Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/technical/hi.perf.computing.net

Text File | 1990-02-01 | 67.2 KB | 1,473 lines

Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 05:39:40 PST
From: Steve Cisler <sac>
Subject: High Performance Computing and Networking

 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, High Performance
Computing and Networking for Science--Background Paper, OTA-BP-CIT-59,
September 1989.  Chapter III: Networks (Project Director: Fred
Weingarten 202 228 6760)

(This chapter was scanned using a Macintosh IIcx, OmniPage 2.0, and
McSink. Moving a document from a complex format with tables,
footnotes, and multiple columns and fonts to an 80 column ASCII file
loses something in the translation. Footnotes are placed at about the
same place as in the print version.  --Steve Cisler: [e-mail]
408-9743258.)


Networks

 Information is the lifeblood of science; communication of that
information is crucial to the advance of research and its
applications. Data communication networks enable scientists to talk
with each other, access unique experimental data, share results and
publications, and run models on remote supercomputers, all with a
speed, capacity, and ease that makes possible the posing of new
questions and the prospect for new answers. Networks ease research
collaboration by removing geographic barriers. They have become an
invaluable research tool, opening up new channels of communication and
increasing access to research equipment and facilities. Most
important, networking is becoming the indispensable foundation for
all other use of information technology in research.

  Research networking is also pushing the frontiers of data
communications and network technologies.  Like electric power
highways, and the telephone, data communications is an infrastructure
that will be crucial to all sectors of the economy. Businesses demand
on-line transaction processing, and finan- cial markets run on
globally networked electronic trading. The evolution of telephony to
digital technology allows merging of voice, data and information
services networking, although voice circuits still dominate the
deployment of the technology. Promoting scientific research
networking -- dealing with data-intense outputs like satellite imag-
ing and supercomputer modeling--should push networking technology that
will find application far outside of science.

  Policy action is needed, if Congress wishes to see the evolution of
a full-scale national research and education network. The existing
"internet" of scientific networks is a fledgling. As this
conglomeration of networks evolves from an R&D enterprise to an
operational network, users will demand round-the-clock, high-quality
service. Academics, policymakers, and researchers around the world
agree on the pressing need to transform it into a permanent
infrastructure.  This will entail grappling with difficult issues of
public and private roles in funding, management, pricing/cost
recovery, access, security, and international coordination as well
as assuring ade- quate funding to carry out initiatives that are set
by Congress.

  Research networking faces two particular policy complications.
First, since the network in its broadest form serves most
disciplines agencies and many different groups of users, it has no
obvious lead champion. As a common resource, its potential sponsors
may each be pleased to use it but unlikely to give it the priority and
funding required to bring it to its full potential. There is a need
for clear central leadership, as well as coordination of governments,
the private sector, and universities. A second complication is a
mismatch between the concept of a national research network and the
traditionally decentralized subsidized, mixed public-private na- ture
of higher education and science. The processes and priorities of
mission agency-based Federal support may need some redesigning as they
are oriented towards supporting ongoing mission-oriented and basic
research, and may work less well at fostering large-scale scientific
facilities and infrastructure that cut across disciplines and agency
missions.

  In the near term, the most important step is getting a widely
connected, operational network in place. But the "bare bones" networks
are a small part of the picture. Information that flows over the
network, and the scientific resources and data available through the
network, are the important payoffs. Key long-term issues for the
research community will be those that affect the sort of information
available over the network, who has access to it, and how much it
costs. The main issue areas for scientific data networking are
outlined below:

> research--to develop the technology required
  to transmit and switch data at very high rates;

> private sector participation--role of the com-
  mon carriers and telecommunication compa-
  nies in developing and managing the network
  and of private information firms in offering
  services;

> scope--who the network is designed to serve
  will drive its structure and management;

> access--balancing open use against security
  and information control and determining who
  will be able to gain access to the network for
  what purpose;

> standards--the role of government, industry,
users, and international organizations in setting
and maintaining technical standards;

> management--public and private roles; degree
of decentralization;

> funding--an operational network will require
significant, stable, continuing investment; the
financial responsibilities demarcated must re-
flect the interests of various players, from
individual colleges through States and the
Federal Government, in their stake in network
operations and policies;

> economics--pricing and cost recovery for net-
work use, central to the evolution and manage-
ment of any infrastructure. Economics will
drive the use of the network;

> information services--who will decide what
types of services are to be allowed over the
network, who is allowed to offer them; and who
will resolve inforrnation issues such as privacy,
intellectual property, fair competition, and
security;

> long-term science policy issues--the networks'
impacts on the process of science, and on
access to and dissemination of valuable scien-
tific and technical information.


THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK (NREN)

"A universal communications network connected to national and
international networks enables elec- tronic communication among
scholars anywhere in the world, as well as access to worldwide
information sources, special experimental instruments, and computing
resources. The network has sufficient bandwidth for scholarly
resources to appear to be attached to a world local area network."
EDUCOM, 1988.

". . . a national research network to provide a distrib-
uted computing capability that links the government,
industry, and higher education communities
OSTP, 1987.

"The goal of the National Research and Education Network is to enhance
national competitiveness and productivity through a high-speed,
high-quality network infrastructure which supports a broad set of
applications and network services for the research and instructional
community."  EDUCOM/NTTF, March 1989.

"The NREN will provide high-speed communica- tion access to over 1300
institutions across the United States within five years. It will offer
suffi- cient capacity. performance, and functionality so that the
physical distance between institutions is no longer a barrier to
effective collaboration. It will support access to high-performance
computing facilities and services . . . and advanced information
sharing and exchange, including national file sys- tems and online
libraries ....the NREN will evolve toward fully supported commercial
facilities that support a broad range of applications and services."
FRICC, Program Plan for the NREN. May 23, 1989.

This chapter of the background paper reviews the status of and issues
surrounding data networking for science, in particular the proposed
NREN. It describes current Federal activities and plans, and
identifies issues to be examined in the full report, to be completed
in summer 1990.

The existing array of scientific networks consists of a hierarchy of
local, regional and national networks, linked into a whole. In this
paper, "NREN" will be used to describe the next generation of the
national "backbone" that ties them together.  The term "Internet" is
used to describe a more specific set of interconnected major networks,
all of which use the same data transmission protocols. The most
important are NSFNET and its major regional subnetworks, ARPANET, and
several other federally initiated networks such as ESNET and NASNET.
The term internet is used fairly loosely.  At its broadest, the more
generic term internet can be used to describe the international
conglomeration of networks, with a variety of protocols and capabili-
ties, which have a gateway into Internet; which could include such
things as BITNET and MCI Mail.


