<<July 10, 2000>>

Christine Maxwell <maxwell@isoc.org>

Mr. John McLeod <mcleod@sdsc.edu>

Dear Christine:

(1) Many thanks for your msg (ATTACHMENT I) with an interesting write-up by
Vincent Cerf (ATTACHMENT II).

(2) Pls feel free to call me at (718-939-0928) any time.

I am in New York City -- are you traveling and now in California?
-- since your home address is in France and email address is UK.

(3) Pls retrieve;

Section 4: Encountering with ARPANET"

Section 5: Extension of Telenet to Japan"

Section 6: First Global Peace Gaming in Normative (Qualitative) Mode"

Section 7: De-regulation of Japanese Telecommunications Policies for the Use of E-mail"

Section 8: Incidents of Normative World Gaming"

Section 9: Global Peace Gaming in Quantitative Mode"

Section 10: Marriage of Quantitative and Qualitative Global Gaming"

Section 11: Future Possibilities of Global Peace Gaming"

in "DRAFT/Global Peace Gaming for S3 in SIMULATION - May 6, 2000" at

This was addressed to John McLeod, but it tells how and when I
encountered with the packet-switching technology at the first
demonstration of ARPANET in October, 1972 in Washington, D.C. -- which
subsequently changed all of my life and that of the world.

Dear John:

Pls send me its printed copy when it is published. Thanks.

The inventor of the technology is Dr. Paul Baran -- one of our
list members as was Vint Cerf and John Rose for over a dozen years.

I am sorry I missed the first demo of Internet in November, 1977
which Vint mentions in his write-up.

(4) You may also visit

Chapter 1: Personal Recollections on the Inceptions of Peace Gaming and Global University System"

Chapter 2: "Global Lecture Hall (GLH)"

in Draft of Proposed Book "Electronic Global University System and Services" at

Chapter 1 tells my saga of extending the US packet-switching data
communication networks to various countries, particularly to Japan, and
my effort of de-regulating Japanese telecom policies for the use of email.

Chapter 2 is the summary of my effort of organizing multipoint-to-multipoint, multimedia, interactive videoconferencing, since the text-oriented email was not enough for distance learning of engineering and
telemedicine which requires diagrams, images, photos, etc.

(5) Since you are concerned with ethics, you may also retrieve

"Science and ethics of Japan - May 21, 2000" at

Section 1: Rainbow Bridge Across the Pacific: Slide show on the
comparison of Eastern and Western cultures in relation with
functions of analog, digital and hybrid computers.

in Chapter 3 of the above mentioned book draft which is a milder
expression of my contention on the "Science and Ethics of Japan."

(6) The philosophy and principle of the packet-switching technology is sharp
contradiction to the one of the circuit-switching; the latter is
exclusive use of valuable telecom media, and the former is inclusive,
i.e., sharing the valuable telecom media with other users.

We are extending this principle to sharing of information and knowledge
for the egalitarian global society of the 21st century with our Global
University System (GUS) with global broadband wireless and satellite
private virtual Internet network, which is to be funded by the Global
Service Trust Fund (GSTF).

Section 2: "Acceptance Speech of Lord Perry Award for Excellence in
Distance Education"

of the above mentioned my book draft expressed its essence when I
received this award -- incidentally, two year senior laureate of this
award is Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the inventor of satellite.

(7) Pls retrieve Item (12) in;

Agenda for "Rescue Iridium" workshop on 6/20th - June 17, 2000" at

This tells my engagement with the effort of Prof. Norman Abramson at the
University of Hawaii who invented packet radio -- Vint's write-up does
not mention about him.

(8) Vint's write-up also does not mention the first commercial company,
Telenet, which used X25 protocol of the packet-switching technology --
Tymnet then came along upon the urge made by Telenet. Telenet's first
president was Larry Roberts who was the director of ARPANET. The firm
was financed by BBN, and then sold to GTE and then to Sprint.

Because of my previous effort, I received a special privilege from
Sprint which greatly enhanced our projects -- as mentioned in Section 7
of the above Item (3).

(9) About the high cost of international Internet access fee, pls retrieve Item (29) in

Discussion on creating a Global Service Trust Fund (GSTF) - January 26, 2000" at

Since the ARPANET and Internet were mainly developed by the US taxpayers
through DOD and NSF in the past four decades, the reasoning of the high
cost as Mr. Yoshio Utsumi (S.G. of ITU) mentioned is understandable.

However, according to recent Japanese newspaper article, this issue will
be discussed during the Summit Mtg in Okinawa this month.

