Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
404513302
label
Digital Divide - Papers for Trip
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
404513302
contentType
document
title
Digital Divide - Papers for Trip
citationUrl
collections
Records of the National Economic Council (Clinton Administration)
Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
404513302
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
4735830-20190203F-Seg2-021-012-2024
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
cfd45054aac9f4bb
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2019-0203-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
National Economic Council
Series/Staff Member:
Subject Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
17678
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Digital Divide - Papers for Trip
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
20
2
2
1
Thomas A. Kalil
04/11/2000 10:10:23 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Natasha F. Bilimoria/OPD/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: new digital divide survey by Round Table Group (fwd)
Forwarded by Thomas A. Kalil/OPD/EOP on 04/11/2000 10:10 AM
"Carvin, Andy" <[email protected]>
04/11/2000 09:44:56 AM
Please respond to [email protected]
Record Type:
Record
To:
"Digitaldivide (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
CC:
Subject: new digital divide survey by Round Table Group (fwd)
FYI. -ac
Company Press Release
New Internet Survey Supports
Clinton Call to Narrow the 'Digital Divide'
Nationwide Phone Survey Shows Poor, Elderly, and
Less Educated Rapidly Falling Behind in Accessing
the Benefits the Internet Brings
April 10, 2000-- The poor, the
elderly and the less highly educated continue to fall behind in the
race to enjoy the educational and consumer benefits brought
about through the rise of the Internet, according to a new survey
released by the Round Table Group, a Chicago-based consortium
of 3,000 university professors that consults on high tech start-ups
and provides high level executive education.
According to a nationwide telephone poll of 1,014 households
commissioned by the group, 46% of Americans now live in
households with access to the Internet. But the 'digital divide"
looms large: In American households with incomes under $25,000,
68% do not have access to the Internet, and 67% of Americans
who have not completed high school do not have Internet users in
their households. Of those aged 65 and higher, 70% live in
households that do not use the Internet.
By contrast, only 25% of Americans in households with incomes
of $50,000 or more lack access to the Internet. The survey's
statistics support the call made by President Clinton in a speech
last week to take strenuous efforts to even the Internet gap
between rich and poor.
The survey did have some good news: Internet usage by white,
black and Hispanic households is approximately equal, with only
43% of white households and 43% of black households lacking
Internet access, compared to 38% of Hispanic households that lack
Internet access. The telephone survey of 1,014 American
households was conducted with the assistance of Opinion
Research Corp. International of Princeton, N.J.
The survey results point out the critical role that the Internet has
quickly taken on in the public and private lives of Americans.
According to the survey, 49% of households currently using the
Internet say that they receive more ``useful information" from the
Internet than from newspapers, and a separate 49% say that they
currently receive more ``useful information" from the Internet than
from television. Seventy-one percent of households currently
using the Internet say that they are more likely to use the Internet
to retrieve information than go to the public library. Forty five
percent of current Internet households expressed an interest in
taking a class over the Internet.
"The Internet has in essence brought the public library right into
the living rooms of middle America," stated Russ Rosenzweig, CEO
of The Round Table Group. "That's a benefit that should be
shared by all Americans. The academic community overwhelmingly
supports President Clinton's efforts to make this happen."
Among other initiatives, the President announced last week $12.5
million in funding for 750 Americorps volunteers to serve as tutors
in community centers and provide technical support to local
schools through the Corporation of National Service. And he
announced a $3 million partnership between 3Com and the YWCA
to create programs to train teenage girls in computer networking.
President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the subject of the
digital divide to the Comdex/Spring conference in Chicago on April
18. It will be the first time a U.S. president has addressed an
information technology event.
Contact:
Round Table Group
Jeff Barge
212/576-8883
http://www.round.table.com/
Andy Carvin
Senior Associate
Benton Foundation
[email protected]
http://edweb.gsn.org/andy
http://www.DigitalDivideNetwork.org
Digital Divide Network
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/initiatives.adp
the digital
divide network
Digital Divide Initiatives
Corporate
Digital Divide
Nonprofit
Foundation
Overview
Government
Digital Divide in
Corporate Initiatives
the News
AT&T
Event Calendar
The AT&T Learning Network: This program offers free online resources to
help families, schools and communities use technology effectively to enhance
Research and
teaching and learning.
Data
Leadership Conversations for the Next America: AT&T is launching
"Leadership Conversations for the Next America" to bring together high school
Grants and
students, Youth Opportunity Movement participants and Job Corps partners
Funding
with local, state and national policymakers to discuss economic opportunities,
education, job skills and leadership for the 21st century.
Digital Divide
Academy of Information Technology: AT&T is helping to launch the
Initiatives
Academy of Information Technology, a high-school level curriculum designed
to prepare young students for the information technology workplace.
In the Field
Job Corps Funding: AT&T is investing in the Edison (N.J.) Job Corps program
by developing a three-year initiative to address the shortage of skilled workers
Find an Effort
in the information-technology industry that includes providing paid internships
for training program graduates, mentors, equipment and materials.
Guestbook
Community Technology Centers: AT&T is collaborating with the NAACP, the
National Urban League and the Community Technology Centers' Network to
Discussion List
give under-resourced communities access to technology.
About This Site
Los Angeles Neighborhood Technology Centers: AT&T supports the Los
Angeles County Office of Education's Technology for Learning initiative, an
effort to establish 25 neighborhood-based technology centers. To reach
Home
communities of color and other under-served groups, AT&T is supporting
LACOE's partnership with the Greenlining Institute, a multi-ethnic advocacy
center.
Computer Learning: AT&T is supporting The Puente Learning Center in South
Central Los Angeles to help provide free computer-based education programs
to children, youth and adults, and to encourage other community agencies to
do the same.
New York City Housing Resources: AT&T is helping settlement houses in
New York City serve as centers where technology resources can be accessed,
shared and used by settlement staff, community residents and program
participants.
Cable in the Classroom Program: AT&T Broadband and Internet Services
offers free cable modem and service to every school in its area of service, and
through its support for Cable in the Classroom, provides a free cable
connection and over 540 hours per month of commercial-free educational
programming to schools across the country.
School Safety: AT&T's Safe School Program provides free AT&T Wireless
service and Ericsson wireless phones to selected schools to support school
safety efforts.
GetNetWise: AT&T is a founding sponsor of GetNetWise: You're One Click
Away, a comprehensive Web-based resource designed to ensure parents and
1 of 4
4/7/2000 10:21 AM
Digital Divide Network
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/initiatives.adp
families have the technology tools and tips, safety referral contacts and
suggestions on quality content they need to help kids have safe and enriching
experiences online.
America Online, Inc.
