High Performance Computing and

Networking for Science

September 1989
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of ‘Technology Assessment, High Performance Computing and

Networkig for Science-Background Paper, OTA-BP-CIT-59 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1989).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-600758

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(Order form can be found in the back of this report.)
Foreword

Information technology is fundamental to today’s research and development:

high performance computers for solving complex problems; high-speed data

communication networks for exchanging scientific and engineering information; very

large electronic archives for storing scientific and technical data; and new display

technologies for visualizing the results of analyses.

This background paper explores key issues concerning the Federal role in

supporting national high performance computing facilities and in developing a

national research and education network. It is the first publication from our

assessment, Information Technology and Research, which was requested by the House

Committee on Science and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation.

OTA gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the many experts, within and

outside the government, who served as panelists, workshop participants, contractors,

reviewers, detailees, and advisers for this document. As with all OTA reports,

however, the content is solely the responsibility of OTA and does not necessarily

constitute the consensus or endorsement of the advisory panel, workshop participants,

or the Technology Assessment Board.

- Directo r

. . . w
Performance Computing and Networking for Science Advisory Panel

Charles Bender

Director

Ohio Supercomputer Center

Charles DeLisi

Chairman

Department of Biomathematical

Science

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Deborah L. Estrin

Assistant Professor

Computer Science Department

University of Southern California

Robert Ewald

Vice President, Software

Cray Research, Inc.

Kenneth flamm

Senior Fellow

The Brookings Institution

Malcolm Getz

Associate Provost

Information Services & Technology

Wnderbilt University

Ira Goldstein

Vice president Research

Open Software Foundation

Robert E. Kraut

Manager

Interpersonal Communications Group

Bell Communications Research

John P. (Pat) Crecine, Chairman

President, Georgia Institute of Technology

Lawrence Landweber

Chairman

Computer Science Department

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Carl Ledbetter

President/CEO

ETA Systems

Donald Marsh

Vice President, Technology

Contel Corp.

Michael J, McGill

Vice President

Technical Assessment & Development

OCLC, Computer Library Center, Inc.

Kenneth W. Neves

Manager

Research & Development Program

Boeing Computer Services

Bernard O’Lear

Manager of Systems

National Center for Atmospheric

Research

William Poduska

Chairman of the Board

Stellar Computer, Inc.

Elaine Rich

Director

Artificial Intelligence Lab

Microelectronics and Computer

Technology Corp.

Sharon J. Rogers

University Librarian

Gelman Library

The George Washington University

William Schrader

President

NYSERNET

Kenneth Toy

Post-Graduate Research

Geophysicist

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Keith Uncapher

Vice President

Corporation for the National

Research Initiatives

Al Weis

Vice President

Engineering & Scientific Computer

Data Systems Division

IBM Corp.

NOTE: OTA is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel. The views expressed in

this OTA background paper, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment.

iv
—. .--.—— -—

OTA Project Staff-High Performance Computing

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

James W. Curhin, Program Manager

Communication and Information Technologies Program

Fred W. Weingarten, Project Director

Charles N. Brownstein, Senior Analyst1

Lisa Heinz, Analyst

Elizabeth I. Miller, Research Assistant

Administrative Staff

Elizabeth Emanuel, Administrative Assistant

Karolyn Swauger, Secretary

Jo Anne Price, Secretary

Other Contributors

Bill Bartelone Mervin Jones Timothy Lynagh

Legislative/Federal Program Program Analyst Supervisory Data and

Manager Defense Automation Resources Program Analyst

Cray Research, Inc. Information Center Government Services Administration
List of Reviewers

Janice Abraham

Executive Director

Cornell Theory Center

Cornell University

Lee R. Alley

Assistant Vice President for

Information Resources Management

Arizona State University

James Almond

Director

Center for High Performance

Computing

Balcones Research Center

Julius Archibald

Department Chairman

Department of Computer Science

State University of New York

College of Plattsburgh

J. Gary Augustson

Executive Director

Computer and Information

Systems

Pennsylvania State University

Philip Austin

President

Colorado State University

Steven C. Beering

President

Purdue University

Jerry Berkman

Fortran Specialist

Central Computing Services

University of California at Berkeley

Kathleen Bernard

Director for Science Policy

and Technology Programs

Cray Research, Inc.

Justin L. Bloom

President

Technology International, Inc.

Charles N. Brownstein

Executive Officer

Computing & Information Science &

Engineering

National Science Foundation

Eloise E. Clark

Vice President, Academic

Affairs

Bowling Green University

Paul Coleman

Professor

Institute of Geophysics and

Space Physics

University of California

Michael R. Dingerson

Associate Vice Chancellor for

Research and Dean of the

Graduate School

University of Mississippi

Christopher Eoyang

Director

Institute for Supercomputing

Research

David Farber

Professor

Computer & Information

Science Department

University of Pennsylvania

Sidney Fernbach

Independent Consultant

Susan Fratkin

Director, Special Programs

NASULGC

Doug Gale

Director of Computer

Research Center

Office of the Chancellor

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Robert Gillespie

President

Gillespie, Folkner

& Associates, Inc.

Eiichi Goto

Director, Computer Center

University of Tokyo

C.K. Gunsalus

Assistant Vice Chancellor

for Research

University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign

Judson M. Harper

Vice President of Research

Colorado State University

Gene Hemp

Senior Associate V.P. for

Academic Affairs

University of Florida

Nobuaki Ieda

Senior Vice President

NTT America, Inc.

Hiroshi Inose

Director General

National Center for Science

Information System

Heidi James

Executive Secretary

United States Activities

Board

IEEE

Russell C. Jones

University Research Professor

University of Delaware

Brian Kahin, Esq.

Research Affiliate on

Communications Policy

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert Kahn

President

Corporation of National

Research Initiatives

Hisao Kanai

Executive Vice President

NEC Corporation

Hiroshi Kashiwagi

Deputy Director-General

Electrotechnical Laboratory

Lauren Kelly

Department of Commerce

Thomas Keyes

Professor of Chemistry

Boston University

Continued on next page

VI
List Of Reviewers (continued)

Doyle Knight

President

John von Neumann National

Supercomputer Center

Consortium for Scientific

Computing

Mike Levine

Co-director of the Pittsburgh

Supercomputing Center

Carnegie Mellon University

George E. Lindamood

Program Director

Industry Service

Gartner Group, Inc.

M. Stuart Lynn

Vice President for

Information Technologies

Cornell University

Ikuo Makino

Director

Electrical Machinery & Consumer

Electronics Division

Minisry of International

Trade and Industry

Richard Mandelbaum

Vice Provost for Computing

University of Rochester

Martin Massengale

Chancellor

University of N’ebraska-Lincoln

Gerald W. May

President

University of New Mexico

Yoshiro Miki

Director, Policy Research Division

Science and Technology Policy Bureau

Science and Technology Agency

Takeo Miura

Senior Executive Managing Director

Hitachi. Ltd.

J. Gerald Morgan

Dean of Engineering

New Mexico State University

V. Rama Murthy

Vice Provost for Academic

Affairs

University of Minnesota

Shoichi Ninomoiya

Executive Director

Fujitsu Limited

Bernard O’Lear

Manager of Systems

National Center for Atmospheric

Research

Ronald Orcutt

Executive Director

Project Athena

MIT

Tad Pinkerton

Director

Office of Information

Technology

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Harold J. Raveche

President

Stevens Institute of Technology

Ann Redelf

Manager of Information

Services

Cornell Theory Center

Cornell University

Glenn Ricart

Director

Computer Science Center

University of Maryland in

College Park

Ira Richer

Program Manager

DARPA/ISTO

John Riganati

Director of Systems Research

Supercomputer Research Center

Institute for Defense Analyses

Mike Roberts

Vice President

EDUCOM

David Roselle

President

University of Kentucky

Nora Sabelli

National Center for Supercomputing

Applications

University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign

Steven Sample

President

SUNY, Buffalo

John Sell

President

Minnesota Supercomputer Center

Hiroshi Shima

Deputy Director-General for

Technology Affairs

Agency of Industrial Science and

Technology , MITI

Yoshio Shimamoto

Senior Scientist (Retired)

Applied Mathematics Department

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Charles Sorber

Dean, School of Engineering

University of Pittsburgh

Harvey Stone

Special Assistant to the

President

University of Delaware

Dan Sulzbach

Manager, User Services

San Diego Supercomputer Center

Tatsuo Tanaka

Executive Director

Interoperability Technology

Association for Information Processing,

Japan

Ray Toland

president

Alabama Supercomputing Network

Authority

Kenneth Tolo

Vice Provost

University of Texas

at Austin

Kenneth Toy

Post-Graduate Research

Geophysicist

Scripps Institution of

Oceanography

August B. Tumbull. III

Provost & Vice President,

Academic Affairs

Florida State University

Continued on next page
List of Reviewers (continued)

Gerald Turner

Chancellor

University of Mississippi

Douglas Van Houweling

Vice Provost for Information

& Technology

University of Michigan

Anthony Villasenor

Program Manager

ScienCE Networks

Office of Space Science and

Applications

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Hugh Walsh

Data Systems Division

IBM

Richard West

Assistant Vice President,

IS&AS

University of California

Steve Wolff

Program Director for Networking

Computing & Information Science &

Engineering

National Science Foundation

James Woodward

Chancellor

University of North Carolina

at Charlotte

Akihiro Yoshikawa

Research Director

University of California, Berkeley

BRIE/IIS

NOTE: OTA is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel, The views expressed in

this OTA background paper, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment,

,.. VIII
. .. .. .

Contents

Page

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview

Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY-A FUTURE

SCENARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . 1

MAJOR ISSUES AND PROBLEMS . . . . . . . 1

NATIONAL IMPORTANCE-THE NEED

FOR ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Economic Importance ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Scientific Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Timing . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Collaborators ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Service Providers ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 2: High Performance Computers . . . 7

WHAT IS A HIGH PERFORMANCE

COMPUTER? . . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

HOW FAST IS FAST? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

THE NATIONAL SUPERCOMPUTER

CENTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 9

The Cornell Theory Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The National Center for Supercomputing

Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center . . . . . . 10

San Diego Supercomputer Center . . . . . . . 10

John von Neumann National

Supercomputer Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

OTHER HPC FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Minnesota Supercomputer Center . . . . . . . 11

The Ohio Supercomputer Center . . . . . . . . 12

Center for High Performance Computing,

Texas (CHPC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Alabama Supercomputer Network . . . . . . . 13

Commercial Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Federal Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHANGING ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . 13

REVIEW AND RENEWAL OF THE NSF

CENTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT . 16

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Page

Other Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 19

Chapter 3: Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND

EDUCATION NETWORK (NREN) . . . . . 22

The Origins of Research Networking . . . . 22

The Growing Demand for Capability and

Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 23

The Present NREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Research Networking as a Strategic

High Technology Infrastructure . . . . . . . 25

Federal Coordination of the Evolving

Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Players in the NREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The NREN in the International

Telecommunications Environment . . . . 28

Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Planning Amidst Uncertainty , ., . . . . . ., . 29

Network Scope and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Policy and Management Structure . . . . . . . 31

Financing and Cost Recovery . . . . . . . . . . 32

Network Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Longer-Term Science Policy Issues . . . . . 33

Technical Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Federal Agency Plans:

FCCSET/FRICC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

NREN Management Desiderata . . . . . . . . . 35

Figures

Figure Page

1-1. An Information Infrastructure for

Research . . . . . . . ., ., ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1-2. Distribution of Federal Supercomputers . . . 14

Tables

Table Page

2-1. Some Key Academic High Performance

Computer Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3-1. Principal Policy Issues in Network

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3-2. Proposed NREN Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

ix
Chapter 1

Introduction and Overview Observations

The Office of Technology Assessment is conducting an assessment of the effects of new information

technologies—including high performance computing, data networking, and mass data archiving-on

research and development. This background paper

offers a midcourse view of the issues and discusses

their implications for current discussions about

Federal supercomputer initiatives and legislative

initiatives concerning a national data communication network.

Our observations to date emphasize the critical

importance of advanced information technology

to research and development in the United States,

the interconnection of these technologies into a

national system (and, as a result, the tighter

coupling of policy choices regarding them), and

the need for immediate and coordinated Federal

action to bring into being an advanced information technology infrastructure to support U.S.

research, engineering, and education.

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY—A FUTURE

SCENARIO

Within the next decade, the desks and laboratory

benches of most scientists and engineers will be

entry points to a complex electronic web of information technologies, resources and information services, connected together by high-speed data communication networks (see figure 1-1 ). These technologies will be critical to pursuing research in most

fields. Through powerful workstation computers on

their desks, researchers will access a wide variety of

resources, such as:

●

●

●

an interconnected assortment of local campus,

State and regional, national, and even international data communication networks that link

users worldwide;

specialized and general-purpose computers including supercomputers, minisupercomputers,

mainframes, and a wide variety of special

architectures tailored to specific applications;

collections of application programs and software tools to help users find, modify, or

develop programs to support their research;

-1

archival storage systems that contain specialized research databases;

experimental apparatus-such as telescopes,

environmental monitoring devices, seismographs,

and so on---designed to be set-up and operated

remotely;

services that support scientific communication,

including electronic mail, computer conferencing systems, bulletin boards, and electronic

journals;

a “digital library” containing reference material, books, journals, pictures, sound recordings, films, software, and other types of information in electronic form; and

specialized output facilities for displaying the

results of experiments or calculations in more

readily understandable and visualizable ways.

Many of these resources are already used in some

form by some scientists. Thus, the scenario that is

drawn is a straightforward extension of current

usage. Its importance for the scientific community

and for government policy stems from three trends:

1 ) the rapidly and continually increasing capability

of the technologies; 2) the integration of these

technologies into what we will refer to as an

“information infrastructure”; and 3) the diffusion of

information technology into the work of most

scientific disciplines.

Few scientists would use all the resources and

facilities listed, at least on a daily basis; and the

particular choice of resources eventually made

available on the network will depend on how the

tastes and needs of research users evolve. However,

the basic form, high-speed data networks connecting

user workstations with a worldwide assortment of

information technologies and services, is becoming

a crucial foundation for scientific research in most

disciplines.

MAJOR ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

Developing this system to its full potential will

require considerable thought and effort on the part of

government at all levels, industry, research institutions, and the scientific community, itself, It will

present policy makers with some difficult questions

and decisions.
2

Figure l-l—An Information Infrastructure for Research

On-1ine

ex p e r i m e n ts

i Workstations

M a i n f ra mes

\

/

t

I

t

Electronic mail I

/

&

Bulletin in boards

1

‘ —

I

Digital electronic

/

Iubraries

Net works /

&

Data archives

Associated Service s II 1 /

\

Scientific applications are very demanding on . new methods for storing and accessing

technological capability. A substantial R&D com- mation horn very large data archives.

ponent will need to accompany programs intended to advance R&D use of information An important characteristic of this system

technology. To realize the potential benefits of this different parts of it will be funded and operated by

new infrastructure, research users need advances in different entities and made available to users in

such areas as: different ways. For example, databases could be

in foris that

●

●

●

operated by government agencies, professional soci -

more powerful computer designs; — eties, non-profit journals, or commercial firms.