The Origins of Research Networking

Research users were among the first to link computers into networks,
to share information and broaden remote access to computing resources.
DARPA created ARPANET in the 1960s for two purposes: to advance
networking and data communications R&D, and to develop a robust
communications network that would support the data-rich
conversations of computer scientists. Building on the resulting
packet-switched network technology, other agencies developed
specialized networks for their research communities (e.g., ESNET,
CSNET, NSFNET). Telecommunications and electronic in- dustries
provided technology and capacity for these networks, but they were not
policy leaders or innovators of new systems. Meanwhile, other
research oriented networks, such as BITNET and Usenet, were developed
in parallel by academic and industry users who, not being grantees or
contractors of Federal agencies, were not served by the agency-
sponsored networks. These university and lab-based networks serve a
relatively small number of specialized scientific users, a market
that has been ignored by the traditional telecommunications industry.
The networks sprang from the efforts of users -- academic and other
research scientists -- and the Federal managers who were supporting
them.l


The Growing Demand for Capability and Connectivity

  Today there are thousands of computer networks in the United States.
These networks range from temporary linkages between modem-equipped2
desk-top computers linked via common carriers, to institution-wide
area networks, to regional and national networks. Network traffic
moves through different media, including copper wire and optical
cables, signal processors and switches, satellites, and the vast
common carrier system developed for voice communication. Much of this
hodgepodge of networks has been linked (at least in terms of ability
to interconnect) into the internet. The ability of any two systems to
interconnect depends on their ability to recognize and deal with the
form information flows take in each. These "protocols" are sets of
technical standards that, in a sense, are the "lan-guages" of
communication systems. Networks with different protocols can often be
linked together by computer-based "gateways" that translate the proto-
cols between the networks.

  National networks have partially coalesced, where technology allows
cost savings without losing connectivity. Over the past years, several
agencies have pooled funds and plans to support a shared national
backbone. The primary driver for this interconnecting and coalescing
of networks has been the need for connectivity among users. The power
of the whole is vastly greater than the sum of the pieces.
Substantial costs are saved by extending connectivity while reducing
duplication of network coverage.  The real payoff is in connecting
people, information, and resources. Linking brings users in reach of
each other. Just as telephones would be of little use if only a few
people had them, a research and education network's connectivity is
central to its usefulness, and this connectivity comes both from
ability of each network to reach the desks, labs, and homes of its
users and the extent to which various networks are, themselves,
interconnected.


The Present NREN

  The national research and education network can be viewed as four
levels of increasingly complex and flexible capability:

> physical wire/fiber optic common carrier"high-
  ways";
> user-defined, packet-switched networks;
> basic network operations and services; and
> research, education, database, and information
  services accessible to network users

  In a fully developed NREN, all of these levels of service must be
integrated. Each level involves different technologies, serv, policy
issues, research opportunities, engineering requirements, clientele,
providers, regulators, and policy issues. A more detailed look at the
policy problems can be drawn by separating the NREN into its major
components.


Level 1: Physical wire/fiber optic common carrier highways

   The foundation of the network is the physical conduits that carry
digital signals. These telephone wires, optical fibers, microwave
links, and satellites are the physical highways and byways of data
transit. They are invisible to the network user. To provide the
physical skeleton for the internet,

==

 1 John S. Quarterman and Josiah C. Hoskins,
"NotableComputerNetworks," Communications ofthe ACM, vol29, No. IO,
October 1986, pp.932-971; John S. Quarterman, The Matrix: Networks
Around the World, Digital Press, August 1989.

   2A "Modem" converts information on a computer to a form that a
communication system can carry, and vice versa. It also automates some
simple functions, such as dialing and answering the phone, detecting
and correcting transmission errors.

==

government, industry, and university network man- agers lease circuits
from public switched common carriers, such as AT&T, MCI, GTE, and NTN.
In doing so they take advantage of the large system of circuits
already laid in place by the telecommunica- tions common carriers for
other telephony and data markets. A key issue at this level is to what
extent broader Federal agency and national telecommunications
policies will promote, discourage, or divert the evolution of a
research-oriented data network.


Level 2: User-defined subnetworks

The internet is a conglomeration of smaller foreign, regional, State,
local, topical, private, government, and agency networks. Generally,
these separately managed networks, such as SURANET, BARRNET, BITNET,
and EARN, evolved along naturally occurring geographic, topical, or
user lines, or mission agency needs. Most of these logical networks
emerged from Federal research agency (including the Department of
Defense) initiatives. In addition, there are more and more commercial,
State and private, regional, and university networks (such as Accunet,
Telenet, and Usenet) at the same time specialized and interlinked.
Many have since linked through the Internet, while keeping to some
extent their own technical and socioeconomic identity.  This division
into small, focused networks offers the advantage of keeping network
management close to its users; but demands standardization and some
central coordination to realize the benefits of interconnection.

Networks at this level of operations are distinguished by
independent management and technical boundaries. Networks often have
different standards and protocols, hardware, and software. They carry
information of different sensitivity and value. The diversity of these
logical subnetworks matters to institutional subscribers (who must
choose among network offerings), to regional and national network
managers (who must manage and coordinate these networks into an
internet), and to users (who can find the variety of alternatives
confusing and difficult to deal with). A key issue is the management
relation- ship among these diverse networks; to what extent is
standardization and centralization desirable?


Level 3: Basic network operations and services


A small number of basic maintenance tools keeps the network running
and accessible by diverse, distributed users. These basic services are
software based, provided for the users by network operators and
computer manufacturers in operating systems.  They include software
for password recognition, electronic mail, and file transfer. These
are core services necessary to the operation of any network.  These
basic services are not consistent across the current range of
computers used by research. A key issue is to what extent these
services should be standardized, and as important, who should make
those decisions.


Level 4: Value-added superstructure: links to research, education, and
information services


The utility of the network lies in the information, services, and
people that the user can access through the network. These value-added
services provide specialized tools, information, and data for research
and education. Today they include specialized computers and software,
library catalogs and publication databases, archives of research
data, conferencing systems, and electronic bulletin boards and
publishing services that provide access to colleagues in the United
States and abroad. These information resources are provided by
volunteer scientists and by non-profit, for-profit, international, and
government organizations. Some are amateur, poorly maintained bulletin
boards; others are mature information organizations with
well-developed services. Some are "free"; others recover costs through
user charges.