AOL Rural Telecommunications Leadership Awards: The National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recently reported
that among all income groups, rural areas have the lowest online participation
rate. To address this issue, the AOL Foundation is partnering with the National
Center for Small Communities to manage the AOL Rural Telecommunications
Leadership Awards, which seek to reduce the digital divide by recognizing and
promoting telecommunications innovations in rural areas.
The Digital Divide Grants Initiative: The AOL Foundation's Digital Divide
Grant Initiative seeks to invest in nonprofit organizations, social entrepreneurs,
and collaboratives working to empower disadvantaged communities and
populations through technology. The Foundation hopes to support a variety of
ventures to foster innovative and effective approaches to bridging the Digital
Divide.
National Digital Divide Clearinghouse: AOL's goal of this initiative is to
create a single source of all available information about efforts to provide
underserved communities with access to technology and provide tools for
information sharing and community building among those working to bridge
the Digital Divide.
PowerUP: PowerUP is comprised of more than a dozen nonprofit
organizations, major corporations and federal agencies that have joined
together to launch a major new multimillion dollar initiative to help ensure that
America's underserved young people acquire the skills, experiences and
resources they need to succeed in the digital age. AOL has pledged 100,000
AOL accounts for free Internet access to sites throughout the country.
Bell Atlantic
Asian American Technology Hub: The Asian American Federation of New
York plans to launch a technology hub for the Asian Pacific nonprofit
community. With the aid of a major grant, the Asian American Federation will
become an Internet Service Provider and will build the technology
infrastructure of community-based organizations, extending the power of the
Internet and computer networking to its 34-member health and human service
agencies throughout the New York metropolitan area that need it but do not
have the wherewithal to get it. The Federation's ambitious plans for ushering
Asian American nonprofits into the 21st century and the digital future will
enable not only instant access to community-based news and information, but
communication with Asian communities across the globe.
NAACP Funding: Bell Atlantic enabled the NAACP to improve the Association's
Internet-based communications system with a major challenge grant offered
by Bell Atlantic. The funds will enable the nation's oldest and largest civil rights
organization to more effectively communicate with its network of 2,200
branches, units and chapters across the U.S.
Employee and Retiree Activism D The Bell Atlantic Pioneers: Numbering
over 170,000 strong, Bell Atlantic volunteers log in over six million hours a
year in donated time. Bell Atlantic Pioneers are active and retired employees
who volunteer their time to help meet the needs of their communities. From
painting maps on school playgrounds, mentoring through Junior Achievement,
wiring classrooms for the Internet, to swinging hammers to build homes for
the homeless, Bell Atlantic Pioneers offer their personal time for the
betterment of their communities.
Technology Centers: The National Urban League, enabled by Bell Atlantic,
established five community technology centers in Binghamton and White
Plains, N.Y.; Baltimore, Md.; Boston, Mass.; and Newark, N.J. At these centers,
people have access to hardware and software they need to plug into
cyberspace, thereby crossing the digital divide that separates so many
communities from the world of technology. Not only do these centers provide
underserved communities with a direct on-ramp to the information
superhighway, they also provide, in some cases, a safe haven for children in
inner-city communities - where they can study, learn and explore in safe,
2 of 4
4/7/2000 10:21 AM
Digital Divide Network
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/initiatives.adp
nurturing environments.
Hispanic Federation Web Site: The New York-based Hispanic Federation,
enabled by Bell Atlantic, to develop an interactive Web site designed to provide
its nonprofit network of more than 60 member agencies with a host of
powerful online tools. The Hispanic Federation Web site, a database-driven,
dynamic information gathering system, offering more interactivity than
conventional Web sites, was made possible through a major Bell Atlantic
Foundation grant, along with in-kind contributions from Bell Atlantic and IBM.
Gateway
PowerUP: PowerUP is comprised of more than a dozen nonprofit
organizations, major corporations and federal agencies that have joined
together to launch a major new multimillion dollar initiative to help ensure that
America's underserved young people acquire the skills, experiences and
resources they need to succeed in the digital age. Gateway and the Waitt
Family Foundation will provide 50,000 Gateway computers.
Microsoft
Public libraries: In partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
Microsoft will donate an estimated $200 million in software to create access to
technology at public libraries that serve low-income communities.
Boys & Girls Clubs: Microsoft has teamed with Boys & Girls Clubs of America
to establish technology centers at 15 Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide, and to
develop a model for other clubs to use in establishing their own technology
centers. In the program's first year, Microsoft donated $1.1 million in cash and
$540,000 in software.
Connected Learning Community grants: CLC grants enhance learning and
communications in disadvantaged communities by expanding access to
information technology. More than 95 community-based nonprofit groups
across the United States have received grants totaling $1.25 million in cash
and $2.4 million in software during the past three years.
Working Connections: This 5-year, $30 million grant program supports the
development and enhancement of information technology training for
underserved populations through the nation's community college system.
Higher education for minorities: To ensure excellent technology
infrastructure, teacher preparedness, training and access for minority college
students, Microsoft has long supported Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions and tribal colleges.
TRIO programs : Microsoft has donated more than $20 million in software to
increase technology access for low-income students participating in the
federally funded TRIO programs at 49 colleges and universities across the
United States, benefiting more than 70,000 students.
Microsoft Technology Leadership Grants: Technology Leadership Grants
provide major software donations to large, national nonprofit organizations to
expand their use of information technology to support their mission. In the
three years of this program, Microsoft has donated over $18 million in software
to 20 organizations.
SBC
Community Partnership Agreement: The Community Partnership
Agreement is a nonprofit collaboration between SBC subsidiary Pacific Bell and
nine California community coalitions D representing 134 Latino, Asian
American, African American, civil rights, and disability organizations D that is
dedicated to closing the digital divide by bringing communications technologies
to traditionally disadvantaged communities. SBC is providing a $50 million
monetary contribution to the fund, which is distributing $5 million per year
over a ten year period.
Major National Urban League Grant: In November, 1999, SBC announced
a $1 million grant to the National Urban League to support the League's
technology programs. The grants will help fund the Urban League's efforts to
close the digital divide by helping them create and maintain community
3 of 4
4/7/2000 10:21 AM
Digital Divide Network
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/initiatives.adp
technology centers that bring technology to underserved communities.
Community Technology Centers were heralded in the Falling Through the Net
reports as key access points for low-income communities.
National Urban League Midwest Technology Centers: SBC subsidiary
Ameritech has also given $350,000 to the Urban League to fund community
technology centers in Aurora, Ill., Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, and
Milwaukee.
"Links to Learning D Closing the Digital Divide" Initiative: Just recently
in Connecticut, SBC subsidiary SNET awarded $500,000 to institutions of
higher education under a grant program designed specifically to close the
digital divide. Seven colleges and universities have received grants and are
administering programs such as: hands-on technology training for the visually
impaired, women in transition, senior citizens and young adults from difficult
family situations at Housatonic Community Technical College; a basic computer
literacy training program for the underserved population of eastern
Connecticut at Eastern Connecticut State University; and an "Introduction to
Computers" curriculum for women in transition at Gateway Community
Technical College.
