INTERNET APPLIANCES

Do Appliances Threaten Internet Innovation?

Sharon Eisner Gillett, William H. Lehr, John T. Wroclawski, and David D. Clark MIT Internet & Telecoms Convergence Consortium

ABSTRACT sumer still buys her own PC, but other portions of the overall package are bundled. Cable modem The world is evolving from one in which services, for example, bundle the cable-based net- almost all access to the Internet comes through work access with ISP services such as assignment personal computers, to one in which so-called of e-mail and IP addresses. The user gives up the Internet appliances are expected to make up a freedom to choose her ISP in exchange for the growing share of end user equipment. Focusing enhanced connectivity service (higher speed, on consumer-oriented appliances, we consider always on) broadband provides. AOL bundles whether this shift has implications for the pace even more, packaging network access together of Internet innovation. We conclude that given with AOL-specific application software and ser- the starting point of the current Internet, certain vices, such as an AOL e-mail account. In of the proposed business models for Internet exchange for the convenience of this bundle, the appliances are not likely to be viable, and this user gives up the flexibility to and match very fact protects the Internet’s characteristically components; for example, she can’t use non- rapid pace of innovation. AOL e-mail client software (e.g., Eudora) to read her AOL e-mail. NTRODUCTION At the other extreme lies a fully integrated I model exemplified by the various “free PC” ser- Today, and especially in the United States, vices that have been tried. In this model, the PC most users access the Internet using a personal is contractually bundled with ISP and application computer (PC). This is expected to change as services. In exchange for giving up her choice of ever more consumer-oriented, appliance-like which PC to buy and which service or service ele- devices start communicating via the Internet. ments (e.g., application software) to choose, the As a general-purpose computing device, the user gets a complete package that works out of PC has complemented the flexibility of the Inter- the box and can be set up without any error- net’s architecture to support a spectrum of busi- prone configuration or time-consuming research ness models for Internet services with varying among competing alternatives at many levels. degrees of vertical integration. Broadly speaking, Clearly, these different models appeal to dif- the more vertically integrated the service, the ferent types of users. Some people appreciate 1 In other words, the user easier it may be to use, especially for neophytes, how easy AOL’s e-mail client is to use and does not have to replace but the less flexibility it provides to users. To don’t want to be bothered with competing alter- her access device. Service date, multiple models have coexisted, serving natives. Others are accustomed to more power- providers, however, have groups of consumers differentiated by their rela- ful client programs from their workplaces and little incentive to make tive weighting of these attributes (Fig. 1). find it greatly limiting not to be able to access other aspects of switching At one extreme lies a fully disaggregated their personal e-mail in the same way. The key easy. For example, most model selected by consumers who place a premi- point is that the user has the choice of which ISPs, including AOL, will um on flexibility and freedom of choice. In this model to adopt depending on her individual not forward e-mail sent to model the consumer buys her own PC and phone preferences. Furthermore, because in all of [email protected] if line, selects an Internet service provider (ISP) these models the user access device is the same you leave randomISP.net from among many competitors, loads the soft- general purpose PC, the user can shift among behind. Surmounting this ware of her choice (any Web browser, e-mail the models reasonably fluidly.1 A free PC user barrier is primarily a mat- program, etc. conforming to Internet standards) whose comfort level rises as he uses the box has ter of effort (tell all your and configures it to visit whatever pages she the technical capability to take off the training correspondents your new wants, download e-mail from whatever server wheels and switch to more disaggregated ser- address, sign up for a free she wants, and so on. vice providers — as long as he is willing to wait email-for-life forwarding In the middle lie semi-integrated models such for the service contract to expire, or simply service, etc.), however, not as broadband Internet access delivered via cable treat the financial commitment to the free PC cost. modem or America OnLine (AOL). The con- provider as a sunk cost.

