in the network) distant partner.⁴⁸The (even worldwide) expansion of the communication situation is of a decisive importance in Internet use, chiefly because it crucially contributes to changing the com-munities of the web as well as the personality traits of the web citizen.

Of course, a certain expansion of the communication situation is characteristic of each version of network commu-nication – think for example of either landline or mobile phone use, or watching television. However, the expansion experienced on the Internet is essentially different. On the one hand, this is because it is solely controlled by the communicating parties, and as a result, it isindependent and free; on the other, because it is not partial butcomplete.

The freedom of the communicating parties is normally significantly restricted in traditional versions of network communication and usually it is limited to initiating or accepting their entry into a communication situation. The communicating parties cannot control the other factors of the situation, because the communication machines at their disposal (e.g. phones or TV sets) are not suitable for such tasks since, from a communicative point of view, they are passive tools. It is the institutions that organize the situations (e.g. phone companies, TV channels) that have influence on shaping the medium that mediates the communication (and on determining the nature of the

47Of course, we can venture on explorations. With the help of special programs, we can follow the development of a connection between our computer and a distant one, but we do not learn much even with this method. The knowledge obtainable in this way is completely useless for a person who only wants to use the network and not to study it.

48We can represent the functioning of the network for example with the help of cellular automatons, say in the expressive form of modeling the delivery of the message similarly to the configurations of the popular Game of Life moving in an orthogonal grid of cells.

Communication in the late modern age

communities that can be created). In communication through the Internet, all controllable elements of the situation essentially depend on the decisions of the parties participating in the communication (if they want, they can even hide or change their identity), and they are essentially independent from the influence of the other participants of the network that “remain unknown”. Networks are organized in such a way that the activity of the elements of the network is limited to the intelligent transmission of messages; they can determine the direction of the transmission and a few other parameters, but they do not participate in shaping the contents.⁴⁹Thus, the activity which shapes the medium of network communication on the Internet is concentrated in the communicating parties, who can, with a significant degree of freedom, shape their situation with the support of an active communication machine, the computer.

The expansion of communication situations through the Internet and traditional networks is also different in the sense that while in traditional cases this only refers toone or twofeatures of the medium, in the case of communic-ation through the Internet it can affectallcharacteristics of the medium. For example, in the case of phone use or TV broadcasts it is realized as regards speech or the contents selected by the editors of the programs, but it is not as regards the other features of the situation. However, Internet users expand the situation itself together with all of its features and limitations, since they have an opportunity to chat and to accept the offers of “content providers”

as well, but even if they refuse all of these, they still remain in the Internet situation and have several other choices.

In fact, the communication network of the Internet is capable of unifying all functions of network communication mentioned earlier and realize them separately or even in different situations. Of course, the operation of individual functions is not simply a copy of the methods of other networks, but their reproduction created by taking into account the new medium shaping possibilities, sometimes of better, sometimes of worse quality. (Thus for example making phone calls through the Internet is a little more complicated and occasionally involves worse sound quality). The (not necessarily conscious) rethinking and recreating of communicative functions based on the possibilities of computer networks resulted in the appearance of important new features in the case of most of the functions (and of course as regards the whole of the network).

Electronic mailunifies the functions and methods of traditionalmailandtelegraphuse. Technologically, it resembles telegraph and telex use, with the perhaps not insignificant difference that we receive messages on a screen and not on paper. (Though our mails are easily printable, it is not usually done). On the other hand, as regards their content, our emails are quite similar to traditional letters. The topics, style and often the form of our message resembles the practice of letters sent on paper. What is more, we like to use special characters, signs, signature samples, and send other texts or images as attachments to our mail in the same way as we did in the case of traditional mail.

(The use of the past tense is probably justified, or it will be soon. In any case, it is striking that if someone becomes a skilled email user, he essentially abandons traditional mail). Electronic mails are also similar to traditional cor-respondence, inasmuch as we mostly use them in personal and private situations. The personal nature of handwriting can be substituted by linguistic, stylistic and editing ideas; it seems that computer use can represent a personal character more successfully than traditional typed texts can. Electronic mails are very effective from a technological point of view. We can send our messages to many places with the same investment of energy; it is very easy to forward received messages or attach them to other messages. At the same time, electronic correspondence can be very fast, thus if we prefer, wecan reduce the effect of asynchronicity to a minimum.

The “talk” or “phone” function realizes this option which can be operated in most network environments. With the support of these programs, we can practically exchange real time written messages, that is, we can in fact chat by using writing; thus, this is a practice that resembles traditionalphone calls. The so-called “instant messaging”

programs have a similar function; for example, one of the programs regarded as the most successful isICQ(“I seek you”) (ICQ Inc2001), with the difference that it is more active, that is, it helps find the called party.

Perhaps it is exactly the instantaneous (depending on the state of the development of the network and the expertise of those who supervise it, but in normal cases instantaneous) sending of emails which is the principal reason why internet telephonyis not very popular. It might also be significant that specific hardware and software are necessary

49Of course, such ambitions sometimes appear in reality, but these create significant storms (in connection with the Internet) and they try to eliminate them. Thus for example, on one occasion it turned out that theYahoosystem can in some cases replace certain (rude, racist, etc.) words in the letters transmitted through it with other words with a similar meaning, but as a result of the outcry they have probably terminated the “screening”. A similar problem can appear if a search engine – the popularGooglefor example was accused several times – simply “does not find” certain websites because of their (mostly political) content, that is it essentially censors them for the users of the given search engine and excludes them from the represented web. And of course monitoring correspondence or the analysis of the content of letters (theoretically serving criminal investigation) occurs as well. Though these motivate the possibility of freely shaping Internet situations, they do not question them.

