The Lure of Internet2
February 15, 2006 at 17:17 
<This is post2.0. The comments below were made in response to the previous version.>
Internet2-- if that does not sound like the future!! Next week on a panel at The conference of the College Art Association in Boston we will discuss Internet2 as vehicle for global artistic practice. What is Internet2? If you speak acronym-- just call it "I2." Slate.com writer Alexander Russo introduces the issues surrounding I2 in his article "Internet 2. It's better, it's faster. You can't use it." He describes I2 as the academic answer to what he calls the commercial Internet1. He envies students at Columbia University who can download the film The Matrix in 30 seconds.
Gary Bakula, Vice President for External Affairs at Internet2 describes it as “a not-for-profit partnership of 208 universities, 70 companies and 51 affiliated organizations, including some federal agencies and laboratories [whose] mission is to advance the state of the Internet…primarily by operating…a very advanced, private, ultra-high-speed network called Abilene.” Bakula: “our Abilene network does not give preferential treatment to anyone’s bits, but our users routinely experiment with streaming HDTV, hold thousands of high quality two-way video conferences simultaneously, and transfer huge files of scientific data around the globe without loss of packets.”
Some argue that Internet2 is a centrally managed entity. I could not find conclusive evidence on this. But I2 is a different network to the Internet and the train that is running on it-- the WWW. If it is centrally controlled then that would be drastically different to Internet1. Here it was central that the "user" instead of the network provider has control.
The University of New Mexico I2 page states: "Internet2 Advanced Applications enable collaboration among people and interactive access to information and resources in a way not possible on today's Internet." Researchers in Hanover use Internet2 for high quality video conferencing. The University of Illinois at Chicago Electronic Visualization Lab uses it for networked Virtual Reality projects. I2 is currently mainly used for projects in the field of geography, neuroscience and tele-medicine; large data-science projects are facilitated. The Motion Picture Association of America and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are keen on developing a future business models for digital content distribution on I2. An RIAA representative said: "The Internet2 consortium is a unique and innovative test bed for us to explore technologies that will help us produce and distribute our content with an eye on protecting those creative works." However, such excitement did not stop RIAA from suing students over he use of the high bandwidth network i2hub for movie-file sharing. The student p2p file sharing network was shut down.
Art. More bandwidth does not equal more or better art. But it does open up new possibilities. Applications of I2 in the arts include real time video and musical performance. The list of art projects on the Internet2 website is short. Slashdot reports students creating games on I2. Those who are keen on many-to-many video conferencing can look at experiences with the AccessGrid. While such international academic setups certainly have potential for artistic uses I have not seen very many such art projects. One obvious limitation of the AccessGrid is access. Some report discouraging, excessive setup times. The opportunities and audiences are limited to a network of international universities. This may change but so far there is still the academic doorman who is in the way. In relation to live events such as conferences real time broadcasting or two-way communication is frequently a very private affair. Who watches that? Or, who comes to interact? How many people tune in? The bitter reality is all too often that the online millions need damn good reasons to come to your "party." Real time projects work (socially) if an institution has a long-established history of streaming events. (This is true for the University of Toronto, for example.) If we think of art as dialogue then success of an art project is related to "attendance"/participation of "spectators." It takes time to develop such an audience for real time distributed events! Archives often make more sense. But there are enthusiasts of real time performance out there. Worth mentioning in this context is Waag Society's project KeyWorx that facilitates real time performance. 
The recent debate on Internet Neutrality before Congress is important to this debate about Internet2. In this debate Lawrence Lessig warned that the telcos’ plans endanger the growth of the Internet. In his animated, engaging style he said: “The leaders of Verizon and the leaders of AT&T would radically reduce competition in applications and content on the Internet. As they set up fast lanes on the Internet, the only companies that could afford access are the Googles and the Yahoos…companies that have already made a success on the Internet. This restriction in competition would fundamentally weaken the growth in the Internet.”
Essentially, what the telecom executives are proposing is the creation of a two-lane Internet where larger, more established websites with financial resources could out-do smaller websites.
Rick Boucher, a member of Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee and the House Internet Caucus says that "Internet 2 demonstrated that a multi-track Internet model is unnecessary to assure quality of service. Internet2 has for the past seven years deployed an advanced broadband network to more than 5 million users and has learned that in a network with enough bandwidth there is no congestion and no bits need preferential treatment because all of them arrive quickly enough to assure excellent quality, even if intermingled." Does Boucher use this context to lure us into I2? His argument is correct but it leaves out of sight that I2 is centrally controlled. I2 access to abundant bandwidth is already available in the 'firewalled' academic network of some 200 universities. The Great Firewall of the University is surely limiting. But proponents argue that it will take over households soon. In the mentioned testimony before Congress Gary Bakula said that Internet2 would like to see Congress set a national goal of 100 Mbps symmetrical bandwidth in five years and one gigabit symmetrical bandwidth within ten years." Sounds great. But which liberties do we have to surrender? And, which content will we share?