46 0163-6804/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE IEEE Communications Magazine • October 2001 Although not all Internet users will select the fully disaggregated model, the fact that some do helps drive the innovation engine of the Internet. Dis-aggregatedStructure of service Bundled For example, several years ago non-AOL e-mail clients introduced the capability to attach Web pages to messages and view them from within the e-mail program. As a result, it became common practice for people who used such clients to send Earthlink AOL FreePC Web pages around via e-mail. AOL users who received such messages began to want this capa- bility as well, eventually leading AOL to integrate this feature into its e-mail client. FlexibilityWhat customers value Ease-of-use This example illustrates the critical lead user role played by subscribers who favor the disag- gregated service model (those on the left side of Fig. 1). Because these subscribers are the most Figure 1. The spectrum of business models supported by the PC as an Inter- comfortable with installing new software on their net access device. PCs, they are the most willing to experiment with new Internet services and applications such as Internet telephony or peer-to-peer file sharing. appliance, according to who chooses the particu- The suppliers of such innovations, such as Vocal- lar set of tasks: the manufacturer (Class 1), a Tec and Napster, count on such lead users to try provider of services required to use the appli- out new ideas and to help motivate their diffu- ance (Class 2), or the user (Class 3). sion to the larger mass of users who prefer a Class 1 devices are the closest to traditional more controlled experience. Lead users, in other appliances like toasters and refrigerators. They words, are an essential part of the demand that can only do exactly what the manufacturer built spurs the ongoing supply of innovation in the them to do. Portable scanners that can upload networked environment of the Internet. images over the Internet, cell phones enhanced 2 See [1] for more on cre- If it is true that the faster the pace of Inter- with built-in Web browsers, and devices that play ative destruction net innovation, the more rapid the process of Internet radio stations are examples of Internet unleashed by the Internet. creative destruction that drives productivity improvement and economic growth, then devel- opments that threaten to retard Internet innova- Primary Example products/concepts tion should be matters of concern for public characteristic policy.2 The central policy issue explored in this article is whether Internet appliances constitute Portability • Portable scanner (HP Capshare) such a development, or whether they simply rep- • Walkman-style MP3 player resent a beneficial expansion of Internet cus- • Voice-data convergence: tomer premises equipment (CPE) options. To – Cellular Æ Internet (Europe: WAP; US: Sprint address this policy question, we must first define Wireless Web) what we mean by an Internet appliance. – PDA Æ Internet (Palm VII; Palm III or V with Omnisky (CDPD) modem; (Visor with phone plugin; WHAT IS AN INTERNET APPLIANCE? KyoceraSmartphone) As Table 1 shows, widely varying product con- – Pagers Æ email (Motorola Talkabout; RIM Blackberry) cepts have been lumped under the “Internet • General wireless data (Japan: NTT Docomo’s iMode; appliance” rubric, including entries as diverse as Europe/US: 2.5G, 3G, 4G) mobile e-mail devices for power users, ther- Multimedia • Digital picture frames (Ceiva; Storybox) mostats controlled from Web browsers, and non- entertainment • Personal video recorders (TiVo; Sonicblue, formerly PC computers designed to run network-based ReplayTV) applications. Although advances in portability, • Net-top boxes (WebTV, AOLTV) ease of use, cost, and so on are important gener- • MP3 jukeboxes ators of new devices, each of these characteris- • Internet radios (3Com Kerbango; AudioRamp iRAD-T) tics is not found in every Internet appliance. Rather, the common attributes that characterize Simplicity • Internet access without the PC (Netpliance i-Opener, Internet appliances are: Universal Talkware; Gateway/AOL Internet appliance; • Connection to the Internet, whether for a MSN Companion) few minutes each day or all the time, • Screen phones (Infogear/Cisco iPhone; Alcatel Webtouch) whether as first-class Internet devices or via • Email-only boxes (Cidco Mailstation; Landel Telecom translation gateways Mailbug) • Particularity of purpose Embedded • Internet refrigerator (Electrolux Screenfridge) Particularity of purpose means that some- Internet • Home security/environmental systems controlled via where before the end user’s experience of the Web-based user interface (Honeywell WebPAD) device, its function is fixed. Particularity of pur- • VCR with no knobs, controlled via Web browser pose is not typical of PCs. Users decide what to do with their PCs by choosing what software to Beyond Wintel • Thin clients install on them — including the possibility of • Wireless Web tablets (Quibit; Mitsubishi; Honeywell software developed after the PC was manufac- WebPAD) tured. An Internet appliance, in contrast, is designed to perform a particular set of tasks. We define a taxonomy of three classes of Internet Table 1. Diversity in the space of Internet appliances.