Computer facilities could similarly be operated by more powerful and efficient computational

techniques and software; overly high-speed government, industry, or universities. The network,

switched data communications; itself, already is an assemblage of pieces funded or

operated by various agencies in the Federal Govemimproved technologies for visualizing data ment; by States and regional authorities; and by local

results and interacting with computers; and agencies, firms and educational institutions. Keep-
3

ing these components interconnected technologically and allowing users to move smoothly among

the resources they need will present difficult

management and policy problems.

Furthermore, the system will require significant

capital investment to build and maintain, as well as

specialized technical expertise to manage. How the

various components are to be funded, how costs

are to be allocated, and how the key components

such as the network will be managed over the

long term will be important questions.

Since this system as envisioned would be so

widespread and fundamental to the process of

research, access to it would be crucial to participation in science. Questions of access and participation are crucial to planning, management, and

policymaking for the network and for many of

the services attached to it.

Changes in information law brought about by the

electronic revolution will create problems and conflicts for the scientific community and may influence how and by whom these technologies are used.

The resolution of broader information issues

such as security and privacy, intellectual property protection, access controls on sensitive information, and government dissemination practices

could affect whether and how information technologies will be used by researchers and who may

use them.

Finally, to the extent that, over the long run,

modem information technology becomes so fundamental to the research process, it will transform the

very nature of that process and the institutions—

libraries, laboratories, universities, and so on—that

serve it. These basic changes in science would

affect government both in the operation of its own

laboratories and in its broader relationship as a

supporter and consumer of research. Conflicts

may also arise to the extent that government

becomes centrally involved, both through funding and through management with the traditionally independent and uncontrolled communication

channels of science.

NATIONAL IMPORTANCE—

THE NEED FOR ACTION

Over the last 5 years, Congress has become

increasingly concerned about information technology and research. The National Science Foundation

(NSF) has been authorized to establish supercomputer centers and a science network. Bills (S 1067

HR 3131) are being considered in the Congress to

authorize a major effort to plan and develop a

national research and education network and to

stimulate information technology use in science and

education. Interest in the role information technology could play in research and education has

stemmed, first, from the government’s major role as

a funder, user, and participant in research and,

secondly, from concern for ensuring the strength and

competitiveness of the U.S. economy.

Observation 1: The Federal Government needs to

is

establish its commitment to the advanced information technology infrastructure necessary for

furthering U.S. science and education. This need

sterns directly from the importance of science and

technology to economic growth, the importance

of information technology to research and development, and the critical timing for certain policy

decisions.

Economic Importance

A strong national effort in science and technology

critical to the long-term economic competitiveness, national security, and social well-being of the

United States. That, in the modem international

economy, technological innovation is concomitant

with social and economic growth is a basic assumption held in most political and economic systems in

the world these days; and we will take it here as a

basic premise. It has been a basic finding in many

OTA studies.l (This observation is not to suggest

that technology is a panacea for all social problems,

nor that serious policy problems are not often raised

by its use.) Benefits from of this infrastructure are

expected to flow into the economy in three ways:

First, the information technology industry can

benefit directly. Scientific use has always been a

I For ~xmple, U,S, Congess, Offiw of Tu~~]o~ As~ssmen[, Techm/ogy ad the A~ri~an Ec’ono~”( TransitIon, OTA-TET-283 (wti.Shlllg(Otl,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1988) and fqformafwn Techofogy R&D Criticaf Trend andlswes, OTA-CIT-268 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, February 1985),
4

major source of innovation in computers and communications technology. Packet-switched data communication, now a widely used commercial offering,

was first developed by the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to support its

research community. Department of Energy (DOE)

national laboratories have, for many years, made

contributions to supercomputer hardware and software. New initiatives to develop higher speed

computers and a national science network could

similarly feed new concepts back to the computer

and communications industry as well as to providers

of information services.

Secondly, by improving the tools and methodologies for R&D, the infrastructure will impact the

research process in many critical high technology

industries, such as pharmaceuticals, airframes, chemicals, consumer electronics, and many others. Innovation and, hence, international competitiveness in

these key R&D-intensive sectors can be improved.

The economy as a whole stands to benefit from

increased technological capabilities of information

systems and improved understanding of how to use

them. A National Research and Education Network

could be the precursor to a much broader high

capacity network serving the United States, and

many research applications developed for high

performance computers result in techniques much

more broadly applicable to commercial firms.

Scientific Importance

Research and development is, inherently, an

information activity. Researchers generate, organize, and interpret information, build models, communicate, and archive results, Not surprisingly,

then, they are now dependent on information technology to assist them in these tasks. Many major

studies by many scientific and policy organizations

over the years-as far back as the President’s

Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) in the middle

1960s, and as recently as a report by COSEPUP of

the National Research Council published in 19882—

have noted these trends and analyzed the implications for science support. The key points are as

follows:

●

Ž

●

●

Scientific and technical information is increasingly being generated, stored and distributed in

electronic form;

Computer-based communications and data handling are becoming essential for accessing,

manipulating, analyzing, and communicating

data and research results; and,

In many computationally intensive R&D areas,

from climate research to groundwater modeling

to airframe design, major advances will depend

upon pushing the state of the art in high

performance computing, very large databases,

visualization, and other related information

technologies. Some of these applications have

been labeled “Grand Challenges.” These projects hold promise of great social benefit, such

as designing new vaccines and drugs, understanding global warming, or modeling the

world economy. However, for that promise to

be realized in those fields, researchers require

major advances in available computational

power.

Many proposed and ongoing “big science”

projects, from particle accelerators and large

array radio telescopes to the NASA EOS

satellite project, will create vast streams of new

data that must be captured, analyzed, archived,

and made available to the research community.

These new demands could well overtax the

capability of currently available resources.

Timing

Government decisions being made now and in the

near future will shape the long-term utility and

effectiveness of the information technology infrastructure for science. For example:

●

●

NSF is renewing its multi-year commitments to

all or most of the existing National Supercomputing Centers.

Executive agencies, under the informal auspices of the Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC), are developing a

national “backbone” network for science. Decisions made now will have long term influence

on the nature of the network, its technical

characteristics, its cost, its management, servZpme] on ~om~jon l’lxhnoIo~ and the Conduct of Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, f~ormarion Technology

and the Conduct of Reseurch ” The User’s View (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989).
5

●

●

ices available on it, access, and the information

policies that will govern its use.

The basic communications industry is in flux,

as are the policies and rules by which government regulates it.

Congress and the Executive Branch are currently considering, and in some cases have

started, several new major scientific projects,

including a space station, the Earth Orbiting

System, the Hubble space telescope, the superconducting supercollider, human genome mapping, and so on. Technologies and policies are

needed to deal with these “firehoses of data. ” In

addition, upgrading the information infrastructure could open these projects and data streams

to broad access by the research community.

Observation 2: Federal policy in this area needs to

be more broadly based than has been traditional

with Federal science efforts. Plsnning, building,

and managing the information technology infrastructure requires cutting across agency programs and the discipline and mission-oriented

approach of science support. In addition, many

parties outside the research establishment will

have important roles to play and stakes in the

outcome of the effort.

The key information technologies-high performance computing centers, data communication

networks, large data archives, along with a wide

range of supporting software-are used in all

research disciplines and support several different

agency missions. In many cases, economies of scale

and scope dictate that some of these technologies

(e.g., supercomputers) be treated as common resources. Some, such as communication networks,

are most efficiently used if shared or interconnected

in some way.

There are additional scientific reasons to treat

information resources as a broadly used infrastructure: fostering communication among scientists

between disciplines, sharing resources and techniques, and expanding access to databases and

software, for instance. However, there are very few

models from the history of Federal science support

for creating and maintaining infrastructure-like resources for science and technology across agency

and disciplinary boundaries. Furthermore, since the

networks, computer systems, databases, and so on

interconnect and users must move smoothly among

them, the system requires a high degree of coordination rather than being treated as simply a conglomeration of independent facilities.

However, if information technology resources for

science are treated as infrastructure, a major policy

issue is one of boundaries. Who is it to serve; who

are its beneficiaries? Who should participate in

designing it, building and operating it, providing

services over it, and using it? The answers to these

questions will also indicate to Congress who should

be part of the policymaking and planning process;

they will govern the long term scale, scope, and the

technological characteristics of the infrastructure

itself; and they will affect the patterns of support for

the facilities. Potentially interested parties include

the following:

Users

Potential users might include academic and industrial researchers, teachers, graduate, undergraduate,

and high school students, as well as others such as

the press or public interest groups who need access

to and make use of scientific information. Institutions, such as universities and colleges, libraries, and

schools also have user interests. Furthermore, foreign scientists working as part of international

research teams or in firms that operate internationally will wish access to the U.S. system, which, in

turn, will need to be connected with other nation’s

research infrastructures.

Collaborators

Another group of interested parties include State

and local governments and parts of the information

industry. We have identified them with the term

“collaborators” because they will be participating in

funding, building, and operating the infrastructure.

States are establishing State supercomputer centers

and supporting local and regional networking, some

computer companies participate in the NSF National

Supercomputer Centers, and some telecommunication firms are involved in parts of the science

network.

Service Providers

Finally, to the extent that the infrastructure serves

as a basic tool for most of the research and

development community, information service pro-
6

viders will require access to make their products

available to scientific users. The service providers

may include government agencies (which provide

access to government scientific databases, for example), libraries and library utilities, journal and

text-book publishers, professional societies, and

private software and database providers.

Observation 3: Several information policy issues

will be raised in managing and using the network.

Depending on how they are resolved, they could

sharply restrict the utility and scope of network

use in the scientific community.

Security and privacy have already become of

major concern and will pose a problem. In general,

users will want the network and the services on it to

be as open as possible; however, they will also want

the networks and services to be as robust and

dependable as possible-free free deliberate or

accidental disruption. Furthermore, different resources will require different levels of security.

Some bulletin boards and electronic mail services

may want to be as open and public as possible; others

may require a high level of privacy. Some databases

may be unique and vital resources that will need a

very high level of protection, others may not be so

critical. Maintaining an open, easily accessible

network while protecting privacy and valuable

resources will require careful balancing of legal and

technological controls.

Intellectual property protection in an electronic

environment may pose difficult problems, Providers

will be concerned that electronic databases, software, and even electronic formats of printed journals

and other writings will not be adequately protected.

In some cases, the product, itself, may not be well

protected under existing law. In other cases electronic formats coupled with a communications

network erode the ability to control restrictions on

copying and disseminating.

Access controls may be called for on material that

is deemed to be sensitive (although unclassified) for

reasons of national security or economic competitiveness. Yet, the networks will be accessible

worldwide and the ability to identify and control

users may be limited.

The above observations have been broad, looking

at the overall collection of information technology

resources for science as an integrated system and at

the questions raised by it. The remaining portion of

this paper will deal specifically with high performance computers and networking.
Chapter 2

High Performance Computers

An important set of issues has been raised during

the last 5 years around the topic of high performance

computing (H-PC). These issues stem from a growing concern in both the executive branch and in

Congress that U.S. science is impeded significantly

by lack of access to HPC1 and by concerns over the

competitiveness implications of new foreign technology initiatives, such as the Japanese “Fifth

Generation Project.” In response to these concerns,

policies have been developed and promoted with

three goals in mind.

1.

2.

3.

In

To advance vital research applications currently hampered by lack of access to very high

speed computers.

To accelerate the development of new HPC

technology, providing enhanced tools for research and stimulating the competitiveness of

the U.S. computer industry.

To improve software tools and techniques for

using HPC, thereby enhancing their contribution to general U.S. economic competitiveness.

1984, the National Science Foundation (NSF)

initiated a group of programs intended to improve

the availability and use of high performance computers in scientific research. As the centerpiece of its

initiative, after an initial phase of buying and

distributing time at existing supercomputer centers,

NSF established five National Supercomputer Centers.

Over the course of this and the next year, the

initial multiyear contracts with the National Centers

are coming to an end, which has provoked a debate

about whether and, if so, in what form they should

be renewed. NSF undertook an elaborate review and

renewal process and announced that, depending on

agency funding, it is prepared to proceed with

renewing at least four of the centers2

. In thinking

about the next steps in the evolution of the advanced

computing program, the science agencies and Congress have asked some basic questions. Have our

perceptions of the needs of research for HPC

changed since the centers were started? If so, how?

Have we learned anything about the effectiveness of

the National Centers approach? Should the goals of

the Advanced Scientific Computing (ASC) and

other related Federal programs be refined or redefined? Should alternative approaches be considered,

either to replace or to supplement the contributions

of the centers?

OTA is presently engaged in a broad assessment

of the impacts of information technology on research, and as part of that inquiry, is examining the

question of scientific computational resources. It has

been asked by the requesting committees for an

interim paper that might help shed some light on the

above questions. The full assessment will not be

completed for several months, however; so this

paper must confine itself to some tentative observations.

WHAT ISA HIGH PERFORMANCE

COMPUTER?

The term, “supercomputer,” is commonly used in

the press, but it is not necessarily useful for policy.

In the first place, the definition of power in a

computer is highly inexact and depends on many

factors including processor speed, memory size, and

so on. Secondly, there is not a clear lower boundary

of supercomputer power. IBM 3090 computers

come in a wide range of configurations, some of the

largest of which are the basis of supercomputer

centers at institutions such as Cornell, the Universities of Utah, and Kentucky. Finally, technology is

changing rapidly and with it our conceptions of

power and capability of various types of machines.

We use the more general term, “high performance

computers,” a term that includes a variety of

machine types.

One class of HPC consists of very large. powerful

machines, principally designed for very large numerical applications such as those encountered in

science. These computers are the ones often referred

to as “supercomputers.” They are expensive, costing

up to several million dollars each.

lpe[~~ D, Lm, R~PO~ of the pamj on ~rge.scaje Cowtilng in ~clen~e ~ E~glncerl)lg (Wa.$hlngon, Dc: Na[lOnal science Foundam.m, 1982).

-e of the five centers, the John von Neumann National Supercomputer Center, has been based on ETA-10 tednology Tbc Center hw been asked

to resubmit a proposal showing revised plans in reaction to the wnhdrawd of that machme from the markt.

- 7 -
8

A large-scale computer’s power comes from a

combination of very high-speed electronic components and specialized architecture (a term used by

computer designers to describe the overall logical

arrangement of the computer). Most designs use a

combination of “vector processing” and “parallelism” in their design. A vector processor is an

arithmetic unit of the computer that produces a series

of similar calculations in an overlapping, assembly

line fashion, (Many scientific calculations can be set

up in this way.)

Parallelism uses several processors, assuming that

a problem can be broken into large independent

pieces that can be computed on separate processors.

Currently, large, mainframe HPC’S such as those

offered by Cray, IBM, are only modestly parallel,

having as few as two up to as many as eight

processors.

3 The trend is toward more parallel

processors on these large systems. Some experts

anticipate as many as 512 processor machines

appearing in the near future. The key problem to date

has been to understand how problems can be set up

to take advantage of the potential speed advantage of

larger scale parallelism.