4 of 4
4/7/2000 10:21 AM
Digital Divide Network
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/subin_gov.adp
the digital
divide network
Digital Divide Initiatives
Corporate
Digital Divide
Nonprofit
Foundation
Overview
Government
Digital Divide in
Government Initiatives
the News
DigitalDivide.gov (www.DigitalDivide.gov) serves as a gateway for Federal
Event Calendar
government-related digital divide initiatives. The site was announced at the
December 9, Dept. of Commerce Digital Divide Summit. Among other
resources, RealVideo transcripts of the Summit's morning Executive
Research and
Roundtable session are available here.
Data
The Community Technology Centers program of the U.S. Department of
Education: CTC promotes programs that demonstrate the educational value of
Grants and
technology in urban, rural and economically distressed communities. The
Funding
program provides startup money to CTCs that are diverse in the populations
they serve and programs they offer, but similar in that they provide technology
access to individuals, communities, and populations that typically wouldn't
Digital Divide
otherwise have places to use computer and telecommunications technologies.
Initiatives
The affiliates are organized under CTCNet.
In the Field
The Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC): SLD helps to provide schools and libraries
with affordable access to telecommunications services. The Universal Service
Find an Effort
Fund for Schools and Libraries, known as the E-rate, provides discounts of
20% to 90% -based on the number of students eligible for the National Free
Guestbook
Lunch Program on the cost of telecommunications, Internet Access, and
network wiring within school and library buildings. The Federal
Communications Commission has authorized the SLD to administer up to
Discussion List
$2.25 billion annually as part of the Fund.
About This Site
The Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program
(TIIAP): TIIAP provides matching grants to improve the quality of, and the
public's access to, education, health care, public safety, and other
Home
community-based services. Part of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration of the Department of Commerce, the TIIAP
Program is a highly competitive grant program focusing on model projects
demonstrating innovative uses of network technology. Since 1994, TIIAP has
awarded 421 grants, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, totaling $135.8 million and leveraging $203 million in local
matching funds.
The Neighborhood Networks Program is an initiative of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Neighborhood Networks encourages the
development of resource and computer learning centers in privately owned
HUD-assisted and HUD-insured housing. As the needs of each area are unique,
there is no typical Neighborhood Network. Funding relies primarily on local
support for development needs of the centers -- such as computer software
and hardware, furniture, personnel and capital funding and long-term
sustainability. The program's Web site serves as a clearinghouse of information
for community-building efforts.
1 of 1
4/7/2000 10:21 AN
Digital Divide Network
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/subin_foundation.adp
the digital
divide network
Digital Divide Initiatives
Corporate
Digital Divide
Nonprofit
Foundation
Overview
Government
Digital Divide in
Foundation Initiatives
the News
The Kellogg Foundation: The Kellogg Foundation helps rural citizens use
Event Calendar
electronic communications and information systems as a tool to meet current
and future challenges through the Managing Information with Rural America
grant program. Each MIRA round provides grants for Clusters of Community
Research and
Teams, Community Support Organizations, and Policy Support Organizations
Data
to apply electronic communications and information systems uses in rural
America. No additional grants will be made under MIRA after 2000, as MIRA
will be folded into a new rural development initiative currently in the planning
Grants and
stages.
Funding
The Markle Foundation: The Markle Foundation sponsors the E-mail for All
Outreach Campaign, an integral part of the Foundation's work to encourage
Digital Divide
the use of new communications technologies for socially beneficial purposes.
Initiatives
The Outreach Campaign component is partnered with Markle-funded research
designed to stimulate a national dialogue on this issue.
In the Field
The National Indian Telecommunications Institute (NITI): NITI works to
employ advanced technology to serve American Indians, Native Hawaiians and
Find an Effort
Alaskan Natives in the areas of education, economic development, language
and cultural preservation, tribal policy issues and self-determination. The
Guestbook
Education Technology Improvement Plan Project (ETIP) is a targeted program
of NITI that works with the Colleges of Education at the University of New
Mexico and Northern Arizona University to train teams of parents teachers, and
Discussion List
administrators in instructional technologies and instructional technology
training methods.
About This Site
The Technology Access Foundation: The Technology Access Foundation
coordinates the Technical Teens Internship Program (TTIP). TTIP is designed to
Home
give students enough computer and job readiness experience to obtain a
summer internship at a local business. In addition, TTIP prepares students for
higher education by assisting them in course selection, SAT training and
entrance applications. Completion of the program leads to a $1000 scholarship
to the student's college or university of choice.
1 of 1
4/7/2000 10:21 AM
Digital Divide Network
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/subin_non.adp
the digital
divide network
Digital Divide Initiatives
Corporate
Digital Divide
Nonprofit
Foundation
Overview
Government
Digital Divide in
Nonprofit Initiatives
the News
Alliance for Community Technology (ACT): ACT is a strategic partnership
Event Calendar
between the Kellogg Foundation and the University of Michigan's School of
Information to help undeserved populations use information technology more
effectively. ACT serves as a test bed and promoter of technologies that can be
Research and
used to build and strengthen communities.
Data
Alliance for Latino Community Technology (ALCT) ALCT provides conference
updates, tracks policy, and gathers Latino market data. The alliance is
Grants and
dedicated to preparing Latinos to acquire the skills of technology literacy to
Funding
effectively compete in the next century, capturing the full benefits of the
Information Age. ALCT maintains a listing of Latino Sites of Interest on the
Web.
Digital Divide
Initiatives
Appalachian Center for Economic Networks (ACEnet): ACEnet is a
community-based economic development organization located in rural,
In the Field
southeastern Ohio. Through ACEnet's Community Computer Center, small
businesses can receive training on business software and the Internet. Local
businesses can also market products through ACEnet's Web site, the Public
Find an Effort
Webmarket. Together with Ohio University, ACEnet administers a community
network, the Southeastern Ohio Regional Freenet, which provides residents
Guestbook
with low-cost access to the Internet.
CitySkills.org: CitySkills.org is a nonprofit information resource that works to
Discussion List
bring urban job training organizations and Internet companies together.
CitySkills.org helps job training organizations train urban workers for high
About This Site
demand Internet jobs and helps Internet companies find, hire and retain those
workers.
Home
Community Technology Centers' Network (CTCNet): CTCNet is a membership
organization of over 300 community technology centers where people can
access computers and computer related technology, such as the Internet.
CTCNet offers assistance, support for organizations who wish to integrate
technology into their services, and an arena for such groups to share ideas and
strategies in servicing their communities.