IEEE Communications Magazine • October 2001 47 appliances that could in theory be built as Class DO APPLIANCES Rather than 1 devices (although most aren’t in practice, for THREATEN INTERNET INNOVATION? reasons we discuss below). requiring users to A Class 1 Internet appliance has no capacity What effect are Internet appliances likely to take explicit to change its function once it has been built. In have on the pace of Internet innovation? One contrast to the PC, it has no hardware or soft- way to approach this question is to assume that actions to keep ware customizability: no slots for cards that the cost of innovation is a reasonable proxy for could modify or add to its functionality, and no its pace: ceteris paribus, the more innovation their devices capacity to accept new software. It may have costs, the less it will happen, and the more slow- current with system-level customizability if the manufacturer ly change will occur. Then we can ask how Inter- equips it with plugs to connect to other devices, net appliances of each class are likely to affect every possible but the nature of these plugs cannot be the cost of innovations large or small — whether upgrade, a Class changed. the introduction of entirely new applications or Class 2 Internet appliances, in contrast, can usage modes for the Internet (e.g., peer-to-peer 3 appliance might be changed after they are built, typically by soft- file sharing), or simply new features for existing ware download. Unlike with PCs, however, the applications (e.g., the ability to view a Web page be equipped with choice of which software to download and when within an e-mail client). software that is to install it is not made by the user. A distinct In a networked system like the Internet, inno- feature of Class 2 devices is their business model, vation incurs three types of costs: development, intelligent which includes not only a device but also a ser- distribution, and adoption. Development involves enough to vice from a particular provider. The service may the cost to conceive a new idea and implement it be connectivity (such as ISPs provide) but once (e.g., the cost to develop new software for observe and more often includes content-oriented features the PC). Adoption involves the cost to end users (such as America OnLine provides) as well. of picking up the idea (e.g., by modifying or interpret user Examples of Class 2 Internet appliances replacing their CPE). Distribution involves the behavior, abound: they include the Netpliance i-Opener cost of changing network infrastructure, if need- (originally designed to work only with Netpli- ed, to support the new idea. Distribution determine when ance’s ISP-like service); AOL and MSN compan- includes all costs (other than development) that an upgrade or ion devices built by Gateway and Compaq, must be incurred in parts of the networked sys- respectively; e-mail-only devices such as Landel tem not controlled by the end user, before the enhancement is Telecom’s Mailbug and Cidco’s Mailstation; dig- first user can try out the innovation. ital video recorders such as TiVo’s and Son- We expect development costs to remain needed, and icBlue’s (formerly ReplayTV); and digital picture unchanged by the introduction of appliances: the make it happen. frames such as the Ceiva and Storybox. Each of cost to develop an innovation will remain the cost these devices shares the characteristic that it to implement it in PC software. This outcome is a only continues to work as long as the owner con- result of the starting point that history has given tinues to subscribe to the associated service from us. The Internet already exists with most of its the particular service provider. This service users accessing it through PCs. In particular, the provider in turn determines the functionality of lead users who are the primary audience for the box, by controlling which software runs on it Internet innovation are PC users and likely to and when, if ever, that software is updated. remain so. Although they are likely to be the Finally, we posit a third class of appliances early adopters of Internet appliances as well, early that do not currently exist. Class 3 appliances appliance successes (e.g., the Palm Pilot and would be like Class 2 in that devices could be Blackberry) and failures (e.g., Netpliance) suggest updated, but unlike Class 2 and like PCs in that that these users’ focus will be on devices that aim users would control the updates. Class 3 appli- to complement the PC rather than substitute for ances would differ from PCs, however, in requir- it. Therefore, we do not expect the introduction