Several machines are now on the market that are

based on the structure and logic of a large supercomputer, but use cheaper, slower electronic components. These systems make some sacrifice in speed,

but cost much less to manufacture. Thus, an application that is demanding, but that does not necessarily

require the resources of a full-size supercomputer,

may be much more cost effective to run on such a

“minisuper.”

Other types of specialized systems have also

appeared on the market and in the research laboratory. These machines represent attempts to obtain

major gains in computation speed by means of

fundamentally different architectures. They are known

by colorful names such as “Hypercubes,” “Connection Machines, “ “Dataflow Processors, “ “Butterfly

Machines, “ “Neural Nets,” or “Fuzzy Logic Computers.” Although they differ in detail, many of these

systems are based on large-scale parallelism. That is,

their designers attempt to get increases in processing

speed by hooking together in some way a large

number-hundreds or even thousands-of simpler,

slower and, hence, cheaper processors. The problem

is that computational mathematicians have not yet

developed a good theoretical or experiential framework for understanding in general how to arrange

applications to take full advantage of these massively parallel systems. Hence, they are still, by and

large, experimental, even though some are now on

the market and users have already developed applications software for them. Experimental as these

systems may seem now, many experts think that any

significantly large increase in computational power

eventually must grow out of experimental systems

such as these or from some other form of massively

parallel architecture.

Finally, “workstations,” the descendants of personal desktop computers, are increasing in power;

new chips now in development will offer the

computing power nearly equivalent to a Cray 1

supercomputer of the late 1970s. Thus, although

top-end HPCs will be correspondingly more powerful, scientists who wish to do serious computing will

have a much wider selection of options in the near

future,

A few policy-related conclusions flow from this

discussion:

●

●

●

The term “Supercomputer” is a fluid one,

potentially covering a wide variety of machine

types, and the “supercomputer industry” is

similarly increasing y difficult to identify clearly.

Scientists need access to a wide range of high

performance computers, ranging from desktop

workstations to full-scale supercomputers, and

they need to move smoothly among these

machines as their research needs dictate.

Hence, government policy needs to be flexible

and broadly based, not overly focused on

narrowly defined classes of machines.

HOW FAST IS FAST?

Popular comparisons of supercomputer speeds are

usually based on processing speed, the measure

being “FLOPS,” or “Floating Point Operation Per

Second.” The term “floating point” refers to a

particular format for numbers within the computer

that is used for scientific calculation; and a floating

3T0 ~st~W1sh ~[w~n t.hls m~es[ level and the larger scale parallehsm found on some more experimental machines, some expetts refer tO th

lirmted parallelism ~ ‘(multiprocxssmg. ”
9

point “operation” refers to a single arithmetic step,

such as adding two numbers, using the floating point

format, Thus, FLOPS measure the speed of the

arithmetic processor. Currently, the largest supercomputers have processing speeds ranging up to

several billion FLOPS.

However, pure processing speed is not by itself a

useful measure of the relative power of computers.

To see why, let’s look at an analogy.

In a supermarket checkout counter, the calculation speed of the register does not, by itself,

determine how fast customers can purchase their

groceries and get out of the store. Rather, the speed

of checkout is also affected by the rate at which each

purchase can be entered into the register and the

overall time it takes to complete a transaction with

a customer and start a new one. Of course, ultimately, the length of time the customer must wait in

line to get to the clerk may be the biggest determinant of all.

Similarly, in a computer, how fast calculations

can be set up and presented to the processor and how

fast new jobs and their associated data can be moved

in, and completed work moved out of the computer,

determines how much of the processor’s speed can

actually be harnessed. (Some users refer to this as

“solution speed.”) In a computer, those speeds are

determined by a wide variety of hardware and

software characteristics. And, similar to the store

checkout, as a fast machine becomes busy, users

may have to wait a significant time to get their turn.

From a user’s perspective, then, a theoretically fast

computer can look very slow.

In order to fully test a machine’s speed, experts

use what are called “benchmark programs,” sample

programs that reproduce the actual work load. Since

workloads vary, there are several different benchmark programs, and they are constantly being

refined and revised. Measuring a supercomputer’s

speed is, itself, a complex and important area of

research. It lends insight not only into what type of

computer currently on the market is best to use for

particular applications; but carefully structured measurements can also show where bottlenecks occur

and, hence, where hardware and software improvements need to be made.

One can draw a few policy implications from

these observations on speed:

●

●

●

●

Since overall speed improvement is closely

linked with how their machines are actually

prograrnmed and used, computer designers are

critically dependent on feedback from that part

of the user community which is pushing their

machines to the limit.

There is no “fastest” machine. The speed of a

high performance computer is too dependent on

the skill with which it is used and programmed,

and the particular type of job it is being asked

to perform.

Until machines are available in the market and

have been tested for overall performance,

policy makers should be skeptical of announcements based purely on processor speeds that

some company or country is producing “faster

machines. ”

Federal R&D programs for improving high

performance computing need to stress software

and computational mathematics as well as

research on machine architecture.

THE NATIONAL

SUPERCOMPUTER CENTERS

In February of 1985, NSF selected four sites to

establish national supercomputing centers: The University of California at San Diego, The University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cornell University

and the John von Neumann Center in Princeton. A

fifth site, Pittsburgh, was added in early 1986. The

five NSF centers are described briefly below.

The Cornell Theory Center

The Cornell Theory Center is located on the

campus of Cornell University. Over 1,900 users

from 125 institutions access the center. Although

Cornell does not have a center-oriented network, 55

academic institutions are able to utilize the resources

at Cornell through special nodes. A 14-member

Corporate Research Institute works within the center

in a variety of university-industry cost sharing

projects.

In November of 1985 Cornell received a 3084

computer from IBM, which was upgraded to a

four-processor 3090/400VF a year later. The 3090/

400VF was replaced by a six-processor 3090/600E
20

in May, 1987. In October, 1988 a second 3090/600E

was added. The Cornell center also operates several

other smaller parallel systems, including an Intel

iPCS/2, a Transtech NT 1000, and a Topologix

T1OOO. Some 50 percent of the resources of Northeast Parallel Architecture Center, which include two

Connection machines, an Encore, and an Alliant

FX/80, are accessed by the Cornell facility.

Until October of 1988, all IBM computers were

“on loan” to Cornell for as long as Cornell retained

its NSF funding. The second IBM 3090/600, procured in October, will be paid for by an NSF grant,

Over the past 4 years, corporate support for the

Cornell facility accounted for 48 percent of the

operating costs. During those same years, NSF and

New York State accounted for 37 percent and 5

percent respectively of the facility’s budget. This

funding has allowed the center to maintain a staff of

about 100.

The National Center for

Supercomputing Applications

The National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) is operated by the University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The Center has over

2,500 academic users from about 82 academic

afiliates. Each affiliate receives a block grant of

time on the Cray X-MP/48, training for the Cray, and

help using the network to access the Cray.

The NCSA received its Cray X-MP/24 in October

1985, That machine was upgraded to a Cray

X-MP/48 in 1987. In October 1988 a Cray-2s/4-128

was installed, giving the center two Cray machines.

This computer is the only Cray-2 now at an NSF

national center. The center also houses a Connection

Machine 2, an Alliant FX/80 and FX/8, and over 30

graphics workstations.

In addition to NSF funding, NCSA has solicited

industrial support. Amoco, Eastman Kodak, Eli

Lilly, FMC Corp., Dow Chemical, and Motorola

have each contributed around $3 million over a

3-year period to the NCSA. In fiscal year 1989

corporate support has amounted to 11 percent of

NCSA’s funding. About 32 percent of NCSA’s

budget came from NSF while the State of Illinois

and the University of Illinois accounted for the

remaining 27 percent of the center’s $21.5 million

budget. The center has a full-time staff of 198.

Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center

The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) is

run jointly by the University of Pittsburgh, CarnegieMellon University, and Westinghouse Electric Corp.

More than 1,400 users from 44 States utilize the

center. Twenty-seven universities are affiliated with

PSC.

The center received a Cray X-MP/48 in March of

1986. In December of 1988 PSC became the first

non-Federal laboratory to possess a Cray Y-MP.

Both machines were being used simultaneously for

a short time, however the center has phased out the

Cray X-MP. The center’s graphics hardware includes a Pixar image computer, an Ardent Titan, and

a Silicon Graphics IRIS workstation.

The operating projection at PSC for fiscal year

1990, a “typical year,” has NSF supporting 58

percent of the center’s budget while industry and

vendors account for 22 percent of the costs. The

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the National

Institutes of Health both support PSC, accounting

for 8 percent and 4 percent of budget respectively.

Excluding working students, the center has a staff of

around 65.

San Diego Supercomputer Center

The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) is

located on the campus of the University of California at San Diego and is operated by General

Atomics. SDSC is linked to 25 consortium members

but has a user base in 44 States. At the end of 1988,

over 2,700 users were accessing the center. SDSC

has 48 industrial partners who use the facility’s

hardware, software, and support staff.

A Cray X-MP/48 was installed in December,

1985. SDSC’s first upgrade, a Y-MP8/864, is

planned for December, 1989. In addition to the Cray,

SDSC has 5 Sun workstations, two IRIS workstations, an Evans and Sutherland terminal, 5 Apollo

workstations, a Pixar, an Ardent Titan, an SCS-40

minisupercomputer, a Supertek S-1 minisupercomputer, and two Symbolics Machines.

The University of California at San Diego spends

more than $250,000 a year on utilities and services

for SDSC. For fiscal year 1990 the SDSC believes

NSF will account for 47 percent of the center’s

operating budget. The State of California currently
provides $1.25 million per year to the center and in

1988, approved funding of $6 million over 3 years to

SDSC for research in scientific visualization. For

fiscal year 1990 the State is projected to support 10

percent of the center’s costs. Industrial support,

which has given the center $12.6 million in donations and in-kind services, is projected to provide 15

percent of the total costs of SDSC in fiscal year

1990.

John von Neumann

National Supercomputer Center

The John von Neumann National Supercomputer

Center (JvNC), located in Princeton New Jersey, is

managed by the Consortium for Scientific Computing Inc., an organization of 13 institutions from New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York,

Rhode Island, Colorado, and Arizona. Currently

there are over 1,400 researchers from 100 institutes

accessing the center. Eight industrial corporations

utilize the JvNC facilities.

At present there are two Cyber 205 and two

ETA-1 OS, in use at the JvNC. The first ETA-10 was

installed, after a 1-year delay, in March of 1988. In

addition to these machines there is a Pixar H, two

Silicon Graphics IRIS and video animation capabilities.

When the center was established in 1985 by NSF,

the New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology committed $12.1 million to the center over a

5-year period. An addition $13.1 million has been

set-aside for the center by the New Jersey Commission for fiscal year 1991-1995. Direct funding from

the State of New Jersey and university sources

constitutes 15 percent of the center’s budget for

fiscal year 1991-1995. NSF will account for 60

percent of the budget. Projected industry revenue

and cost sharing account for 25 percent of costs.

Since the announcement by CDC to close its ETA

subsidiary, the future of JvNC is uncertain. Plans

have been proposed to NSF by JvNC to purchase a

Cray Research Y-MP, eventually upgrading to a

C-90. NSF is reviewing the plan and a decision on

renewal is expected in October of 1989,

OTHER HPC FACILITIES

Before 1984 only three universities operated

supercomputers: Purdue University, the University

of Minnesota, and Colorado State University. The

NSF supercomputing initiative established five new

supercomputer centers that were nationally accessible. States and universities began funding their own

supercomputer centers, both in response to growing

needs on campus and to increased feeling on the part

of State leaders that supercomputer facilities could

be important stimuli to local R&D and, therefore, to

economic development. Now, many State and university centers offer access to high performance

computers;4 and the NSF centers are only part of a

much larger HPC environment including nearly 70

Federal installations (see table 2-l).

Supercomputer center operators perceive their

roles in different ways. Some want to be a proactive

force in the research community, leading the way by

helping develop new applications, training users,

and so on. Others are content to follow in the path

that the NSF National Centers create. These differences in goals/missions lead to varied services and

computer systems. Some centers are “cycle shops,”

offering computing time but minimal support staff.

Other centers maintain a large support staff and offer

consulting, training sessions, and even assistance

with software development. Four representative

centers are described below:

Minnesota Supercomputer Center

The Minnesota Supercomputer Center, originally

part of the University of Minnesota, is a for-profit

computer center owned by the University of Minnesota. Currently, several thousand researchers use the

center, over 700 of which are from the University of

Minnesota. The Minnesota Supercomputing Institute, an academic unit of the University, channels

university usage by providing grants to the students

through a peer review process.

The Minnesota Supercomputer Center received

its first machine, a Cray 1A, in September, 1981. In

mid 1985, it installed a Cyber 205; and in the latter

part of that year, two Cray 2 computers were

installed within 3 months of each other. Minnesota

4The nm~r cmot ~ estfia[~ ex~dy. First, it depends on the dcfiniuon of supercomputer one uses. Secondly, the number kwps Chmghg as

States announce new plans for centers and as large research universities purchase their own HPCS.
12

Table 2-l—Federal Unctassified

Supercomputer lnstallations

Number

Laboratory of machines

Department of Energy

Los Alams National Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Livermore National Lab, NMFECC . . . . . . . . . . . .

Livermore National Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sandia National Lab, Livermore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sandia National Lab, Albuquerque . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oak Ridge National Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

idaho Falls National Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Argonne National Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Knolls Atomic Power Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bettis Atomic Power Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Savannah/DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Richland/DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Schenectady Naval Reactors/DOE . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors/DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of Defense

Naval Research Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Naval Ship R&D Center ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fleet Numerical Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Naval Underwater System Command . . . . . . . . . .

Naval Weapons Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Martin Marietta/NTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Air Force Wapons Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Air Force Global Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arnold Engineering and Development . . . . . . . . . .

Wright Patterson AFB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aerospace Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Army Ballistic Research Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Army/Tacom ... , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Army/Huntsville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Army/Kwajaiein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Army/WES (on order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Army/Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Defense Nuclear Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NASA

Ames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Goddard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Langley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marshal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department Commerce

National inst. of Standards and Technology . . . . .

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration .

Environmental Protection Agency

Raleigh, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eeportment and Human Services

National Institutes of Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Cancer institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

4

7

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

SOURCE: Offics of Technology Assessment estimate.

bought its third Cray 2, the only one in use now,at

the end of 1988, just after it installed its ETA-10.

The ETA-10 has recently been decommissioned due

to the closure of ETA. A Cray X-MP has been added,

giving them a total of two supercomputers. The

Minnesota Supemomputer Centerhas acquired more

supercomputers than anyone outside the Federal

Government.

The Minnesota State Legislature provides funds

to the University for the purchasing of supercomputer time. Although the University buys a substantial portion of supercomputing time, the center has

many industrial clients whose identities are proprietary, but they include representatives of the auto,

aerospace, petroleum, and electronic industries.

They are charged a fee for the use of the facility.

The Ohio Supercomputer Center

The Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC) originated from a coalition of scientists in the State. The

center, located on Ohio State University’s campus,

is connected to 20 other Ohio universities via the

Ohio Academic Research Network (OARNET). As

of January 1989, three private firms were using the

Center’s resources.

