CNI REPORT: Higher Education and the National Information Infrastructure Copyright 1994 CAUSE. From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 17, Number 4, Winter 1994. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact Julia Rudy at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: jrudy@CAUSE.colorado.edu CNI REPORT CNI Report is a regular _CAUSE/EFFECT_ department that provides reports about the activities of the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), formed by the Association of Research Libraries, CAUSE, and Educom in 1990 to promote the creation of and access to information resources in networked environments. HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE by Richard P. West We are in the midst of a national networking revolution. Higher education-along with a host of public and private constituencies-now recognizes that the potential for networked information is practically unlimited. Nevertheless, to achieve the benefits of the promise of networked information requires both a reliable infrastructure and a public policy embracing all aspects of networking, from the infrastructure itself to intellectual property rights and user behavior. The higher education community, which has enjoyed a special relationship with the national network throughout much of the network's history, finds itself in the curious position of being rookies in a game far bigger than almost anyone would have anticipated. Will we be able to compete in this arena? Or will we find ourselves passed up by other groups willing to invest more in national networking outcomes? Who would have predicted, twenty years ago, that we would be seeing articles on a daily basis about the national network? In fact, the history of national networking in this country is as recent as that, beginning in the early 1970s with ARPANET. This was a secure, defense-funded network, with correspondingly limited access, that came to be the testbed for both the principles and the activity of the subsequent Internet. Following ARPANET was the NSFNET. The policy approach behind the NSFNET exhibited several significant changes from its prototype network. The new network was not only characterized by more open access, it was actually viewed as an academic enterprise. In fact, the NSFNET was not even managed by the government but was instead managed under contract by Merit, Inc. This marked a major transition in national network management. Whereas the NSFNET defines an actual network, the term "Internet" is a _generic_ name, used to describe not a single system, but rather how numerous networks connect together to exchange information. As a generic term, however, "Internet" is itself being replaced by a new nomenclature: the National Information Infrastructure (NII), or as the popular press calls it, the "information superhighway." Like the Internet, the NII is a concept rather than a single network, that is, a description of network resources and access. The national strategy behind the Internet-and therefore the NII-assumes a connection of tiered networks. Local (usually college or university) networks are linked to mid-level (statewide or regional) networks, which in turn connect to the national backbone. The success of all the national networks-Internet, NSFNET, ARPANET-has been phenomenal. We have seen an explosive and self-feeding growth in their usage, both in terms of numbers of users and in terms of numbers of applications. We have experienced a high degree of connectivity. Further, we have seen many good examples of networked information become available. In short, the success of the national networks has proved they are more than just an experiment for academics. At the national policy level, the Internet/NII has been viewed by Federal administrators and Congress as a successful example of government investment promoting commercial activity. The Federally funded research initiatives for ARPANET and NSFNET have shown the potential for productivity improvements in both public and private sectors. In the process, three fundamental issues affecting national network infrastructure have become apparent: the need for connectivity, the need for reliability, and the need for capacity, or performance. National networking management itself is now undergoing a major transition. It is in the process of moving from a Federal-government-managed network to a private market approach, and this transition will be completed within the next six to nine months. It is a transition that raises questions about public policy and about our own institutions of higher education and how they will be affected by changes in connectivity, reliability, and capacity. Especially critical during this time of transition is the development of public policy on the national information infrastructure. While such policy is a stated priority for the current administration, its development has been complicated by a lack of consensus on what the infrastructure _is_. The NII has features in common with both the highway and the telephone systems, as well as with the video distribution system, and public policy positions exist on all of these. In the case of the NII, however, our public and private markets are advancing _before_ formal public policy determinations, raising a number of interesting yet difficult questions as the higher education community attempts to define its interests in the new world of national networking. As we formulate our interests, we must first understand where we are today. We have an operating data packet network that is currently moving to a market-managed environment. We have a regulated local voice network service and a regulated local video distribution service. We have access to a networking technology that is (or soon will be) highly integrated. And we are beginning to find content from traditional providers available via the networks. Our interests in national networking are significant. We want accessibility to the NII, of course, but do we also want preferential treatment? Do we need unique content use rights? Do we want cost subsidies for infrastructure support? The data model currently developing can draw on two vastly different economic experiences. With respect to one of the traditional regulated areas-voice-higher education has never been a recipient of cost subsidies. In fact, if anything, it has helped to subsidize residential voice service. On the other hand, the video distribution model shows some preferential treatment by way of subsidies for instructional television fixed service, or ITFS. Given its history with respect to traditional regulated services, higher education faces a less difficult future than does the traditional public library. Librarians are especially concerned about accessibility to the NII. This is because the network is clearly the medium by which they will receive content in the future. A number of difficult challenges face higher education, among them: ensuring ubiquitous connectivity; handling costs and charges; establishing ground rules for technical interactions; determining an appropriate approach to privacy and security; deciding what kind of policy framework/governance structure needs to be established and what the options should be for settling disputes and resolving issues; achieving "seamless" problem-solving. For many of these issues, there is also an overriding question of _who_ should resolve them. In the midst of these difficult questions, let me conclude with an optimistic note. I believe there will be a national network. I believe there will not be major regional or national cost changes in the _near_ term. And I believe the most significant costs will continue to be at the local campus level. On the other hand, I would expect some operational problems to occur during the migration of the network from being more centrally managed to a market-driven cooperative network system. Most importantly, what is to be done? Higher education can still play an active role in shaping the network environment in this period of transition. It should watch national policy develop. It should be prepared to provide advice about governance. It needs to keep separate content and infrastructure issues. Finally, the higher education community must be realistic about its role in setting national network policy, which won't be as prominent as has been true in the last twenty years. ============================================================= This article was adapted from Richard P. West's keynote address at the CAUSE/CNI Regional Conference on "Networked Information Access and Delivery," at Fullerton, California, on October 4, 1994. *********************************************************************** Richard P. West is Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance for The California State University System. He has chaired the steering committee of the Coalition for Networked Information since its establishment in 1990. *********************************************************************** CNI REPORT: Higher Education and the National Information Infrastructure 2N^ _PONNVBnN^ _PONNVH8 cem9441.txtTEXTMSWDTEXTMSWD e%BN "^/,// N>O ` ,gSg`(/,// N@O `/,// NO `><` H@HSkr njЀ0;N  Jeff Hansen22STR d