[WalterBright]

> How much has the Internet done for your business that a smaller, proprietary network wouldn't have?

Why do you think other networks wouldn't have grown global?

> If there are three or four proprietary networks with limited and expensive communications between them, growth is hobbled.

I agree, and there was tremendous pressure to interconnect them. The "inter" part of internet is the result of that, it's why it's called the internet rather than Arpanet. Numerous packet switching networks were developed in the 1960s, not just Arpanet.

[cbd1984]

> Why do you think other networks wouldn't have grown global?

Because privately-run networks have to turn a profit by the end of the fiscal year, if not sooner. It's too easy for a company to engage in profit-seeking behavior which harms long-term growth, like demanding fees to interoperate with it. The core Internet protocol suite, OTOH, is completely specified by RFCs which are free to read and implement.

[WalterBright]

FidoNet went global.

[cbd1984]

FidoNet was and is an interesting system, but it relies on a system which is a public utility and/or publicly subsidized in most of the world: the telephone network. Dial-up networks like FidoNet only work if there's enough phone service to bother with.