Community Technology Institute: The Community Technology Institute seeks
to improve the delivery of social services and increase opportunities for
employment through its Community Voice Mail program. CVM now operates in
25 cities including Boston, Houston, Los Angeles and Spokane, bringing
community-wide access to voice mail for an estimated 15,000 homeless or
phoneless people every day.
Trace: Trace is a research center at the University of Wisconsin - Madison that
focuses on making off-the-shelf technologies and systems like computers, the
Internet, and information kiosks more accessible through the process known
as universal or accessible design. The Cooperative Electronic Library is an
online menu-based directory of products, services, and information on disabled
and cooperative services.
1 of 1
4/7/2000 10:22 AM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
INTERNET POLICY INSTITUTE
Home
What Is The Internet (And What Makes It Work) -
December, 1999
What's New
By Robert E. Kahn and Vinton G. Cerf
Board of Directors
<< Back to Preface
Research Program
In this issue:
Briefing the President
Project Description
INTRODUCTION
Advisory Board
THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNET
Current Paper
THE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE
Previous Papers
GOVERNMENT'S HISTORICAL ROLE
Publications
A DEFINITION FOR THE INTERNET
WHO RUNS THE INTERNET
Sponsors
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
In the News
Links to other Resources
This paper was prepared by the authors at the request of the Internet
Policy Institute (IPI), a non-profit organization based in Washington,
Fellows
D.C., for inclusion in their upcoming series of Internet related papers.
Staff
It is a condensation of a longer paper in preparation by the authors on
the same subject. Many topics of potential interest were not included
in this condensed version because of size and subject matter
constraints. Nevertheless, the reader should get a basic idea of the
Internet, how it came to be, and perhaps even how to begin thinking
about it from an architectural perspective. This will be especially
To receive IPI News,
important to policy makers who need to distinguish the Internet as a
click here
global information system apart from its underlying communications
infrastructure.
INTRODUCTION
Return to top
As we approach a new millennium, the Internet is revolutionizing our
society, our economy and our technological systems. No one knows
for certain how far, or in what direction, the Internet will evolve. But no
one should underestimate its importance.
Over the past century and a half, important technological
developments have created a global environment that is drawing the
people of the world closer and closer together. During the industrial
revolution, we learned to put motors to work to magnify human and
animal muscle power. In the new Information Age, we are learning to
magnify brainpower by putting the power of computation wherever we
need it, and to provide information services on a global basis.
Computer resources are infinitely flexible tools; networked together,
they allow us to generate, exchange, share and manipulate
information in an uncountable number of ways. The Internet, as an
integrating force, has melded the technology of communications and
computing to provide instant connectivity and global information
services to all its users at very low cost.
Ten years ago, most of the world knew little or nothing about the
Internet. It was the private enclave of computer scientists and
researchers who used it to interact with colleagues in their respective
disciplines. Today, the Internet's magnitude is thousands of times
what it was only a decade ago. It is estimated that about 60 million
host computers on the Internet today serve about 200 million users in
over 200 countries and territories. Today's telephone system is still
1 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
much larger: about 3 billion people around the world now talk on
almost 950 million telephone lines (about 250 million of which are
actually radio-based cell phones). But by the end of the year 2000, the
authors estimate there will be at least 300 million Internet users. Also,
the total numbers of host computers and users have been growing at
about 33% every six months since 1988 - or roughly 80% per year.
The telephone service, in comparison, grows an average of about
5-10% per year. That means if the Internet keeps growing steadily the
way it has been growing over the past few years, it will be nearly as
big as today's telephone system by about 2006.
top
THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNET
Return to top
The underpinnings of the Internet are formed by the global
interconnection of hundreds of thousands of otherwise independent
computers, communications entities and information systems. What
makes this interconnection possible is the use of a set of
communication standards, procedures and formats in common among
the networks and the various devices and computational facilities
connected to them. The procedures by which computers communicate
with each other are called "protocols." While this infrastructure is
steadily evolving to include new capabilities, the protocols initially
used by the Internet are called the "TCP/IP" protocols, named after the
two protocols that formed the principal basis for Internet operation.
On top of this infrastructure is an emerging set of architectural
concepts and data structures for heterogeneous information systems
that renders the Internet a truly global information system. In essence,
the Internet is an architecture, although many people confuse it with its
implementation. When the Internet is looked at as an architecture, it
manifests two different abstractions. One abstraction deals with
communications connectivity, packet delivery and a variety of end-end
communication services. The other abstraction deals with the Internet
as an information system, independent of its underlying
communications infrastructure, which allows creation, storage and
access to a wide range of information resources, including digital
objects and related services at various levels of abstraction.
Interconnecting computers is an inherently digital problem. Computers
process and exchange digital information, meaning that they use a
discrete mathematical "binary" or "two-valued" language of 1s and Os.
For communication purposes, such information is mapped into
continuous electrical or optical waveforms. The use of digital signaling
allows accurate regeneration and reliable recovery of the underlying
bits. We use the terms "computer," "computer resources" and
"computation" to mean not only traditional computers, but also devices
that can be controlled digitally over a network, information resources
such as mobile programs and other computational capabilities.
The telephone network started out with operators who manually
connected telephones to each other through "patch panels" that
accepted patch cords from each telephone line and electrically
connected them to one another through the panel, which operated, in
effect, like a switch. The result was called circuit switching, since at its
conclusion, an electrical circuit was made between the calling
telephone and the called telephone. Conventional circuit switching,
which was developed to handle telephone calls, is inappropriate for
connecting computers because it makes limited use of the
telecommunication facilities and takes too long to set up connections.
Although reliable enough for voice communication, the circuit-switched
voice network had difficulty delivering digital information without
errors.
For digital communications, packet switching is a better choice,
2 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
because it is far better suited to the typically "burst" communication
style of computers. Computers that communicate typically send out
brief but intense bursts of data, then remain silent for a while before
sending out the next burst. These bursts are communicated as
packets, which are very much like electronic postcards. The
postcards, in reality packets, are relayed from computer to computer
until they reach their destination. The special computers that perform
this forwarding function are called variously "packet switches" or
"routers" and form the equivalent of many bucket brigades spanning
continents and oceans, moving buckets of electronic postcards from
one computer to another. Together these routers and the
communication links between them form the underpinnings of the
Internet.
Without packet switching, the Internet would not exist as we now know
it. Going back to the postcard analogy, postcards can get lost. They
can be delivered out of order, and they can be delayed by varying
amounts. The same is true of Internet packets, which, on the Internet,
can even be duplicated. The Internet Protocol is the postcard layer of
the Internet. The next higher layer of protocol, TCP, takes care of
re-sending the "postcards" to recover packets that might have been
lost, and putting packets back in order if they have become disordered
in transit.