In August, 1987, OSC installed a Cray X-MP/24,

which was upgraded to an Cray X-MP/28 a year

later. The center replaced the X-MP in August 1989

with a Cray Research Y-MP. In addition to Cray

hardware, there are 40 Sun Graphic workstations, a

Pixar II, a Stallar Graphics machine, a Silicon

Graphic workstation and a Abekas Still Store

machine. The Center maintains a staff of about 35

people.

The Ohio General Assembly began funding the

center in the summer of 1987, appropriating $7.5

million. In March of 1988, the Assembly allocated

$22 million for the acquisition of a Cray Y-MP. Ohio

State University has pledged $8.2 million to augment the center’s budget. As of February 1989 the

State has spent $37.7 million in funding.5 OSC’s

annual budget is around $6 million (not including

the purchase/leasing of their Cray).

Center for High Performance Computing,

Texas (CHPC)

The Center for High Performance Computing is

located at The University of Texas at Austin. CHPC

serves all 14 institutions, 8 academic institutions,

and 6 health-related organizations, in the University

of Texas System.

5J~ WUC, “ohio~: Blazing Computer,” Ohio, February 1989, p. 12.
— —

The University of Texas installed a Cray X-MP/

24 in March 1986, and a Cray 14se in November of

1988. The X-MP is used primarily for research. For

the time being, the Cray 14se is being used as a

vehicle for the conversion of users to the Unix

system. About 40 people staff the center.

Original funding for the center and the Cray

X-NIP came from bonds and endowments from both

The University of Texas system and The University

of Texas at Austin. The annual budget of CHPC is

about $3 million. About 95 percent of the center’s

operating budget comes from State funding and

endowments. Five percent of the costs are recovered

from selling CPU time.

Alabama Supercomputer Network

The George C. Wallace Supercomputer Center,

located in Huntsville Alabama, serves the needs of

researchers throughout Alabama. Through the Alabama Supercomputer Network, 13 Alabama institutions, university and government sites, are connected to the center. Under contract to the State,

Boeing Computer Services provides the support

staff and technical skills to operate the center.

Support staff are located at each of the nodes to help

facilitate the use of the supercomputer from remote

sites.

A Cray X-MP/24 arrived in 1987 and became

operational in early 1988. In 1987 the State of

Alabama agreed to finance the center. The State

allocated $2.2 million for the center and $38 million

to Boeing Services for the initial 5 years. The

average yearly budget is $7 million. The center has

a support staff of about 25.

Alabama universities are guaranteed 60 percent of

the available time at no cost while commercial

researchers are charged a user fee. The impetus for

the State to create a supercomputer center has been

stated as the technical superiority a supercomputer

would bring, which would draw high-tech industry

to the State, enhance interaction between industry

and the universities, and promote research and the

associated educational programs within the university.

Commercial Labs

A few corporations, such as the Boeing Computer

Corp., have been selling high performance computer

time for a while. Boeing operates a Cray X-MP/24.

Other commercial sellers of high performance computing time include the Houston Area Research

Center (HARC). HARC operates the only Japanese

Supercomputer in America, the NEC SX2. The

center offers remote services.

Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC), located in Falls

Church, Virginia, has a 16-processor FLEX/32 from

Flexible Computer Corp., a Convex 120 from

Convex Computer Corp, and a DAP21O from Active

Memory Technology. Federal agencies comprise

two-thirds of CSC’s customers.6 Power Computing

Co., located in Dallas, Texas, offers time on a Cray

X-MP/24. Situated in Houston, Texas, Supercomputing Technology sells time on its Cray X-MP/28.

Opticom Corp., of San Jose, California, offers time

on a Cray X-MP/24, Cray l-M, Convex C220, and

cl XP.

Federal Centers

In an informal poll of Federal agencies, OTA

identified 70 unclassified installations that operate

supercomputers, confirming the commonly expressed

view that the Federal Government still represents a

major part of the market for HPC in the United States

(see figure 2-l). Many of these centers serve the

research needs of government scientists and engineers and are, thus, part of the total research

computing environment. Some are available to

non-Federal scientists, others are closed.

CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

The scientific computing environment has

changed in important ways during the few years that

NSF’s Advanced Scientific Computing Programs

have existed. Some of these changes are as follows:

The ASC programs, themselves, have not

evolved as originally planned. The original NSF

planning document for the ASC program originally

proposed to establish 10 supercomputer centers over

a 3-year period; only 5 were funded. Center managers have also expressed the strong opinion that NSF

has not met many of its original commitments for

6N~s p~kcr Smiti, “More Than Just Buying Cycles,” Supercompufer Review, April 1989.
14

Figure 2-1—Distribution of Federal Suparcomputers development of the Cray 3, a machine based on

Supercomputers gallium arsenide electronics,

4 0

3 5

3 0

2 5

2 0

15

10 

5

0

33

19

10

5

2 1

DOE DoD NASA Commerce HSS EPA

Agencies

SOURCE: office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

funding in successive years of the contracts, forcing

the centers to change their operational priorities and

search for support in other directions.

Technology has changed. There has been a burst

of innovation in the HPC industry. At the top of the

line, Cray Research developed two lines of machines, the Cray 2 and the Cray X-MP (and its

successor, the Y-MP) that are much more powerful

than the Cray 1, which was considered the leading

edge of supercomputing for several years by the

mid- 1980s. IBM has delivered several 3090s equipped

with multiple vector processors and has also become

a partner in a project to develop a new supercomputer in a joint venture with SSI, a firm started by

Steve Chen, a noted supercomputer architect previously with Cray Research.

More recently, major changes have occurred in

the industry. Control Data has closed down ETA, its

supercomputer operation. Cray Research has been

broken into two parts-Cray Computer Corp. and

Cray Research. Each will develop and market a

different line of supercomputers. Cray Research

will, initially, at least, concentrate on the Y-MP

models, the upcoming C-90 machines, and their

longer term successors. Cray Computer Corp., under

the leadership of Seymour Cray, will concentrate on

At the middle and lower end, the HPC industry

has introduced several new so-called “minisupercomputers"-many of them based on radically

different system concepts, such as massive parallelism, and many designed for specific applications,

such as high-speed graphics. New chips promise

very high-speed desktop workstations in the near

future.

Finally, three Japanese manufacturers, NEC, Fujitsu,

and Hitachi have been successfully building and

marketing supercomputers that are reportedly competitive in performance with U.S. machines.7 While

these machines have, as yet, not penetrated the U.S.

computer market, they indicate the potential competitiveness of the Japanese computer industry in the

international HPC markets, and raise questions for

U.S. policy.

Many universities and State systems have

established "supercornputer centers” to serve the

needs of their researchers.8 Many of these centers

have only recently been formed, some have not yet

installed their systems, so their operational experience is, at best, limited to date. Furthermore, some

other centers operate systems that, while very

powerful scientific machines, are not considered by

all experts to be supercomputers. Nevertheless, these

centers provide high performance scientific computing to the research community, and create new

demands for Federal support for computer time.

Individual scientist and research teams are also

getting Federal and private support from their

sponsors to buy their own “minisupercomputers.” In

some cases, these systems are used to develop and

check out software eventually destined to run on

larger machines; in other cases, researchers seem to

find these machines adequate for their needs. In

either mode of use, these departmental or laboratory

systems expand the range of possible sources

researchers turn to for high performance computing. Soon, desktop workstations will have performance equivalent to that of supercomputers of a

decade ago at a significantly lower cost.

7Si=, ~ *OW ~ve, com~g ~e ~wer ~d ~rfo~mce of suwrcomputers is a complex and arcane field, OTA will refrti from ~mp~g

or ranking systems in any absolute sense.

8sw N~o~As~latjon of Smte Unlvemities ~d L~d.Gr~[ Co]]eges, SWerc~~ufi”ngj_~r t~ /W()’~: A Stied Responsibility (Washington,

DC: January 1989).
Finally, some important changes have occurred in national objectives or perceptions of

issues. For example, the development of a very high

capacity national science network (or “internet”) has

taken on a much greater significance. Originally

conceived of in the narrow context of tying together

supercomputer centers and providing regional access to them, the science network has now come to

be thought of by its proponents as a basic infrastructure, potentially extending throughout (and, perhaps,

even beyond) the entire scientific, technical, and

educational community.

Science policy is also changing, as new important

and costly projects have been started or are being

seriously considered, Projects such as the supercol -

lider, the space station, NASA’s Earth Observing

System (EOS) program, and the human genome

mapping may seem at first glance to compete for

funding with science networks and supercomputers.

However, they will create formidable new demands

for computation, data communications, and data

storage facilities; and, hence, constitute additional

arguments for investments in an information technology infrastructure.

Finally, some of the research areas in the so-called

“Grand Challenges"9 have attained even greater

social importance-such as fluid flow modeling

which will help the design of faster and more fuel

efficient planes and ships, climate modeling to help

understand long term weather patterns, and the

structural analysis of proteins to help understand

diseases and design vaccines and drugs to fight

them.

REVIEW AND RENEWAL

OF THE NSF CENTERS

Based on the recent review, NSF has concluded

that the centers, by and large, have been successful

and are operating smoothly. That is, their systems

are being fully used, they have trained many new

users, and they are producing good science. In light

of that conclusion, NSF has tentatively agreed to

renewal for the three Cray-based centers and the

IBM-based Cornell Center. The John von Neumann

Center in Princeton has been based on ETA-10

computers. Since ETA was closed down, NSF put

the review of the JvNC on hold pending review of a

revised plan that has now been submitted, A decision

is expected soon.

Due to the environmental changes noted above,

if the centers are to continue in their present

status as special NSF-sponsored facilities, the

National Supercomputer Centers will need to

sharply define their roles in terms of: 1) the users

they intend to serve, 2) the types of applications

they serve, and 3) the appropriate balance between service, education, and research.

The NSF centers are only a few of a growing

number of facilities that provide access to HPC

resources. Assuming that NSF’s basic objective is to

assure researchers access to the most appropriate

computing for their work, it will be under increasing

pressure to justify dedicating funds to one limited

group of facilities. Five years ago, few U.S. academic supercomputer centers existed. When scientific demand was less, managerial attention was

focused on the immediate problem of getting equipment installed and of developing an experienced

user community. Under those circumstances, some

ambiguity of purpose may have been acceptable and

understandable. However, in light of the proliferation of alternative technologies and centers, as well

as growing demand by researchers, unless the

purposes of the National Centers are more clearly

delineated, the facilities are at risk of being asked to

serve too many roles and, as a result, serving none

well.

Some examples of possible choices are as follows:

L Provide Access to HPC

●

●

●

●

Provide access to the most powerful, leading

edge, supercomputers available,

Serve the HPC requirements for research projects of critical importance to the Federal

Government, for example, the “Grand Challenge” topics.

Serve the needs of all NSF-funded researchers

for HPC.

Serve the needs of the (academic, educational,

and/or industrial) scientific community for

HPC.

%’(j~and~~enge’)~=ach toplc~ ~ que~iom Of major ~i~ lm~~~e mat rquwe for progress subs~[ially grea~r cOmputklg reSOUCeS dltul

arc currently available. The term was fust corned by Nobel Laureate physlclst, Kenneth Wikm.
16

2. Educate and Train

. Provide facilities and programs to teach scientists and students how to use high performance

computing in their research.

3. Advance the State of HPC Use in Research

. Develop applications and system software.

. Serve as centers for research in computational

science.

. Work with vendors as test sites for advanced

HPC systems.

As the use of HPC expands into more fields and

among more researchers, what are the policies for

providing access to the necessary computing resources? The Federal Government needs to develop a comprehensive analysis of the requirements of the scientific researchers for high

performance computing, Federal policies of support for scientific computing, and the variety of

Federal and State/private computing facilities

available for research.

We expect that OTA’s final report will contribute

to this analysis from a congressional perspective.

However, the executive branch, including both lead

agencies and OSTP also need to participate actively

in this policy and planning process.

THE INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENT

Since some of the policy debate over HPCs has

involved comparison with foreign programs, this

section will conclude a brief description of the status

of HPC in some other nations.

Japan

The Ministry of International Trade and Industry

(MITI), in October of 1981, announced the undertaking of two computing projects, one on artificial

intelligence, the Fifth Generation Computer Project,

and one on supercomputing, the National Superspeed Computer Project. The publicity surrounding

MITI’s announcement focused on fifth generation

computers, but brought the more general subject of

supercomputing to the public attention. (The term

“Fifth Generation” refers to computers specially

designed for artificial intelligence applications, especially those that involve logical inference or

“reasoning.”)

Although in the eyes of many scientists the Fifth

Generation project has fallen short of its original

goals, eight years later it has produced some

accomplishments in hardware architecture and artificial intelligence software. MITI’s second project,

dealing with supercomputers, has been more successful. Since 1981, when no supercomputers were

manufactured by the Japanese, three companies

have designed and produced supercomputers.

The Japanese manufacturers followed the Americans into the supercomputer market, yet in the short

time since their entrance, late 1983 for Hitachi and

Fujitsu, they have rapidly gained ground in HPC

hardware. One company, NEC, has recently announced a supercomputer with processor speeds up

to eight times faster than the present fastest American machine.10 Outside of the United States, Japan

is the single biggest market for and supplier of

supercomputers, although American supercomputer

companies account for less than one-fifth of all

supercomputers sold in Japan. 11

In the present generation of supercomputers, U.S.

supercomputers have some advantages. One of

American manufacturer’s major advantages is the

availability of scientific applications software. The

Japanese lag behind the Americans in software

development, although resources are being devoted

to research in software by the Japanese manufacturers and government and there is no reason to think

they will not be successful.

Another area in which American firms differ from

the Japanese has been in their use of multiprocessor

architecture (although this picture is now changing).

For several years, American supercomputer companies have been designing machines with multiprocessors to obtain speed. The only Japanese

supercomputer that utilizes multiprocessors is the

NEC system, which will not be available until the

fall of 1990.

l~e NEC m~hine is not ~hed~~ for delive~ until 1990, at which time faster Cray computers may well be on the market also. s= ~so ~

comments above about computer speed<
American firms have been active in the Japanese

market, with mixed success.

Since 1979 Cray has sold 16 machines in Japan.

Of the 16 machines, 6 went to automobile manufacturers, 2 to NTT, 2 to Recruit, 1 to MITI, 1 to

Toshiba, 1 to Aichi Institute of Technology, and 1 to

Mitsubishi Electric. None have gone to public

universities or to government agencies.

IBM offers their 3090 with attached vector

facilities, IBM does not make public its customers,

but report that they have sold around 70 vector

processor computers to Japanese clients. Some

owners, or soon to be owners, include Nissan, NTT,

Mazda, Waseda University, Nippon Steel and Mistubishi Electric.

ETA sold two supercomputers in Japan. The first

was to the Tokyo Institute of Technology (TIT). The

sale was important because it was the first sale of a

CDC/ETA supercomputer to the Japanese as well as

the first purchase of an American supercomputer by

a Japanese national university. This machine was

delivered late (it arrived in May of 1988) and had

many operating problems, partially due to its being

the first installment of an eight-processor ETA 1O-E.

