Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 386
Netizens-Digest Saturday, April 28 2001 Volume 01 : Number 386
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action
Re: [netz] accident of geography
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:01:15 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action
In much of this discussion, I feel that Ronda and I may be talking at
different levels. I split the Internet into layers, with the lower
layers (my area of specialization) dealing with the internal movement
of packets, not the user visible applications where directory
services come into play.
At the lower layers, I simply don't see the corporate demons that she
seems to suggest. I definitely do worry at the more user-visible
parts.
>
>
>>Howard> Let's assume that it does not. The reality is that scaling
>>the Internet takes considerable investment. All the fiber, routers,
>>servers, amd skilled people represent billions of dollars, at the
>>very least. Even if you look at free software models like GNU,
>>there's still lots of cost.
>
>Interesting. As your paradigm leaves out the issue of research
>to find how to do the scaling.
>
>Bell Labs at AT&T is the example of what I mean in some ways.
>
>To have a world class telephone system in the US it was understood
>that there was a need to have a means to support the future development
>and the scientific research needed for that future development.
>
>That required support Bell Labs. The way to do that was to regulate
>AT&T and to make sure that it provided the needed support for
>Bell Labs.
I'm not disagreeing that research is necessary. I'm questioning how
the researchers and their laboratories are going to get funded. In my
own case, I am paid by Nortel both to contribute to competitive
product technology, but also to work in the IETF, NANOG, and other
forums. The latter is a business necessity in much of the "lower
layers" of networking -- no one company can dominate the technology
for moving bits around. The business necessity of participating in
cooperative design/standards is less clear at the
application/directory/user interface level.
>
>It turns out that the Internet is also a public utility and it also
>needs a research arm for its development.
>
>The telephone infrastructure in the US was built by a regulated
>process where users pay for their service, and that paid for the
>infrastructure.
>
>Internet development in the US needs to sort out what is the way
>to support infrastructure development, *not* just assume it
>will be a private corporate process.
>
>In fact the private corporate process really can't handle the
>development of the needed infrastructure.
Which infrastructure are you speaking of? That which directly
supports research, or the production networks that underlie what
users see as the Internet (and converging services such as telephony).
>
>There may be a way private corporations are part of what is developed,
>but they can't be the determining factor if we want the kind
>of advanced infrastructure for the Internet comparable to what
>it was possible to create in the US under the regulated paradigm
>that was AT&T and Bell Labs.
>
>>So -- and this is a question -- where does this funding come from?
>>General tax revenues? That gets really complex in a multinational
>>situation. Even at the national level, it can get highly politicized.
>
>There is a question to be considered, not the assumption of an answer
>before the question is formulated. What is the question though is
>the problem that has to be taken on. I don't think it can start with
>"funding" as its essence.
>
>
>I think the question has to start with "What is the needed institutional
>form for scaling the Internet? What are the elements of that form?"
But very early in that process comes the question, "how are the
people in that form going to be paid?"
>
>The question has to allow for investigating the nature of the problem.
>
>>User fees? If so, how are they collected and paid?
>
>But its not that money is the first consideration.
Ronda, I consider myself a legitimate researcher in the scaling of
the Internet. I still have to make sure my feline research associate,
Clifford, gets cat food.
>
>The first consideration is that there is a need for the research
>to be able to be done to determine what scaling will require.
>
>If you read the email from Einar Stefferud that I sent to the Netizens
>list yesterday, you can see that he has a different proposal for
>what is needed to scale the DNS than the US Dept of Commerce presented
>to the National Academy of Science committee meeting that I went to
>on April 9 in Washington.
>
>Without the scientific process to try to determine what is needed
>for the scaling, it doesn't matter how much money is poured in.
>
>It will be wasted.
>
>One the scientific research is done, then there should be a similar
>scientific approach to determining what form the infrastructure's
>development should take.
We may have some different definitions here of scientific versus
engineering paradigms. Oh -- and there is definitely such a thing as
engineering research.
>
>The paradigm of the Internet was to have a way to interconnect
>dissimilar networks. It seems that that has gotten changed to
>having a backbone that some company(s) create.
Unless it is a government funded utility, what is the alternative?
And how are international backbones funded?
>
>Is that a paradigm as well for the scaling?
>
>If it is up to the companies who will be protecting their investments
>they will say yes.
>
>But perhaps that isn't the best paradigm for the scaling?
>
>The original Internet architecture was designed so that it could
>interconnect dissimilar networks under dissimilar forms of administrative
>or political control.
I'm puzzled why you don't seem to think this remains the case.
>
>To have private companies creating the backbone may put the component
>networks on the Internet at the mercy of those private companies.
Where do you see these demons? Certainly not in the Internet
backbone. As a very practical commercial necessity, a backbone
provider MUST interconnect with a wide range of other providers,
using standard methods. Admittedly, the economic models that seem to
be working say that providers peer (i.e., mutually exchange routing
without financial compensation) only with other providers of
approximately the same size, such that there is mutual benefit.
Smaller providers have to exist in a customer-to-provider
relationship to the largest backbones, otherwise the small providers
would get international connectivity without paying for it.