ing less sophistication and involvement from the of appliances to change the lead user model for user to accomplish updates. They may also sup- the diffusion of innovation that we discussed port a more limited range of functions than a above, in which the users of PCs who are most PC, much as a Palm Pilot currently functions as comfortable installing new software remain the a sort of scaled-down PC.3 initial market for innovation. Rather than requiring users to take explicit Table 2 illustrates a framework for reasoning actions to keep their devices current with every about the effect that changing degrees of distri- possible upgrade, a Class 3 appliance might be bution and adoption costs have on the pace of equipped with software that is intelligent enough innovation in networked systems. to observe and interpret user behavior, deter- Today’s PC-based Internet fits in box 4 of 3 Although in principle a mine when an upgrade or enhancement is need- Table 2: it is characterized by low adoption and Class 3 device could have ed, and make it happen. PCs are already taking distribution costs, and therefore exhibits at least as much function- primitive steps in this direction, such as automat- extremely rapid innovation. Adoption costs are ality as a Class 1 or 2 ed installation of updates and low because with the PC, users need only install device, it is possible that dialog boxes that automatically appear, asking software to adopt innovations. Such updates may certain elements that may users if they would like to download the plug-in carry some cost in complexity, but are typically be critical to the deploy- software they need to view content in a newly only incremental changes within a familiar ment of specific classes of released Web format. The development of meth- framework, with low monetary cost. Distribution applications may appear ods to more broadly, reliably, and proactively costs are low because innovations can be intro- first in Class 1 or 2 simplify the user experience through this kind of duced to Internet users with little or no change devices (e.g., GPS for implicit reconfiguration of the appliance is an to network infrastructure. location-dependent ser- active area of academic and industry computer In contrast to vertically oriented networks vices). science research. that were designed to support a particular appli-

48 IEEE Communications Magazine • October 2001 Distribution cost (cost imposed on network infrastructure to support first user’s use of the innovation)

High (vertically oriented networks) Low (Internet)

Adoption cost High 1. Slow (e.g., TV) 3. Rapid: non-viable appliance business (cost imposed on each user to model adopt innovation in CPE) Low 2. Fundamental innovations slow to emerge; 4. Rapid potentially rapid innovation at the margins (e.g., cell phone)

Table 2. The pace of innovation as a function of innovation cost components. cation such as television or telephony (boxes 1 If innovation adoption costs are higher, appli- and 2), the Internet was designed with a hori- ances may constitute a policy threat to the pace zontally layered architecture that is agnostic of Internet innovation.5 However, if adoption with respect to support for particular applica- costs are too high, the appliance is not a threat tions and the CPE that implements them. The because it simply cannot succeed in the Internet 4 See [2, 3] for more dis- Internet provides a network transport service environment. For example, box 3 of Table 2 pre- cussion of the Internet’s that is generic enough to suit the needs of a dicts commercial failure for Class 1 devices that “spanning layer” or “bear- wide range of current and future applications, are expensive. By their nature, Class 1 appli- er service” architecture running on whatever CPE suits them.4 As a ances are incompatible with any Internet feature and its implications. result, the cost to modify network infrastructure introduced after the device is built. The only way to support new user functionality is generally to update them is to replace them. Given the 5 We do not address here much lower for the Internet than for other net- pace at which new Internet features emerge and, other factors that will worked systems, and there is no particular rea- as we have argued, will continue to emerge, affect adoption costs, such son to foresee appliances changing this picture. Class 1 devices will rapidly become obsolete. We as the cost of changing In other words, there is no reason to expect therefore speculate that Class 1 appliances will one’s e-mail address or cell appliances to shift the Internet from box 4 to only succeed as inexpensive, short-lived, and phone number, because boxes 1 or 2 in Table 2. readily replaceable devices, much as consumers they are potentially com- The practical impact of the Internet’s generic have come to treat cell phones.6 A refrigerator mon to all types of devices. transport architecture is evident in the wide or car with Internet access, on the other hand, range of applications currently running over the had better not be built as a Class 1 appliance. 