Core policy issues are the appropriate roles for various information
providers on the network. If the network is viewed as public
infrastructure, what is "fair" use of this infrastructure? If the
network eases access to sensitive scientific data (whether raw
research data or government regulatory databases), how will this
stress the policies that govern the relationships of industry,
regulators, lobbyists, and experts? Should profit-seeking companies be
al- lowed to market their services? How can we ensure that
technologies needed for network maintenance, cost accounting, and
monitoring will not be used inappropriately or intrusively? Who should
set prices for various users and services? How will intellectual
property rights be structured for electronically available
information? Who is responsible for the quality and integrity of the
data provided and used by researchers on the network?


Research Networking as a Strategic High Technology Infrastructure


Research networking has dual roles. First, networking is a
strategic, high technology infrastructure for science. More broadly
applied, data networking enables research, education, business, and
manufacturing, and improves the Nation's knowledge competitiveness.
Second, networking technologies and applications are themselves a
substantial growth area, meriting focused R&D.

Knowledge is the commerce of education and research. Today networks
are the highways for information and ideas. They expand access to
computing, data, instruments, the research community, and the
knowledge they create. Data are expensive (relative to computing
hardware) and are increasingly created in many widely distributed
locations, by specialized instruments and enterprises, and then
shared among many separate users.  The more effectively that research
information is disseminated to other researchers and to industry, the
more effective is scientific progress and social application of
technological knowledge. An internet of networks has become a
strategic infrastructure for research.

The research networks are also a testbed for data communications
technology. Technologies developed through the research networks are
likely to enhance productivity of all economic sectors, not just
university research. The federally supported Internet has not only
sponsored frontier-breaking network research, but has pulled
data-networking technology with it. ARPANET catalyzed the devel-
opment of packet-switching technology, which has expanded rapidly from
R&D networking to multibillion-dollar data handling for business and
financial transactions. The generic technologies developed for the
Internet -- hardware (such as high-speed switches) and software for
network management, routing, and user interface -- will transfer readily
into general data-networking applications. Government support for
applied research can catalyze and integrate R&D, decrease risk, create
markets for network technologies and services, transcend economic
and regulatory barriers, and accelerate early technology development
and deployment. This would not only bolster U.S. science and
education, but would fuel industry R&D and help support the market and
competitiveness of the U.S. network and information services industry.

Govemments and private industries the world over are developing
research networks, to enhance R&D productivity and to create testbeds
for highly advanced communications services and technologies.
Federal involvement in infrastructure is motivated by the need for
coordination and nationally oriented investment, to spread financial
burdens, and promote social policy goals (such as furthering basic
research).3 Nations that develop markets in network-based technologies
and services will create information industry-based productivity
growth.


Federal Coordination of the Evolving Internet


NREN plans have evolved rapidly. Congressional interest has grown;
in 1986, Congress requested the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) to report on options for networking for research and
supercomputing.4 The resulting report, completed in 1987 by the
interagency Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Technology (FCCSET), called for a new Federal program to create an
advanced national research network by the year 2000.5 This vision
incorporated two objectives: l) providing vital computer-
communications network services for the Nation's academic research
community, and 2) stimulating networking and communications R&D which
would fuel U.S. industrial technology and commerce in the growing
global data communications market.

The 1987 FCCSET report, building on ongoing Federal activities,
addressed near-term questions over the national network's scope,
purposes, agency authority, performance targets, and budget. It did
not resolve issues surrounding the long-term operation of a network,
the role of commercial services in providing network operations and
services, or interface with broader telecommunications policies.

==

3 Congressional Budget Office, New Directions for the Nation's Puolic
Works, September 1988, p. xiii; CBO, Federal Policies for
Infrastructure Management, June 1986.

4 P.L. 99-383, Aug. 21,1986.

5 OSTP, A Research and Development Strategy for High
 Performance Computing, Nov. 20, 1987.

==

A 1988 National Research Council report praised ongoing activities,
emphasized the need for coordination, stable funding, broadened
goals and design criteria, integrated management, and increased pri-
vate sector involvement.6

FCCSET's Subcommittee on Networking has since issued a plan to upgrade
and expand the network.7 In developing this plan, agencies have worked
together to improve and interconnect several existing networks. Most
regional networks were joint creations of NSF and regional consortia,
and have been part of the NSFNET world since their inception. Other
quasi-private, State, and regional networks (such as CICNET, Inc., and
CERFNET) have been started.

Recently, legislation has been reintroduced to authorize and
coordinate a national research network.8 As now proposed, a National
Research and Education Network would link universities, national
laboratories, non-profit institutions and government research
organizations, private companies doing government-supported research
and education, and facilities such as supercomputers, experimental
instruments, databases, and research libraries. Network research, as
a joint endeavor with industry, would create and transfer technology
for eventual commercial exploitation, and serve the data- networking
needs of research and higher education into the next century.


Players in the NREN


The current Internet has been created by Federal leadership and
funding, pulling together a wide base of university commitment,
national lab and academic expertise, and industry interest and
technology. The NREN involves many public and private actors. Their
roles must be better delineated for effective policy. Each of these
actors has vested interests and spheres of capabilities. Key players
are:

> universities, which house most end users;

> networking industry, the telecommunications, data communications,
computer, and information service companies that provide networking
technologies and services;

> State enterprises devoted to economic development, research, and
education;

> industrial R&D labs (network users); and

> the Federal Government, primarily the national labs and
research-funding agencies

Federal funding and policy have stimulated the development of the
Internet. Federal initiatives have been well complemented by States
(through funding State networking and State universities'
institutional and regional networking), universities (by funding
campus networking), and industry (by contributing networking
technology and physical circuits at sharply reduced rates). End users
have experienced a highly subsidized service during this "experimen-
tal" stage. As the network moves to a bigger, more expensive, more
established operation, how might these relative roles change?


Universities

Academic institutions house teachers, research- ers, and students in
all fields. Over the past few decades universities have invested
heavily in libraries, local computing, campus networks, and regional
network consortia. The money invested in campus networking far
outweighs the investment in the NSFNET backbone. In general, academics
view the NREN as fulfillment of a longstanding ambition to build a
national system for the transport of information for research and
education. EDUCOM has long labored from the "bottom" up, bringing
together researchers and educators who used networks (or believed they
could use them) for both research and teaching.


