The Internet: Next Steps in the Evolution
by Richard P. West, Vice Chancellor, Business and Finance,
California State University, Chancellor's Office
and Chair, CNI Steering Committee

The "network" was a given when the Coalition for Networked Information
was formed over five years ago.  The Internet, used primarily by the
higher education community and to a lesser extent by the federal
government, had matured to the point that RcontentS deserved attention
separate and distinct from the network per se.  The underlying
infrastructure that the CNI program relies upon continues to get a lot
of attention in the national media and in Congress.  CNI has a keen
interest in the spirit and results of these discussions, not only
because they are important in their own right, but because deciding
what's good for promoting the development of network conduit versus
what's good for network content is not a simple matter.  Let's review
the current status of the network.

Reforming the Telecom Industry
Most Congressional policy discussions don't start with the idea of
legislating Internet-related activities.  Rather, the government is
trying to enact a legislative reform of the telecommunications
industry in response to the revolutionary technological and
marketplace changes that started in the early 1980s with the break-up
of AT&T.  This break-up is often remembered as the "deregulation" of
the telephone industry in the U.S., but it was actually a mandated
"divestiture" by AT&T of its regional and local operating companies to
create a more competitive marketplace for long-distance services and
to allow AT&T to enter the market for computer systems and services.
Although often used synonymously, "deregulation" and "divestiture"
actually describe quite different processes and outcomes.  Much of the
current debate seems at cross- purposes because different parties
place different priorities on "market structure" (i.e., who
participates in what sectors of the market under what rules) versus
"market functions" (i.e., the national as well as individual purposes
to be served by the market and by what means).  The Internet has been
swept into this debate, and decisions arising from it will influence
how the Internet will grow and be managed for years to come.

The long-distance phone service market has been a competitive one for
a number of years now, although only three or four firms dominate that
market.  Also, one of those, AT&T, is very much larger than the
others.  This is definitely a situation in which divestiture has led
to competition, but how much competition makes for a "competitive
market" worthy of the name?  Certainly some of the expected benefits
of a competitive environment (e.g., lower prices and constantly
improving technology and quality) are now present in the long-distance
voice and data services marketplace.  However, a market with only a
few large providers cannot be considered a highly competitive one, and
the market for local phone service is not competitive at all.  So, two
of the major targets of the current legislative reform effort are how
to generate still more competition in the long-distance sector, and
how to generate competition for the first time (since the very
earliest days of telephony, that is) in the local one.

Changing technology and, more precisely, the integrating effect of
digital technologies is the second, profoundly confusing, target of
current federal and state telecommunications legislative reform
efforts.  Many, perhaps even most, services and functions that can now
be provided over an integrated digital network have traditionally
required their own delivery networks, often provided by entirely
different firms.  Voice, data, and video delivery systems have
generally been built and regulated separately, and have also been
subject to different industry practices and customer and government
expectations.  Parts of some of the resulting distribution systems are
regulated, while others are not.

A "uniform code" (also known as the "level playing field") for all
telecommunications services, functions, and delivery systems is the
ultimate goal of legislative and regulatory reform efforts, but it has
proven to be very difficult to describe, let alone achieve.  This is
particularly so in light of the companion goal of wanting to increase
competition, as the various "do's and don'ts" of the uniform code are
often viewed and portrayed as pro- or anti- the competitive interests
of individual players and sectors, and there is no commonly accepted
definition of what measures will produce "more competition" in the
market as a whole.

Rapid and significant technological change is no stranger to the
Internet; indeed, some of us think it defines the Internet, especially
relative to other telecommunication delivery systems.  Further,
competition has become a central feature of the Internet community's
life, as we have learned to operate in a world with many long-distance
providers rather than the single one that NSFNet represented until
earlier this year.

Legislating the Internet
Unfortunately, throughout most of 1995 the only aspect of the Internet
that has drawn the attention of the popular media and members of
Congress is the existence of pornography, among other objectionable
materials and behaviors.  This attention is unfortunate not only
because it eclipses the real lessons that the Internet experience can
bring to the broader telecommunications reform debate, but because
proposals arising from this attention seek to prohibit the
"availability" rather than to manage the "accessibility" of certain
networked resources and services.  In so doing, they represent
over-reactions that would not only constrain expression within
consenting Internet-user communities, but would preempt, rather than
assist, traditional roles and responsibilities of parents and teachers
in favor of government-imposed, national standards.

CNI promotes the view that technical rather than legal measures are
the way to address objectionable materials and behaviors in networked
environments and that the nation will be much better served by a
vibrant, competitive, customer-oriented market for such technical
measures than by years of litigation and adjudication regarding what
materials and behaviors are and are not objectionable before the law.

Encouraging the Evolution of the NII
The presence of the new, ubiquitous, integrated digital delivery
system is essential, and all efforts should be focused on means that
assure proper management and coordination of the dispersed Internet.
Encouraging the rapid evolution of a National Information
Infrastructure (NII) on the model of the Internet should be higher
education's overwhelming priority.

Unless we are very careful and diligent, CNI's assumption that the
network will take care of itself will be proven wrong, and the sorts
of content-rich resources and services that have been CNI's primary
focus will prove to be impossible or too expensive for higher
education.

Note: This column is adapted with permission from an article in
CAUSE/EFFECT Fall 1995.


-------  
ARL 182
A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions
Association of Research Libraries
October 1995