6 Data fromCahners in Internet (e-mail, Web, instant messaging, tele- Given its higher cost and longer life span, it 2000 show that the average phony, streaming audio, video, etc.) and the con- needs to be able to adapt to a changing time to replace a cell tinuous emergence of new applications over Internet.7 phone in the United States time. Because the Internet’s architecture makes Class 2 appliances vary in the costs they impose went from once every four the cost to try out new ideas on PC-based Inter- on users to adopt Internet innovation: in Table 2, years in 1990 to once every net users so low, the audience does not have to they may fit in box 3, box 4, or somewhere between. two years in 1998. World- be very large to motivate continued production In Class 2, the service provider associated with the wide replacement rates are of innovation. Even if the number of PC users device controls the nature and timing of enhance- estimated to be somewhat never grows beyond its current size, it is already ments to the appliance’s functionality. If the ser- lower than this, but still large enough. Therefore, we expect the stream vice provider happens to update the device to reasonably rapid (between of new Internet applications to continue to flow, support the particular innovation a user wants by 2.5 and 3 years). even if PCs make up a smaller share of a grow- the time he wants it, the user’s adoption cost is ing overall market for Internet CPE. actually lower than with a PC (box 4). 7 This expectation is quite If Internet appliances do not change the cost If not, however, the user must either live different from those set by of either the development or distribution of without the innovation (incurring a cost in frus- previous generations of Internet innovation, the policy implications of tration) or switch service providers to adopt the appliances. Consider televi- any given Internet appliance must depend on its innovation. Switching costs can be quite high in sion sets. As box 1 of Table innovation adoption cost — in other words, how Class 2: users definitely have to purchase a dif- 2 shows, TVs are part of a much cost it imposes for users to stay current ferent appliance to work with a different service, vertically oriented system in with the ongoing emergence of Internet innova- and they may have to write off the cost of future which innovations, such as tions. Innovation adoption costs differ according service they have prepaid as part of a long-term the introduction of color or to the class and nature of each appliance. These contract with the original provider. If switching digital TV formats, require costs may be lower or higher than the cost of costs are too high, the Class 2 appliance tends extremely expensive changes adopting Internet innovation in today’s PC. toward box 3 in Table 2 which, we have argued, to many parts of the system If they are lower, as they could be if Class 3 is not likely to be a viable marketplace position. (e.g., replacement of all TV appliances become reality, then from a public The challenge for Class 2 appliance providers, cameras). Not surprisingly, policy perspective appliances can be considered then, is to craft pricing and update strategies such innovations happen a beneficial expansion of Internet CPE options. that build customer loyalty but do not leave cus- extremely infrequently, at Greater product differentiation means that more tomers feeling fenced in.8 time intervals measured in users’ needs will be served and the overall mar- There are several reasons providers may not tens of years. In this envi- ket will expand. Furthermore, the pace of inno- always keep Class 2 appliances totally up to ronment, consumers are vation can increase, since automated approaches date with every possible innovation a user willing to buy an expensive do not suffer from the relatively limited patience could want. Low-cost devices may have techni- appliance (a fancy TV set) and willingness of human beings to explicitly cal limitations such as limited memory and disk even though it cannot adapt deal with rapid change. space. Service providers may decide that some to future innovations.