Networking Industry


There is no simple unified view of the NREN in the fragmented
telecommunications "industry." The long-distance telecommunications
common carriers generally see the academic market as too specialized
and risky to offer much of a profit opportunity.

===

6National Research Councll, Toward a National Research Network
(Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1988), especially pp. 25-37.

71~CCSET or ~Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,
and Technology, The Federal High Performance Computing Program,
Washinton, DC, OSTP. Sept. 8. 1989.

8S. 1067, "The National High-Performance Computer Technology Act of
1989," May 1989, introduced by Mr.  Gore. Hearings were held on June
21, 1989. H.R. 3131, "The National High-Performance Computer
Technology Act of 1989," introduced by Mr. Walgren.

===

However, companies have gained early experience with new technologies
and applications by participating in university R&D; it is for this
reason that industry has jointly funded the creation and develop- ment
of NSFNET.

Various specialized value-added common carriers offer packet-switched
services. They could in principle provide some of the same services
that the NREN would provide, such as electronic mail. They are not,
however, designed to meet the capacity require- ments of researchers,
such as transferring vast files of supercomputer-generated
visualizations of weather systems, simulated airplane test flights, or
econo- metric models. Nor can common carriers provide the "reach" to
all carriers.

States

The interests of States in research, education, and economic
development parallel Federal concerns.  Some States have also invested
in information infrastructure development. Many States have in- vested
heavily in education and research networking, usually based in the
State university system and encompassing, to varying degrees, private
universities, State government, and industry. The State is a
"natural" political boundary for network financing.  In some States,
such as Alabama, New York, North Carolina, and Texas, special
initiatives have helped create statewide networks.


Industry Users


There are relatively few industry users of the internet; most are very
large R&D-intensive compa- nies such as IBM and DEC, or small high-
technology companies. Many large companies have intemal business and
research networks which link their offices and laboratories within the
United States and overseas; many also subscribe to commercial
services such as MCI Mail. However, these proprietary and commercial
networks do not provide the internet's connectivity to scientists or
the high bandwidth and services so useful for research communications.
Like universities and national labs, companies are a part of the
Nation's R&D endeavor; and being part of the research community today
includes being "on" the internet. Appropriate industry use of the NREN
should encourage interaction of industry, university, and government
re- searchers, and foster technology transfer. Industry internet users
bring with them their own set of concerns such as cost accounting,
proper network use, and information security. Other non-R&D companies,
such as business analysts, also are likely to seek direct network
connectivity to universities, government laboratories, and
R&D-intensive companies.


Federal

Three strong rationales--support of mission and basic science,
coordinating a strategic national infrastructure, and promotion of
data-networking technology and industrial productivity~drive a
substantial, albeit changing, Federal involvement.  Another more
modest goal is to rationalize duplication of effort by integrating,
extending, and modern- izing existing research networks. That is in
itself quite important in the present Federal budgetary environment.
The international nature of the network also demands a coherent
national voice in international telecommunications standardization.
The Internet's integration with foreign networks also justifies
Federal concern over the international flow of militarily or
economically sensitive technical information. The same
university-government-industry linkages on a domestic scale drive
Federal interests in the flow of information.

Federal R&D agencies' interest in research networking is to enhance
their external research support missions. (Research networking is a
small, special- ized part of agency telecommunications. It is de-
signed to meet the needs of the research community, rather than agency
operations and administrative telecommunications that are addressed in
FTS 2000.) The hardware and software communications technologies
involved should be of broad commercial importance. The NREN plans
reflect national interest in bolstering a serious R&D base and a
competitive industry in advanced computer communications.

The dominance of the Federal Government in network development means
that Federal agency interests have strongly influenced its form and
shape. Policies can reflect Federal biases; for instance, the
limitation of access to the early ARPANET to ARPA contractors left
out many academics, who consequently created their own grass-roots,
lower-capability BITNET.

International actors are also important. As with the telephone system,
the internet is inherently international. These links require
coordination, for example for connectivity standards, higher level
network management, and security. This requirement implies the need
for Federal level management and policy.


The NREN in the International Telecommunications Environment


The nature and economics of an NREN will depend on the international
telecommunications context in which it develops. Research networks are
a leading edge of digital network technologies, but are only a tiny
part of the communications and information services markets.

The l990s will be a predominantly digital world; historically
different computing, telephony, and business communications
technologies are evolving into new information-intensive systems.
Digital technologies are promoting systems and market integration.
Telecommunications in the l990s will revolve around flexible,
powerful, "intelligent" networks. However, regulatory change and
uncertainty, market turbulence, international competition, the
explosion in information services, and significant changes in foreign
telecommunications policies, all are making telecommunications
services more turbulent. This will cloud the research network's
long-term planning.

High-bandwidth, packet-switched networking is at present a young
market in comparison to commercial telecommunications. Voice
overwhelmingly dominates other services (e.g. fax, e-mail, on-line
data retrieval). While flexible, hybrid voice-data services are being
introduced in response to business demand for data serv, the
technology base is optimized for voice telephony.

Voice communications brings to the world of computer
telecommunications complex regulatory and economic baggage.
Divestiture of the AT&T regulated monopoly opened the
telecommunications market to new entrants, who have slowly gained
long-haul market share and offered new technologies and information
services. In general, however, the post-divestiture telecommunications
industry remains dominated by the descendants of old AT&T, and most of
the impetus for service innovations comes from the voice market. One
reason is uncertainty about the legal limits, for providing
information services, imposed on the newly divested companies. (In
comparison, the computer industry has been unregulated. With the
infancy of the technology, and open markets, computer R&D has been
exceptionally productive.) A crucial concern for long-range NREN
planning is that scientific and educational needs might be ignored
among the regulations, technology priorities, and eco- nomics of a
telecommunications market geared toward the vast telephone customer
base.


POLICY ISSUES

The goal is clear; but the environment is complex, and the details
will be debated as the network evolves.

