ACN Volume 6 No 2-3 Winter 1994 The Vision of Interactive Computing and the Future by Michael Hauben What is the reality behind all the talk about the Information Superhighway? This is a very important question which the Clinton and Gore Administration seem to be ignoring. However under- standing the history of the current Nets is a crucial step towards building the network of the future. It is my goal in this article to uncover the vision behind the Internet, Usenet and other associated physical and logical networks. While the Nets are basically young -- ARPAnet started in 1969 -- their 25+ year growth has been substantial. The ARPAnet was the experimental network connecting the mainframe computers of universities and other contractors funded and encouraged by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The ARPAnet started out as a test bed for computer networking, communication protocols, and computer and data resource sharing. However, what it developed into was something of a completely surprising nature. The widest use of the ARPAnet was for human-human communication using electronic mail (e-mail) and discussion lists. (Popular lists were the Wine-Tasters and Sci-Fi Lovers lists.) The human communications aspect of the ARPAnet continues to be today's most popular usage of the Net by a vast variety of people through e-mail, Usenet News discussion groups, mailing lists, internet relay chat (IRC), and so on. However, the ARPAnet was the product of previous research itself. Before the 1960s, computers operated in batch mode. This meant that a user had to provide a program on punch cards to the local computer center. Often a programmer had to wait over a day in order to see the results from his or her input. In addition if there were any mistakes in the creation of the punched cards, the stack or individual card had to be punched again and resubmitted, which would take another day. This does not account for bugs in the code, which someone only finds out after attempting to compile the code. This was a very inefficient way of utilizing the power of the com- puter from the viewpoint of a human, in addition to discouraging those unfamiliar with computers. This led to people thinking of ways to alter the interface between people and computers. The idea of time-sharing developed among some in the computer research communities. Time-sharing amounts to people utilizing the com- puter (then the mainframe) simultaneously. Time-sharing operated by giving the impression that the user is the only one on the com- puter. This is executed by having the computer divvy out slices of CPU time to all the users in a sequential manner. Research in time-sharing was being done around the country at different research centers in early 1960s. Some examples were CTSS (Computer Time-sharing System) at MIT, DTSS (Dartmouth Time-sharing System) at Dartmouth, a system at BBN, and so on. J.C.R. Licklider, the founding director of ARPA's Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), thought of time-sharing as interactive computing. Interactive computing meant the user had a way to communicate and respond to the computer's responses in a way that batch processing did not allow. Both Robert Taylor and Larry Roberts, future successors of Licklider as director of IPTO, pinpoint Licklider as the originator of the vision which set ARPA's priorities and goals and basically drove ARPA to help develop the concept and practice of networking computers. In an Interview conducted by the Charles Babbage Institute (CBI), Roberts said: "what I concluded was that we had to do something about communications, and that really, the idea of the galactic network that Lick talked about, probably more than anybody, was something that we had to start seriously thinking about. So in a way networking grew out of Lick's talking about that, although Lick himself could not make anything happen because it was too early when he talked about it. But he did convince me it was important." (Charles Babbage Institute, Oral Interview with Lawrence Roberts, p. 29) Taylor also pointed out the importance of Licklider's vision to future network development in a CBI conducted interview: "I don't think anyone who's been in that DARPA position since [Licklider] has had the vision that Licklider had. His being at that place at that time is a testament to the tenuousness of it all. It was really a fortunate circumstance. I think most of the significant advances in computer technology, especially in the systems part of computer science were simply extrapolations of Licklider's vision. They were not really new visions of their own. So he's really the father of it all." (Charles Babbage Institute, Oral Interview with Robert Taylor, p. 8) Crucial to the definition of today's networks were the thoughts awakened in the minds of those researchers interested in time-sharing. These researchers began to think about social issues related to time-sharing. One such topic was the formation of communities of the people who used the time-sharing systems. Fernando Corbato and Robert Fano wrote, "The time-sharing computer system can unite a group of investigators in a cooperative search for the so- lution to a common problem, or it can serve as a community pool of knowledge and skill on which anyone can draw according to his needs. Projecting the concept on a large scale, one can conceive of such a facility as an extraordinarily powerful library serving an entire community in short, an intellectual public utility." ("Time-sharing on Computers", Information, p. 76) Robert Taylor spoke about some of the unexpected circumstances that time-sharing made possible: "They were just talking about a network where they could have a compatibility across these systems, and at least do some load sharing, and some program sharing, data sharing that sort of thing. Whereas, the thing that struck me about the time-sharing experience was that before there was a time-sharing system, let's say at MIT, then there were a lot of individual people who didn't know each other who were interested in computing in one way or another, and who were doing whatever they could, however they could. As soon as the time-sharing system became usable, these people began to know one another, share a lot of information, and ask of one another, How do I use this? Where do I find that?' It was really phenomenal to see this computer become a medium that stimulated the forma- tion of a human community. And so, here ARPA had a number of sites by this time, each of which had its own sense of community and was digitally isolated from the other one. I saw a phrase in the Licklider memo. The phrase was in a totally different context something that he referred to as an intergalactic network.' I asked him about this later recently, in fact I said, 'Did you have a networking of the ARPAnet sort in mind when you used that phrase?' He said, 'No, I was thinking about a single time-sharing system that was intergalactic '" (Charles Babbage Institute, Oral Interview with Robert Taylor, p. 24) As Taylor recounts, the users of the time-sharing systems would, usually unexpectedly, form a new community. People now were connected to others who were also interested in these new computing systems. Licklider was one of the first users of the new time-sharing systems, and took the time to play around with them. Examining the uses of this new way of communicating with the computer enabled Licklider to think about the future possibilities. This was helpful because Licklider went on to establish the priorities and direction for ARPA's IPTO research monies. Many of the inter- viewees in the CBI interviews said that ARPA's money was given in those days to help seed research which would be helpful to society in general and only secondarily helpful to the