The second machine was purchased (not delivered)

on February 9, 1989 by the University of Meiji. How

CDC will deal with the ETA 10 at TIT in light of the

closure of ETA is unknown at this time.

Hitachi, Fujitsu, and NEC, the three Japanese

manufacturers of supercomputers, are among the

largest computer/electronic companies in Japan; and

they produce their own semiconductors. Their size

allows them to absorb the high initial costs of

designing a new supercomputer, as well as provide

large discounts to customers. Japan’s technological

lead is in its very fast single-vector processors. Little

is known, as of yet, what is happening with parallel

processing in Japan, although NEC’s recent product

announcement for the SX-X states that the machine

will have multiprocessors.

Hitachi’s supercomputer architecture is loosely

based on its IBM compatible mainframe. Hitachi

entered the market in November of 1983. Unlike

their domestic rivals, Hitachi has not entered the

international market. All 29 of its ordered/installed

supercomputers are located in Japan.

NEC’s current supercomputer architecture is not

based on its mainframe computer and it is not IBM

compatible. They entered the supercomputer market

later than Hitachi and Fujitsu. Three NEC supercomputers have been sold/installed in foreign markets:

one in the United States, an SX-2 machine at the

Houston Area Research Consortium, one at the

Laboratory of Aerospace Research in Netherlands,

and an SX-1 has recently been sold in Singapore.

Their domestic users include five universities.

On April 10, 1989, in a joint venture with

Honeywell Inc., NEC announced a new line of

supercomputers, the SX-X. The most powerful

machine is reported to be up to eight times faster

than the Cray X-MP machine. The SX-X reportedly

will run Unix-based software and will have multiprocessors. This machine is due to be shipped in the

fall of 1990.

Fujitsu’s supercomputer, like Hitachi’s, is based

on their IBM compatible mainframes. Their first

machine was delivered in late 1983. Fujitsu had sold

80 supercomputers in Japan by rnid-1989. An

estimated 17 machines have been sold to foreign

customers. An Amdahl VP-200 is used at the

Western Geophysical Institute in London. In the

United States, the Norwegian company GECO,

located in Houston, has a VP-200 and two VP-1OOs.

The most recent sale was to the Australian National

University, a VP-1OO.

Europe

European countries that have (or have ordered)

supercomputers include: West Germany, France,

England, Denmark, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands,

Italy, Finland, Switzerland, and Belgium. Europe is

catching up quickly with America and Japan in

understanding the importance of high performance

computing for science and industry. The computer

industry is helping to stimulate European interest.

For example, IBM has pledged $40 million towards

a supercomputer initiative in Europe over the 2-year

period between 1987-89. It is creating a large base of

followers in the European academic community by

participating in such programs as the European

Academic Supercomputing Initiative (EASI), and

the Numerically Intensive Computing Enterprise

(NICE). Cray Research also has a solid base in
18

academic Europe, supplying over 14 supermomputers to European universities.

The United Kingdom began implementing a high

performance computing plan in 1985. The Joint

Working Party on Advanced Research Computing’s

report in June of 1985, “Future Facilities for

Advanced Research Computing,” recommended a

national facility for advanced research computing.

This center would have the most powerful supercomputer available; upgrade the United Kingdom’s

networking systems, JANET, to ensure communications to remote users; and house a national organization of advanced research computing to promote

collaboration with foreign countries and within

industry, ensuring the effective use of these resources.

12 Following this report, a Cray XMP/48

was installed at the Atlas Computer Center in

Rutherford. A Cray 1s was installed at the University

of London. Between 1986 and 1989, some $11.5

million was spent on upgrading and enhancing

JANET13

Alvey was the United Kingdom’s key information

technology R&D program. The program promoted

projects in information technology undertaken jointly

by industry and academics. The United Kingdom

began funding the Alvey program in 1983. During

the first 5 years, 350 million pounds were allocated

to the Alvey program. The program was eliminated

at the end of 1988. Some research was picked up by

other agencies, and many of the projects that were

sponsored by Alvey are now submitting proposals to

Esprit (see below).

The European Community began funding the

European Strategic Programme for Research in

Information Technology (Esprit) program in 1984

partly as a reaction to the poor performance of the

European Economic Community in the market of

information technology and partly as a response to

MITI’s 1981 computer programs. The program,

funded by the European Community (EC), intends to

“provide the European IT industry with the key

components of technology it needs to be competitive

on the world markets within a decade. ”14 The EC has

designed a program that forces collaboration between nations, develops recognizable standards in

the information technology industry, and promotes

pre-competitive R&D. The R&D focuses on five

main areas: microelectronics, software development, office systems, computer integrated manufacturing, and advanced information.

Phase I of Esprit, the first 5 years, received $3.88

billion in funding. 15 The finding was split 50-50 by

the EC and its participants, This was considered the

catch-up phase. Emphasis was placed on basic

research, realizing that marketable goods will follow. Many of the companies that participated in

Phase I were small experimental companies.

Phase II, which begins in late 1989, is called

commercialization. Marketable goods will be the

major emphasis of Phase II. This implies that the

larger firms will be the main industrial participants

since they have the capital needed to put a product

on the market. The amount of funds for Phase II will

be determined by the world environment in information technology and the results of Phase I, but has

been estimated at around $4.14 billion.l6

Almost all of the high performance computer

technologies emerging from Europe have been

based on massively parallel architectures. Some of

Europe’s parallel machines incorporate the transputer.

Transputer technology (basically a computer on a

chip) is based on high density VLSI (very large-scale

integration) chips. The T800, Inmos’s transputer,

has the same power as Intel’s 80386/80387 chip, the

difference being in size and price. The transputer is

about one-third the size and price of Intel’s chip.17

The transputer, created by the Inmos company, had

its initial R&D funded by the British government.

Eventually Thorn EMI bought Inmos and the rights

to the transputer. Thorn EMI recently sold Inmos to

a French-Italian joint venture company, SGSThomson, just as it was beginning to be profitable.

IZ’’FUtUre F~ilities for A&anced Research Computing,” the report of a Joint Working Party on Advanced Research Computing, United Kingdom,

Juty 1985.

13D&l&on p-r on %upereomputers in Australia,” Department of Industry, Ikchnoloy and Commerce, April 1988, pp. 14-15.

l’W3spnt,” commission of the European Communities, p. 5.

Is’’Esprit,” Commission of tic European Cotnmunitics, p. 21.

Ibsimm peq, C’fiWan marn Effort Breaks Ground in Software Standards,” Electronic Business, Aug. 15, 1988, pp. 90-91.

17Graham K. EMS, ‘~r~wutersAdvance Parallel Processing,” Research and Devefopmenr, March 1989, p. 50.
19

Some of the more notable high performance computer products and R&D in Europe include:

●

●

●

●

T.Node, formerly called Supernode P1085, is

one of the more successful endeavors of the

Esprit program. T.Node is a massively parallel

machine that exploits the Inmos T800 transputer.

A single node is composed of 16 transputers

connected by two NEC VLSI chips and two

additional transputers. The participants in the

project are The University of Southampton,

Royal Signals, Radar Establishment, ThomEMI (all British) and the French firm Telemat.

The prototype of the French T. Node, Marie, a

massively parallel MIMD (multiple instruction, multiple data) computer, was delivered in

April of 1988. The product is now being

marketed in America.

Project 415 is also funded by Esprit. Its project

leader is Philips, the Dutch electronics group.

This project, which consists of six groups,

focuses on symbolic computation, artificial

intelligence (AI), rather than “number crunching” (mathematical operations by conventional

supercomputers). Using parallel architecture,

the project is developing operating systems and

languages that they hope will be available in 5

years for the office environment.18

The Flagship project, originally sponsored by

the Alvey program, has created a prototype

parallel machine using 15 processors. Its original participants were ICL, Imperial College,

and the University of Manchester. Other Alvey

projects worked with the Flagship project in

designing operating systems and languages for

the computer. By 1992 the project hopes to

have a marketable product. Since cancellation

of the Alvey program, Flagship has gained

sponsorship from the Esprit Program.

The Supernum Project of West Germany,

with the help of the French Isis program,

currently is creating machinery with massively

parallel architecture. The parallelism, based on

Intel’s 80386 microprocessors, is one of Esprit’s more controversial and ambitious projects. Originally the project was sponsored by

●

the West German government in their supercomputing program. A computer prototype was

recently shown at the industry fair in Hanover.

It will be marketed in Germany by the end of

the year for around $14 million.

The Supercluster, produced and manufactured

by Parsytec GmbH, a small private company,

exemplifies Silicon Valley initiative occurring

in West Germany. Parsytec has received some

financial backing from the West German government for their venture. This start-up firm

sells a massively parallel machine that rivals

superminicomputers or low-end supercomputers. The Supercluster architecture exploits the

32-bit transputer from Inmos, the T800. Sixteen

transputer-based processors in clusters of four

are linked together. This architecture is less

costly than conventional machines, costing

between $230,000 and $320,000.19 Parsytec

has just begun to market its product in America.

Other Nations

The Australia National University recently purchased a Fujitsu VP-1OO. A private service bureau in

Australia, Leading Edge, possesses a Cray Research

computer. At least two sites in India have supercomputers, one at the Indian Meteorological Centre and

one at ISC University. Two Middle Eastern petroleum companies house supercomputers, and Korea

and Singapore both have research institutes with

supercomputers.

Over half a dozen Canadian universities have high

performance computers from CDC, Cray Research,

or IBM. Canada’s private sector has also invested in

supercomputers. Around 10 firms possess high

performance computers. The Alberta government,

aside from purchasing a supercomputer and supporting associated services, has helped finance Myrias

Computer Corp. A wholly owned U.S. subsidiary,

Myrias Research Corp. manufactures the SP-2, a

minisupercomputer.

One newly industrialized country is reported to be

developing a minisupercomputer of its own. The

IBJ~a VOWk, s~rc~tig Review, “European Transputer-based Projects @ChtdlmW to U.S. Su_Ptig SUWXY,”Nov~~_~

1988, pp. 8-9.

lgJotIIIGo*, “A New Transputer Design From West German Startup,” Electrom”cs, Mu. 3, 1988, PP. 71-72.
20

first Brazilian rninisupercomputer, claimed to be machine will sell for $2.5 million. The Funding

capable of 150 mips, is planned to be available by the Authority of Studies and Projects (FINEP) financed

end of 1989. The prototype is a parallel machine the project, with annual investment around $1

with 64 processors, each with 32-bit capacity. The million.
Chapter 3

Networks

Information is the lifeblood of science; communication of that information is crucial to the

advance of research and its applications. Data

communication networks enable scientists to talk

with each other, access unique experimental data,

share results and publications, and run models

on remote supercomputers, all with a speed,

capacity, and ease that makes possible the posing

of new questions and the prospect for new

answers. Networks ease research collaboration

by removing geographic barriers. They have

become an invaluable research tool, opening up

new channels of communication and increasing

access to research equipment and facilities. Most

important networking is becoming the indispensable foundation for all other use of information

technology in research.

Research networking is also pushing the frontiers

of data communications and network technologies.

Like electric power, highways, and the telephone,

data communications is an infrastructure that will be

crucial to all sectors of the economy. Businesses

demand on-line transaction processing, and financial markets run on globally networked electronic

trading. The evolution of telephony to digital

technology allows merging of voice, data, and

information services networking, although voice

circuits still dominate the deployment of the technology. Promoting scientific research networking—

dealing with data-intense outputs like satellite imaging and supercomputer modeling—should push

networking technology that will find application far

outside of science.

Policy action is needed, if Congress wishes to

see the evolution of a full-scale national research

and education network. The existing “internet”

of scientific networks is a fledgling. As this

conglomeration of networks evolves from an

R&D enterprise to an operational network, users

will demand round-the-clock, high-quality service. Academics, policy makers, and researchers

around the world agree on the pressing need to

transform it into a permanent infrastructure.

This will entail grappling with difficult issues of

public and private roles in funding, management,

pricing/cost recovery, access, security, and international coordination as well as assuring adequate funding to carry out initiatives that are set

by Congress.

Research networking faces two particular policy

complications. First, since the network in its broadest form serves most disciplines, agencies, and many

different groups of users, it has no obvious lead

champion. As a common resource, its potential

sponsors may each be pleased to use it but unlikely

to give it the priority and funding required to bring

it to its full potential. There is a need for clear central

leadership, as well as coordination of governments,

the private sector, and universities. A second complication is a mismatch between the concept of a

national research network and the traditionally

decentralized, subsidized, mixed public-private nature of higher education and science. The processes

and priorities of mission agency-based Federal

support may need some redesigning, as they are

oriented towards supporting ongoing missionoriented and basic research, and may work less well

at fostering large-scale scientific facilities and infrastructure

missions.

In the

getting a

in place.

that cut across disciplines and agency

near term, the most important step is

widely connected, operational network

But the “bare bones” networks are a

small part of the picture. Information that flows

over the network, and the scientific resources and

data available through the network, are the

important payoffs. Key long-term issues for the

research community will be those that affect the

sort of information available over the network,

who has access to it, and how much it costs. The

main issue areas for scientific data networking are

outlined below:

●

●

●

●

research-to develop the technology required

to transmit and switch data at very high rates;

private sector participation-role of the common carriers and telecommunication companies in developing and managing the network

and of private information firms in offering

services;

scope—who the network is designed to serve

will drive its structure and management;

access—balancing open use against security

and information control and determining who

–21 –
22

●

●

●

●

●

●

will be able to gain access to the network for

what purpose;

standards-the role of government, industry,

users, and international organizations in setting

and maintaining technical standards;

management-public and private roles; degree

of decentralization;

funding-an operational network will require

significant, stable, continuing investment; the

financial responsibilities demarcated must reflect the interests of various players, from

individual colleges through States and the

Federal Government, in their stake in network

operations and policies;

economics-pricing and cost recovery for network use, central to the evolution and management of any infrastructure. Economics will

drive the use of the network;

information services-who will decide what

types of services are to be allowed over the

network, who is allowed to offer them; and who

will resolve information issues such as privacy,

intellectual property, fair competition, and

security;

long-term science policy issues—the networks’

impacts on the process of science, and on

access to and dissemination of valuable scientific and technical information.

THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND

EDUCATION NETWORK (NREN)

“A universal communications network connected

to national and international networks enables electronic communication among scholars anywhere in

the world, as well as access to worldwide information sources, special experimental instruments, and

computing resources. The network has sufficient

bandwidth for scholarly resources to appear to be

attached to a world local area network.”

EDUCOM, 1988.

66

. , , a national research network to provide a distrib

uted computing capability that links the govemment,

industry, and higher education communities.”

. OSTP, 1987.

“The goal of the National Research and Education

Network is to enhance national competitiveness and

productivity through a high-speed, high-quality

network infrasoucture which supports a broad set of

applications and network services for the research

and instructional community. ”

EDUCOM/NTTF March 1989.