I agree there is a definite concern in open access to broadband
access networks (e.g., IP over cable, DSL) and third generation
wireless access. But access networks and backbone networks are
different things. They perhaps may need different models.
>
>>>The Internet is a child of scientific and technical research nad
>>>to scale it we need the continuation of this scientific and technical
>>>research.
>
>>Howard> Historically -- and I go back to the middle ages here --
>>research has never been self-funding. It has enormous economic
>>benefit, but scholars and researchers always had patrons. At first,
>>these came from the aristocracy or even the church. In the 19th and
>>early 20th centuries, we certainly saw industrial research centers
>>evolve. Massive government support of research is mostly a construct
>>of the Cold War.
>
>To the contrary it seemed that WWII demonstrated the need for
>governments to support scientific research. And so after the war
>there was the recognition that this was now an important
>need. For example Vannevar Bush and the important report he
>and others at the National Academy of Science did "Science: the
>Endless Frontier"
WWII rather than Cold War--you are right. I would point out, however,
that massive investment in basic research was more post World War II.
There's no accident, for example, that the discipline of operations
research is named what it is -- it's the use of quantitative methods
to improve military operations. Many of the early OR problems dealt
with antisubmarine warfare. Norbert Weiner's cybernetic research was
given a push because it was useful in antiaircraft fire control. The
first primitive computers generated artillery ballistic tables
(Harvard Mark I), broke enemy cryptosystems (bombe/Colussus), or did
hydrodynamic calculations for atomic bomb design (IBM).
>
>I agree that with Sputnik going up there was the money allocated
>in the US and the kind of institutional form created to support
>such research.
>
>But a reason Sputnik was developed was because the Russian people
>turned to science to try to prevent another war.
WHAAAT! Unless you are saying they were trying to prevent a war by
preempting or offering a credible deterrent, this statement is
totally at odds with what we know of Soviet policy. Read Marshal
Malinovsky's "Soviet Military Strategy," or look at the declassified
IRONBARK papers from Penkovsky, showing the Soviets' aggressive
pursuit of technologial intelligence for military purposes. The
IRONBARK papers also contain many translations of classified Soviet
military journals.
>
>So it is not only the cold war, but the effort to prevent another
>world war that has motivated the events that have led to the
>public support for science that helped to make possible ARPA (1957?)and
>the Information Processing Techniques Office that Licklider started
>at ARPA in 1962.
ARPA. Later DARPA. Always in the Department of Defense. To say that
this agency's motivation was public support of science, and not the
recognition that advanced research supports military development, is
ridiculous.
>
>>
>Howard>>>But the reality is that the corporate interests are there, and that a
>>>>substantial amount of the funding for increased Internet capacity is
>>>>going to come from them. I've always liked the criterion for a good
>>>>political solution that has all actors leaving the table equally
>>>>unhappy, but feeling they received at least some value.
>>
>
>>>But the Internet is a new development. And its a development that
>>>requires an infrastructure. And that infrastructure requires scientific
>>>research to keep it evolving and developing. And the Internet has
>>>been created as a complex system built on feedback. And a system
>>>that is built on feedback is different from one that isn't.
>>>How does one support the continued development of a complex system
>>>built on feedback? One can't just assume that corporations can and will
>>>do it.
>
>>Howard> Then who will, and who pays for it?
>
>In the end the public pays for it despite the process. But the question
>of what "it" is has to be sorted out before the question of what
>the money is and how it is gathered.
>
>
>>
>>>Traditionally corporate entities are often not able to do research
>>>that is 10 or 20 years into the future.
>
>>Howard> At the current rate of technological progress, even the
>>academics I know are hesitant about trying to look at networking
>>models that far ahead. Current thinking in Internet scaling focuses
>>the operational forums in methods for the next 2 years or so, the
>>IETF protocol groups up to about 5 years, and the Internet Research
>>Task Force aiming at solutions that could start deploying in about 5
>>years.
>
>That is a real problem. Perhaps the problem that has led to the
>current lack of foresight in what will help to scale the Internet.
>
>
>I basically feel that there is a need for the kind of institutional
>research form like IPTO to support the longer term research that is
>needed.
>
>>In some of my other fields of interest, such as medicine, the
>>acceleration of knowledge there also is such that 10 years is a long
>>time, and very few will express opinions beyond that. Bell Labs
>>could, indeed, look that far ahead given the rate of knowledge growth
>>in 1950.
>
>There would be the ability to look further ahead if there were
>the kind of institutional form and support for research that
>IPTO pioneered.
This is questionable. As the total information available increases,
the number of potential interrelationships grow, and the ability to
predict becomes more limited. In 1518, Sir Francis Walsingham
pioneered how to develop a national intelligence service. William
Friedman's work in the early 1900's is the theoretical foundation of
modern cryptography. The brilliance of these men, however, still
doesn't make their work a reasonable foundation for CIA/SIS or
NSA/GCHQ today. Sir Isaac Newton did observe, correctly, that if he
had seen farther than other men, it was because he stood on the
shoulders of giants. But he had to go beyond those giants.