IEEE Communications Magazine • October 2001 49 innovations will add too much complexity to CONCLUSIONS the user’s experience, are irrelevant to the par- ticular purpose of the appliance,9 or present In summary, whether Internet appliances threat- legal or other risks (e.g., enabling copyright en to retard Internet innovation depends on the infringement for which the provider may even- class of appliance. The truly fixed function appli- tually be held liable). ances we define as Class 1 are unlikely to place a Competitive strategy may also influence a serious drag on innovation, because they are service provider to delay the adoption of some only likely to succeed in the marketplace if they innovations, especially if they involve interopera- are inexpensive, frequently replaced devices. tion with services offered by competitors. For Rather than Class 1 appliances threatening to example, the Compaq/ MSN compan- retard Internet innovation, the already existing ion appliances were introduced with support for fact of rapid Internet innovation threatens to multimedia files in Microsoft’s Media Player for- preclude the emergence of expensive Class 1 mat, but not in the (more prevalent) format pro- devices in the first place. moted by their competitor, RealNetworks. Class 2 appliances are more difficult to ana- Similarly, AOL-only appliances would probably lyze, presenting a range of gray areas to con- not be quick to adopt interoperation with other sumers and policy makers seeking the right services’ instant message formats. balance between ease of use and flexibility, The line between technical limitation and between rapid innovation and familiarity, and anti-competitive abuse will be a fine one that, we between legitimate competition and abuse of speculate, policy makers and consumers will dominant market position. If we are to judge by increasingly be called on to distinguish with the weak marketplace response to Class 2 Inter- regard to Internet appliances. For example, con- net appliances that have been marketed to date sider the question of what should appear on the with high barriers to consumer exit, consumers screen when an Internet-enabled wireless phone do seem to be quite aware of, and unenthused is turned on. The screen is very small and can by, the extent to which high switching costs only display a few lines of text. In addition, navi- would lock them into particular devices and ser- gation is limited (some of us would rather have vices. This kind of lock-in may be a policy issue our teeth drilled than type a URL on a tiny in its own right, especially if coupled with other phone keypad). A menu item that appears on products, services, or practices that raise the first one or two screens is much more likely antitrust concerns. From the perspective of to be accessed than one that requires navigation encouraging continued innovation, however, through multiple levels. Within this environ- Class 2 appliances are unlikely to pose a serious ment, who gets to decide which services should policy threat as long as consumers continue to be most easily accessible? reject those that make innovation overly expen- Some European mobile service providers sive to adopt. thought it should be them, and set up the The lack of clear success among Internet phones for their services so that they automati- appliances to date suggests that fundamentally cally went to their so-called portal sites. If the different approaches are needed. Our Class 3 mobile service provider could shut out compet- appliance focuses on leaving control with the ing portals, it would effectively gain control over user, but automating away much of the complex- which content and service providers have any ity associated with that control. Promising chance of success in the mobile market — con- research in this direction is underway at many trol it can use to extract rents from would-be academic and industrial labs, including our own. content providers, or from consumers who This research is motivated primarily by the become captive to advertising and so on. But in desire to encourage user acceptance by simplify- May 2000, a French court ruled that France ing the user experience. We suggest that it will Telecom had to give its wireless Internet cus- also have the beneficial effect of encouraging 8 As one industry contact tomers a choice of which Web page first continued innovation in a world that includes put it, the happy medium appeared on their screens — just as most PC- Internet appliances. is “the lightly walled gar- based Web browsers do — rather than automat- den with the well-marked ically directing them to France Telecom’s Web exit” that services like site. In June 2000, British Telecommunication’s ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AOL and NTT’s DoCo- CellNet Ltd. came to the same conclusion in The authors gratefully acknowledge the support Mo have achieved. response to customer pressure. of the industrial sponsors of the MIT Internet & The tepid marketplace response to many Telecoms Convergence Consortium (ITC), listed 9 For example, if new Class 2 appliances to date suggests that cus- on ITC’s Web site at http://itel.mit.edu. Thanks audio file formats emerge, tomers do pay attention to the switching costs also to anonymous reviewers, Emy Tseng of digital picture frames will they impose. If Class 2 appliances were much MIT, and Lorrie Faith Cranor of AT&T Labs almost certainly not be less expensive than PCs, consumers might not for helpful comments. updated to handle them. mind being so tied to a particular service In contrast to the situation provider. If they find they dislike the service, or BIBLIOGRAPHY with PCs, there is no their provider goes out of business, their sunk expectation that a picture cost is low. But this is not yet the case, and it [1] L. McKnight, P. Vaaler, and R. Katz, Eds., Creative Destruction: Business Survival Strategies in the Global frame appliance will be appears many potential appliance customers Internet Economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. transformed into a stereo choose the PC when faced with a cost-compara- [2] Comp. Sci. and Telecommun. Board, Nat’l. Research Coun- — just as there is no ble choice between a complex but general-pur- cil. Realizing the Information Future: The Internet and expectation that a toaster pose and more future-proof PC, and a simpler Beyond, Washington, DC: Nat’l. Academy Press, 1994. [3] W. Lehr and P. Kavassalis, “The Flexible Specialization Path oven will be transformed but more limited and less adaptive Class 2 Inter- of the Internet,” Convergence in Communications and into a microwave. net appliance. Beyond, E. Bohlin et al., Eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000.