There is substantial agreement in the scientific and higher education
community about the pressing national need for a broad-reaching,
broad-bandwidth, state-of-the-art research network. The existing
Internet provides vital communication, research, and information
services, in addition to its concomitant role in pushing networking
and data handling technology. Increasing demand on network capacity
has quickly saturated each network upgrade. In addition, the
fast-growing demand is overburdening the current informal
administrative arrangements for running the Internet. Expanded
capability and connectivity will require substantial budget increases.
The current network is adequate for broad e-mail service and for more
restricted file transfer, remote logon, and other sophisticated uses.
Moving to gigabit bandwidth, with appropriate network services, will
demand substantial techno- logical innovation as well as investment.

There are areas of disagreement and even broader areas of uncertainty
in planning the future national research network. There are several
reasons for this: the immaturity of data network technology, serv-
ices, and markets; the Internet's nature as strategic infrastructure
for diverse users and institutions; and the uncertainties and
complexities of overriding telecommunications policy and economics.

First, the current Internet is, to an extent, an experiment in
progress, similar to the early days of the telephone system.
Technologies, uses, and potential markets for network services are
still nascent.  Pattems of use are still evolving; and a reliable
network has reached barely half of the research community. Future uses
of the network are difficult to identify; each upgrade over the past
15 years has brought increased value and use as improved network
capacity and access have made new applications feasible.

The Internet is a conglomeration of networks that grew up ad hoc.
Some, such as ARPANET, CSNET, and MFENET, were high-quality national
networks supported by substantial Federal funding. Other smaller
networks were built and maintained by the late-night labors of
graduate students and computer centers operators. One of these,
BITNET, has become a far-reaching and widely used university network,
through the coordination of EDUCOM and support of IBM. The Internet
has since become a more coherent whole, under Federal coordination led
by NSF and DARPA and advised by the Internet Activities Board.
Improvements in service and connectivity have been astounding. Yet the
patchwork nature of the Internet still dominates; some campus and
regional networks are high quality and well maintained; others are
lower speed, less reliable, and reach only a few institutions in
their region.  Some small networks are gatewayed into the Internet;
others are not. This patchwork nature limits the effectiveness of the
Internet, and argues for better planning and stronger coordination.

Second, the network is a strategic infrastructure, with all the
difficulties in capitalizing, planning, financing, and maintaining
that seem to attend any infrastructure.9 Infrastructures tend to
suffer from a "commons" problem, leading to continuing underin-
vestment and conflict over centralized policy. By its nature the
internet has many diverse users, with diverse interests in and demands
on the network. The network's value is in linking and balancing the
needs of these many users, whether they want advanced supercomputer
services or merely e-mail. Some users are network-sophisticated, while
many users want simple, user-friendly communications. This diversity
of users complicates network planning and management. The scope and
offerings of the network must be at least sketched out before a
management structure appropriate to the desired mission is
established.

Third, the network is part of the telecommunications world, rampant
with policy and economic confusion. The research community is small,
with specialized data needs that are subsidiary to large markets. It
is not clear that science's particular networking needs will be met.


Planning Amidst Uncertainty


Given these three large uncertainties, there is straightforward or
well-accepted model for "best" way to design, manage, and upgrade
future national research network. Future network will depend on cost
recovery and charging practices about which very little is understood.
These uncertainties should be accommodated in the design network
management as well as the network itself.

One way to clarify NREN options might be look at experiences with
other infrastructures (e.g., waterways, telephones, highways) for
lessons about how different financing and charging policies affect who
develops and deploys technology, how fast technology develops, and who
has access to infrastructure. Additionally, some universities
beginning trials in charging for network services these should provide
experience in how various charging practices affect usage, technology
deployment and upgrading, and the impacts of network policies on
research and education at the level of the institution.

Table 3-1 lists the major areas of agreement and disagreement in
various "models" of the proper form of network evolution.


Network Scope and Access

Where should an NREN reach: beyond research~ intensive government
laboratories and universities to all institutions of higher education?
high schools?  nonprofit and corporate labs? Many believe that
eventually--perhaps in 20 years--de facto data networking will provide
universal linkage, akin to a sophisticated phone system.

9 Congressional Budget Office, New Directions for The Nation's Public
Works, September 1988; National Council on Public Works Improvement
Fragile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Washington,
DC, February 1988.

-----------------------------

Table 3-1

Principal Policy Issues In Network Development

                    Main areas of agreement


Scope and access

1. The national need for a broad state-of-the-art research network
that links basic research, government, and higher education.


Policy and management structure

2. The need for a more formal mechanism for planning and operating the
NREN, to supersede and bener coordinate informal interagency
cooperation and ad hoc university and State participation, and for
international coordination.


Financing and cost recovery

3. The desirability of moving from the current "market-
establishing" environment of Federal and State grants and
subsidies, with services ~free" to users, to more formal cost
recovery, shifting more of the cost burden and financial
incentives to end users.


Network Use

4. The desirability of realizing the potenial of a network; the need
for standards and policies to link to information services,
databases, and non research networks.


Main areas of disagreement And Uncertainty

1 a. The exact scope of the NREN; whether and how to control
domestic and foreign access.

1 b. Hierarchy of network capability. Cost and effort limit the reach
of state-of-the-art networking; an appropriate networking scenario
would have the most intensive users on a leading edge network and less
demanding users on a lower-cost network that suffices for their needs.
Where should those lines be drawn, and who should draw them? How can
the Federal Government ensure that the gap between leading edge and
casual is not too large, and that access is appropriate and equitable?

2a. The form and function of an NREN policy and management authority;
the extent of centralization, particularly the role of Federal
Government; the extent of participation of industry users, networking
industry, common carriers, and universities in policy and operations;
mechanisms for standard setting.

3a. How the transition to commercial operations and charging can and
should be made; more generally, Federal-private sector roles in
network policy and,pricing; how pricing practices will shape access,
use, and demand.

4a. Who should be able to use the network for what purposes, and at
what entry cost; the process of guiding economic structure of
services, subsidies, price of for multi-product services; intellectual
property policies.

(SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.)
----------------------------------

The appropriate breadth of the network is unlikely to be fully
resolved until more user communities gain more experience with
networking, and a better understanding is gained of the risks and
benefits of various degrees of network coverage. A balance must be
struck in network scope, which provides a small network optimized for
special users (such as scientists doing full-time, computationally
intensive research) and also a broader network serving more diverse
users. The scope of the internet, and capabil- ities of the networks
encompassed in the internet, will need to balance the needs of
specialized users without diluting the value for top-end and low-end
users. NREN plans, standards, and technology should take into account
the possibility of later expansion and integration with other networks
and other communities currently not linked up. After-the- fact
technical patches are usually inefficient and expensive. This may
require more government participation in standard-setting to make it
feasible for currently separated communities, such as high schools and
universities, to interconnect later on.