The prospect of I2 is fascinating but with university-only access it is in the all-prevailing not-yet-state of the Internet. Technology-talk is so often about the future. Over the years I learned to look closely at what is in front of me. Yes, there is always the shiny future with all its promises. But then there is also the clumsy, sometimes pathetic reality of the machines and networks in front of us. There is no question that higher bandwidth would be empowering. But the main argument for me is not video conferencing. That works fine with the good old Internet and iChat. I don't need to talk to two thousand people at once. There are so many cooperation-enhancing tools that communication would not be the main attraction. The AccessGrid administrator at my university talked to me about HUGE conferences (something like the MegaConferenceat Penn State). His cheeks turned red and his eyes were wide open. But maybe other technologies already "caught up without passing by." The East German slogan was "einholen ohne ueberholen." The assumption was that you can reach the other shore without actually having to pass by your competitor. East German magic, so to speak. Or, just look at todays' MMORPGs. Does more bandwidth inevitably mean better communication? Does I2 automatically pull up the volume on social bandwidth? Does connecting hundreds of people inevitably mean that the volume of social bandwidth is turned up as well? Just think of ten people in an Instant Messaging environment. Content does not come with bandwidth. MegaConferences often miss the fact that people find coffee breaks the most productive time during conferences, for example. Currently, such high bandwidth is only available for tête - à - têtes within the university network. In addition, scholars like Barry Wellman show that availability of social tools does not signify more participation.
The AccessGrid is largely underutilized (at least jugding from what I saw). Several times I had the opportunity to work with it. There were people all over the world that could have used the facility in their university. But we could not find experts on the given topic in these places. It took 8 years since the invention of the weblog to really get going (in 2004). Availability of a particular technology does not mean that 1) people are comfortable using it and 2) that there is a true social need for it.
But the central issue in this debate is not if I2 will be mainly used for enhanced communication. The burning issue is the battle between the currently proposed multi-tracked Internet and the Internet2 model that would circumvent the need for privileged treatment of certain sites or services. Does that make a strong enough case for I2? Before I'd sign my heart away to I2 I'd want to know how it works technically, what part of this network is privately owned, and what central control entails. In October 2005 artist and curator Jon Ippolito wrote a text on Internet2. In "Orchestrating the End of the Internet?" Jon highlights some of the
technical issues:
"The technology behind Internet2 *breaks* anything remotely resembling a broadcast business model, which is why the MPAA will do its best to disarm the technology by installing Digital Rights Management directly in its routers to stop interesting content from ever getting into the pipeline. Now, the idea of "intelligent routers" may sound appealing to the average Congressperson, but the technologists of Internet2 should know better. Internet 1 was able to adapt so quickly to new uses--from email to the Web to IM--because its routers are fundamentally *dumb*."
Speaking to the same context Brian Holmes points out that "the whole reason [Internet1] worked globally was the ubiquity of TCP/IP, which is installed in every machine so that each computer handles transmission, reception and error-checking and all the routers do is just route. The comparison was to the centrality of the X.25 protocol being developed at the same time by national telcos, where the telco would provide very elaborate data streams and error correction at router level - obviously leaving both the content and technicalities of those data streams under their control. TCP/IP just gives you packets, and when you don't get 'em, it asks for them again. Each computer can then do whatever it wants with the packets. Let the thousand applications bloom."
The culture of openness and sharing is central to Internet1. Put a leash on that and you cripple the Internet as we know it. The carrot of high bandwidth looks delicious. Should we swallow it? We digest hidden technical control with it; an agenda that could backfire at us big time.
I asked a few people what they think about Internet 2. They all responded that it is too early to say. But maybe after 10 years of it's existence it's too late to still be hopeful. Perhaps node-to-node wireless networks and grid computing have more promise?
Trebor Scholz
Notes
CAA Panel on I2
<http://conference.collegeart.org/200%206/sessions/view/1005/>
Wikipedia definition Internet2
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet-2>
Slate.com article
<http://www.slate.com/id/2120440/>
Gary Bakula on I2
<http://www.ipdemocracy.com/archives/
001120getting_from_internet1_to_internet2.php>
I2 is centrally managed
<http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=797>
Dartmouth I2 projects
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/comp/resources/network/research/i2-use.html>
The University of Illinois at Chicago Electronic Visualization Lab
<http://www.evl.uic.edu/index2.php>
MIT uses I2 for data-heavy science projects
<http://www.haystack.edu/>
RIAA about I2
<http://www.extremeinternet2.com/article/MPAA+RIAA+Plan+to+Collaborate+
with+Internet2/159917_1.aspx?kc=XVRSS05059TX1K0000817>
RIAA sues students
<http://news.com.com/RIAA+cracks+down+on+Internet2+file-swapping/2100-
1027_3-5667385.html>
I2Hub network shut down
<http://news.com.com/Supercharged+college+P2P+network+closes/2100-1027_3-5952060.html?tag=nefd.top>
I2 art projects
<http://arts.internet2.edu/>
Students create games on I2
<http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/28/0415217&from=rss>
AccessGrid
<http://www.accessgrid.org/>
KeyWorx
<http://www.keyworx.org/>
Debate on Internet Neutratlity
<http://collectivate.net/journalisms/2006/2/11/internet-neutrality.html>
webcast
<http://commerce.senate.gov/>
Rick Boucher on I2
<http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/020906/
ss_boucher.html>
MegaConferene at Penn State
<http://aset.its.psu.edu/i2/mega.html>
Jon Ippolito on I2
<http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0502/msg00067.
html>
[Trebor]
"Whose Future Internet"
http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/2006-February/000265.html
Reader Comments