Of course, packet switching is about a billion times faster than the
postal service or a bucket brigade would be. It also has to operate
over many different communications systems, or substrata. The
authors designed the basic architecture to be so simple and
undemanding that it could work with most communication services.
Many organizations, including commercial ones, carried out research
using the TCP/IP protocols in the 1970s. Email was steadily used over
the nascent Internet during that time and to the present. It was not
until 1994 that the general public began to be aware of the Internet by
way of the World Wide Web application, particularly after Netscape
Communications was formed and released its browser and associated
server software.
Thus, the evolution of the Internet was based on two technologies and
a research dream. The technologies were packet switching and
computer technology, which, in turn, drew upon the underlying
technologies of digital communications and semiconductors. The
research dream was to share information and computational
resources. But that is simply the technical side of the story. Equally
important in many ways were the other dimensions that enabled the
Internet to come into existence and flourish. This aspect of the story
starts with cooperation and far-sightedness in the U.S. Government,
which is often derided for lack of foresight but is a real hero in this
story.
It leads on to the enthusiasm of private sector interests to build upon
the government funded developments to expand the Internet and
make it available to the general public. Perhaps most important, it is
fueled by the development of the personal computer industry and
significant changes in the telecommunications industry in the 1980s,
not the least of which was the decision to open the long distance
market to competition. The role of workstations, the Unix operating
system and local area networking (especially the Ethernet) are themes
contributing to the spread of Internet technology in the 1980s into the
research and academic community from which the Internet industry
eventually emerged.
Many individuals have been involved in the development and
evolution of the Internet covering a span of almost four decades if one
goes back to the early writings on the subject of computer networking
by Kleinrock [i], Licklider [ii], Baran [iii], Roberts [iv], and Davies [v].
The ARPANET, described below, was the first wide-area computer
network. The NSFNET, which followed more than a decade later
under the leadership of Erich Bloch, Gordon Bell, Bill Wulf and Steve
3 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
Wolff, brought computer networking into the mainstream of the
research and education communities. It is not our intent here to
attempt to attribute credit to all those whose contributions were central
to this story, although we mention a few of the key players. A
readable summary on the history of the Internet, written by many of
the key players, may be found at www.isoc.org/internet/history. [vi]
From One Network to Many: The role of DARPA
Modern computer networking technologies emerged in the early
1970s. In 1969, The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (variously called ARPA and DARPA), an agency within the
Department of Defense, commissioned a wide-area computer network
called the ARPANET. This network made use of the new packet
switching concepts for interconnecting computers and initially linked
computers at universities and other research institutions in the United
States and in selected NATO countries. At that time, the ARPANET
was essentially the only realistic wide-area computer network in
existence, with a base of several dozen organizations, perhaps twice
that number of computers and numerous researchers at those sites.
The program was led at DARPA by Larry Roberts. The packet
switches were built by Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN), a DARPA
contractor. Others directly involved in the ARPANET activity included
the authors, Len Kleinrock, Frank Heart, Howard Frank, Steve
Crocker, Jon Postel and many many others in the ARPA research
community.
Back then, the methods of internetworking (that is interconnecting
computer networks) were primitive or non-existent. Two organizations
could interwork technically by agreeing to use common equipment, but
not every organization was interested in this approach. Absent that,
there was jury-rigging, special case development and not much else.
Each of these networks stood on its own with essentially no interaction
between them - - a far cry from today's Internet.
In the early 1970s, ARPA began to explore two alternative
applications of packet switching technology based on the use of
synchronous satellites (SATNET) and ground-based packet radio
(PRNET). The decision by Kahn to link these two networks and the
ARPANET as separate and independent networks resulted in the
creation of the Internet program and the subsequent collaboration with
Cerf. These two systems differed in significant ways from the
ARPANET so as to take advantage of the broadcast and wireless
aspects of radio communications. The strategy that had been adopted
for SATNET originally was to embed the SATNET software into an
ARPANET packet switch, and interwork the two networks through
memory-to-memory transfers within the packet switch. This approach,
in place at the time, was to make SATNET an "embedded" network
within the ARPANET; users of the network would not even need to
know of its existence. The technical team at Bolt Beranek and
Newman (BBN), having built the ARPANET switches and now building
the SATNET software, could easily produce the necessary patches to
glue the programs together in the same machine. Indeed, this is what
they were under contract with DARPA to provide. By embedding each
new network into the ARPANET, a seamless internetworked capability
was possible, but with no realistic possibility of unleashing the
entrepreneurial networking spirit that has manifest itself in modern day
Internet developments. A new approach was in order.
The Packet Radio (PRNET) program had not yet gotten underway so
there was ample opportunity to change the approach there. In
addition, up until then, the SATNET program was only an equipment
development activity. No commitments had been obtained for the use
of actual satellites or ground stations to access them. Indeed, since
there was no domestic satellite industry in the U.S. then, the only two
viable alternatives were the use of Intelsat or U.S. military satellites.
The time for a change in strategy, if it was to be made, was then.
4 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
top
THE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE
Return to top
The authors created an architecture for interconnecting independent
networks that could then be federated into a seamless whole without
changing any of the underlying networks. This was the genesis of the
Internet as we know it today.
In order to work properly, the architecture required a global addressing
mechanism (or Internet address) to enable computers on any network
to reference and communicate with computers on any other network in
the federation. Internet addresses fill essentially the same role as
telephone numbers do in telephone networks. The design of the
Internet assumed first that the individual networks could not be
changed to accommodate new architectural requirements; but this
was largely a pragmatic assumption to facilitate progress. The
networks also had varying degrees of reliability and speed. Host
computers would have to be able to put disordered packets back into
the correct order and discard duplicate packets that had been
generated along the way. This was a major change from the virtual
circuit-like service provided by ARPANET and by then contemporary
commercial data networking services such as Tymnet and Telenet. In
these networks, the underlying network took responsibility for keeping
all information in order and for re-sending any data that might have
been lost. The Internet design made the computers responsible for
tending to these network problems.
A key architectural construct was the introduction of gateways (now
called routers) between the networks to handle the disparities such as
different data rates, packet sizes, error conditions, and interface
specifications. The gateways would also check the destination Internet
addresses of each packet to determine the gateway to which it should
be forwarded. These functions would be combined with certain
end-end functions to produce the reliable communication from source
to destination. A draft paper by the authors describing this approach
was given at a meeting of the International Network Working Group in
1973 in Sussex, England and the final paper was subsequently
published by the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the
leading professional society for the electrical engineering profession,
in its Transactions on Communications in May, 1974 [vii]. The paper
described the TCP/IP protocol.