50 IEEE Communications Magazine • October 2001 BIOGRAPHIES architecture, technology, and protocols of large, decentral- ized communication systems such as the Internet, and sys- SHARON EISNER GILLETT [M] ([email protected]) is a research tems aspects of pervasive computing. His current work The lack of clear associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology includes the Personal Router, aimed at altering the eco- (MIT) and executive director of the IT Internet & Telecoms nomics of ubiquitous wireless access, and the NewArch success among Convergence Consortium (http://itel.mit.edu). She is also project, focusing on Internet architecture for the 10–20- the principal of Victory Research, a consultancy. Her year timeframe. He has contributed to several generations Internet research focuses on Internet infrastructure technology and of research in the field of network quality of service, and policy. Her particular areas of expertise include broadband has authored and co-authored a number of standards for appliances to access to the Internet, the post-PC Internet, and universal IP QoS support. He is a member of ACM and the IETF, service. She received her M.B.A. and M.S. in technology where he chairs the ISSLL working group and is a member date suggests and policy from MIT in 1995 and her A.B. in physics from of the Transport Area directorate. He holds S.B and S.M. Harvard-Radcliffe in 1982. From 1982 to 1992 she devel- degrees from MIT. that fundamental- oped computer networking software and managed pro- jects for BBN Communications Corporation and Thinking DAVID D. CLARK [F] ([email protected]) is a senior research ly different Machines Corporation. scientist at the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, where he has worked since 1973, when he received his approaches are WILLIAM H. LEHR ([email protected]) is a research associate at Ph.D. there. Since the mid-1970s he has been leading the MIT and associate director of the MIT Internet & Telecoms development of the Internet; from 1981 to1989 he acted needed. Our Convergence Consortium (MIT ITC). He is also an associate as chief protocol architect in this development, and chaired research scholar on the faculty of Columbia University’s the Internet Activities Board. Recent activities include Class 3 appliance Graduate School of Business where he was a professor extensions to the Internet to support real-time traffic, from 1991 through 1996, and a research associate at the explicit allocation of service, pricing and related economic focuses on Columbia Institute of Tele-Information. He teaches courses issues, and policy issues surrounding the Internet, such as on the economics, business strategy, and public policy local loop deployment. His current research looks at new leaving control issues facing telecommunications, Internet, and e-com- models for deployment of wireless communications in the merce companies. He has published articles on such topics post-PC device era, and rethinking of the architectural with the user, but as the impact of the Internet on industry structure, underpinnings of the Internet. He has also worked on com- telecommunications regulation, and the pricing of Internet puter and communications security. He is the principal automating away services. In addition to his academic research, he provides investigator of the MIT Internet and Telecoms Convergence litigation, economic, and business strategy consulting ser- Consortium. He is a member of the National Academy of much of the vices for firms in the information technology industries. He Engineering and chair of the Computer Science and holds a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford (1992), an Telecommunications Board of the National Research Coun- complexity M.B.A. from the Wharton Graduate School (1985), and cil, where he has contributed to a number of studies on M.S.E. (1984), B.S. (1979), and B.A. (1979) degrees from the societal and policy impact of computer communica- associated with the University of Pennsylvania. tions. He is a Fellow of the ACM and has received numer- ous awards for his technical and public policy work on the that control. JOHN T. WROCLAWSKI [M] ([email protected]) is a research sci- Internet, including the ACM SigComm award (1990), the entist with the Advanced Network Architecture Group at IEEE Award in International Communication (1995), the MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science. His technical inter- IEEE Hamming Award (1998), and the IEEE Communica- ests include core principles of self-organizing systems, the tions Society Award for Public Service (2000).

IEEE Communications Magazine • October 2001 51