dsmith@oregon.uoregon.edu (Dale Smith) (09/21/89)
This is certainly not the right forum to pose these questions, but I can think of no better one. I have been doing a lot of thinking about Internet services that would attract more interest of the general researcher. Right now, the most useful service provided by the Internet to the general researcher seems to be electronic mail for communication amoung colleagues. A distant second and third would seem to be supercomputer access and ftp to obtain software. One service I can think of that would generate a lot of interest amoung researchers here at the University of Oregon (and, I suppose, other sites as well) would be access to remote database services. I am thinking of pay-for data base services such as BRS, DIALOG, and STN that provide access to hundreds of diverse databases, including Chem Abstracts, Nuclear Science Abstracts, Biosis Previews, Medline, Geobase, Socialogical Abstracts, and Water Resources Abstracts to name a few. All of these services currently provide remote access via modem, often via Telenet or a private network. Some sites have purchased dedicated lines to access these services. So, here we have a research oriented service and a number of ad-hoc networks that support access to these services. Since the one of the goals of NSFnet is to provide support for researchers, it seems that access to these databases could fall under the general thrust of what NSFnet is all about. The key in my mind seems to be that these are commercial services (even though some claim to be non-profit) and if they were connected in some manner to the Internet, then we would be using the Internet to promote selected firms. However, in the long run it seems that it would save everyone money and provide another carrot in the Internet basket to recruit new sites. What do other folks think about this subject? -- Dale Smith, Assistant Director of Network Services University of Oregon Internet: dsmith@oregon.uoregon.edu Computing Center BITNET: dsmith@oregon.bitnet Eugene, OR 97403-1212 Voice: (503)686-4394
holleran@Apple.COM (Patrick Holleran) (09/21/89)
In article <8079@oregon.uoregon.edu> dsmith@oregon.uoregon.edu (Dale Smith) writes: >This is certainly not the right forum to pose these questions, but I can >think of no better one. > >I have been doing a lot of thinking about Internet services that would >attract more interest of the general researcher. Right now, the most >useful service provided by the Internet to the general researcher seems >to be electronic mail for communication amoung colleagues. A distant >second and third would seem to be supercomputer access and ftp to obtain >software. > >One service I can think of that would generate a lot of interest amoung >researchers here at the University of Oregon (and, I suppose, other >sites as well) would be access to remote database services. I am >thinking of pay-for data base services such as BRS, DIALOG, and STN that >provide access to hundreds of diverse databases, including Chem >Abstracts, Nuclear Science Abstracts, Biosis Previews, Medline, Geobase, >Socialogical Abstracts, and Water Resources Abstracts to name a few. > > (more stuff here)... > >The key in my mind seems to be that these are commercial services (even >though some claim to be non-profit) and if they were connected in some >manner to the Internet, then we would be using the Internet to promote >selected firms. However, in the long run it seems that it would save >everyone money and provide another carrot in the Internet basket to >recruit new sites. > Dissemination of scholarly information quite often involves commercial enterprises--for instance, subscriptions to journals are not free. I see no reason why access to databases which involve a subscription fee ought to be prohibited on NSFNet of the Internet. There definitely needs to be more useful resources to researchers in a variety of disciplines accessible via national networks. Pat Holleran Apple Computer, Inc. holleran@apple.com
nick@toro.UUCP (Nicholas Jacobs) (09/22/89)
In article <34890@apple.Apple.COM> holleran@Apple.COM (Patrick Holleran) writes: >In article <8079@oregon.uoregon.edu> dsmith@oregon.uoregon.edu (Dale Smith) writes: >>The key in my mind seems to be that these are commercial services (even >>though some claim to be non-profit) and if they were connected in some Certainly it's an interesting idea. We've recently set up our own internal internet and one of our upcoming projects is to supply our traders with feeds from the various financial services. One big issue is that of payment: most of these feeds are based on payment per line. If you take that line and distribute it internally, how is the billing handled for it? I'm curious to see how people resolve this issue. Nicholas Jacobs UUCP: ...!uunet!toro!nick Internet: toro!nick@uunet.uu.net AT&T: (212) 236-3230
epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott) (09/22/89)
Public data networks (Telenet, Tymnet, etc.) are ideally suited for these services, "expand with demand," and tend to be pretty much universally accessible. What you are proposing is not only parasitic, but insulting to those of us who crafted this unique resource. There are some things that can only be done on the Internet. You don't need Internet's capabilities. You're looking for a common carrier. We need what little bandwidth we have. Internet can't be all things to all people. -=EPS=- (No vested interest in any PDN or commercial database service)
kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (09/23/89)