DARPA contracted with Cerf's group at Stanford to carry out the initial
detailed design of the TCP software and, shortly thereafter, with BBN
and University College London to build independent implementations
of the TCP protocol (as it was then called - it was later split into TCP
and IP) for different machines. BBN also had a contract to build a
prototype version of the gateway. These three sites collaborated in the
development and testing of the initial protocols on different machines.
Cerf, then a professor at Stanford, provided the day-to-day leadership
in the initial TCP software design and testing. BBN deployed the
gateways between the ARPANET and the PRNET and also with
SATNET. During this period, under Kahn's overall leadership at
DARPA, the initial feasibility of the Internet Architecture was
demonstrated.
The TCP/IP protocol suite was developed and refined over a period of
four more years and, in 1980, it was adopted as a standard by the
U.S. Department of Defense. On January 1, 1983 the ARPANET
converted to TCP/IP as its standard host protocol. Gateways (or
routers) were used to pass packets to and from host computers on
"local area networks." Refinement and extension of these protocols
and many others associated with them continues to this day by way of
the Internet Engineering Task Force [viii].
5 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
top
GOVERNMENT'S HISTORICAL ROLE
Return to top
Other political and social dimensions that enabled the Internet to come
into existence and flourish are just as important as the technology
upon which it is based. The federal government played a large role in
creating the Internet, as did the private sector interests that made it
available to the general public. The development of the personal
computer industry and significant changes in the telecommunications
industry also contributed to the Internet's growth in the 1980s. In
particular, the development of workstations, the Unix operating
system, and local area networking (especially the Ethernet)
contributed to the spread of the Internet within the research
community from which the Internet industry eventually emerged.
The National Science Foundation and others
In the late 1970s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) became
interested in the impact of the ARPANET on computer science and
engineering. NSF funded the Computer Science Network (CSNET),
which was a logical design for interconnecting universities that were
already on the ARPANET and those that were not. Telenet was used
for sites not connected directly to the ARPANET and a gateway was
provided to link the two. Independent of NSF, another initiative called
BITNET ("Because it's there" Net) [ix] provided campus computers
with email connections to the growing ARPANET. Finally, AT&T Bell
Laboratories development of the Unix operating system led to the
creation of a grass-roots network called USENET [x], which rapidly
became home to thousands of "newsgroups" where Internet users
discussed everything from aerobics to politics and zoology.
In the mid 1980s, NSF decided to build a network called NSFNET to
provide better computer connections for the science and education
communities. The NSFNET made possible the involvement of a large
segment of the education and research community in the use of high
speed networks. A consortium consisting of MERIT (a University of
Michigan non-profit network services organization), IBM and MCI
Communications won a 1987 competition for the contract to handle
the network's construction. Within two years, the newly expanded
NSFNET had become the primary backbone component of the
Internet, augmenting the ARPANET until it was decommissioned in
1990.At about the same time, other parts of the U.S. government had
moved ahead to build and deploy networks of their own, including
NASA and the Department of Energy. While these groups originally
adopted independent approaches for their networks, they eventually
decided to support the use of TCP/IP.
The developers of the NSFNET, led by Steve Wolff who had the direct
responsibility for the NSFNET program, also decided to create
intermediate level networks to serve research and education
institutions and, more importantly, to allow networks that were not
commissioned by the U.S. government to connect to the NSFNET.
This strategy reduced the overall load on the backbone network
operators and spawned a new industry: Internet Service Provision.
Nearly a dozen intermediate level networks were created, most with
NSF support, [xi] some, such as UUNET, with Defense support, and
some without any government support. The NSF contribution to the
evolution of the Internet was essential in two respects. It opened the
Internet to many new users and, drawing on the properties of TCP/IP,
structured it so as to allow many more network service providers to
participate.
For a long time, the federal government did not allow organizations to
connect to the Internet to carry out commercial activities. By 1988, it
was becoming apparent, however, that the Internet's growth and use
in the business sector might be seriously inhibited by this restriction.
6 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
That year, CNRI requested permission from the Federal Networking
Council to interconnect the commercial MCI Mail electronic mail
system to the Internet as part of a general electronic mail
interconnection experiment. Permission was given and the
interconnection was completed by CNRI, under Cerf's direction, in the
summer of 1989. Shortly thereafter, two of the then non-profit Internet
Service Providers (UUNET [xii] and NYSERNET) produced new
for-profit companies (UUNET and PSINET [xiii] respectively). In 1991,
they were interconnected with each other and CERFNET [xiv].
Commercial pressure to alleviate restrictions on interconnections with
the NSFNET began to mount.
In response, Congress passed legislation allowing NSF to open the
NSFNET to commercial usage. Shortly thereafter, NSF determined
that its support for NSFNET might not be required in the longer term
and, in April 1995, NSF ceased its support for the NSFNET. By that
time, many commercial networks were in operation and provided
alternatives to NSFNET for national level network services. Today,
approximately 10,000 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are in
operation. Roughly half the world's ISPs currently are based in North
America and the rest are distributed throughout the world.
top
A DEFINITION FOR THE INTERNET
Return to top
The authors feel strongly that efforts should be made at top policy
levels to define the Internet. It is tempting to view it merely as a
collection of networks and computers. However, as indicated earlier,
the authors designed the Internet as an architecture that provided for
both communications capabilities and information services.
Governments are passing legislation pertaining to the Internet without
ever specifying to what the law applies and to what it does not apply.
In U.S. telecommunications law, distinctions are made between cable,
satellite broadcast and common carrier services. These and many
other distinctions all blur in the backdrop of the Internet. Should
broadcast stations be viewed as Internet Service Providers when their
programming is made available in the Internet environment? Is use of
cellular telephones considered part of the Internet and if so under what
conditions? This area is badly in need of clarification.
The authors believe the best definition currently in existence is that
approved by the Federal Networking Council in 1995,
http://www.fnc.gov and which is reproduced in the footnote below [xv]
for ready reference. Of particular note is that it defines the Internet as
a global information system, and included in the definition, is not only
the underlying communications technology, but also higher-level
protocols and end-user applications, the associated data structures
and the means by which the information may be processed,
manifested, or otherwise used. In many ways, this definition supports
the characterization of the Internet as an "information superhighway."
Like the federal highway system, whose underpinnings include not
only concrete lanes and on/off ramps, but also a supporting
infrastructure both physical and informational, including signs, maps,
regulations, and such related services and products as filling stations
and gasoline, the Internet has its own layers of ingress and egress,
and its own multi-tiered levels of service.
