💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › nsfnet-n captured on 2023-06-16 at 20:03:11.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
KAPOR TESTIFIES ON NSFNET POLICIES AND FUTURE OF THE NET
In his capacity as the President of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) and the Chairman of the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX),
Mitchell Kapor testified last Thursday before a House Committee on
the current operation and management of NSFNet, and the future
of the NREN and computer-based communications.
The testimony took place in Washington, D.C. before the House
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The committee was
examining the present and proposed policies of NSFNet, the government
body which currently handles the funding for and sets the operating
policies for much of the Internet.
The key items that Mr. Kapor was asked to address at the hearing were:
To assess the NSF's efforts to provide support to the
communities of science, education, engineering and research.
To comment on the current plan the NSF to resubmit
the award of operation of the NSFNet backbone for competitive
bidding.
How Congress can help ensure a successful evolution of the
Internet into the NREN.
To relate his vision of what the NREN might be and become.
To define the roles of public and private sectors in
realizing such a vision.
To suggest specific steps for Congress and federal agencies
that would help the goals of the NREN to be achieved.
A full text of his testimony will be available in comp.org.eff.news
sometime this weekend as well as available thereafter via ftp from
eff.org.
===================
NOTES ON TESTIMONY BY M.KAPOR TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE
AND TECNOLOGY RE:NSFNET AND FUTURE OF THE NREN (3/12/92)
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I am here today in 2
capacities: As President of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public
interest advocacy organization promoting the democratic potential of new
computer and communications technologies, and as Chairman as the commercial
Internet Exchange, or CIX, a trade association of commercial
internetworking carriers, which represents one-third of the several million
user Internet -- or interim NREN as it is becoming known. As you may know,
I am also the founder of Lotus Development Corporation and the designer of
Lotus 1-2-3, which has played a seminal role in the emergence of the 100
billion dollar personal computer industry.
To frame my remarks, let me begin by saying that we fully support the NREN
legislation which is designed to develop computer networks which will link
research and education institutions,. government, and industry. Among the
chief goals of the NREN are:
expanding the number of users on the network, avoiding the creation
of information have and have-nots
providing enhanced access to electronic information resources
supporting the free flow of ideas
promoting R&D for the purpose of developing commercial data
communications
The Internet, as it evolves into the NREN, serves a vital testbed for the
eventual development of a ubiquitous national public networking. In that
context, the problems I wish to address today should be seen as the normal
growth pains of an experiment which has already succeeded far beyond the
wildest imagination of its creators.
Problem #1:
The NSF-imposed Acceptable Use Policy is hindering the developing of
information services which would serve the R&E community and others.
The AUP attempts to define limitations on the type of traffic which can
flow on the network. However, there is no agreement in practice about how
to apply the AUP. Businesses which might wish to operate on the net to
provide services however are reluctant to do so because they perceive
restriction and uncertainty. User should be able to order technical and
books and journals on-line from publishers and vendors. Users should be
able to consult commercial on-line databases to aid in their research.
Until there is a stable climate in which providers can be secure that they
are not violating policies, they will stay away.
Therefore, the NSF should be directed to modify or drop the AUP to permit
innovation in information services to develop at its maximum course through
the commercial sector.
Problem #2:
The current arrangements between NSF, Merit, and ANS, while
well-intentioned, have created a tilt in the competitive playing field.
ANS enjoys certain exclusive rights through its relationship with NSF to
carry commercial traffic across the NSFNET. This has introduced
significant marketplace distortions in the ability of other competitive
private carriers to compete for business, as you have heard.
The Science Board should therefore be directed to reconsider its decision
to extend the current arrangement by up to 18 months. The arrangement by
which ANS simultaneously provides network services for NSF and operates its
own commercial network over the same facility must be brought to an
orderly, but rapid, close.
Problem #3:
The current basic approaches to funding of network services by NSF and to
network architecture as a whole have ceased to be the most efficient and
most appropriate methodologies. The time has come to move on.
The historical and current funding model has been to subsidize network
providers at the national and regional level. We need to move to a
situation in which individual education and research institutions receive
funds through which they purchase network services from the private sector.
The historical network architecture model has operated through a
centralized, subsidized backbone network. We longer need this for the
day-to-day production network which serves the overwhelming majority of
users of the system. Instead we should move to a system of interconnected
private national carriers.
If industry knows that there is an open and fair opportunity to compete to
provide network connections and services to the research and education
community, it will supply as much T-1 and T-3 connectivity as is needed,
more cheaply and more efficiently than through any other method.
Finally, let me urge that the entire process be kept open. Industry needs
to be more involved in the overall process. Decisions ought to be made in
the market-place, not in Washington.
===============