[301] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Business "Openness" (was Re: Other Researchers)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lyle Seaman)
Tue Mar 5 13:06:33 1991
From: lws@capybara.comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman)
To: sean@dsl.pitt.edu
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 11:45:36 EST
Sean writes:
[ ... good stuff deleted ... ]
>So who are the communities that are likely to need such technologies as
>NREN?
>
[ ... ]
>The business community? Well, yes, but business traditionally avoid
>"Open Systems" and information sharing chosing, instead, to have one
>way gateways, invisible nodes, or to not have a direct connection at
>all. Information science companies are the worst for this. It was only
>recently that DEC had a reasonable gateway to the Internet (although
>WRL has been on for a long time). IBM, similarly, has low profile
>presence as well as HP which prides itself on it's networking sophistication.
>I mean the Interstate highway example only goes so far since you can
>watch a truck go by but it takes some effort to open it up and look
>inside. Fear of the lack of security and, perhaps, inappropriate utility
>would preclude a substantial business input to NREN.
There are several reasons why business has had so little visibility on
the Internet.
1. The NSFNet is theoretically restricted to use "in support of research
and education." This is usually interpreted (correctly?) to mean
public research, but might include some research facilities such as
DECs WRL, IBMs TJ Watson lab, and BellCORE. But these are only small
branches of very large corporations, and most business R&D is only D.
So traditionally, business has not been welcome on the Internet. I
hope that you will see this change with the growth of private IP
networks such as Alternet and PSInet.
2. Businesses have bean-counters, too, and it's a lot harder to convince
them that doing anything in support of interaction with outsiders
(unless they're customers, of course) will contribute significantly to
the bottom line. Unfortunately, few corporations are structured so as
to grant initiative to the people most able to use it. Gateways to the
Internet, even commercial ones, are usually cheaper than direct
connections. The most important services (netnews, email) are
available via UUCP.
3. Many people in the business environment are more focussed towards the
crisis immediately at hand, and don't wish to spend added time learning
new tools and exploring the net. Hence, they don't push for new
facilities.
4. A lot of individuals, who are employees by day, are students by night,
and have access to the Internet in an academic setting. This is done
on their own personal initiative, and does not reflect their roles as
employees. So their employer isn't visible on the net.
As a result of 1 and 2, commercial sites have been excluded from the
Internet. They would certainly have a greater presence if the NSFNet was
not directly subsidized and simultaneously restricted. For the time being,
there will be very little business input into plans for a new and improved
Internet, since businesses have had little experience with the existing
facilities.
This is unfortunate. Much of the stagnation in high-tech industries
and the overall economy could have been avoided if business and academia
were encouraged to interact. IMO, very useful synergies can result
from the cooperation of business and academia. It will be in all of
our interests if business is encouraged to fully join the electronic
community. If this means that the needs of business must be intuited,
since the business community isn't involved in the process directly,
then so be it.
Lyle Wang lws@wang.com
508 967 2322 Lowell, MA, USA uunet!wang!lws
