THE VISION OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTING AND THE FUTURE
                                       
    Where has the Information Superhighway come from? This is a very
   important question which the Clinton and Gore Administration seem to
   be ignoring. However understanding this history is a crucial step
   towards building the network of the future. It is my goal in this
   presentation to uncover the vision behind the Internet, Usenet and
   other associated Physical and Logical networks.
   
   While the nets are basically young (the ARPANET started 25 years
   before 1994), this 25 year growth is substantial. The ARPANET was the
   Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency's experimental
   network connecting the mainframes of Universities and other Department
   of Defense's (DoD) contractors. The ARPANET initially started out as a
   test bed of computer networking, communications protocols, and
   information/computer and data sharing. However, what it developed into
   was something of a completely different nature. The most wide use of
   the ARPANET was for human-to-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 repunched 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 computer from the viewpoint of a human,
   in addition to discouraging those unfamiliar with computers. This led
   to different people thinking of ways to alter the interface between
   people and computers. The idea of time sharing developed among some of
   the computer research communities. Time sharing amounts to multiple
   people utilizing the computer (then mainframes) simultaneously. Time
   sharing operated by giving the impression that the user is the only
   one on the computer. This is executed by having the computer divy out
   slices of CPU time to all the users in a sequential manner.
   
   Research in Time sharing was happening 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 timesharing 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 of networking computers
   
   In an Interview conducted by the Charles Babbage Institute, 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." (CBI Oral Interview, Roberts, pg
   7)
   
   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 over the years ... 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." (CBI Oral Interview, Taylor, pg. 8)
   
   
   Crucial to the definition of today's networks were the thoughts
   awakened in the minds of those researchers interested in timesharing.
   These researchers began to think about social issues related to
   timesharing. One such topic was the formation of communities of the
   people who used the timesharing systems. Fernando Corbato and Robert
   Fano wrote,
   
   "The time-sharing computer system can unite a group of investigators
   in a cooperative search for the solution 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" in
   _Information_, pg. 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 timesharing experience was that
   before there was a timesharing 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 timesharing
   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 formation 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 timesharing system that was intergalactic..." (CBI Oral
   Interview, Taylor, pg 24)
   
   As Taylor recounts, the users of the timesharing systems would,
   usually unexpectedly, form a new community. People now were connected
   to others who were interested in these new computing systems.
   
   Licklider was one of the first users of the new timesharing systems,
   and took the time to play around with them. Because of this, Fernando
   Corbato called Licklider a visionary, and not an implementor. Examing
   the uses of this new way of communicating with the computer enabled
   Licklider to think about the future possibilities. This was helpful
   because Licklider helped establish the priorities and direction that
   ARPA's IPTO was attempting to approach with their research monies with
   his vision. Many of the Interviewees in the CBI Interviews said that
   ARPA's monies were given in those days to help seed research which
   would be helpful to the general society in general, and only secondary
   to the military.
   
   The visions driving ARPA led to inspire bright researchers working on
   computer related topics. Roberts even goes as far to say that
   Licklider's work (and that of the IPTO directors after him) educated
   the people who were to become the leaders in the computer industry in
   general. Roberts relates Licklider's vision and how future IPTO
   directors continued Licklider's legacy:
   
   "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" (CBI Oral Interview, Roberts, pg 29)
   
   The influence on Academia led to a profound effect on the future of
   the computer industry. Roberts continues:
   
   "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., pg. 30)
   
   Licklider's "Intergalactic Network" was a time-sharing utility which
   would serve the entire galaxy. This early vision of timesharing
   spawned the idea of interconnecting different time-sharing systems by
   networking them together. This network would allow those on geographic
   separate time-sharing systems to share data, programs, their 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 communication 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 & Taylor, pg. 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 community is described when they write:
   
   "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
   supercommunity can communicate - with other people, with programs,
   with data, or with a selected combinations of those resources."
   (IBID.,pg. 32)
   
   Licklider and Taylor exhibit their interest in more than just hardware
   and software when they continue to think about the new social dynamics
   the connections of disperse computers and people will create. The
   authors continue:
   
   "[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., pg. 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 on-line 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., pg 40)
   
   Licklider and Taylor conclude their article on a prophetic question.
   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., pg. 40)
   
   The question which is raised is one of access. The authors try to
   point out that the positive effects of computer networking would only
   come about if the ability to use the networks is made easy and
   available. Lastly they hold that access will probably 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., pg. 40)
   
   Licklider and Taylor raise an important point of saying 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. As I have identified in this
   presentation, there was a vision of the interconnection and
   interaction of extremely diverse communities guiding the creation of
   the original ARPANET. In the design of the expansion of the Network to
   our society as a whole, 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 a
   part of the planning for the new initiatives which the federal
   government is currently planning. This is a plea to you to demand more
   of a part in the development of the future of the Net.
   
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   


                          BIBLIOGRAPHY


Corbato, Fernado and Robert Fano. "Time-sharing on Computers" in
        _Information_  Editors Scientific American. W. H. Freeman
        and Company. San Franciso: 1966.

Corbato, Fernado.   Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.

Fano, Robert.  Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.

Kemeny, John.  "Man and the Computer"  Charles Scribner's Sons NY 1972

Licklider, J.C.R.   Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.

Licklider, J.C.R. and Robert Taylor. "The Computer as a
        Communication Device," in _Science and Technology_.
        April, 1968, p. 40

Roberts, Lawrence.  Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.

Taylor, Taylor.   Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.



  __________________________________________________________________________


    Michael Hauben / hauben@columbia.edu