This reasoning and trend may supplement to the first para of the

(10) About sharing" Vint mentions in this section, pls retrieve

Item (13) in the above mentioned list distribution on January 26, 2000 and Item (4) in Possible broadband Internet for telemedicine in Venezuela - May 22, 2000" at

We intend to follow the suit of the projects deploying spread spectrum
broadband wireless Internet in St. Thomas Island.

About the spread spectrum, pls also read

David R. Huges and Dewayne Hendricks, "Spread-Spectrum Radio,"
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, April 1998, Pages 94-96.

This describes how Actress Hedy Lamarr (who died recently)
invented the technology.

Incidentally, David Huges is one of our list members.

(11) Vint's two para from the end are in line with our GSTF and GUS projects.

(12) I hope the above gives you enough info to work with your report to UNESCO.

The vigorous development and proliferation of Internet which fuels and
sustains the New Economy have mainly been made by young motivated enthusiasts
in North American, Europe and Scandinavian countries, where the
principle of liberty, equality and justice prevails and where
considerable philanthropic funds are available ($150 billion/year in the
US alone). The culture of those countries is based on Judeo-Christianity

which is in direct conflict with Eastern (particularly
Japanese) culture as mentioned in my list distribution of Item (5) above.

Therefore, the big task of UNESCO for formulating the vision of the
global knowledge age of the 21st century, particularly in relation with
Internet, would be very difficult, e.g., how to cope with inter-cultural issues

based on different religions around the world.

For example, I was astonished to hear that Internet is Al Gore's
American Imperialism, from the former president of prestigious
Japanese society of nuclear physics and the chief of technological
operations in charge of computer development of Hitachi. Hence, I
seriously worry if Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, new S.G. of UNESCO, can
cope with this difficulty well.

My counteraction and strategy are to gradually spread distance learning
and telemedicine from the angle of humanitarian purpose, in order to
crumble down the concept of hierarchical and feudalistic society in such
a way that our next generation can have a global egalitarian society.

For example, an article appeared in The New York Time yesterday
mentioned of the prestigious National School of Administration in
Strasbourg, France. Its director admitted that the old system is
now crumbling down from inside due to the spread of Internet among
French youngsters.

Daley, Suzanne, "The Pedestal Is Cracking Under an Elite in
France," July 9, 2000, Sunday, The New York Times.

(13) Pls feel free to contact me for any further questions.

Best, Tak

Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 20:41:04 -0700
To: utsumi@columbia.edu
From: Christine Maxwell <maxwell@chiliad.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Access to networks and Services: the Internet Society is
askingfor your input....
Cc: aranag@earthlink.net

thanks so much for resending this to me... My email is so massive, that
somehow I missed this very important paper... I'm so grateful for your
response and I will be going carefully through all that you are leading me
to.. of course i will pass on your best regards to john rose...

In the meantime, I attach a contribution to ISOC's discussion paper by Vint
Cerf.... Do you have a particular suggestion as to how, using Vint's paper
as a 'beginning point - (though editorially I will move the historical
information to a section marked background) I can work in key challenges/
proposed solutions from the contributions you have given me access to?

I'm having real difficulty meeting the unesco deadline, because ISOC signed
a contract with them, and then only after I had sent in the second draft
did they let me know that I should not have been following the contract -
but rather an informal email sent to vint cerf separately... you can
imagine how difficult that is when the contract is much more general - and
the concentration now on networks and services is far more specific. So I
really do thank you for any additional help and guidance.

Where are you actually at this time? - I'm in California right now - is
there a way i can call you? It's 8.40pm in California right now...

Let me know that you can open Vint Cerf's attachment.. thanks so much again.