Industry-academic boundaries are of particular concern.
Interconnection generally promotes research and innovation.
Companies are dealing with risk of proprietary information release by
maintaining independent corporate networks and by restricting
access to open networks. How can funding and pricing be structured to
ensure that for-profit companies bear an appropriate burden of
network costs?


Access

Is it desirable to restrict access to the internet?  Who should
control access? Open access is desired by many, but there are privacy,
security, and commercial arguments for restricting access. Re-
stricting access is difficult, and is determined more by access
controls (e.g., passwords and monitoring) on the computers that attach
users to the network, than by the network itself. Study is needed on
whether and how access can be controlled by technical fixes within the
network, by computer centers attached to the network, informal codes
of behavior, or laws.

Another approach is not to limit access, but minimize the
vulnerability of the network -- and its information resources and
users -- to accidents or malice. In comparison, essentially anyone who
has a modest amount of money can install a phone, or use a public
phone, or use a friend's phone, and access the national phone system.
However, criminal, fraudulent, and harassing uses of the phone
system are illegal. Access is unrestricted, but use is governed.


Controlling International Linkages

Science, business, and industry are international; their networks are
inherently international. It is difficult to block private
telecommunications links with foreign entities, and public
telecommunications is already international. However, there is a
fundamental conflict between the desire to capture infommation for
national or corporate economic gain, and the inherent openness of a
network. Scientists generally argue that open network access fosters
scientifically valuable knowledge exchange, which in turn leads to
commercially valuable innovation.


Hierarchy of Network Capability

Investment in expanded network access must be balanced continually
with the upgrading of network performance. As the network is a
significant com- petitive advantage in research and higher education,
access to the "best" network possible is important.  There are also
technological considerations in linking networks of various
performance levels and various architectures. There is already a
consensus that there should be a separate testbed or research network
for developing and testing new network technologies and services,
which will truly be at the cutting edge (and therefore also have the
weaknesses of cutting edge technology, particularly unreliability and
difficulty of use).


Policy and Management Structure

Possible management models include: federal chartered nonprofit
corporations, single lead agen- cies, interagency consortium,
government-owned contractor operations, commercial operations;

Tennessee Valley Authority, Atomic Energy Commission, the NSF
Antarctic Program, and Fannie Mae. What are the implications of
various scenarios for the nature of traffic and users?


Degree of Centralization

What is the value of centralized, federally accountable management
for network access control, traffic management and monitoring, and
security compared to the value of decentralized operations, open
access and traffic? There are two key technical questions here: to
what extent does network technology limit the amount of control that
can be exerted over access and traffic content? To what extent does
technology affect the strengths and weaknesses of centralized and
decentralized management?


Mechanisms for Interagency Coordination

Interagency coordination has worked well so far, but with the scaling
up of the network, more formal mechanisms are needed to deal with
larger budgets and to more tightly coordinate further development.


Coordination With Other Networks

National-level resources allocation and planning must coordinate with
interdependent institutions and mid-level networking (the other two
legs of networking).


Mechanisms for Standard Setting

Who should set standards, when should they be set, and how overarching
should they be? Standards at some common denominator level are
absolutely necessary to make networks work. But excessive
standardization may deter innovation in network technology,
applications and services, and other standards.

Any one set of standards usually is optimal for some applications or
users, but not for others. There are well-established international
mechanisms formal standards-setting, as well as strong intertional
involvement in more informal standards development. These mechanisms
have worked well, albeit slowly. Early standard-setting by agencies
and their advisers accelerated the development of U.S.  networks. In
many cases the early established standards have become, with some
modification, de facto national and even international standards. This
is proving the case with ARPANET's protocol suite, TCP/IP. However,
many have complained that agencies' relatively precipitous and closed
standards determination has resulted in less-than-satisfactory
standards. NREN policy should embrace standards setting. Should it,
however, encourage wider partici- pation, especially by industry, than
has been the case? U.S. policy must balance the need for interational
compatibility with the furthering of national interests.


Financing and Cost Recovery

How can the capital and operating costs of the NREN be met? Issues
include subsidies, user or access charges, cost recovery policies, and
cost accounting. As an infrastructure that spans disciplines and
sectors, the NREN is outside the traditional grant mechanisms of
science policy. How might NREN economics be structured to meet costs
and achieve various policy goals, such as encouraging widespread yet
efficient use, ensuring equity of access, pushing technological
development while maintaining needed standards, protecting intellec-
tual property and sensitive information while encourging open
communication, and attracting U.S.  commercial involvement and
third-party information services?


Creating a Market

One of the key issues centers around the extent to which deliberate
creation of a market should be built into network policy, and into the
surrounding science policy system. There are those who believe that it
is important that the delivery of network access and services to
academics eventually become a commercial operation, and that the
current Federal subsidy and apparently "free" services will get
academics so used to free services that there will never be a market.
How do you gradually create an information market, for networks, or
for network-accessible value-added services?


Funding and Charge Structures

Financing issues are akin to ones in more traditional
infrastructures, such as highways and waterways. These issues, which
continue to dominate infrastructure debates, are Federal private
sector roles and the structure of Federal subsidies and incentives
(usually to restructure payments and access to infrastructure
services). Is there a continuing role for Federal subsidies? How can
university accounting, OMB circular A-21, and cost recovery practices
be accommodated?

User fees for network access are currently charged as
membership/access fees to institutions. End users generally are not
charged. In the future, user fees may combine access/connectivity
fees, and use related fees. They may be secured via a trust fund (as
is the case with national highways, inland waterways, and airports),
or be returned directly to operating authorities. A few regional
networks (e.g., CICNET, Inc.) have set membership/connectivity fees to
recover full costs. Many fear that user fees are not adequate for full
funding/cost recovery.


Industry Participation

Industry has had a substantial financial role in network development.
Industry participation has been motivated by a desire to stay abreast
of data-networking technology as well as a desire to develop a niche
in potential markets for research networking. It is thus desirable to
have significant industry participation in the development of the
NREN. Industry participation does several things: industry cost
sharing makes the projects financially feasible; industry has the
installed long-haul telecommunications base to build on; and
industry involvement in R&D should foster technology transfer and,
generally, the competitiveness of U.S.  telecommunications industry.
Industry in-kind contributions to NSFNET, primarily from MCI and
IBM, are estimated at $40 million to $50 million compared to NSF's 5
year, $14 million budget.l0 It is anticipated that the value of
industry cost sharing (e.g., donated switches, lines, or software) for
NREN would be on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.