>
>There is a need to learn from this development and build on it,
>as the experience from IPTO shows that such a institutional form
>is needed to support the Internet's continued development and scaling.
I think you need to quantify this. The rate of growth of the Internet
has been increasing in a non-linear way since the demise of IPTO.
Admittedly, certain mechanisms, never designed for this load, are
faltering.
>
>There was pressure on the US Congress from the US computer industry
>which led to the ending of IPTO. This has to be understood so
>that the "vested interests" can be appropriately inhibited so
>that the needed research can be supported.
>
>
>>>And they are not happy with
>>>others doing research that may obsolete their investments.
>>>But also there is a special issue about whether corporations can
>>>be open and work in the open way that is needed for a feedback system's
>>>development.
>>
>>>So I don't see how corporate entities can be seen as the most important
>>>aspect of Internet development. While scientists working in government
>>>with the academic and even the coroporate community can work in the open
>>>way that is needed. That is what I have learned from my research
>>>of the Internet's early development. Also there is an international
>>>issue with regard to Internet development that has to be understood
>>>and taken up. There is a need for international collaboration to
>>>make Internet development possible.
>>
>
>>>There was an interesting discussion online about all this in 1997
>>>-- about who can do the basic research and how Bell Labs was able
>>>to support basic research because it was regulated -=
>>>It's online at http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/discussion.txt
>>>
>
>>To me, netizens have to operate in such a politicized environment.
>
>Yes that is true. The politics of science has to be taken on.
>
>But that means recognizing that there are "vested interests" and in
>the past there have been ways of inhibiting the damage they can do :-)
But there's also the issue of not demonizing them, and understanding
what is and is not broken. I freely admit that the directory and DNS
situation is in terrible shape.
The routing and transmission layers of the Internet have known
scalability problems. But the many organizations that run them are
very actively working to solve these problems. I spent the morning on
an international conference call with a mixture of commercial and
academic researchers planning experiments in refining our
understanding of current scaling problems. There is every intention
to publish the results and gain consensus on solutions.
>
>
>>>What are you saying here? What do you see are the implications
>>>of operating in such a "politicized environment"?
>
>>Howard> Constant compromise. Lobbying, not presented as abstract
>>goods but to give all parties a sense they are playing in a
>>non-zero-sum game.
>
>Interesting.
>
>My research shows something different. It shows that when ARPA was
>originally created it was put under the Secretary of Defense's office
>so it wouldn't be at the mercy of the defense contractors.
>
>That later when it became DARPA, it was put at an even level with
>the defense contractors and left very vulnerable.
>
>So there was a matter of institutional placement to deal with the
>problem of the vested interests, not compromising with them.
>
>I have a paper describing this all. If you are interested I will
>give the url as I don't have it at the moment.
>
>
>
>>>The key I feel is understanding the nature of the Internet and
>>>what it needs for its further development. To me its a social
>>>question, not one of commercial self interest.
>
>>Howard> The social question _includes_ commercial self-interest,
>>unless you are talking about a completely socialist system where a
>>central body provides funding. Or do you have some other funding
>>model in mind?
>
>Well I didn't think that the regulated AT&T that developed the
>world class telephone infrastructure in the US was any
>"socialist system" though I am sure that MCI/worldcom might say
>it was as that was their effort to end the deregulation and the
>benefit that MCI got as a result.
To quote back, "regulated". Modified socialism. The 1913 Kingsbury
Compromise gave AT&T effective control of long-distance
communications, which provided the revenue stream for building their
backbone and funding Bell Labs.
We think of Bill Gates as a modern networking robber baron, but I
rather revere Theodore Vail, early CEO of AT&T, for some incredibly
manipulative business practices that created a world-class telephone
system.
>
>In the process much has been lost. When I try to call my mom,
>I often can't get thru because she lives in a more rural part
>of New Jersey and finds it very difficult and expensive to get
>phone service there now with the breakup of AT&T.
>
>And Bell Labs is gone as well.
>
>These were very far from "completely socialist systems" .
>
>To the contrary regulation is part of the scientific development
>of the US government. See for example the book "Government and Science"
>by Don Price. It's an important book to read for background on
>government and science and the relationship between the two.
>
>
>With best wishes
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:02:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] accident of geography
Steve
>I recall scanning your book once recall a reference by early Internet
>leaders to the "accident of geography." May I bother you with the source
>for that quote. Is it online anywhere?
I don't know what reference you are referring to.
We've scanned the online version and didn't find such a reference.
In the Net and the Netizen (chapter 1) there are references to
"Geographical separateion is replaced by existence in the same
virtual space" and "Geography and time are no longer boundaries."
But those are descriptions that Michael wrote, not references to
early Internet leaders as far as I know.
In Chapter 5 "The Vision of Interactive Computing and the Future"
Michael refers to the Licklider and Clark article "The Computer
as a Communication Device" where they say that with the development
of the network they are envisioning, life will be enriched for
those people who can communicate online with others who have similar
goals and interestes, as they will not be limited by geography.
You will have to look back at the article for the original words.
The Licklider and Taylor article is contained in "In Memoriam: J.C.R.
Licklider: 1915-1990." I think that is online.
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #386
******************************