best regards,

>Dear Christine:
>(1) Pls retrieve my previous msg to you at
>(2) Should you need any further input from me, pls let me know ASAP. I
>will try my best to help you as much as possible.
>(3) You can find bio's of mine, Peter, Joe and others in "Biographies of
>GLOSAS/USA Board Members" which can be retrievable at
>Dear Peter and Joe:
>(4) Pls help her as much as possible -- her deadline is ONLY 10 days --
>pls send me cc of your input to her, pls.
> Peter:
> ======
> This is what I mentioned to you when I stayed at your home in the
> evening of 6/19th.
>Thanks in advance.
>Best, Tak
>Christine Maxwell wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Utsumi,
>> I am writing to you in my capacity of Vice Chairman of the Internet
>> Society, to ask for your assistance in regard to a discussion paper that
>> the Internet Society is preparing for Unesco on the subject of Universal
>> Access to networks and Services. As I understand it, you are involved with
>> the proposal of the Sir Arthur C. Clarke Institute for Telecommunications
>> and Information
>> Institute on a Global Service Trust Fund (GSTF) for Tele-education and
>> Tele-health (international e-rates).
>> I would be most grateful if you could point me in the direction of any
>> papers that you have written/ been involved in, that specifically address
>> the types of questions I have listed below - and which (with appropriate
>> permissions and recognitions,) the Internet Society could integrate as
>> appropriate into this important discussion document we are preparing on
>> Universal Access - with an emphasis on access to netoworks and services.
>> Obviously we are keen to include expert opinions such as yours.
>> This paper will be presented to at Unesco's Info/Ethics Conference in
>> November of this year in Paris. The key challenges and solutions to
>> universal access to networks and services is what is to be covered in the
>> Internet Society's discussion paper.
>> The key issues we need to cover are not only the economic perspective but
>> also the ethical, cultural and political implications....involved in
>> answering questions like:
>> ============================================
>> What are the most important economic obstacles to access to information
>> (telecommunication tariffs, Internet access fees, taxes and duties, etc.)?
>> How can the public administrations balance the commercial interests
>> with their civic and moral obligations to promote equitable access?
>> What financial mechanisms can be put into place to ensure universal access
>> to information (cross subsidies, preferential taxation, etc.).
>> Should telecommunication regulatory and tariff policies be extended to
>> cover Internet access? What political, ethical, social and cultural
>> criteria should be used in the formulation of such policies?
>> Can some goods (tangible and intangible products) be exempted from tariffs?
>> Could Internet taxation be a viable and useful approach?
>> Should the concept of "e-rates" (preferential tariffs for educational and
>> cultural institutions) be standardized and generalized? Could it be applied
>> internationally to assist public service institutions and disadvantaged
>> communities in developing countries?
>> =======================================================
>> In case you are able to assist even at the late stage in our compiling this
>> paper - (it's due in 10 days, ) I would be most grateful if you could also
>> append some biographical data so that I may input your personal information
>> accurately.
>> I thank you very much in advance for any assistance you may be able to be at this time.
>> I only wish I had come accross your name much earlier in my editorial efforts.
>> With Kind regards,
>> Christine Maxwell,
>> Editor,ISOC/Unesco Discussion Paper
>> PS: Please kindly also copy Ms. Arana Greenberg (aranag@earthlink.net) with
>> any response, as she is working closely with me on final editorial work. -
>> Thank you .

DRAFT 1.0 -- 6 June 2000


Vinton G. Cerf

Internet Society Trustee

Author's Note

A glossary has been prepared for readers not familiar with the history and
terminology of the Internet.


In the original design of the Internet [1,2], it was contemplated that
networks would be interconnected in an arbitrary mesh as opportunity and need
dictated. This is consistent with the mission then conceived for the
technology: support for military command and control under peaceful and armed
conflict conditions. In the latter case especially, any advantage that could
be gained by opportunistic interconnection was considered useful if not
mandatory. Planning of these interconnections was thought to be only partly
possible and in any case, all the networks were expected to be the property of
the military, to be deployed at will.

The initial implementations of the Internet used the ARPANET as a backbone
network to which other networks were interconnected (e.g. Packet Radio
networks, the Atlantic Packet Satellite Network and eventually many
Ethernets). One of the first demonstrations of Internet operation took place
on November 22, 1977 when all three initial packet networks commissioned by
the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) were linked together
(Packet Radio net, Atlantic Satellite net and the ARPANET) to test the
feasibility of multi-network interoperation.

When the NSFNET was built under a cooperative agreement with the US National
Science Foundation (NSF), it became a second backbone network and was used
extensively to interconnect "intermediate level" networks to the backbone.
Universities and research institutions with authorization from NSF were linked
to the intermediate level networks and these, in turn, were linked to the
NSFNET backbone.

Until 1989, all Internet networks were supported by government contracts and
grants or through non-profit enterprises (such as USENET in the United States,
EBONE, NORDUNET and EARN in Europe, Net-North and CANARIE in Canada, WIDE in
Japan and so on).

In 1989, the US Government approved the interconnection of the Internet to MCI
Mail, a commercial electronic messaging system developed by MCI Communications
Corporation in 1983. At that point, commercial Internet services (notably
UUNET and PSINET in the United States) were born and grew in scope quickly

For a time, there were two Internet backbones in the United States: the NSFNET
and the ARPANET. ARPANET was retired in July 1990 and the NSFNET carried most
of the traffic between other intermediate level networks until it, too, was
retired in April 1995. At that time, the NSFNET was essentially replaced by a
system of competing commercial backbones, interconnected at Network Access
Points (NAPs) commissioned by the NSF to assure that all the networks of the
then US part of the Internet would continue to be fully interconnected.