Network Use

Network service offerings (e.g., databases and database searching
services, news, publication, and software) will need some policy
treatment. There need to be incentives to encourage development of and
access to network services, yet not unduly subsidize such services, or
compete with private business, while maintaining quality control. Many
network services used by scientists have been "free" to the end user.

Economic and legal policies will need to be clarified for reference
services, commercial information industry, Federal data banks,
university data resources, libraries, publishers, and generally all
potential services offered over the network. 11 These policies should
be designed to encourage use of services, while allowing developers to
capture the potential benefits of network services and ensure legal
and economic incentives to develop and market network services.


Longer Term Science Policy Issues

The near-term technical implementation of the NREN is well laid out.
However, longer-term policy issues will arise as the national network
affects more deeply the conduct of science, such as:

> patterns of collaboration, communication and information transfer,
education, and apprenticeship;

> intellectual property, the value and ownership of information;

> export control of scientific information;

> publishing of research results;

> the "productivity" of research and attempts to measure it

> communication among scientists, particularly across disciplines and
between university, government, and industry scientists.

> potential economic and national security risks of international
scientific networking, collaboration, and scientific communication;

> equity of access to scientific resources, such as facilities,
equipment, databases, research grants, conferences, and other
scientists. (Will a fully implemented NREN change the concentration
of academic science and Federal fund ing in a limited number of
departments and research universities, and of corporate science in a
few large, rich corporations; what might be the impacts of networks on
traditional routes to scientific priority and prestige?)

> controlling scientific information flow. What technologies and
authority to control network resident scientific information? How
might these controls affect misconduct, quality control, economic and
corporate proprietary pro tection, national security, and preliminary
release of tentative or confidential research information that is
scientifically or medically sensitive?

> cost and capitalization of doing research; to what extent might
networking reduce the need for facilities or equipment?

> oversight and regulation of science, such a quality control,
investigations of misconduct research monitoring, awarding and
auditing government grants and contracts, data collection,
accountability, and regulation of research procedures.l2 Might
national networking enable or encourage new oversight roles for
governments?

> the access of various publics to scientists an research information;

> the dissemination of scientific information from raw data, research
results, drafts of papers through finished research reports and
reviews; might some scientific journals be replaced by electronic
reports?

> legal issues, data privacy, ownership of data.  copyright. How might
national networking interact with trends already underway in the
scientific enterprise, such as changes in the nature of collaboration,
sharing of data, and impacts of commercial potential on scientific
research? Academic science traditionally has emphasized open and early
communication, but some argue that pressures from competition for
research grants and increasing potential for commercial value from
basic research have dampened free communication. Might networks
counter, or strengthen, this trend?

--- ll OMB, Circular A- 130, 50
Federal Register 52730 (Dec. 24, 1985);-130. H.R. 2381, The
Information Policy Act of 1989. which restates the role of OMP and
policies on government information dissemination.

l2 U.S.Congress,Office of Technology Assessment,The Regulatory
Environment for Science,OTA-TM-SET-34(Washington,DC:U.S.
Government Printing Office, February 1986).
---

Technical Questions

Several unresolved technical challenges are important to policy
because they will help determine who has access to the network for
what purposes.  Such technical challenges include:

> standards for networks and network-accessible
information services;

> requirements for interface to common carriers
(local through international);

> requirements for interoperability across many
different computers;

> improving user interfaces;

> reliability and bandwidth requirements;

> methods for measuring access and usage, to
charge users that will determine who is most
likely to pay for network operating costs; and

> methods to promote security, which will affect
the balance between net work and information
vulnerability, privacy, and open access.

Federal Agency Plans: FCCSET/FRICC

A recently released plan by the Federal Research
Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) outlines
a technical and management plan for NREN.13 This
plan has been incorporated into the broader FCCSET
implementation plan. The technical plan is well
thought through and represents further refinement of
the NREN concept. The key stages are:

Stage 1: upgrade and interconnect existing agency
networks into a jointly funded and
managed Tl (1.5 Mb/s) National Net-
working Testbed. 14

Stage 2: integrate national networks into a T3 (45
Mb/s) backbone by 1993.

Stage 3: push a technological leap to a mutigiga--
bit NREN starting in the mid-l990s.

The Proposal identifies two parts of an NREN, an
operational network and networking R&D. A serv-
ice network would connect about 1,500 labs and
universities by 1995, providing reliable service and
rapid transfer of very large data streams, such as are
found in interactive computer graphics, in apparent
real time. The currently operating agency networks
would be integrated under this proposal, to create a
shared 45Mb/s service net by 1992. The second part
of the NREN would be R&D on a gigabit network,
to be deployed in the latter 1990s. The first part is
primarily an organizational and financial initiative,
requiring little new technology. The second involves
major new research activity in government and
industry.

The "service" initiative extends present activities
of Federal agencies, adding a governance structure
which includes the non-Federal participants (re-
gional and local networking institutions and indus-
try), in a national networking council. It formalizes
what are now ad-hoc arrangements of the FRICC,
and expands its scale and scope. Under this effort,
virtually all of the Nation's research and higher
education communities will be interconnected. Traf-
fic and traffic congestion will be managed via
priority routing, with service for participating agen-
cies guaranteed via "policy" routing techniques. The
benefits will be in improving productivity for
researchers and educators, and in creating and
demonstrating the demand for networks and network
services to the computing, telecommunications, and
inforrnation industries.

The research initiative (called stage 3 in the
FCCSET reports) is more ambitious, seeking sup-
port for new research on communications technolo-
gies capable of supporting a network that is at least
a thousand times faster than the 45Mb/s net. Such a
net could use the currently unused capabilities of
optical fibers to vastly increase effective capability
and capacity, which are congested by today's
technology for switching and routing, and support
the next generation of computers and communica-
tions applications. This effort would require a
substantial Federal investment, but could invigorate
the national communication technology base, and
boost the long-term economic competitiveness of

---
13FRlCC.Program Plan for the National Research
and  Edllcation      Network.May 23. 1989.FRlCC has
members from DHHS,DOE,DARPA,USGS, NASA,
NSF, NOAA, and observers from the Internet
Activities Board. FRICC is an informal committee
that grew out of agencies' shared interest in
coordinating related network activities and avoiding
duplication of resources. As the de facto interagency
coordination forum, FRICC was asked by NSF to
prepare the NREN program plan.

