Re: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

To: Sean McLinden  <sean () dsl pitt edu>
Cc: ddc () lcs mit edu, com-priv () psi com
Subject: Re: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR THE INFORMATION
SUPERHIGHWAY
From: David Clark <ddc () lcs mit edu>
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 14:05:44 -0400


Sean,
    Let me follow up Dave Farber's message on the NRC report. I would
second his urging to obtain and read the report. It is possible that
the press release has given you an impression of the report that is
not correct.
     In fact, a central concern of the report is the concern you have,
which is the role of the emerging network for the people themselves. I
think you will find, when you read the report, that you are in
agreement with the report. We did, in fact, speak to and take into
account some of the groups that you mention in your message, the
individuals who have shaped the nature of networking by their
individual efforts. And what they need from the emerging infrastructure
is very simple: they need to be able to attach in an open and
interoperable way (and affordable, too) so that they can proceed.


It is this simple point that is at the heart of the report. The committee
concluded, after talking to lots of people, that if industry were left
to build whatever they will build if left to themselves, that it may
not come out the way you/we want. You, yourself, spoke of your LEX as
having the vision of a flounder. And you see what you as individuals
can do to influence them. (Actually, I would argue with you; I think
they have a very clear long range vision, but its not the one you
would like.  This is important to keep in mind).


So we conclude that at this pivotal point, the assurance of open
access by people, both users and providers of all sorts of services,
that the government has a role to play. It is not spending lots of
dollars, or providing grants, or nationalizing anything, but by
working with industry to shape the next generation of telecomms
infrastructure so that it has this character. We discuss in the report
how this might be done, and what the objectives are, but the top level
point is very simple. Right now plans are being made in industry to
spend lots of bucks, upgrading subscriber loops and things like that.
What will the consequence of all this be, an open infrastructure or
500 channels of on-demand TV?


The report does not suggest that the government has a broad role in,
for example, the development of new high level services. As you note,
the people don't need any help there. We try to focus the government
where they can shape the net to serve the people.


Speaking operationally, all this discussion boils down to a very
simple question. Industry is currently telling congress that it should
stop all attempts to shape, control or attend to networking, and leave
it all to them. The NRC report concludes that there are places where
this will work just fine, but there are others, such as insuring open
access where it will not. The report gives a justification of this
conclusion, and I urge you to read it. It is a good time for the
people as individuals to speak. There are two laws in congress,
HR3636, and HR 3626, which will reshape the nature of the telecoms
business. If you are concerned about the consequence of these laws, or
the resulting national infrastructure, you should consider what is now
going on. You spoke of industry not voting.  I am sure you understand
that this does not mean they lack influence.  Our report describes a
future network which matches very closely, I think, the network you
desire. The question is how do we get there.


The report does not comment on these two laws, but provides a
framework in which to evaluate them. (It is possible that you will find
our report easier to read than those laws). If you want government to
completely turn away from networking and telecomms, tell your
representatives. If you like the network architecture described in the
report, which stresses issues of openness and fair access, tell that
to your representative. If you think they should act to insure this,
tell them that. The top-level decision in Congress just now is very
simple. The report is an explicit framework in which this discussion
can be carried out.


There are actually two important components to this part of the
report. The first is an attempt to step beyond the simple, high-level
vision stuff for the NII to address the structural characteristics
that a network must have to fulfill this vision. This leads to an
architecture with interfaces in key places, a modularity that is not
inconsistent with the framework that has made the Internet successful.
The other aspect of the report is the comment on the possible roles of
government. In assessing the report, you might want to keep these
ideas separate. Even if you think government is not a useful force
here, we might agree on the architectural framework. Having such a
framework, it is possible to look at specific technical proposals in a
more constructive way. For example, what is it that you might ask your
LEX to do?  A high level vision statement is not enough to frame the
discussion; nets are built out of technology, not vision statements.


(Actually, the correct statment may be that they are built out of
business plans, but that is part of the issue.  There do not seem to
be good business justification for the network you want. This may only
be due to the "vision of a flounder" problem, but lacking such a
business justification, there are few forces left that will have any
impact.  The debate is whether government is one such force, and
whether it can be properly aimed and fired. )




The report will be out in about a week. If you want to read it on
line, it will be available (using in each case the obvious tools) on
[ftp/gopher/www].nas.edu. Since it is a 300 page book, you also may
want to buy one. Reading a 300 page book in Mosaic may not be the best
way to go. But you can also retrieve the Postscript files, and beat up
your printer.  1-800-624-6242 for information on a paper copy.


Dave Clark


P.S. Just for the record, I was on the committee, but this message is
not a committee opinion, just my personal summary and assessment.
There are other parts to the report as well. (We do not take 300 pages
to make this one point....)




------- End of Forwarded Message