“The NREN will provide high-speed communication access to over 1300 institutions across the

United States within five years. It will offer sufficient capacity, performance, and functionality so that

the physical distance between institutions is no

longer a barrier to effective collaboration. It will

support access to high-performance computing facilities and services . , . and advanced information

sharing and exchange, including national file systems and online libraries . . . the NREN will evolve

toward fully supported commercial facilities that

support a broad range of applications and services.”

FRICC, Program Plan

for the NREN, May 23, 1989.

This chapter of the background paper reviews the

status of and issues surrounding data networking for

science, in particular the proposed NREN. It describes current Federal activities and plans, and

identifies issues to be examined in the full report, to

be completed in summer 1990.

The existing array of scientific networks consists

of a hierarchy of local, regional and national

networks, linked into a whole. In this paper,

“NREN” will be used to describe the next generation

of the national “backbone” that ties them together.

The term “Internet” is used to describe a more

specific set of interconnected major networks, all of

which use the same data transmission protocols. The

most important are NSFNET and its major regional

subnetworks, ARPANET, and several other federally initiated networks such as ESNET and

NASNET. The term internet is used fairly loosely.

At its broadest, the more generic term internet can be

used to describe the international conglomeration of

networks, with a variety of protocols and capabilities, which have a gateway into Internet; which

could include such things as BITNET and MCI Mail.

The Origins of Research Networking

Research users were among the first to link

computers into networks, to share information and

broaden remote access to computing resources.

DARPA created ARPANET in the 1960s for two

purposes: to advance networking and data communications R&D, and to develop a robust communications network that would support the data-rich

conversations of computer scientists. Building on
23

the resulting packet-switched network technology,

other agencies developed specialized networks for

their research communities (e.g., ESNET, CSNET

NSFNET), Telecommunications and electronic industries provided technology and capacity for these

networks, but they were not policy leaders or

innovators of new systems. Meanwhile, other researchoriented networks, such as BITNET and Usenet,

were developed in parallel by academic and industry

users who, not being grantees or contractors of

Federal agencies, were not served by the agencysponsored networks. These university and lab-based

networks serve a relatively small number of special -

ized scientific users, a market that has been ignored

by the traditional telecommunications industry. The

networks sprang from the efforts of users—

academic and other research scientists-and the

Federal managers who were supporting them.l

The Growing Demand for Capability and

Connectivity

Today there are thousands of computer networks

in the United States. These networks range from

tempoary linkages between modem-equipped2 desktop computers linked via common carriers, to

institution-wide area networks, to regional and

national networks, Network traffic moves through

different media, including copper wire and optical

cables, signal processors and switches, satellites,

and the vast common carrier system developed for

voice communication. Much of this hodgepodge of

networks has been linked (at least in terms of ability

to interconnect) into the internet. The ability of any

two systems to interconnect depends on their ability

to recognize and deal with the form information

flows take in each. These “protocols” are sets of

technical standards that, in a sense, are the “languages” of communication systems. Networks with

different protocols can often be linked together by

computer-based “gateways” that translate the protocols between the networks.

National networks have partially coalesced, where

technology allows cost savings without losing

connectivity. Over the past years, several agencies

have pooled funds and plans to support a shared

national backbone. The primary driver for this

interconnecting and coalescing of networks has been

the need for connectivity among users. The power of

the whole is vastly greater than the sum of the pieces.

Substantial costs are saved by extending connectivity while reducing duplication of network coverage.

The real payoff is in connecting people, information,

and resources. Linking brings users in reach of each

other. Just as telephones would be of little use if only

a few people had them, a research and education

network’s connectivity is central to its usefulness,

and this connectivity comes both from ability of

each network to reach the desks, labs, and homes of

its users and the extent to which various networks

are, themselves, interconnected.

The Present NREN

The national research and education network can

be viewed as four levels of increasingly complex and

flexible capability:

● physical wire/fiberoptic common carrier ’’highways”;

. user-defined, packet-switched networks;

. basic network operations and services; and

. research, education, database, and information

services accessible to network users

In a fully developed NREN, all of these levels of

service must be integrated. Each level involves

different technologies, services, policy issues, research opportunities, engineering requirements, clientele, providers, regulators, and policy issues. A

more detailed look at the policy problems can be

drawn by separating the NREN into its major

components.

Level 1: Physical wire/fiber optic common

carrier highways

The foundation of the network is the physical

conduits that carry digital signals. These telephone

wires, optical fibers, microwave links, and satellites

are the physical highways and byways of data

transit. They are invisible to the network user. To

provide the physical skeleton for the intemet,

government, industry, and university network manI John S, ~e~an and Josiah C. Hoskins, “Notable Computer Networks,” Cornmurucations of the ACM, vol 29, No, 10, October 1986, pp. 932-971;

John S. Quartennan, The Matrix Networks Around the World, Dlg]tiil Press, August 1989

2A ‘*Mod~m” ~onve~ ~fo~ation in a computer {o a form ~a[ a communication systcm can CqJ, and vice versa. h alSO autOma[eS SOme Simple

functions, such as dialing and answering the phone, dctectmg and corrccung transmission errors.
24

agers lease circuits from public switched common

carriers, such as AT&T, MCI, GTE, and NTN. In

doing so they take advantage of the large system of

circuits already laid in place by the telecommunications common carriers for other telephony and data

markets. A key issue at this level is to what extent

broader Federal agency and national telecommunications policies will promote, discourage, or divert

the evolution of a research-oriented data network.

Level 2: User-defined subnetworks

The internet is a conglomeration of smaller

foreign, regional, State, local, topical, private, government, and agency networks. Generally, these

separately managed networks, such as SURANET,

BARRNET, BITNET, and EARN, evolved along

naturally occurring geographic, topical, or user

lines, or mission agency needs. Most of these logical

networks emerged from Federal research agency

(including the Department of Defense) initiatives. In

addition, there are more and more commercial, State

and private, regional, and university networks (such

as Accunet, Telenet, and Usenet) at the same time

specialized and interlined. Many have since linked

through the Internet, while keeping to some extent

their own technical and socioeconomic identity.

This division into small, focused networks offers the

advantage of keeping network management close to

its users; but demands standardization and some

central coordination to realize the benefits of interconnection.

Networks at this level of operations are distinguished by independent management and technical

boundaries. Networks often have different standards

and protocols, hardware, and software. They carry

information of different sensitivity and value. The

diversity of these logical subnetworks matters to

institutional subscribers (who must choose among

network offerings), to regional and national network

managers (who must manage and coordinate these

networks into an internet), and to users (who can find

the variety of alternatives confusing and difficult to

deal with). A key issue is the management relationship among these diverse networks; to what extent

is standardization and centralization desirable?

Level 3: Basic network operations and services

A small number of basic maintenance tools keeps

the network running and accessible by diverse,

distributed users. These basic services are softwarebased, provided for the users by network operators

and computer manufacture in operating systems.

They include software for password recognition,

electronic-mail, and file transfer. These are core

services necessary to the operation of any network.

These basic services are not consistent across the

current range of computers used by research. A key

issue is to what extent these services should be

standardized, and as important, who should make

those decisions.

Level 4: Value-added superstructure: links to

research, education, and information services

The utility of the network lies in the information,

services, and people that the user can access through

the network. These value-added services provide

specialized tools, information, and data for research

and education. Today they include specialized

computers and software, library catalogs and publication databases, archives of research data, conferencing systems, and electronic bulletin boards and

publishing services that provide access to colleagues

in the United States and abroad. These information

resources are provided by volunteer scientists and by

non-profit, for-profit, international, and government

organizations. Some are amateur, poorly maintained

bulletin boards; others are mature information organizations with well-developed services. Some are

“free”; others recover costs through user charges.

Core policy issues are the appropriate roles for

various information providers on the network. If the

network is viewed as public infrastructure, what is

“fair” use of this infrastructure? If the network eases

access to sensitive scientific data (whether raw

research data or government regulatory databases),

how will this stress the policies that govern the

relationships of industry, regulators, lobbyists, and

experts? Should profit-seeking companies be allowed to market their services? How can we ensure

that technologies needed for network maintenance,

cost accounting, and monitoring will not be used

inappropriately or intrusively? Who should set

prices for various users and services? How will

intellectual property rights be structured for electronically available information? Who is responsible
25

for the quality and integrity of the data provided and

used by researchers on the network?

Research Networking as a Strategic

High Technology Infrastructure

Research networking has dual roles. First, networking is a strategic, high technology infrastructure for science. More broadly applied, data networking enables research, education, business, and

manufacturing, and improves the Nation’s knowledge competitiveness. Second, networking technologies and applications are themselves a substantial

growth area, meriting focused R&D.

Knowledge is the commerce of education and

research. Today networks are the highways for

information and ideas. The y expand access to

computing, data, instruments, the research community, and the knowledge they create. Data are

expensive (relative to computing hardware) and are

increasingly created in many widely distributed

locations, by specialized instruments and enterprises, and then shared among many separate users.

The more effectively that research information is

disseminated to other researchers and to industry,

the more effective is scientific progress and social

application of technological knowledge. An internet

of networks has become a strategic infrastructure for

research.

The research networks are also a testbed for

data communications technology. Technologies

developed through the research networks are likely

to enhance productivity of all economic sectors, not

just university research. The federally supported

Internet has not only sponsored frontier-breaking

network research, but has pulled data-networking

technology with it. ARPANET catalyzed the development of packet-switching technology, which has

expanded rapidly from R&D networking to multibillion-dollar data handling for business and financial

transactions. The generic technologies developed

for the Internet-hardware (such as high-speed

switches) and software for network management,

routing, and user interface-will transfer readily

into general data-networking applications. Government support for applied research can catalyze and

integrate R&D, decrease risk, create markets for

network technologies and services, transcend economic and regulatory barriers, and accelerate early

technology development and deployment. This would

not only bolster U.S. science and education, but

would fuel industry R&D and help support the

market and competitiveness of the U.S. network and

information services industry,

Governments and private industries the world

over are developing research networks, to enhance

R&D productivity and to create testbeds for highly

advanced communications services and technologies. Federal involvement in infrastructure is motivated by the need for coordination and nationally

oriented investment, to spread financial burdens,

and promote social policy goals (such as furthering

basic research).3 Nations that develop markets in

network-based technologies and services will create

information industry-based productivity growth.

Federal Coordination of the Evolving Internet

NREN plans have evolved rapidly. Congressional interest has grown; in 1986, Congress requested the Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP) to report on options for networking

for research and supercomputing.4 The resulting

report, completed in 1987 by the interagency Federal

Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and

Technology (FCCSET), called for a new Federal

program to create an advanced national research

network by the year 2000.5 This vision incorporated

two objectives: 1 ) providing vital computercommunications network services for the Nation

academic research community, and 2) stimulating

networking and communications R&D which would

fuel U.S. industrial technology and commerce in the

growing global data communications market.

The 1987 FCCSET report, building on ongoing

Federal activities, addressed near-term questions

over the national network scope, purposes, agency

authority, performance targets, and budget. It did not

resolve issues surrounding the long-term operation

of a network, the role of commercial services in

3Conwe.lm~ Budget office, NW Dlrectlom for 1~ Na~”on’s p~~l( ~~r~, septcnl~r lq~~, p, X1 ]]: c~o, Ffd~rUl ~ofl( [es for ln~)mtrlu’ture

Management, June 1986,

4pL 99-383, Aug. 21, 1986.

50~p, A Re~eUch ~~ Deve[op~~ s~~egy for fflgh peflor~~e ~t)~utlng, NOV ?-(), 1987
26

providing network operations and services, or interface with broader telecommunications policies.

A 1988 National Research Council report praised

ongoing activities, emphasized the need for coordination, stable funding, broadened goals and design

criteria, integrated management, and increased private sector involvement.6

FCCSET’S Subcommittee on Networking has

since issued a plan to upgrade and expand the

network. 7 In developing this plan, agencies have

worked together to improve and interconnect several

existing networks. Most regional networks were

joint creations of NSF and regional consortia, and

have been part of the NSFNET world since their

inception. Other quasi-private, State, and regional

networks (such as CICNET, Inc., and CERFNET)

have been started.

Recently, legislation has been reintroduced to

authorize and coordinate a national research network.8 As now proposed, a National Research and

Education Network would link universities, national

laboratories, non-profit institutions and government

research organizations, private companies doing

government-supported research and education, and

facilities such as supercomputers, experimental

instruments, databases, and research libraries. Network research, as a joint endeavor with industry,

would create and transfer technology for eventual

commercial exploitation, and serve the datanetworking needs of research and higher education

into the next century.

Players in the NREN

The current Internet has been created by Federal

leadership and funding, pulling together a wide base

of university commitment, national lab and academic expertise, and industry interest and technology. The NREN involves many public and private

actors. Their roles must be better delineated for

effective policy. Each of these actors has vested

interests and spheres of capabilities. Key players are:

. universities, which house most end users;

●

●

●

●

networking industry, the telecommunications,

data communications, computer, and information service companies that provide networking

technologies and services;

State enterprises devoted to economic development, research, and education;

industrial R&D labs (network users); and

the Federal Government, primarily the national

labs and research-funding agencies

Federal funding and policy have stimulated the

development of the Internet. Federal initiatives have

been well complemented by States (through finding

State networking and State universities’ institutional

and regional networking), universities (by funding

campus networking), and industry (by contributing

networking technology and physical circuits at

sharply reduced rates). End users have experienced

a highly subsidized service during this “experimental” stage. As the network moves to a bigger, more

expensive, more established operation, how might

these relative roles change?

Universities

Academic institutions house teachers, researchers, and students in all fields. Over the past few

decades universities have invested heavily in libraries, local computing, campus networks, and regional

network consortia. The money invested in campus

networking far outweighs the investment in the

NSFNET backbone. In general, academics view the

NREN as fulfillment of a longstanding ambition to

build a national system for the transport of information for research and education. EDUCOM has long

labored from the “bottom” up, bringing together

researchers and educators who used networks (or

believed they could use them) for both research and

teaching.

Networking Industry

There is no simple unified view of the NREN in

the fragmented telecommunications “industry.” The

long-distance telecommunications common carriers

generally see the academic market as too specialized

and risky to offer much of a profit opportunity.

6Nauon~ Re=Mch COMC,l, Tward ~ Natio~/ Rese~c,h Nefw~rk (Wash] nson, DC, NationaJ ~ademy Press, 1988), especiidly pp. 25-37.

TFCCSET or F~era] Cwrdnatlng COMC1} for Science, ~glnwr~g, ~d ~hnology, The Federa/ High Perjormnce Compunng Progrurn,

Washington, DC, OSTP, Sep[. 8, 1989.

ES, 1067, ‘I~e Natlon~ High-peflommce Compukr ~~oloB ~[ of ]989,” May 1989, inwoduc~ by Mr. Gore, Hearings were held on June

21, 1989, H,R, 3131, “The National High-Performance Computer Technology Act of 1989,” introduced by Mr. Walgren.
27

However, companies have gained early experience

with new technologies and applications by participating in university R&D; it is for this reason that

industry has jointly funded the creation and development of NSFNET.