Communication in the late modern age

for making phone calls, but the most important difficulty is obviously that we can only reach our partner when he happens to be “online”, that is, if he is ready to contact us. Traditional telephony depends on the presence of the called party at the other end of the line (in case of mobile versions this is a very natural assumption). We can initiate calls at any times and – at least in a technological sense – we can carry them out with a certainty. In the case of Internet telephony, the called party is more at the mercy of circumstances. Most users do not run all the commu-nication programs at their disposal continuously – for example exactly because they are participating in other communication situations – thus, they are often unavailable even when they are online. Of course, we can utilize a separate monitoring program (as for example the mentioned ICQ) but – as a result of the technology used – it is the called party who determines the communication situation decisively anyway. The case is just the reverse in case of traditional telephony, that is, in case of traditional phones it is the caller, in case of internet phones it is the called party, who dominates in the communication situation. It seems that we do not like to become subordinated in a communication situation, and we prefer traditional telephony.

This case is not changed significantly even by the fact that software such asSkype,Klipand others, which make phone use easy and even possible with video transmission, are readily available and quite widespread. Internet telephony is only popular in certain easily definable situations (for example in the case of regular and long conver-sations to other countries or continents). From this point of view, the situation with Internet telephony and email correspondence is similar to the relationship being shaped between mobile telephony and sendingsmsmessages, inasmuch as gradually some kind of division of labor is being developed between them. The factors affecting the division are very varied (in both cases), and may contain aspects of psychology, technology, cost-effectiveness, comfort, culture and many others.

Chat Channelsare a special version of synchronous network communication, which are usually maintained with the support of various versions of theIRC(Internet Relay Chat). The communication situation of these resembles the traditional situation of aconversing groupconsisting of several participants, of course, with the difference that the parties being interconnected online communicate with each other with messages sent through the network (IRC TUTOR 1998). The conversation can be connected to a specific topic, but in reality, the topics only serve to initiate the creation of communities and to shape them. The participants of a chatting community – especially the members who get more extensive licenses –shapethe communication situationactivelyand thus, the characteristics of the community as well (Latzko-Toth 2000). Shaping (online) communities is a considerably complex process (Beißwenger 2000), it requires varied strategies and lengthy and regular care. It is not surprising at all that a signi-ficant part of internet addicts are participants of chat channels. Chatters are mostly young people, who anyway also face the problems of shaping and choosing (offline) communities. While participating in a community, the participants of the chat can hide, choose or multiply themselves; they can try to follow different personality traits and ambitions. It is frequent to continue an acquaintance established in a virtual community in reality, and so to combine real and virtual relationships. Experience shows (Leidlmair – Stumpf 2002; Turkle 1995) that chat channels do not exist for conquering “the empire of virtuality”, but function on the borderlines of virtuality and reality, which also has the consequence that it is easy to become addicted to chatting. Of course, the community shaping and maintaining power of chat channels can be utilized in other ways. One of the most convincing examples of their usage can be observed in distance learning (Murphy – Collins 1998).

Certain role-playing games that can be played on the Internet and other similar virtual forms of activity represent a communication situation very similar to that of chat channels. A traditional version of these isMUD(Multi-User Dungeon or Multi-User Domain), several versions of which are known:MOO, MUSE, MUSH,etc. MUDs are text-based virtual realities with several participants (Cooper 2000). As with chat channels, they are capable of creating virtual communities and personalities (Utz 2000), hiding our real personalities, building new personalities and multiplying them, with the difference that in these games, the relationships between the participants usually remain in the sphere of virtuality (Turkle 1995; Fleissner 1999). More developed versions of MUDs are virtual realities which are capable of representing spatial relations as well. Stepping out of the world of texts into a three-dimensional space brings new possibilities both for the players and the designers who build the virtual environment (even following their artistic ambitions). The participants of this virtual reality are represented by icons, the so-calledavatars⁵⁰(Heim 2001; O’Donnell 1998).

Discussion listsandnews groupsare a special form of Internet communication. In these communication situations they do not deal with actively developing communities but with (the online) shaping and maintaining of already existing (online or real) communities. The individual lists and groups (there are many thousands of them) exclusively

50According to Hindi mythology,avatarsare terrestrial incarnations of Vishnu. The naming obviously suggests that the avatar (a multi-dimen-sional icon developed according to one’s own taste) is the incarnation of the player in the virtual reality.

Communication in the late modern age

use text-based asynchronous communication corresponding to their subjects. The communication engineers who supervise the normal functioning of the network regard hate speech and rude, abusive tone and digression from the subject as acts violating netiquette (except for “flaming” sites reserved for these purposes), and they sanction the perpetrator by excluding him from further discussion. Using pseudonyms, or hiding one’s personality can occur even in such places, but they are not frequent at all, since what the members of these communities want is precisely to express their opinion to the others. Many kinds of associations and professional or recreational organizations manage their communication with their members in this form. Lists and groups are typical forums ofpublicity.

The only essential difference between lists and news groups is that the texts sent to a list are automatically distributed

The only essential difference between lists and news groups is that the texts sent to a list are automatically distributed