There was a problem loading page R1.

There was a problem loading page R2.

There was a problem loading page R3.

There was a problem loading page R4.

There was a problem loading page R5.

There was a problem loading page R6.

In October 1994, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board convened, at the request of the Technology Policy Working Group (TPWG) of the Information Infrastructure Task Force, a steering committee to assess medium-term deployment of facilities and services to advance the nation's information infrastructure. The project was designated NII 2000 by the steering committee, and its tasks were the following:

• To reach out to a broad range of industries with a stake in the future of U.S. information infrastructure—those industries expected to be major market drivers as well as those expected to be major service providers—to explore their expectations and motivations for technology deployment in the next 5 to 7 years;
• To infer from this exploration the extent to which there is a shared vision of the importance of common features of system architecture, such as interoperability or open system interfaces, and the alternative likelihood that major parts of the system will develop along proprietary, incompatible lines; and
• To conclude with suggestions to the U.S. government on public policy choices that might serve both the rapid, orderly, and successful development of information infrastructure and its satisfaction of important public interests.

To achieve these goals, the steering committee was asked by the TPWG to undertake a specific series of activities: convene a workshop of

professionals and scholars to discuss and identify key issues related to technology deployment, call for white papers to gain further information on these issues, organize a forum to discuss the white papers and other key ideas, and write a synthesis report of its findings. As a preliminary step, the steering committee solicited inputs and suggestions via liaisons (listed in Appendix E) from trade, professional, and advocacy organizations, as well as government agencies, beginning in late 1994.

The workshop, which was held in Washington, D.C., on January 17-18, 1995, brought together invited members from business, industry, and interest groups as well as federal government representatives. Panels during the 2-day proceedings focused on technology deployment, enduser hardware and software issues, domain-specific applications, the Internet as a national information infrastructure (NII) model, and what different industries meant when they used certain terms and concepts. For example, "architecture," "programming," ''service," and "network" are among the many fundamental terms (see Box 1.2 in Chapter 1 for a longer list) that are defined differently by different industries. See Appendix A for the workshop agenda and a list of participants.

Following the workshop, the steering committee released a call for white papers (Appendix C) on issues related to architecture and facilities, enabling technologies, recovery of costs, middleware technologies and capabilities, applications, equitable access and public service obligations, and research and development. The call was distributed through various media (the Internet, press advisories, direct mail, and so on) to producers of communications, computer, and software systems goods and services; Internet access and other network-based service providers; scholars specializing in relevant technical, economic, and public policy research and analysis; and project liaisons and other representatives of industries and sectors believed likely to become major users of advanced information infrastructure (such as the arts, banking and finance, education, health care, government agencies, libraries, manufacturing, and transportation). The white papers (see Appendix D for a list of papers received and their authors) were distributed to participants at the spring forum and to interested federal agencies. Their content, representing a broad spectrum of views from knowledgeable participants in the evolution of information infrastructure, was a major component in the development of the steering committee's report, which quotes from and refers specifically to several of them. The white papers will be made available in a forthcoming companion volume.

Shortly after the call for papers was issued, the steering committee received a letter (Appendix F) from Vice President Albert Gore underscoring the high-level interest in the project's potential to generate "an

objective assessment of the capabilities of different residential broadband architectures (e.g., hybrid fiber coaxial cable, fiber to the curb, and wireless alternatives) being deployed by the private sector." Explained the Vice President, "We would like to see an NII that allows individuals to be producers as well as consumers of information, that enables 'many to many' communication, and that provides a 'general purpose' infrastructure capable of supporting a wide range of services."

The Vice President's letter contributed to the steering committee's preparations for the spring 1995 forum, which was structured to assess the difficulties inherent in developing a nationwide information infrastructure built largely with private resources, but having the capacity to further social and economic goals as well. (See Appendix B for the forum agenda and a list of participants). Like the evolving NII itself, the forum embraced a range of models that provided different perspectives on the possible roles of infrastructure: one-to-many distribution of large quantities of preselected video, combinations of television and telephony to support interactive programming, one-to-one voice telephony augmented by a variety of conveniences, many-to-many explorations over computer networks, most notably the Internet, and many-to-one interactions between consumers and information sources over the World Wide Web, in particular.

This synthesis report represents the collective view of 12 experts who monitored and participated in a unique public policy undertaking. The NII 2000 project was an experiment of sorts, an attempt to hold other issues constant by focusing attention on technological and business models. Although each of the following elements is part of the overall NII "story," this report is not a description of an optimistic vision of future possibilities and benefits for various business and nonprofit entities, for the purpose of motivating interest in the NII; an analysis of legal and regulatory barriers to competition; or an attempt to resolve broad policy concerns such as universal access or the democratization of cyberspace. Nevertheless, comments from many contributors to the project convey the message that a complete assessment of NII deployment, and the role of government as well as industry in its evolution, must take these issues into consideration to at least some degree.

Finally, it is also important to state that the NII 2000 Steering Committee's synthesis report is a technology deployment "road map" only in the most metaphorical sense. Participants described many roads, or in some cases territory through which roads might be constructed, but most of these roads have unknown, indeed unknowable, destinations. As the TPWG's Howard Frank observed at the January 1995 workshop:

The NII 2000 Steering Committee shares this view. Like Howard Frank, we do not know where "there" is, and we observe many forks in the roads we can see. We do believe, however, that the future offers many very attractive options for U.S. society and its many business communities, if government and private interests collaborate in understanding how to enable that future to emerge in a way that best satisfies each other's needs, concerns, and expectations.

This report is an effort to explore the limits of consensus on a broad array of fast-changing issues. As a result, it benefits from the work of many individuals, among them the participants in the January 1995 workshop and the May 1995 forum, and the authors of the white papers. We are grateful to them for the level and range of expertise they brought to the project. The steering committee gratefully acknowledges the assistance of several individuals and organizations, including Rupert Stow, who provided numerous suggestions for enhancing the discussion of broadcasting; Stewart Personick, who provided insights into technical and business perspectives from telephony; Duane Adams and Howard Frank, whose vision motivated and guided the establishment of the project; Y.T. Chien, John Hestenes, and Michael Papillo, whose ongoing questioning and suggestions on behalf of the TPWG provided regular encouragement and feedback; the liaisons, particularly Michael Roberts of EDUCOM, Suzanne Tichenor of the Council on Competitiveness, and Charles Brownstein of the Corporation for National Research Initiatives' Cross-Industry Working Team; and of course the anonymous reviewers, whose criticisms, reflections, and suggestions were essential to the strengthening of this final report.

The members of the steering committee devoted much of their time for about a year to formulating the project and guiding its conduct. But more importantly, each member brought a level of professional knowledge and competence from many areas of technology, allowing the project to be authoritative in its coverage. I am particularly grateful to one member of the steering committee, David Clark of MIT, who gave much more than his share of devotion to this project, frequently filling in for the chairman. But the most especial thanks from all the steering committee members is due to Marjory Blumenthal, leader of a fine team from the

There was a problem loading page R11.