Various specialized value-added common carriers

offer packet-switched services. They could in principle provide some of the same services that the NREN

would provide, such as electronic mail. They are not,

however, designed to meet the capacity requirements of researchers, such as transferring vast files

of supercomputer-generated visualizations of weather

systems, simulated airplane test flights, or econometric models. Nor can common carriers provide the

“reach” to all carriers.

States

The interests of States in research, education, and

economic development parallel Federal concerns.

Some States have also invested in information

infrastructure development. Many States have invested heavily in education and research networking, usually based in the State university system and

encompassing, to varying degrees, private universities, State government, and industry. The State is a

“natural” political boundary for network financing.

In some States, such as Alabama, New York, North

Carolina, and Texas, special initiatives have helped

create statewide networks.

Industry Users

There are relatively few industry users of the

internet; most are very large R&D-intensive companies such as IBM and DEC, or small hightechnology companies. Many large companies have

internal business and research networks which link

their offices and laboratories within the United

States and overseas; many also subscribe to commercial services such as MCI Mail. However, these

proprietary and commercial networks do not provide

the internet’s connectivity to scientists or the high

bandwidth and services so useful for research

communications. Like universities and national

labs, companies are a part of the Nation’s R&D

endeavor; and being part of the research community

today includes being “on” the internet. Appropriate

industry use of the NREN should encourage interaction of industry, university, and government researchers, and foster technology transfer. Industry

internet users bring with them their own set of

concerns such as cost accounting, proper network

use, and information security. Other non-R&D

companies, such as business analysts, also are likely

to seek direct network connectivity to universities,

government laboratories, and R&D-intensive companies.

Federal

Three strong rationales-support of mission and

basic science, coordinating a strategic national

infrastructure, and promotion of data-networking

technology and industrial productivity-drive a

substantial, albeit changing, Federal involvement.

Another more modest goal is to rationalize duplication of effort by integrating, extending, and modernizing existing research networks. That is in itself

quite important in the present Federal budgetary

environment. The international nature of the network also demands a coherent national voice in

international telecommunications standardization.

The Internet’s integration with foreign networks also

justifies Federal concern over the international flow

of militarily or economically sensitive technical

information. The same university-governmentindustry linkages on a domestic scale drive Federal

interests in the flow of information.

Federal R&D agencies’ interest in research networking is to enhance their external research support

missions. (Research networking is a small, specialized part of agency telecommunications. It is designed to meet the needs of the research community,

rather than agency operations and administrative

telecommunications that are addressed in FTS

2000.) The hardware and software communications

technologies involved should be of broad commercial importance. The NREN plans reflect national

interest in bolstering a serious R&D base and a

competitive industry in advanced computer communications.

The dominance of the Federal Government in

network development means that Federal agency

interests ha-e strongly influenced its form and

shape. Policies can reflect Federal biases; for instance, the limitation of access to the early ARPANET to ARPA contractors left out many academics, who consequent y created their own grass-roots,

lower-capability BITNET.
28

International actors are also important. As with

the telephone system, the internet is inherently

international. These links require coordination, for

example for connectivity standards, higher level

network management, and security. This requirement implies the need for Federal level management

and policy.

The NREN in the International

Telecommunications Environment

The nature and economics of an NREN will

depend on the international telecommunications

context in which it develops. Research networks are

a leading edge of digital network technologies, but

are only a tiny part of the communications and

information services markets.

The 1990s will be a predominantly digital world;

historically different computing, telephony, and

business communications technologies are evolving

into new information-intensive systems. Digital

technologies are promoting systems and market

integration. Telecommunications in the 1990s will

revolve around flexible, powerful, “intelligent” networks. However, regulatory change and uncertainty,

market turbulence, international competition, the

explosion in information services, and significant

changes in foreign telecommunications policies, all

are making telecommunications services more turbulent. This will cloud the research network’s

long-term planning.

High-bandwidth, packet-switched networking is

at persent a young market in comparison to commercial telecommunications. Voice overwhelmingly

dominates other services (e.g. fax, e-mail, on-line

data retrieval). While flexible, hybrid voice-data

services are being introduced in response to business

demand for data services, the technology base is

optimized for voice telephony.

Voice communications brings to the world of

computer telecommunications complex regulatory

and economic baggage. Divestiture of the AT&T

regulated monopoly opened the telecommunications

market to new entrants, who have slowly gained

long-haul market share and offered new technologies and information services. In general, however,

the post-divestiture telecommunications industry

remains dominated by the descendants of old

AT&T, and most of the impetus for service innovations comes from the voice market. One reason is

uncertainty about the legal limits, for providing

information services, imposed on the newly divested

companies. (In comparison, the computer industry

has been unregulated. With the infancy of the

technology, and open markets, computer R&D has

been exceptionally productive,) A crucial concern

for long-range NREN planning is that scientific

and educational needs might be ignored among

the regulations, technology priorities, and economics of a telecommunications market geared

toward the vast telephone customer base.

POLICY ISSUES

The goal is clear; but the environment is

complex, and the details will be debated as the

network evolves

There is substantial agreement in the scientific

and higher education community about the pressing

national need for a broad-reaching, broadbandwidth, state-of-the-art research network, The

existing Internet provides vital communication,

research, and information services, in addition to its

concomitant role in pushing networking and data

handling technology, Increasing demand on network

capacity has quickly saturated each network upgrade. In addition, the fast-growing demand is

overburdening the current informal administrative

arrangements for running the Internet. Expanded

capability and connectivity will require substantial

budget increases. The current network is adequate

for broad e-mail service and for more restricted file

transfer, remote logon, and other sophisticated uses.

Moving to gigabit bandwidth, with appropriate

network services, will demand substantial technological innovation as well as investment.

There are areas of disagreement and even broader

areas of uncertainty in planning the future national

research network. There are several reasons for this:

the immaturity of data network technology, services, and markets; the Internet’s nature as strategic

infrastructure for diverse users and institutions;

and the uncertainties and complexities of overriding

telecommunications policy and economics.

First, the current Internet is, to an extent, an

experiment in progress, similar to the early days of

the telephone system. Technologies, uses, and potential markets for network services are still nascent.
29

Patterns of use are still evolving; and a reliable

network has reached barely half of the research

community. Future uses of the network are difficult

to identify; each upgrade over the past 15 years has

brought increased value and use as improved network capacity and access have made new applications feasible.

The Internet is a conglomeration of networks that

grew up ad hoc. Some, such as ARPANET, CSNET,

and MFENET, were high-quality national networks

supported by substantial Federal funding. Other

smaller networks were built and maintained by the

late-night labors of graduate students and computer

centers operators. One of these, BITNET, has

become a far-reaching and widely used university

network, through the coordination of EDUCOM and

support of IBM. The Internet has since become a

more coherent whole, under Federal coordination

led by NSF and DARPA and advised by the Internet

Activities Board. Improvements in service and

connectivity have been astounding. Yet the patchwork nature of the Internet still dominates; some

campus and regional networks are high quality and

well maintained; others are lower speed, less reliable, and reach only a few institutions in their region.

Some small networks are gatewayed into the Internet; others are not. This patchwork nature limits

the effectiveness of the Internet, and argues for better

planning and stronger coordination.

Second, the network is a strategic infrastructure,

with all the difficulties in capitalizing, planning,

financing, and maintaining that seem to attend any

infrastructure. 9 Infrastructures tend to suffer from a

“commons” problem, leading to continuing underinvestment and conflict over centralized policy. By its

nature the internet has many diverse users, with

diverse interests in and demands on the network. The

network’s value is in linking and balancing the needs

of these many users, whether they want advanced

supercomputer services or merely e-mail. Some

users are network-sophisticated, while many users

want simple, user-friendly communications. This

diversity of users complicates network planning and

management. The scope and offerings of the network must be at least sketched out before a

management structure appropriate to the desired

mission is established.

Third, the network is part of the telecommunications world, rampant with policy and economic

confusion. The research community is small, with

specialized data needs that are subsidiary to larger

markets. It is not clear that science’s particular

networking needs will be met.

Planning Amidst Uncertainty

Given these three large uncertainties, there is no

straightforward or well-accepted model for the

“best” way to design, manage, and upgrade the

future national research network. Future network use

will depend on cost recovery and charging practices,

about which very little is understood. These uncertainties should be accommodated in the design of

network management as well as the network itself.

One way to clarify NREN options might be to

look at experiences with other infrastructures (e.g.,

waterways, telephones, highways) for lessons about

how different financing and charging policies affect

who develops and deploys technology, how fast

technology develops, and who has access to the

infrastructure. Additionally, some universities are

beginning trials in charging for network services;

these should provide experience in how various

charging practices affect usage, technology deployment and upgrading, and the impacts of network use

policies on research and education at the level of the

institution.

Table 3-1 lists the major areas of agreement and

disagreement in various “models” of the proper form

of network evolution.

Network Scope and Access

Scope

Where should an NREN reach: beyond researchintensive government laboratories and universities

to all institutions of higher education? high schools?

nonprofit and corporate labs? Many believe that

eventually— perhaps in 20 years-de facto data

networking will provide universal linkage, akin to a

sophisticated phone system.

yconvewlm~ Budget office, NW Dire(,llom for the Na/IOn’s Public Works, September 1988; Nauonal COMCI1 on mblic w’or~ ~Provement,

Fragile Foundation A Report on America’s Pubk Works, Washington, IX, February 1988.
30

Table 3-1-Principal Policy Issues in Network Development

Major areas of agreement Major areas of disagreement and uncertainty

Scope and access

1. The national need for a broad state-of-the-art research network

that links basic research, government, and higher education.

Policy and management structure

2. The need for a more formal mechanism for planning and

operating the NREN, to supersede and better coordinate

informal interagency cooperation and ad hoc university and

State participation, and for international coordination.

la. The exact scope of the NREN; whether and how to control

domestic and foreign access.

lb. Hierarchy of network capability. Cost and effort limit the reach

of state-of-the-art networking; an “appropriate networking”

scenario would have the most intensive users on a leading

edge network and less demanding users on a lower-cost

network that suffices for their needs. Where should those lines

be drawn, and who should draw them? How can the Federal

Government ensure that the gap between leading edge and

casual is not too large, and that access is appropriate and

equitable?

2a. The form and function of an NREN policy and management

authority; the extent of centralization, particularly the role of

Federal Government; the extent of participation of industry

users, networking industry, common carriers, and universities

in policy and operations; mechanisms for standard setting,

Financing and coat recovery

3. The desirability of moving from the current “market- 3a. How the transition to commmercial operations and charging can

establishing” environment of Federal and State grants and and should be made; more generally, Federal-private sector

subsidies, with services “free” to users, to more formal cost roles in network policy and pricing; how pricing practices will

recovery, shifting more of the cost burden and financial shape access, use, and demand.

incentives to end users.

Network Use

4. The desirability of realizing the potential of a network; the need 4a. Who should be able to use the network for what purposes, and

for standards and policies to link to information services, at what entry rest; the process of guiding economic structure

databases, and nonresearch networks. of services, subsidies, price of for multi-product services;

intellectual property policies.

S0URCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

The appropriate breadth of the network is unlikely

to be fully resolved until more user communities

gain more experience with networking, and a better

understanding is gained of the risks and benefits of

various degrees of network coverage. A balance

must be struck in network scope, which provides a

small network optimized for special users (such as

scientists doing full-time, computationally intensive

research) and also a broader network serving more

diverse users. The scope of the internet, and capabilities of the networks encompassed in the internet,

will need to balance the needs of specialized users

without diluting the value for top-end and low-end

users. NREN plans, standards, and technology

should take into account the possibility of later

expansion and integration with other networks and

other communities currently not linked up. After-thefact technical patches are usually inefficient and

expensive. This may require more government

participation in standard-setting to make it feasible

for currently separated communities, such as high

schools and universities, to interconnect later on.

Industry-academic boundaries are of particular

concern. Interconnection generally promotes research and innovation. Companies are dealing with

risk of proprietary information release by maintaining independent corporate networks and by restricting access to open networks. How can funding and

pricing be structured to ensure that for-profit companies bear an appropriate burden of network costs?

Access

Is it desirable to restrict access to the internet?

Who should control access? Open access is desired

by many, but there are privacy, security, and

commercial arguments for restricting access. Restricting access is difficult, and is determined more

by access controls (e.g., passwords and monitoring)
31

on the computers that attach users to the network,

than by the network itself. Study is needed on

whether and how access can be controlled by

technical fixes within the network, by computer

centers attached to the network, informal codes of

behavior, or laws,

Another approach is not to limit access, but

minimize the vulnerability of the network—and its

information resources and users-to accidents or

malice. In comparison, essentially anyone who has

a modest amount of money can install a phone, or

use a public phone, or use a friend’s phone, and

access the national phone system. However, criminal, fraudulent, and harassing uses of the phone

system are illegal. Access is unrestricted, but use is

governed.

Controlling International Linkages

Science, business, and industry are international;

their networks are inherently international. It is

difficult to block private telecommunications links

with foreign entities, and public telecommunications is already international. However, there is a

fundamental conflict between the desire to capture

information for national or corporate economic gain,

and the inherent openness of a network. Scientists

generally argue that open network access fosters

scientifically valuable knowledge exchange, which

in turn leads to commercially valuable innovation.

Hierarchy of Network Capability

Investment in expanded network access must be

balanced continually with the upgrading of network

performance, As the network is a significant competitive advantage in research and higher education,

access to the “best” network possible is important.

There are also technological considerations in linking networks of various performance levels and

various architectures. There is already a consensus

that there should be a separate testbed or research

network for developing and testing new network

technologies and services, which will truly be at the

cutting edge (and therefore also have the weaknesses

of cutting edge technology, particularly unreliability

and difficulty of use).

Policy and Management Structure

Possible management models include: federally

chartered nonprofit corporations, single lead agencies, interagency consortium, government-owned

contractor operations, commercial operations; and

Tennessee Valley Authority, Atomic Energy Commission, the NSF Antarctic Program, and Fannie

Mae. What are the implications of various scenarios

for the nature of traffic and users?

Degree of Centralization

What is the value of centralized, federally accountable management for network access control,

traffic management and monitoring, and security,

compared to the value of decentralized operations,

open access and traffic? There are two key technical

questions here: to what extent does network technology limit the amount of control that can be

exerted over access and traffic content? To what

extent does technology affect the strengths and

weaknesses of centralized and decentralized management?

Mechanisms for Interagency Coordination

Interagency coordination has worked well so far,

but with the scaling up of the network, more formal

mechanisms are needed to deal with larger budgets

and to more tightly coordinate further development.

Coordination With Other Networks

National-level resources allocation and planning

must coordinate with interdependent institutional

and mid-level networking (the other two legs of

networking).

Mechanisms for Standard Setting

Who should set standards, when should they be

set, and how overarching should they be? Standards

at some common denominator level are absolutely

necessary to make networks work. But excessive

standardization may deter innovation in network

technology, applications and services, and other

standards.