military. The vision driving ARPA inspired bright researchers working on computer related topics. Roberts explains that Licklider's work (and that of the IPTO's directors after him) educated people who were to become the leaders in the computer industry in general. Roberts describes the impact that Licklider and his vision made on ARPA and future IPTO directors: "Well, I think that the one influence is the production of people in the computer field that are trained, and knowledgeable, and capable, and that form the basis for the progress the United States has made in the computer field. That production of people started with Lick, when he started the IPTO program and started the big university programs. It was really due to Lick, in large part, because I think it was that early set of activities that I continued with that produced the most people with the big university contracts. That produced a base for them to expand their whole department, and produced excitement in the university" (Charles Babbage Institute, Oral Interview with Lawrence Roberts, p. 29) The important effect on academia led to an even more profound effect on the future of the computer industry. Roberts con- tinues: "So it was clear that that was a big impact on the universities and therefore, in the industry. You can almost track all those people and see what effect that has had. The people from those projects are in large part the leaders throughout the industry" (Ibid., p. 30) Licklider's "Intergalactic Network" was a time-sharing utility which would serve the entire galaxy. This early vision of time-sharing spawned the idea of interconnecting different time-sharing systems by networking them together. This network would allow those on geographically separated time-sharing systems to share data, programs, research, and later other ideas and anything that could be typed out. Licklider and Taylor collaborated on an article titled "The Computer as a Communications Device" which foresaw today's Net. They wrote: "We have seen the beginnings of com- munication through a computer communication among people at consoles located in the same room or on the same university campus or even at distantly separated laboratories of the same research and development organization. This kind of communication through a single multiaccess computer with the aid of telephone lines is beginning to foster cooperation and promote coherence more effectively than do present arrangements for sharing computer programs by exchanging magnetic tape by messenger or mail." (Licklider and Taylor, p. 28) Later in the article, they point out that the interconnection of computers leads to a much broader class of connections than might have been expected. A new form of community is described: "The collection of people, hardware, and software the multiaccess computer together with its local community of users will become a node in a geographically distributed computer network. Let us assume for a moment that such a network has been formed. Through the network of message processors, therefore, all the large computers can communicate with one another. And through them, all the members of the super community can communicate with other people, with programs, with data, or with a selected combinations of those resources." (Ibid., p. 32) Licklider and Taylor demonstrate their interest in more than just hardware and software when they write about the new social dynamics that the connections of disperse computers and people will create. They explain: "[These communities] will be communities not of common location, but of common interest. In each field, the overall community of interest will be large enough to support a comprehensive system of field-oriented programs and data." (Ibid., p. 38) In exploring this community of common affinity, the pair look for the possible positive reasons to connect to and be a part of these new computer facilitated communities: "First, life will be happier for the online individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity. Second, communication will be more effective and productive, and therefore more enjoyable. Third, much communication and interaction will be with programs and programming models, which will be (a) highly responsive, (b) supplementary to one's own capabilities, rather than competitive, and (c) capable of representing progressively more complex ideas without necessarily displaying all the levels of their structure at the same time and which will therefore be both challenging and rewarding. And, fourth, there will be plenty of opportunity for everyone (who can afford a console) to find his calling, for the whole world of information, with all its fields and disciplines, will be open to him, with programs ready to guide him or to help him explore." (Ibid., p. 40) Licklider and Taylor conclude their article with a prophetic question. Since the advantages that computer networks make possible will only happen if these advantages are available to all who want to make use of them. The question is posed as follows: "For the society, the impact will be good or bad depending mainly on the question: Will `to be on line' be a privilege or a right? If only a favored segment of the population gets a chance to enjoy the advantage of `intelligence amplification,' the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity." (Ibid., p. 40) The question they raise is one of access. The authors point out that the positive effects of computer networking would only come about if the networks are made easy to use and available. Lastly they argue that access should be made available because of the global benefits which they predict would ensue. They end by writing: "if the network idea should prove to do for education what a few have envisioned in hope, if not in concrete detailed plan, and if all minds should prove to be responsive, surely the boon to humankind would be beyond measure." (Ibid., p. 40) Licklider and Taylor raise an important point that access should be made available to all who want to use the computer networks. The relevance to today is that it is important to ask if the National Information Infrastructure is being designed with the principle of making equality of access as important. There was a vision of the interconnection and interaction of diverse communities guiding creation of the original ARPAnet. In the design of the expansion of the Network, it is important to keep the original vision in mind to consider if the vision was correct, or if it was just important in the initial development of networking technologies and techniques. However, very little emphasis has been placed on either the study of Licklider's vision or the role and advantages the Nets have played up to this point. In addition, the public has not been allowed to play a role in the planning process for the new initiatives which the federal government is currently undertaking. This is a plea to you to demand more of a part in the development of the future of the Net. BIBLIOGRAPHY Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview with Fernando Corbato. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview with Robert Fano. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview with J.C.R. Licklider. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview with Lawrence Roberts. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview with Robert Taylor. Corbato, Fernando and Robert Fano, "Time-sharing on Computers", in Information, (_A Scientific American Book_), San Francisco, 1966. Kemeny, John, _Man and the Computer_, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1972. Licklider, J.C.R. and Robert Taylor, "The Computer as a Communication Device," in _Science and Technology_, April, 1968. =======================================================