In article <575@wet.UUCP> eps@CS.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >Public data networks (Telenet, Tymnet, etc.) are ideally >suited for these services, "expand with demand," and tend to be >pretty much universally accessible. No, internetworks are universally accessible. An aggregate of networks that is not internetworked is not universally accessible. > >What you are proposing is not only parasitic, but insulting to >those of us who crafted this unique resource. I imagine the questioner was thinking of the NSF sponsored Internet. He could be thinking of the wider FRICC sponsored Internet. You are thinking of some other internetwork, possibly some predecessor of the current Internet. > There are >some things that can only be done on the Internet. You don't >need Internet's capabilities. You're looking for a common >carrier. We need what little bandwidth we have. Internet can't >be all things to all people. > You miss a more critical point of building an internetwork than the advanced functionality of some protocol. More critical than the specific functionality of one of many protocols that may run on one internetwork and not on another is the fact that an internetwork is universal. The NSF Internet, or the wider FRICC Internet, or the future National Research and Education Network will be judged as successful chiefly by how universal and ubiquitous it/they become. It is more important to be ubiquitous than to be state-of-the-art on an operational research and educational internetwork, compared to a *network* research internet. Services such as access to Dialog or whatever are important goals of the operational internetworks and are not insulting to those who are building these internets. The research and education "Internet" must become all things to all people to become what the builders, and those who pay for it, envision. And if we could buy it commercially, or even envision a day when we could buy it commercially, then we would. We are certainly paying commercial rates (at least in some parts of the Internet) to get Internet service, and it is well worth it. The network research community needs and is getting a new research internet. Those who use internets to conduct the business of research and education accidentally co-opted it from the network researchers. Sorry about that, fellas. But let us not confuse what the Internet today really is with what it once was. The old network-research internet was a grand and glorious thing. Perhaps grander and more glorious to those who built her than the Internet today seems. But the old-boys should be glad their little child grew up, moved to the big city and became famous. Still, it is hard to see children grow up and harder still to let them become independent and other than what we envisioned they would be. Kent England, Boston University and NEARnet [Disclaimer: I do not represent an official position of either Boston University or NEARnet in this matter.]
CERF@A.ISI.EDU (09/25/89)
Pat, In principle, your view ought to be an easy one to support, but access, usage and interconnection policy is complicated by the fact that the Internet is, in many parts, subsidized by the U.S. Government. As a consequence, agencies who provide infrastructure support have a fiscal responsibility to be sure that the infrastructure resources are not abused for personal or corporate gain. The informal Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) members are working on policy statements to help guide us (users and servers) in this matter. As an example, it has been permitted to put up links to commercial email carriers (such as MCI Mail and CompuServe) as long as the carrier does not charge the government for emitting traffic from the Internet into the carrier's network. The carrier is free to charge its users for sending mail into the Internet. The National Research and Education Network (NREN) is intended to succeed the current Internet on a larger scale in size and in capacity (eventually reaching 3 gigabits/sec on its trunk links and capable of supporting as much as a gigabit between pairs of hosts that need this kind of bandwidth). It is the hope of the NREN sponsors that the system will eventually be feasible as a commercial offering and that direct government involvement in its operation can be minimized and perhaps completely eliminated. Finding suitable conditions under which commercial services can be made accessible to the Internet community is of real interest. Vint Cerf
philf@xymox.metaphor.com (Phil Fernandez) (09/25/89)
In article <34890@Apple.COM> holleran@Apple.COM (Patrick Holleran) writes: >In article <8079@oregon.uoregon.edu> dsmith@oregon.uoregon.edu (Dale Smith) writes: >>... >>One service I can think of that would generate a lot of interest amoung >>researchers here at the University of Oregon (and, I suppose, other >>sites as well) would be access to remote database services. I am >>thinking of pay-for data base services such as BRS, DIALOG, and STN that >>provide access to hundreds of diverse databases, including Chem >>Abstracts, Nuclear Science Abstracts, Biosis Previews, Medline, Geobase, >>Socialogical Abstracts, and Water Resources Abstracts to name a few. >... At my previous job, I built just such a facility at Stanford University. Specifically, I built a gateway between the Stanford University Network (SUNet) and BRS. Since SUNet is a well-connected part of the Internet, this service is in-theory available to the full Internet community (e.g., for demo purposes), although Stanford definitely does not see itself providing this service on a production basis beyond Stanford. From a technical point of view, we used a Develcon TCP/IP to X.25/X.29 device