Commercial versions of NAPs emerged almost contemporaneously with the
non-profit, US Government sponsored ones. Metropolitan Fiber Systems (MFS),
now a part of WorldCom, developed their Metropolitan Area Ethernet (MAE)
service, now called Metropolitan Area Exchange service. Around 1990, a
consortium of for-profit Internet Service Providers, UUNET, PSINET and CERFNET
formed the Commercial Internet exchange (CIX) to provide a path for commercial
Internet traffic that did not fit the profile of traffic permitted on the
NSFNET backbone. Since that time, as many as 100 Internet exchange points have
been established around the world, some of them for-profit and some


In the beginning, all aspects of cost for the Internet were borne by the US
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. When the ARPANET served as the sole
backbone network of the system, using agencies shared the cost of operating
the backbone network which was operated by the US Defense Communications
Agency (DCA), now called the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). When
the NSFNET was created, the US National Science Foundation bore the cost of
operating the NSFNET backbone network. Universities and research institutions
bore the cost of networking their respective campuses/buildings and NSF
subsidized the founding and operation of the intermediate level networks (such
as NYSERNET, SURANET, MIDNET, BARRNET, NWNET and so on). NSF also sponsored
the interconnection of non-US research networks to the NSFNET backbone through
an International Connections program operated for NSF by Sprint.

Similar kinds of government sponsorship are to be found around the world,
augmented with a variety of non-profit cost-sharing arrangements, such as
those leading to the formation of EBONE and NORDUNET, for example [3].

Interconnection of US Government-sponsored networks (such as ARPANET, NSFNET,
NSINET, ESNET) were made at locations referred to as Federal Internet eXchange
points on the US west and east coasts (FIX-WEST and FIX-EAST). The cost of
these operations were borne by the respective agency network operators.

When commercial use of Internet began, approximately in 1989/1990, the US
Government-sponsored backbones (ARPANET, NSFNET) had restrictions on what kind
of traffic could be carried using those networks. Initial participants in
commercial Internet service (e.g. UUNET, PSINET, CERFNET) formed the
Commercial Internet exchange (CIX) to permit the carriage and exchange of
traffic that did not meet the appropriate use policies of the NSFNET.

The basic principle of CIX operation was that each ISP would pay the cost of
connecting to the CIX switching site (initially this was an Ethernet to which
each ISP attached a router). Each ISP would exchange routing information with
the other connected ISPs and this information would serve to pass traffic
between the commercial customers of each of the ISPs by way of the paths
connecting each participating ISP with the CIX. The exchange of such routing
information was called "peering" because each of the ISPs effectively acted as
equals or as "peers". No charges were made between the peering ISPs on the
basis that each ISP received equal value from the exchange of traffic with its
peering partner.

The practice of commercial peering was endorsed by the US Government when the
NSFNET backbone was retired in 1995 (note that the ARPANET backbone had long
since been retired in 1990). The formal establishment of Network Access Points
(NAPs) by the National Science Foundation formed the basis for a competitive
collection of Internet backbones to interconnect and exchange traffic
assuring full Internet connectivity in the US that had formerly been assured
through interconnection with the NSFNET backbone.

It is often misunderstood by observers that peering is somehow cost free.
Nothing could be more untrue. To understand this, it is vital to appreciate
that "Internet service" means that a packet sent by a customer can be
delivered to literally any possible destination on the Internet. To achieve
this connectivity, an ISP either has to arrange to be connected to a
sufficiently large number of NAPs (or peering points or Internet exchanges)
and/or engage in sufficient direct (peer-to-peer) network interconnections to
assure full connectivity OR the ISP must purchase what is called "transit"
service from another ISP that IS fully able to route traffic to any
destination in the Internet.