14 See also NYSERNETNOTE,vol. 1, No. 1, Feb.6,
1989 NYSERNET has been awarded a multimillion
dollar contract from DARPA to develop the
National Networking Testbed.
---
the telecommunications and computing industries.
The gigabit network demonstration can be consid-
ered similar to the Apollo project for communica-
tions technologies, albeit on a smaller and less
spectacular scale. Technical research needed would
involve media, switches, network design and control
software, operating systems in connected comput-
ers, and applications.

There are several areas where the FRICC manage-
ment plan--and other plans--is unclear. It calls for,
but does not detail any transition to commercial
operations. It does not outline potential structures for
long-term financing or cost recovery. And the
national network council's formal area of responsi-
bility is limited to Federal agency operations. While
this scope is appropriate for a Federal entity, and the
private sector has participated influentially in past
Federal FRICC plans, the proposed council does not
encompass all the policy actors that need to partici-
pate in a coordinated national network. The growth
of non-Federal networks demonstrates that some
interests--such as smaller universities on the fringes
of Federal-supported R&l~have not been served.
The FRICC/FCCSET implementation plan for net-
working research focuses on the more near-term
management problems of coordinated planning and
management of the NREN. It does not deal with two
extremely important and complex interfaces. At the
most fundamental level, the common carriers, the
network is part of the larger telecommunications
labyrinth with all its attendant regulations, vested
interests, and powerful policy combatants. At the top
level, the network is a gateway into a global
information supermarket. This marketplace of infor-
mation services is immensely complex as well as
potentially immensely profitable, and policy and
regulation has not kept up with the many new
opportunities created by technology.

The importance of institutional and mid-level
networking to the performance of a national net-
work, and the continuing fragmentation and regula-
tory and economic uncertainty of lower-level net-
working, signals a need for significant policy
attention to coordinating and advancing lower-level
networking. While there is a formal advisory role for
universities, industry, and other users in the FRICC
plan, it is difficult to say how and how well their
interests would be represented in practice. It is n~
clear what form this may take, or whether it will
necessitate some formal policy authority, but the
is need to accommodate the interests of universities~
(or some set of universities), industry research lab
and States in parallel to a Federal effort. The
concerns of universities and the private sector about
their role in the national network are reflected in
EDUCOM's proposal for an overarching Federal
private nonprofit corporation, and to a lesser extent
in NRI's vision. The FRICC plan does not exclude
such a broader policy-setting body, but the Current
plan stops with Federal agency coordination.

Funding for the FRICC NREN, based on the
analysis that went into the FCCSET report,
proposed at $400 million over 5 years, as show
below. This includes all national backbone Federal;
spending on hardware, software, and research
which would be funneled through DARPA and NS
and overseen by an interagency council. It includes
some continued support for mid-level or institu
tional networking, but not the value of any cost
sharing by industry, or specialized network R&D by
various agencies. This budget is generally regarded
as reasonable and, if anything, modest considering
the potential benefits (see table 3-2).15

NREN Management Desiderata

All proposed initiatives share the policy goal of
increasing the nation's research productivity and
creating new opportunities for scientific collabora-.
tion. As a technological catalyst, an explicit national
NREN initiative would reduce unacceptably high
levels of risk for industry and help create new
markets for advanced computer-communication
services and technologies. What is needed now is
sustained Federal commitment to consolidate an
fortify agency plans, and to catalyze broader  na-
tional involvement. The relationship between science
oriented data networking and the broader telecom-
munications world will need to be better sorted out
before the NREN can be made into a partly or full
commercial operation. As the engineering challenge
of building a fully national data network is sur-
mounted, management and user issues of econom
ics, access, and control of scientific information will
rise in importance.
---
15 For example. National Research Council, Toward a
Nation~al Research Network (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1988), pp. 28-31.
---
Table 3-2--Proposed NREN Budget ($ millions)

                                                   FY90   FY91   FY92  FY93
FY94

FCCSET Stage 1 & 2 (upgrade; NSF) ..14     23    55     50    50
FCCSET Stage 3 (gigabit+; DARPA) ..16     27     40    55    60

Total ..........................                            30    50     95
 105  110

S. 1067 authorization .............                50    50     100   100  100
HR. 3131 authorization ..........               50    50     100   100  100

SOURCE: OTA, 1989

The NREN is a strategic, complex infrastructure
which requires long-term planning. Consequently,
network management should be stable (insulated
from too much politics and budget vagaries), yet
allow for accountability, feedback, and course con-
rection. It should be able to leverage funding,
maximize cost efficiency, and create incentives for
commercial networks. Currently, there is no single
entity that is big enough, risk-protected enough, and
regulatory-free enough to make a proper national
network happen. While there is a need to formalize
current policy and management, there is concern that
setting a strong federally focused structure in place
might prevent a move to a more desirable, effective,
appropriate management system in the long run.

There is need for greater stability in NREN policy.
The primary vehicle has been a voluntary coordinat-
ing group, the FRICC, consisting of program offi-
cers from research-oriented agencies, working within
agency missions with loose policy guidance from
the FCCSET. The remarkable cooperation and
progress made so far depends on a complex set of
agency priorities and budget fortunes, and continued
progress must be considered uncertain.

The pace of the resolution of these issues will be
controlled initially by the Federal budget of each
participating agency. While the bulk of the overall
investment rests with midlevel and campus net-
works, it cannot be integrated without strong central
coordination, given present national telecommuni-
cations policies and market conditions for the
required network technology. The relatively modest
investment proposed by the initiative can have major
impact by providing a forum for public-private
cooperation for the creation of new knowledge, and
a robust and willing experimental market to test new
ideas and technologies.

For the short term there is a clear need to maintain
the Federal initiative, to sustain the present momen-
tum, to improve the technology, and coordinate the
expanding networks. The initiative should acceler-
ate the aggregation of a sustainable domestic market
for new information technologies and services.
These goals are consistent with a primary purpose of
improving the data communications infrastructure
for U.S. science and engineering.

-end-
1/1/1990