to gateway between SUNet and BRS. The Develcon box accepts Telnet connections and cross-connects them to its X.25 PAD function. Stanford then connects directly to BRS via a 3002 leased line using 19.2kbps modems. From a management point of view, the Stanford Lane Medical Library purchased a block of 1000 logon id's from BRS, and "resold" these id's at nominal cost to faculty and researchers at Stanford. This service has been in operation at Stanford for almost two years, and has been fairly successful. When I left Stanford, we were considering a similar arrangement with Dialog. Clearly it is 100% feasible to provide such a capability on the Internet, although I'd question whether it should be an internet-general function vs. a locally-provided and managed service. I'd be glad to provide more information if anyone want to contact me. phil +-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | Phil Fernandez | philf@metaphor.com | | | ...!{apple|decwrl}!metaphor!philf | | Metaphor Computer Systems |"Does the body rule the mind, or does the mind| | Mountain View, CA | rule the body? I dunno..." - Morrissey | +-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (09/25/89)
In article <[A.ISI.EDU]24-Sep-89.13:22:03.CERF> CERF@A.ISI.EDU writes: >Pat, >hosts that need this kind of bandwidth). It is the hope of the >NREN sponsors that the system will eventually be feasible as a >commercial offering and that direct government involvement in its >operation can be minimized and perhaps completely eliminated. Wonder how long until the Internet turns into a commercial common carrier? I can only hope as a international user that when (and if) it happens that it's trans-national in scope. I'd hate to have to deal with bureaucrats in Ontario (Canadian bureaucrats have to be seen to be believed!). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
steve@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Stephen Wolff) (09/26/89)
>>hosts that need this kind of bandwidth). It is the hope of the >>NREN sponsors that the system will eventually be feasible as a >>commercial offering and that direct government involvement in its >>operation can be minimized and perhaps completely eliminated. > >Wonder how long until the Internet turns into a commercial common carrier? Large chunks of the Internet are already commercial. Mid-level (e.g., regional) networks in the NSFNET family are independent business entities which however receive Federal subsidy in two forms: annual awards (ranging in amount from almost none to "some") from the Networking Division at NSF, and no-direct-charge use of the NSFNET backbone network for long-haul transit. The NSFNET Backbone is in turn operated by a commercial organization which is fully subsidized - in part by NSF but mostly by private industry. Beyond their subsidy, the mid-level nets get income by charging their client campus networks for services rendered. (Just as in the case of Plain Old Telephone Service, the campus is ordinarily the smallest billable unit.) The technical problem for the Federal government is how to move the subsidies which are now given to the SUPPLIERS of networking services, instead to the USERS of networking through the standard mechanisms of research grants and contracts and increments on the indirect cost rate - all without damaging, diminishing or interrupting the service to the research and scholarly communities. Over the course of the coming year, NSF - in its role as lead agency for implementing the Phase 1+2 NREN - will collaborate with the nascent NREN management and advisory groups in holding public discussions of this important topic. Stay tuned. -s
peter@hadrian.uwo.ca (Peter Marshall) (09/27/89)
In article <801@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> philf@xymox.metaphor.com (Phil Fernandez) writes:
[Stuff about Stanford's Internet to BRS connection deleted]
Clearly it is 100% feasible to provide such a capability on the
Internet, although I'd question whether it should be an
internet-general function vs. a locally-provided and managed service.
The problem with making it a locally-provided service is that you are
not taking advantage of the high-speed shared cross-country links like
those provided by NSFnet. This doesn't matter too much when the
database is fairly local, but if your database is on the west coast
and you are on the east it would be a shame to have to do the
long-haul traffic on a special, dedicated (single point of failure,
self managed...) link from your site to the west coast database when
there is a functioning (and professionally managed) internet already
in place.
I think that it would make sense to cooperatively fund high-speed
connections from the Internet to database resources like BRS and
Dialog. Perhaps the database suppliers would even be willing to
attach a sur-charge to such connections and return this money to the
agency that is making the connection. The databases could probably
recover their own connection charges through their normal recovery
mechanisms from individual account holders.
Once on the Internet they could explore other, perhaps more productive
means of accessing their databases that are not based on the
time-sharing terminal paradigm: TCP packets may be much more suitable
for a SQL type query than a terminal type connection. Of course this
course precludes using the type of virtual terminal only connection
that seems to be implemented at Stanford.
--
--
Peter Marshall, Data Comm. Manager
CCS, U. of Western Ontario, London, Canada N6A 5B7
(519)661-2111x6032 or 661-2151 to leave a message
peter.marshall@uwo.ca pm@uwovax (BITNET); peter@julian.uucp