The FNC definition makes it clear that the Internet is a dynamic
organism that can be looked at in myriad ways. It is a framework for
numerous services and a medium for creativity and innovation. Most
importantly, it can be expected to evolve.
top
WHO RUNS THE INTERNET
7 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
Return to top
The Domain Name System
The Internet evolved as an experimental system during the 1970s and
early 1980s. It then flourished after the TCP/IP protocols were made
mandatory on the ARPANET and other networks in January 1983;
these protocols thus became the standard for many other networks as
well. Indeed, the Internet grew so rapidly that the existing mechanisms
for associating the names of host computers (e.g. UCLA, USC-ISI) to
Internet addresses (known as IP addresses) were about to be
stretched beyond acceptable engineering limits. Most of the
applications in the Internet referred to the target computers by name.
These names had to be translated into Internet addresses before the
lower level protocols could be activated to support the application. For
a time, a group at SRI International in Menlo Park, CA, called the
Network Information Center (NIC), maintained a simple,
machine-readable list of names and associated Internet addresses
which was made available on the net. Hosts on the Internet would
simply copy this list, usually daily, so as to maintain a local copy of the
table. This list was called the "host.txt" file (since it was simply a text
file). The list served the function in the Internet that directory services
(e.g. 411 or 703-555-1212) do in the US telephone system - the
translation of a name into an address.
As the Internet grew, it became harder and harder for the NIC to keep
the list current. Anticipating that this problem would only get worse as
the network expanded, researchers at USC Information Sciences
Institute launched an effort to design a more distributed way of
providing this same information. The end result was the Domain Name
System (DNS) [xvi] which allowed hundreds of thousands of "name
servers" to maintain small portions of a global database of information
associating IP addresses with the names of computers on the Internet.
The naming structure was hierarchical in character. For example, all
host computers associated with educational institutions would have
names like "stanford.edu" or "ucla.edu". Specific hosts would have
names like "cs.ucla.edu" to refer to a computer in the computer
science department of UCLA, for example. A special set of computers
called "root servers" maintained information about the names and
addresses of other servers that contained more detailed
name/address associations. The designers of the DNS also
developed seven generic "top level" domains, as follows:
Education - EDU
Government - GOV
Military MIL
International - INT
Network - NET
(non-profit) Organization - ORG
Commercial - COM
Under this system, for example, the host name "UCLA" became
"UCLA.EDU" because it was operated by an educational institution,
while the host computer for "BBN" became "BBN.COM" because it
was a commercial organization. Top-level domain names also were
created for every country: United Kingdom names would end in ".UK,"
while the ending ".FR" was created for the names of France.
The Domain Name System (DNS) was and continues to be a major
element of the Internet architecture, which contributes to its scalability.
It also contributes to controversy over trademarks and general rules
for the creation and use of domain names, creation of new top-level
domains and the like. At the same time, other resolution schemes
exist as well. One of the authors (Kahn) has been involved in the
development of a different kind of standard identification and
resolution scheme [xvii] that, for example, is being used as the base
8 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
technology by book publishers to identify books on the Internet by
adapting various identification schemes for use in the Internet
environment. For example, International Standard Book Numbers
(ISBNs) can be used as part of the identifiers. The identifiers then
resolve to state information about the referenced books, such as
location information (e.g. multiple sites) on the Internet that is used to
access the books or to order them. These developments are taking
place in parallel with the more traditional means of managing Internet
resources. They offer an alternative to the existing Domain Name
System with enhanced functionality.
The growth of Web servers and users of the Web has been
remarkable, but some people are confused about the relationship
between the World Wide Web and the Internet. The Internet is the
global information system that includes communication capabilities
and many high level applications. The Web is one such application.
The existing connectivity of the Internet made it possible for users and
servers all over the world to participate in this activity. Electronic mail
is another important application. As of today, over 60 million
computers take part in the Internet and about 3.6 million web sites
were estimated to be accessible on the net. Virtually every user of the
net has access to electronic mail and web browsing capability. Email
remains a critically important application for most users of the Internet,
and these two functions largely dominate the use of the Internet for
most users.
The Internet Standards Process
Internet standards were once the output of research activity sponsored
by DARPA. The principal investigators on the internetting research
effort essentially determined what technical features of the TCP/IP
protocols would become common. The initial work in this area started
with the joint effort of the two authors, continued in Cerf's group at
Stanford, and soon thereafter was joined by engineers and scientists
at BBN and University College London. This informal arrangement has
changed with time and details can be found elsewhere [xviii]. At
present, the standards efforts for Internet is carried out primarily under
the auspices of the Internet Society (ISOC). The Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) operates under the leadership of its Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG), which is populated by appointees
approved by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) which is, itself, now
part of the Internet Society.
The IETF comprises over one hundred working groups categorized
and managed by Area Directors specializing in specific categories.
There are other bodies with considerable interest in Internet standards
or in standards that must interwork with the Internet. Examples include
the International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
standards group (ITU-T), the International Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) local area network standards group
(IEEE 801), the Organization for International Standardization (ISO),
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C), and many others.
As Internet access and services are provided by existing media such
as telephone, cable and broadcast, interactions with standards bodies
and legal structures formed to deal with these media will become an
increasingly complex matter. The intertwining of interests is
simultaneously fascinating and complicated, and has increased the
need for thoughtful cooperation among many interested parties.
Managing the Internet
Perhaps the least understood aspect of the Internet is its
management. In recent years, this subject has become the subject of
intense commercial and international interest, involving multiple
9 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
governments and commercial organizations, and recently
congressional hearings. At issue is how the Internet will be managed
in the future, and, in the process, what oversight mechanisms will
insure that the public interest is adequately served.
In the 1970s, managing the Internet was easy. Since few people knew
about the Internet, decisions about almost everything of real policy
concern were made in the offices of DARPA. It became clear in the
late 1970s, however, that more community involvement in the
decision-making processes was essential. In 1979, DARPA formed
the Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB) to insure that
knowledgeable members of the technical community discussed critical
issues, educated people outside of DARPA about the issues, and
helped others to implement the TCP/IP protocols and gateway
functions. At the time, there were no companies that offered turnkey
solutions to getting on the Internet. It would be another five years or so
before companies like Cisco Systems were formed, and while there
were no PCs yet, the only workstations available were specially built
and their software was not generally configured for use with external
networks; they were certainly considered expensive at the time.
In 1983, the small group of roughly twelve ICCB members was
reconstituted (with some substitutions) as the Internet Activities Board
(IAB), and about ten "Task Forces" were established under it to
address issues in specific technical areas. The attendees at Internet
Working Group meetings were invited to become members of as many
of the task forces as they wished.
The management of the Domain Name System offers a kind of
microcosm of issues now frequently associated with overall
management of the Internet's operation and evolution. Someone had
to take responsibility for overseeing the system's general operation. In
particular, top-level domain names had to be selected, along with
persons or organizations to manage each of them. Rules for the
allocation of Internet addresses had to be established. DARPA had
previously asked the late Jon Postel of the USC Information Sciences
Institute to take on numerous functions related to administration of
names, addresses and protocol related matters. With time, Postel
assumed further responsibilities in this general area on his own, and
DARPA, which was supporting the effort, gave its tacit approval. This
activity was generally referred to as the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) [xix]. In time, Postel became the arbitrator of all
controversial matters concerning names and addresses until his
untimely death in October 1998.