Any one set of standards usually is optimal for

some applications or users, but not for others. There

are well-established international mechanisms for

formal standards-setting, as well as strong international involvement in more informal standards
32

development. These mechanisms have worked well,

albeit slowly. Early standard-setting by agencies and

their advisers accelerated the development of U.S.

networks, In many cases the early established

standards have become, with some modification, de

facto national and even international standards. This

is proving the case with ARPANET’s protocol suite,

TCP/IP. However, many have complained that

agencies’ relatively precipitous and closed standards

determination has resulted in less-than-satisfactory

standards. NREN policy should embrace standardssetting. Should it, however, encourage wider participation, especially by industry, than has been the

case? U.S. policy must balance the need for international compatibility with the furthering of national

interests.

Financing and Cost Recovery

How can the capital and operating costs of the

NREN be met? Issues include subsidies, user or

access charges, cost recovery policies, and cost

accounting. As an infrastructure that spans disciplines and sectors, the NREN is outside the traditional grant mechanisms of science policy. How

might NREN economics be structured to meet costs

and achieve various policy goals, such as encouraging widespread yet efficient use, ensuring equity of

access, pushing technological development while

maintaining needed standards, protecting intellectual property and sensitive information while encouraging open communication, and attracting U.S.

commercial involvement and third-party information services?

Creating a Market

One of the key issues centers around the extent to

which deliberate creation of a market should be built

into network policy, and into the surrounding

science policy system. There are those who believe

that it is important that the delivery of network

access and services to academics eventually become

a commercial operation, and that the current Federal

subsidy and apparently “free” services will get

academics so used to free services that there will

never be a market. How do you gradually create an

information market, for networks, or for networkaccessible value-added services?

Funding and Charge Structures

Financing issues are akin to ones in more traditional infrastructures, such as highways and waterways. These issues, which continue to dominate

infrastructure debates, are Federal private sector

roles and the structure of Federal subsidies and

incentives (usually to restructure payments and

access to infrastructure services). Is there a continuing role for Federal subsidies? How can university

accounting, OMB circular A-21, and cost recovery

practices be accommodated?

User fees for network access are currently charged

as membership/access fees to institutions. End users

generally are not charged. In the future, user fees

may combine access/connectivity fees, and userelated fees. They may be secured via a trust fund (as

is the case with national highways, inland waterways, and airports), or be returned directly to

operating authorities. A few regional networks (e.g.,

CICNET, Inc.) have set membership/connectivity

fees to recover full costs. Many fear that user fees are

not adequate for full funding/cost recovery.

Industry Participation

Industry has had a substantial financial role in

network development. Industry participation has

been motivated by a desire to stay abreast of

data-networking technology as well as a desire to

develop a niche in potential markets for research

networking. It is thus desirable to have significant

industry participation in the development of the

NREN. Industry participation does several things:

industry cost sharing makes the projects financially

feasible; industry has the installed long-haul telecommunications base to build on; and industry

involvement in R&D should foster technology

transfer and, generally, the competitiveness of U.S.

telecommunications industry. Industry in-kind contributions to NSFNET, primarily from MCI and

IBM, are estimated at $40 million to $50 million

compared to NSF’s 5 year, $14 million budget. 10 It

is anticipated that the value of industry cost sharing

(e.g., donated switches, lines, or software) for NREN

would be on the order of hundreds of millions of

dollars.

1~]1~ MU~~, *’NSF ~ns High-S@ Computer Network,” S~ienCt?, p. 22.
33

Network Use

Network service offerings (e.g., databases and

database searching services, news, publication, and

software) will need some policy treatment. There

need to be incentives to encourage development of

and access to network services, yet not unduly

subsidize such services, or compete with private

business, while maintaining quality control. Many

network services used by scientists have been “free”

to the end user.

Economic and legal policies will need to be

clarified for reference services, commercial information industry, Federal data banks, university data

resources, libraries, publishers, and generally all

potential services offered over the network.11 These

policies should be designed to encourage use of

services, while allowing developers to capture the

potential benefits of network services and ensure

legal and economic incentives to develop and

market network services.

Longer Term Science Policy Issues

The near-term technical implementation of the

NREN is well laid out. However, longer-term policy

issues will arise as the national network affects more

deeply the conduct of science, such as:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

patterns of collaboration, communication and

information transfer, education, and apprenticeship;

intellectual property, the value and ownership

of information;

export control of scientific information

publishing of research results

the “productivity” of research and attempts to

measure it

communication among scientists, particularly

across disciplines and between university, government, and industry scientists.

potential economic and national security risks

of international scientific networking, collaboration, and scientific communication;

equity of access to scientific resources, such as

facilities, equipment, databases, research

grants, conferences, and other scientists. (Will

●

●

●

●

●

●

a fully implemented NREN change the concentration of academic science and Federal funding in a limited number of departments and

research universities, and of corporate science

in a few large, rich corporations; what might be

the impacts of networks on traditional routes to

scientific priority and prestige?)

controlling scientific information flow. What

technologies and authority to control networkresident scientific information? How might

these controls affect misconduct, quality control, economic and corporate proprietary protection, national security, and preliminary release of tentative or confidential research information that is scientifically or medically sensitive?

cost and capitalization of doing research; to

what extent might networking reduce the need

for facilities or equipment?

oversight and regulation of science, such as

quality control, investigations of misconduct,

research monitoring, awarding and auditing of

government grants and contracts, data collection, accountability, and regulation of research

procedures. 12 Might national networking enable or encourage new oversight roles for

governments?

the access of various publics to scientists and

research information;

the dissemination of scientific information,

from raw data, research results, drafts of papers

through finished research reports and reviews;

might some scientific journals be replaced by

electronic reports?

legal issues, data privacy, ownership of data,

copyright. How might national networking

interact with trends already underway in the

scientific enterprise, such as changes in the

nature of collaboration, sharing of data, and

impacts of commercial potential on scientific

research? Academic science traditionally has

emphasized open and early communication,

but some argue that pressures from competition

for research grants and increasing potential for

commercial value from basic research have

1 low,Cuculu A. 130, Ij~ F~~~~ R~~i~t~~ 52730 (~, 24, 1985); A. 1 ~() H,R. 2381, The Information policy ACI of 1989, which restates the ro~c

of OMB and policles on governmen( reformation dissemination.

12u, s, Conqess, office of ~~o]o~ A~\essment, The Regu~to~ En}tlro~en/f~r ,$~[e~~e, OTA-TM-SET-34 (Wtimgton, DC: U.S. Government

Prirmng Office, February 1986).
34

dampened free communication. Might networks counter, or strengthen, this trend?

Technical Questions

Several unresolved technical challenges are important to policy because they will help determine

who has access to the network for what purposes.

Such technical challenges include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

standards for networks and network-accessible

information services;

requirements for interface to common carriers

(local through international);

requirements for interoperability across many

different computes;

improving user interfaces;

reliability and bandwidth requirements;

methods for measuring access and usage, to

charge users that will determine who is most

likely to pay for network operating costs; and

methods to promote security, which will affect

the balance-between network and information

vulnerability, privacy, and open access.

Federal Agency Plans: FCCSET/FRICC

A recently released plan by the Federal Research

Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) outlines

a technical and management plan for NREN.13 This

plan has been incorporated into the broader FCCSET

implementation plan. The technical plan is well

thought through and represents further refinement of

the NREN concept. The key stages are:

Stage 1:

Stage 2:

Stage 3:

upgrade and interconnect existing agency

networks into a jointly funded and

managed T1 (1.5 Mb/s) National Networking Testbed. 14

integrate national networks into a T3 (45

Mb/s) backbone by 1993.

push a technological leap to a multigigabit NREN starting in the mid-1990s.

The proposal identifies two parts of an NREN, an

operational network and networking R&D. A service network would connect about 1,500 labs and

universities by 1995, providing reliable service and

rapid transfer of very large data streams, such as are

found in interactive computer graphics, in apparent

real time. The currently operating agency networks

would be integrated under this proposal, to create a

shared 45Mb/s service net by 1992. The second part

of the NREN would be R&D on a gigabit network,

to be deployed in the latter 1990s. The first part is

primarily an organizational and financial initiative,

requiring little new technology. The second involves

major new research activity in government and

industry.

The “service” initiative extends present activities

of Federal agencies, adding a governance structure

which includes the non-Federal participants (regional and local networking institutions and industry), in a national networking council, It formalizes

what are now ad-hoc arrangements of the FRICC,

and expands its scale and scope. Under this effort,

virtually all of the Nation’s research and higher

education communities will be interconnected. Traffic and traffic congestion will be managed via

priority routing, with service for participating agencies guaranteed via “policy” routing techniques. The

benefits will be in improving productivity for

researchers and educators, and in creating and

demonstrating the demand for networks and network

services to the computing, telecommunications, and

information industries.

The research initiative (called stage 3 in the

FCCSET reports) is more ambitious, seeking support for new research on communications technologies capable of supporting a network that is at least

a thousand times faster than the 45Mb/s net. Such a

net could use the currently unused capabilities of

optical fibers to vastly increase effective capability

and capacity, which are congested by today’s

technology for switching and routing, and support

the next generation of computers and communications applications. This effort would require a

substantial Federal investment, but could invigorate

the national communication technology base, and

boost the long-term economic competitiveness of

13FIUCC, Progrm Plmfor the Naiodf?esearch and Educatwn Network, May 23, 1989. FRICC hm members from DHHS, DOE, DwA, USGS,

NASA, NSF, NOAA, and observers from the Internet Activities Board. FRICC is an informal committee that grew out of agencies’ shared interest in

coordinating related network activities and avoiding duplication of resourees. As the de facto interagency coordination forum, FRICC was asked by NSF

to prepare the NREN program plan.

14sw ~w NysE~~ NOTE, vol. 1, No. 1, Feb, 6, 1989 NysER~h= &n aw~d~ a multfii]]ion-doll~ Confrwt from DARPA to develop

tbe National Networking 7ksIbed.
35

the telecommunications and computing industries.

The gigabit network demonstration can be considered similar to the Apollo project for communications technologies, albeit on a smaller and less

spectacular scale. Technical research needed would

involve media, switches, network design and control

software, operating systems in connected computers, and applications.

There are several areas where the FRICC management plan-and other plans-is unclear. It calls for,

but does not detail any transition to commercial

operations. It does not outline potential structures for

long-term financing or cost recovery. And the

national network council’s formal area of responsibility is limited to Federal agency operations. While

this scope is appropriate for a Federal entity, and the

private sector has participated influentially in past

Federal FRICC plans, the proposed council does not

encompass all the policy actors that need to participate in a coordinated national network. The growth

of non-Federal networks demonstrates that some

interests—such as smaller universities on the fringes

of Federal-supported R&D-have not been served.

The FRICC/FCCSET implementation plan for networking research focuses on the more near-term

management problems of coordinated planning and

management of the NREN. It does not deal with two

extremely important and complex interfaces. At the

most fundamental level, the common carriers, the

network is part of the larger telecommunications

labyrinth with all its attendant regulations, vested

interests, and powerful policy combatants. At the top

level, the network is a gateway into a global

information supermarket. This marketplace of information services is immensely complex as well as

potentially immensely profitable, and policy and

regulation has not kept up with the many new

opportunities created by technology.

The importance of institutional and mid-level

networking to the performance of a national network, and the continuing fragmentation and regulatory and economic uncertainty of lower-level networking, signals a need for significant policy

attention to coordinating and advancing lower-level

networking. While there is a formal advisory role for

universities, industry, and other users in the FRICC

plan, it is difficult to say how and how well their

interests would be represented in practice. It is not

clear what form this may take, or whether it will

necessitate some formal policy authority, but there

is need to accommodate the interests of universities

(or some set of universities), industry research labs,

and States in parallel to a Federal effort. The

concerns of universities and the private sector about

their role in the national network are reflected in

EDUCOM’S proposal for an overarching Federalprivate nonprofit corporation, and to a lesser extent

in NRI’s vision. The FRICC plan does not exclude

such a broader policy-setting body, but the current

plan stops with Federal agency coordination.

Funding for the FRICC NREN, based on the

analysis that went into the FCCSET report, is

proposed at $400 million over 5 years, as shown

below. This includes all national backbone Federal

spending on hardware, software, and research,

which would be funneled through DARPA and NSF

and overseen by an interagency council. It includes

some continued support for mid-level or institutional networking, but not the value of any cost

sharing by industry, or specialized network R&D by

various agencies. This budget is generally regarded

as reasonable and, if anything, modest considering

the potential benefits (see table 3-2).15

AREN Management Desiderata

All proposed initiatives share the policy goal of

increasing the nation’s research productivity and

creating new opportunities for scientific collaboration. As a technological catalyst, an explicit national

NREN initiative would reduce unacceptably high

levels of risk for industry and help create new

markets for advanced computer-communications

services and technologies. What is needed now is a

sustained Federal commitment to consolidate and

fortify agency plans, and to catalyze broader national involvement. The relationship between scienceoriented data networking and the broader telecommunications world will need to be better sorted out

before the NREN can be made into a partly or fully

commercial operation. As the engineering challenge

of building a fully national data network is surmounted, management and user issues of economics, access, and control of scientific information will

rise in importance.

15 For ~xmple, N~ion~ Rese~ch Comcil, Toward u NUrLOnUl Research Nerwork (Washington, DC: Naloml kademy fieSS 19~8)! PP. 2~-31
36

Table 3-2-Proposed NREN Budget ($ millions)

FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94

FCCSET Stage 1 & 2 (upgrade; NSF) . . . . . . . . . . 14 23 55 50 50

FCCSET Stage 3 (gigabit+; DARPA) . . . . . . . . , . . 16 27 40 55 60

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 50 95 95 110

S. 1067 authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 50 100 100 100

HR. 3131 authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 50 100 100 100

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

The NREN is a strategic, complex infrastructure

which requires long-term planning. Consequently,

network management should be stable (insulated

from too much politics and budget vagaries), yet

allow for accountability, feedback, and course correction. It should be able to leverage funding,

maximize cost effciency, and create incentives for

commercial networks. Currently, there is no single

entity that is big enough, risk-protected enough, and

regulatory-free enough to make a proper national

network happen. While there is a need to formalize

current policy and management, there is concern that

setting a strong federally focused structure in place

might prevent a move to a more desirable, effective,

appropriate management system in the long run.

There is need for greater stability in NREN policy.

The primary vehicle has been a voluntary coordinating group, the FRICC, consisting of program officers from research-oriented agencies, working within

agency missions with loose policy guidance from

the FCCSET. The remarkable cooperation and

progress made so far depends on a complex set of

agency priorities and budget fortunes, and continued

progress must be considered uncertain.

The pace of the resolution of these issues will be

controlled initially by the Federal budget of each

participating agency. While the bulk of the overall

investment rests with midlevel and campus networks, it cannot be integrated without strong central

coordination, given present national telecommunications policies and market conditions for the

required network technology. The relatively modest

investment proposed by the initiative can have major

impact by providing a forum for public-private

cooperation for the creation of new knowledge, and

a robust and willing experimental market to test new

ideas and technologies.

For the short term there is a clear need to maintain

the Federal initiative, to sustain the present momentum, to improve the technology, and coordinate the

expanding networks. The initiative should accelerate the aggregation of a sustainable domestic market

for new information technologies and services.

These goals are consistent with a primary purpose of

improving the data communications infrastructure

for U.S. science and engineering,