A new ISP often starts out by purchasing transit service from another ISP
(e.g. a backbone service provider) and re-selling this service to its
customers. As the ISP grows, it may negotiate peering arrangements with other
ISPs either at NAPs or by direct (or "private") peering in addition to
purchasing transit service to reach those destinations not reachable through
the peering interconnections. It is important to note that whether the
interconnection between ISPs is accomplished by peering or by purchase of
transit service there is cost to the ISPs either for the cost of connecting to
a NAP, establishing a private peering connection or purchasing transit


An ISP might start its business by purchasing transit service and reselling it
to end users. As the ISP increases in size, it may prove cost-effective to pay
for connection to one or more NAPs (or Internet packet exchanges, generally)
and to establish peering relationships with some number of other ISPs.
Generally speaking, ISPs agree to peer if they conclude that it is more cost
effective to pay the cost of access to a common NAP and then to exchange
traffic BETWEEN THEIR CUSTOMERS than it is to achieve this same goal by
purchase of transit service. The cost of transit is reduced because some of
the traffic is now diverted to the peering streams, but there IS a cost for
the peering, namely the cost of access to one or more exchange points.
Typically, peers interconnect at multiple NAPs or with multiple private
interconnections to assure reliable operation. The balance between the cost of
transit and the cost of peering is one element of the economics of Internet

Full Internet connectivity is established by any particular ISP through direct
connection to customers, through peering relationships and through the
purchase of transit service. A large ISP might achieve full connectivity
through a combination of peering and direct customer interconnection without
the need for purchasing transit. Because peering has costs, it is usually the
case that only an ISP with a sufficiently large revenue base can afford to
utilize peering and customer interconnection as the exclusive means of
achieving full Internet connectivity.


In the earliest days of the Internet, Governments paid for international
interconnection of networks to one another. For example, the National Science
Foundation initiated an International Connection Management (ICM) program that
was won by Sprint in a competitive procurement. NSF subsidized or underwrote
the cost of linking research networks around the world to the NSFNET backbone.
More recently, NSF has instituted a program of interconnection at an
NSF-sponsored STAR-TAP NAP site in the state of Illinois. Other research
networks outside the United States pay the cost of reaching the STAR-TAP and
there they peer with US research networks that also appear at the STAR-TAP.
Until its support for the program ended in March 2000, NSF also paid for the
cost of connecting the very high performance Backbone Network Service (vBNS)
to STAR-TAP. Since April 2000, the operator of the vBNS, WorldCom, has
undertaken to support these costs and to continue to offer the service without
NSFNET subsidy. NSF continues to provide subsidy for interconnection of
approved research institutions to vBNS or to other networks, such as Abilene,
participating in the so-called Internet 2 project of the University
Corporation for Advanced Internet Development (UCAID).

Once commercial Internet service became a reality, commercial ISPs operating
in various countries sought means to achieve full interconnection on the
Internet. Historically, the bulk of the Internet was in the United States
(this is no longer obviously the case as more than half of the Internet users
are estimated to be outside the United States). Historically, also, the lowest
cost international circuits were between other places in the world and the
United States. There was a time, for example, when a dedicated circuit from
Paris to London cost as much as a circuit of similar capacity from Paris to
the United States. As a consequence, a great deal of commercial Internet
traffic was carried over circuits leased by non-US ISPs to connect to US ISPs
providing transit services.

The situation is changing. As telecommunication prices for leased circuits
drop, domestically and internationally, more options have opened up for ISP
interconnection. In recent months, nearly two thirds of traffic originating or
terminating in Europe is kept in Europe while two years ago, two thirds of the
traffic originating or terminating in Europe went to the United States. This
is also indicative of the grown of web-based services in Europe providing
more local sources of information than ever before.

Historically, international Internet transit services have been purchased by
ISPs outside the US by connecting international leased lines to US Internet
Service Providers. The factors leading to this architecture are changing.

As international service prices drop, more regional interconnections can be
expected, reducing costs for servicing out-of-region traffic (more will stay
in-region, less has to go outside the region). Moreover, global Internet
Service Providers will be able to offer transit services on domestic links,
reducing the costs to resellers considerably.


For many years, telecommunications services were the province of monopolies
chartered in each country. To achieve international telephone and
communication services, one simply had to agree to interconnect the monopoly
telephone services of each country on a bilateral basis (setting aside cases
where one country relays traffic to a third party). There was no choice in the
matter. If country A wanted to be able to exchange traffic with country B,
there was no question about having to interconnect the unique, monopoly
networks of country A and country B. Each monopoly paid its costs for the half
circuit connecting them and then negotiated a so-called settlement rate that
each monopoly would charge the other for termination of traffic. In many
countries, high settlement rates meant that the telecommunications companies
were bringing into the country substantial revenues.

Furthermore, if international communication services are in the purview of a
single monopoly provider, competing ISPs within a country, to the extent they
must rely on international connections to achieve full Internet connectivity
(e.g through purchase of transit services on international links), are
potentially at risk. The monopoly service provider can charge whatever it
wants to charge for international circuits linking to transit service
providers. The situation is exacerbated when the same monopoly provider also
competes for business from end-users. This scenario only underscores the
potential value of domestic competition to drive down costs, including costs
for international service.