It is helpful to consider separately the problem of managing the
domain name space and the Internet address space. These two vital
elements of the Internet architecture have rather different
characteristics that color the management problems they generate.
Domain names have semantics that numbers may not imply; and thus
a means of determining who can use what names is needed. As a
result, speculators on Internet names often claim large numbers of
them without intent to use them other than to resell them later.
Alternate resolution mechanisms [xx], if widely adopted, could
significantly change the landscape here.
The rapid growth of the Internet has triggered the design of a new and
larger address space (the so-called IP version 6 address space);
today's Internet uses IP version 4 [xxi]. However, little momentum has
yet developed to deploy IPv6 widely. Despite concerns to the contrary,
the IPv4 address space will not be depleted for some time. Further,
the use of Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) to
dynamically assign IP addresses has also cut down on demand for
dedicated IP addresses. Nevertheless, there is growing recognition in
the Internet technical community that expansion of the address space
is needed, as is the development of transition schemes that allow
interoperation between IPv4 and IPv6 while migrating to IPv6.
10 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
In 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) was formed as a private sector, non-profit, organization to
oversee the orderly progression in use of Internet names and
numbers, as well as certain protocol related matters that required
oversight. The birth of this organization, which was selected by the
Department of Commerce for this function, has been difficult,
embodying as it does many of the inherent conflicts in resolving
discrepancies in this arena. However, there is a clear need for an
oversight mechanism for Internet domain names and numbers,
separate from their day-to-day management.
Many questions about Internet management remain. They may also
prove difficult to resolve quickly. Of specific concern is what role the
U.S. government and indeed governments around the world need to
play in its continuing operation and evolution. This is clearly a subject
for another time.
top
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Return to top
As we struggle to envision what may be commonplace on the Internet
in a decade, we are confronted with the challenge of imagining new
ways of doing old things, as well as trying to think of new things that
will be enabled by the Internet, and by the technologies of the future.
In the next ten years, the Internet is expected to be enormously bigger
than it is today. It will be more pervasive than the older technologies
and penetrate more homes than television and radio programming.
Computer chips are now being built that implement the TCP/IP
protocols and recently a university announced a two-chip web server.
Chips like this are extremely small and cost very little. And they can
be put into anything. Many of the devices connected to the Internet will
be Internet-enabled appliances (cell phones, fax machines, household
appliances, hand-held organizers, digital cameras, etc.) as well as
traditional laptop and desktop computers. Information access will be
directed to digital objects of all kinds and services that help to create
them or make use of them [xxii].
Very high-speed networking has also been developing at a steady
pace. From the original 50,000 bit-per-second ARPANET, to the 155
million bit-per-second NSFNET, to today's 2.4 - 9.6 billion
bit-per-second commercial networks, we routinely see commercial
offerings providing Internet access at increasing speeds.
Experimentation with optical technology using wavelength division
multiplexing is underway in many quarters; and testbeds operating at
speeds of terabits per second (that is trillions of bits-per-second) are
being constructed.
Some of these ultra-high speed systems may one-day carry data from
very far away places, like Mars. Already, design of the interplanetary
Internet as a logical extension of the current Internet, is part of the
NASA Mars mission program now underway at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, California [xxiii]. By 2008, we should have a
well functioning Earth-Mars network that serves as a nascent
backbone of the interplanetary Internet.
Wireless communication has exploded in recent years with the rapid
growth of cellular telephony. Increasingly, however, Internet access is
becoming available over these networks. Alternate forms for wireless
communication, including both ground radio and satellite are in
development and use now, and the prospects for increasing data rates
look promising. Recent developments in high data rate systems
appear likely to offer ubiquitous wireless data services in the 1-2 Mbps
11 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM
Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12_99_story.html
range. It is even possible that wireless Internet access may one day
be the primary way most people get access to the Internet.
A developing trend that seems likely to continue in the future is an
information centric view of the Internet that can live in parallel with the
current communications centric view. Many of the concerns about
intellectual property protection are difficult to deal with, not because of
fundamental limits in the law, but rather by technological and perhaps
management limitations in knowing how best to deal with these
issues. A digital object infrastructure that makes information objects
"first-class citizens" in the packetized "primordial soup" of the Internet
is one step in that direction. In this scheme, the digital object is the
conceptual elemental unit in the information view; it is interpretable (in
principle) by all participating information systems. The digital object is
thus an abstraction that may be implemented in various ways by
different systems. It is a critical building block for interoperable and
heterogeneous information systems. Each digital object has a unique
and, if desired, persistent identifier that will allow it to be managed
over time. This approach is highly relevant to the development of
third-party value added information services in the Internet
environment.
Of special concern to the authors is the need to understand and
manage the downside potential for network disruptions, as well as
cybercrime and terrorism. The ability to deal with problems in this
diverse arena is at the forefront of maintaining a viable global
information infrastructure. " IOPS.org" [xxiv] - a private-sector group
dedicated to improving coordination among ISPs - deals with issues of
ISP outages, disruptions, other trouble conditions, as well as related
matters, by discussion, interaction and coordination between and
among the principal players. Business, the academic community and
government all need as much assurance as possible that they can
conduct their activities on the Internet with high confidence that
security and reliability will be present. The participation of many
organizations around the world, including especially governments and
the relevant service providers will be essential here.
The success of the Internet in society as a whole will depend less on
technology than on the larger economic and social concerns that are
at the heart of every major advance. The Internet is no exception,
except that its potential and reach are perhaps as broad as any that
have come before.
top
[i] Leonard Kleinrock's dissertation thesis at MIT was written during
1961: "Information Flow in Large Communication Nets", RLE
Quarterly Progress Report, July 1961 and published as a book
"Communication Nets: Stochastic Message Flow and Delay", New
York: McGraw Hill, 1964. This was one of the earliest mathematical
analyses of what we now call packet switching networks.
[ii] J.C.R. Licklider & W. Clark, "On-Line Man Computer
Communication", August 1962. Licklider made tongue-in-cheek
references to an "inter-galactic network" but in truth, his vision of what
might be possible was prophetic.
iiii] [BARAN 64] Baran, P., et al, "On Distributed Communications",
Volumes I-XI, RAND Corporation Research Documents, August
1964. Paul Baran explored the use of digital "message block"
switching to support highly resilient, survivable voice communications
for military command and control. This work was undertaken at RAND
Corporation for the US Air Force beginning in 1962.
12 of 15
4/10/2000 5:20 PM