In the presence of competition between carriers in country B, it is no longer
a foregone conclusion that any particular network in country A must connect to
all of or even more than one of the networks serving customers in country B.
The settlement system is giving way to pairwise business negotiations between
telecommunication service providers who have a choice of interconnection
partners. Competition in the domestic and international telecommunications
markets has had a powerful effect of the costs of operations both for Internet
services and more generally for telecommunications services.

Ultimately, the economics of interconnection and the assessment of the value
of peering relationships may lead to more general models of peering than the
current model in which each ISP pays its costs to the peering point and
nothing more. In other words, a spectrum of business models may be
anticipated, ranging from paying for transit services to sharing of costs for


The term "developing countries" brings along with it many connotations. For
purpose of this white paper, the term is intended merely to mean countries
that are still developing their Internet infrastucture. Consider a new ISP
just starting out in country Z. The ISP will need to rely on local
telecommunications facilities provided by local telecom providers or it will
have to put into place its own facilities to reach its customers. To achieve
full Internet connectivity, it will need to connect to at least one and
possibly more than one ISP capable of delivering transit service to the rest
of the Internet. Historically, customers for international transit service
typically pay the full cost of the circuit linking them to an international
transit ISP. While past history has favored US-based ISPs for this service,
thanks to the relatively low costs for international services in the US, the
rapidly evolving infrastructure in other region of the world are permitting
new ISPs to connect to transit services on a less-costly regional or even
domestic basis . Equally important is the expansion of global Internet
backbone services on a highly competitive basis. The global backbone providers
have points of presence in many countries and regions and the cost of the
international circuits are subsumed within the cost of operating the global
backbone. Consequently, there is sharing of these costs among customers and
the prices are subject to vigorous global competition.

Furthermore, unless local rules prohibit sharing of circuits, consortia of
ISPs could share the cost of a regional or international transit service
circuit. Or a single ISP could purchase the transit service and resell it to
downstream ISPs, reducing the average cost per ISP.

The formation of local peering points (packet exchanges) can potentially
reduce costs by allowing new ISPs to exchange traffic among their respective
customers for the cost of access to appropriate peering points, reducing the
absolute capacity needed for international transit service. All of these
scenarios suggest that the historical model of pairwise interconnection of
monopoly carriers is giving way to a richer mesh of interconnections among
competing service providers in local, regional and global settings. These
trends should lead to reduced costs for Internet services everywhere,
including the developing countries.

The spread of Internet is very much dependent upon the availability of
telecommunications infrastructure, reliable power, and trained staff familiar
with the operation of parts of the Internet. The business community must be
aware of the potential of Internet-enabled business and the general population
has to be ready to make use of the technology when it becomes available. Where
telecommunications infrastructure is lacking, there are several paths to
bridging the so-called Digital Divide. One is to make deliberate government
investments in infrastructure (e.g. through loans from the World Bank, through
the UN Development Program). Another is to establish a business climate in
which foreign and domestic capital is available and competition is encouraged
so that substantial resources are brought to bear on the problem of developing

Among the surprises in Internet economics is the observation that a country
can take advantage of Internet for business purposes EVEN WHEN INTERNET IS NOT
WIDELY DEPLOYED in the country. For example, India has a modest but growing
Internet infrastructure, but in cities such as Bangalore, there are many
well-educated engineers who have strong Internet skills. These engineers use
the Internet to export their designs or their services to other countries
where Internet is more widespread. In a sense, this is a bit like exporting
talent without having them leave the country. It is a portent of a globally
competitive future.


1. V. G. Cerf and R. E. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network
Intercommunications," IEEE Transactions on Communication, Vol. COM-22,
No. 5, May 1974, pp. 637-648. Reprinted in Computer Networking, edited
by Blanc and Cotton, IEEE Press, 1976, pp. 95-106.

2. Barry M. Leiner , Vinton G. Cerf , David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn,
Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Lawrence G. Roberts,
Stephen Wolff, "A Brief History of the Internet"

3. Carl Malamud, Exploring the Internet, Prentice-Hall, 1992

4. various RFCs [TBD]

5. Geoff Huston, "An ISP Survival Guide," John Wiley, 1999.



A wide-area, packet switched network designed and built initially in 1969 by
Bolt Beranek and Newman under contract to the US Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). Honeywell DDP computers were used as packet switches
that were, in turn, interconnected by 50 kilobit per second leased telephone
circuits. The system was in use to support research in computer-based resource
sharing from September1969 until July 1990.


A non-profit network service initially developed by General Atomics in San
Diego, California, to interconnected research and educational institutions in
the local area. Eventually acquired by AT&T, this network has no financial or
other business connection with Vinton Cerf except that he helped to inaugurate
the network in July 1989 by breaking a fake bottle of champagne over a Cisco
router to "launch the service.

"Domain Name System"

The Domain Name System is a system of hierarchical conventions for naming
destinations in the Internet. For example, www.isoc.org is the name of a
computer on the Internet that provides World Wide Web (WWW) information
services for the Internet Society (ISOC). ISOC is a non-profit organization
(".org"). The system of computers that comprise the Domain Name System (DNS)
resolve (that is, translate) from the domain name of an Internet destination
to its corresponding Internet Address.


The "European Backbone" was established in 1992 by a consortium of non-profit,
academic Internet Service Providers in Europe. Eventually this network was
acquired by a commercial company, Global Telecommunication Services in 1999.
In its initial incarnation, it served approximately the same purpose as the
NSFNET backbone in the United States it interconnected intermediate and
regional network to each other. The intermediate networks served end-user
institutions. [see Exploring the Internet, p. 90-94]


A packet switching network utilizing co-axial cable (and later simple twisted
pair) interconnecting a number of computers sharing the common transmission
channel and utilizing algorithms and protocols suitable for coordinating the
use of such shared channels. Invented by Robert Metcalfe at Xerox Palo Alto
Research Center in 1973.

A system of packet-switched digital communication networks utilizing the
Internet Protocol (IP - version 4 or its successors), associated Internet
address space, routing protocols and domain name system, to form a global,
interconnected network of networks. Virtually any transmission and
multiplexing and packet switching system can be used to transport Internet
packets by encapsulating the Internet packet in the lower layer transmission
format and de-encapsulating them either at the destination host or at an
intermediate gateway or router. Initially designed by Vinton G . Cerf at
Stanford University and Robert E. Kahn at DARPA in 1973 [1].

"Internet Address"

In version 4 of the Internet Protocol (IP or IPv4), a 32 bit number
identifying a destination network and computer. In version 6 of the Internet
Protocol (IPv6), a 128 bit number used similarly to identify a destination
network and computer (and possibly additional information used to route the
packet through the Internet). Version 4 Internet Addresses are often
represented as four numbers separated by dots as in A more
elaborate representation is needed for the 128 bit addresses of version 6

"Internet Service Provider (ISP)"

An Internet Service Provider is a company that supplies Internet switching
services to customers. Often this service is bundled with electronic mail,
world wide web hosting and other related services.


The fourth version of the Internet Protocol, standardized in 1978 [RFC


The sixth version of the Internet Protocol, standardized approximately in 1996
[RFC reference]


Network Access Point. A localized switching system facilitating the exchange
of traffic between networks making up the Internet. Sometime referred to as a
"public peering" point, a NAP is an independent operation that charges ISPs
for access to the NAP switching facilities. ISPs establish peering
relationships on a pairwise basis at the NAP, but the NAP operator is not
involved in the peering decision except to implement the interconnection as
specified by the peering ISPs.


A backbone network developed in Scandinavia by a consortium of universities to
interconnect their respective national research networks.


A backbone network built in 1987 under a cooperative agreement between the US
National Science Foundation (NSF) and MCI, IBM and MERIT (a networking
organization based at the University of Michigan). Eventually a non-profit
organization called Advanced Network and Services (ANS) was founded by MCI,
IBM and MERIT, to continue the development and support of NSFNET. An earlier
version of NSFNET was built in 1986 by Dr. David Mills using Digital Equipment
Corporation PDP-11 computers as routers linked by 50 kilobit per second leased
telephone circuits. The term "NSFNET" is usually reserved for the backbone
system operated by ANS but sometimes included intermediate level and end-user
networks. The NSFNET backbone was retired in April 1995.


A finite set of bits, together with identifying, addressing and/or routing
information contained in a header. Examples include Ethernet packets, the
frames of a frame relay network, packets of an X.25 system. The term was
invented in the mid-1960s by Donald Davies, then of the National Physical
Laboratory in the UK. The concept was first published by Leonard Kleinrock in
his 1961 MIT Ph.D. dissertation and invented independently by Paul Baran in a
report ["On Distributed Communication"] prepared the the US Defense Department
by the RAND Corporation and by Donald Davies in the course of research on the
interconnection of computers and peripheral devices.

"Packet Radio Network"

The Packet Radio Network was developed under contract to the US Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency beginning in the early 1970s. Sometimes
called PRNET, this packet switched network used high capacity digital radios
transmitting packets at 100 to 400 kilobits per second. Packet radios were
capable of mobile operation on the ground and in the air. The initial
deployment of the PRNET was carried out in the mid-1970s in the San Francisco
Bay area in California with some repeaters mounted in fixed positions on the
tops of mountains to provide connectivity for mobile devices on the ground.
The system used spread spectrum technology to reduce the probability of
intercepting the signal and to allow co-operation within the radio spectrum
with more conventional, narrowband radio transmissions. This system was built
for DARPA by Rockwell International Collins Radio division, Bolt Beranek and
Newman (packet radio station) and SRI International (systems integration).

"Packet Satellite Net"

Sometimes called SATNET or Atlantic Packet Satellite Network, this packet
switching network used a system of ground stations sharing a common satellite
channel (initially 64 kilobits/second and later 128 kilobits/second). The
system operated from approximately 1975 through 1988 (?). It was built under
contract to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency by Bolt Beranek
and Newman and Linkabit corporation.


The exchange of routing information between two Internet packet networks that
agree to carry traffic between their respective customers (but not their
respective peers). Typically, the commercial terms and conditions of bilateral
peering are that each networks pays the cost of direct interconnection
("Private Peering") or connection to a Network Access Point (NAP) ("public
peering") but do not charge each other for the exchange of traffic. Other
arrangements are possible in which one party compensates the other for
services rendered.

"Packet Switching"

A method of transporting information from a source computer to a destination
computer by formatting the transported information into individual packets and
switching the packets by way of specialized computers interconnected, for
example, by leased transmission lines, radio, satellite, co-axial cables,
optical fibers or free-space lasers.

"Private Peering"

see Peering.


A network founded by William Schrader as a commercial spinoff from the New
York State Education and Research Network (NYSERNET). NYSERNET was one of the
so-called "intermediate level" networks sponsored by the US National Science
Foundation Network.

"Public Peering"

see Peering.


A specialized computer used to switch packets from incoming circuits or
communication channels to outgoing ones. A packet may enter the router on any
path and exit the router on any other path.

"Routing Protocol"

An algorithm together with specialized packets of information that helps a
router determine how it is connected to the rest of the network and where a
packet destined for any particular designation should be forwarded next.
Examples include Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4), IS-IS, Open
Shortest Path First (OSPF), RIP [there are Requests for Comment references on
most of these, but reference may also be made to Geoff Huston's recent book,
"ISP Survival Guide".]

"Transit service"

An ISP that is connected to the global Internet and is capable of routing
traffic to any point in the Internet can sell this capability to other ISPs
who wish to resell this service to end users. The ability to accept traffic
and deliver it to any target in the Internet is called transit service. In
essence, EVERY ISP must be capable of delivering transit service to customers
but it may achieve this by reselling the transit service of another ISP or it
may use peering relationships or a mixture of both to accomplish this
objective. By definition, all customers of a given ISP can reach each other
through the ISP's network proper.

Unix-to-Unix Copy Program a protocol for carrying digital information on
point to point links connected computers running the UNIX operating system. Of
course, once this program was specified, non-UNIX systems could also participate.


Originally founded in 1987 as a non-profit by Rick Adams, the company provided
UUCP services to users. The company went for-profit in 1989 and offered
Internet services based on the TCP/IP protocols. UUNET is now a service of WorldCom.
List of Distribution

Christine Maxwell
Vice Chairman
Internet Society
Tel: +33 4 42 66 80 30
French Portable No. +33 6 20 72 40 63
Wildfire Global Tracking Number: +1 415 732 6170
Fax: +33 4 42 66 81 07

Mr. John McLeod (Fax: 619-277-3930)
Society for Computer Simulation International (SCSI)
8484 La Jolla Shores Drive
La Jolla, CA 92037
* Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman, GLOSAS/USA *
* (GLObal Systems Analysis and Simulation Association in the U.S.A.) *
* Laureate of Lord Perry Award for Excellence in Distance Education *
* Founder of CAADE *
* (Consortium for Affordable and Accessible Distance Education) *
* President Emeritus and V.P. for Technology and Coordination of *
* Global University System (GUS) *
* 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing, NY 11355-3998, U.S.A. *
* Tel: 718-939-0928; Fax: 718-939-0656 (day time only--prefer email) *
* Email: utsumi@columbia.edu; Tax Exempt ID: 11-2999676 *
* http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/ *

Return to Global University System Mid-2000 Correspondence