report on Workshop on Basic Research in Telecommunication

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Report

 
Workshop on

Basic Research in Telecommunication

 

May 23, 2003

 

Sponsored by:

Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California

Columbia Institute for Tele-Information at Columbia University

Galileo Marconi International Fellowship Foundation at Columbia University.


A. Michael Noll

Rapporteur

 
Contents
 
SUMMARY.....................................................................
.................................................................... 3

BACKGROUND..................................................................
.................................................................. 3

WHY IS BASIC RESEARCH
IMPORTANT?..................................................................
......................... 4

IS THERE A 
PROBLEM?....................................................................
................................................. 5

DEFINING THE NEED FOR BASIC
RESEARCH....................................................................
................. 5

SUPPORT 
MECHANISMS..................................................................
.................................................. 6

Appendix A. Wall 
Charts......................................................................
............................................. 8

Appendix B. Participant
Comments....................................................................
............................ 10

Appendix C. List of Workshop
Participants:...............................................................
................... 12

Appendix D. 
Readings:...................................................................
.................................................. 13
 
 
 
 
 


Report of Workshop on Basic Research in Telecommunication

 

 

³Leave the beaten track occasionally and dive into the woods.

You will be certain to find something that you have never seen before.²

Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1947)

 

 

 
SUMMARY
 

This report summarizes the deliberations of a workshop to discuss the
current state of basic research related to telecommunication. A group of
distinguished leaders of telecommunication research, most of whom have led
or performed work at Bell Labs or one of its offspring, were invited to
participate in the workshop, which was held on the afternoon of May 23, 2003
on the campus of Columbia University.

 

The overall consensus was that there is a problem facing the future of basic
research in telecommunication because of inadequate levels of support and
increasing emphases on short term applications. These factors are largely a
result of restructuring, the resulting competition, and the poor financial
health  of the telecommunication industry. The conclusion was that
government support is warranted and required in the interest of innovation,
economic growth, national security, balance of trade, and other national
goals. While recommendations were made and potential models explored, the
specifics of the mechanism for such support were unclear, as were the ways
to assure relevance and connection between basic research and the practical
problems of the telecommunication industry.

 

The workshop raised more questions than it put to rest. That, in fact, was
its purpose‹to help open the dialogue and catalyze a response, ultimately
with a broader set of interested parties who are increasingly vocal in their
concerns about basic research in the United States today. In capturing the
workshop deliberations, this report therefore does not represent new or
detailed research into the problem, but instead highlights the general views
of the participants.

 

 
BACKGROUND
 

The fate of fundamental telecommunication research conducted at industrial
laboratories seems to be at risk. Since the Bell breakup of 1984, this basic
research previously performed exclusively at Bell Labs has become
increasingly fragmented. Today the remaining research units are at AT&T,
Telecordia, Lucent Technologies, Avaya Systems, and Agere Systems. Cutbacks
and changing missions afflict these entities, thereby threatening the
environment for basic research. The computer industry¹s labs are not filling
the void‹they have only limited overlap in mission and face many of the same
market constraints as the telecommunication industry. Academic research has
not focused that strongly on telecommunication basic research and
traditionally is challenged by the issues of mission and proximity to real
problems. Yet, as it has in the past, the long-term future of
telecommunication in the United States will continue to be shaped by
advances in basic fundamental research.

 

The decline in basic telecom research is the subject of increasing concern.
On the very day the workshop took place, the front page of the Wall Street
Journal heralded the stakes. Days before, the Bush Administration
reconstituted the President¹s Information Technology Advisory Committee. In
parallel, the National Research Council is leading a exploration into the
subject. This fall, CITI will be holding an event to report on its policy
recommendations for the recovery of the telecommunication industry. Despite
concerns at these levels, however, the feeling among the general public is
that there is a glut of technology‹90 percent, or more, of the potential
capacity of U.S. fiber optic networks is currently said to go unused, and
yet new high-tech advances in capacity continue to appear on the scene.

 

 
WHY IS BASIC RESEARCH IMPORTANT?
 

Usually, it takes from 10 to 20 years for the application of basic research
to evolve into practical results. This long-term horizon has become
difficult for industry to justify in today¹s competitive world with its
emphasis on short-term profitability and incremental developments.

 

Basic research is the unfettered exploration of new knowledge, resulting in
discoveries and innovation. The conduct of the research is defined by the
researchers themselves, rather than by concerns for improvements in current
products and services. Knowledge and illuminating the way for the future are
the goals of basic research.

 

The history of the science and technology of telecommunication shows a
steady stream of important discoveries and advances flowing from basic
research, such as the transistor, the laser, microwave radio, and
communication satellites, to mention just a few. This kind of innovation has
contributed to affordable telecommunication for all people around the world
and specifically to a telecommunication industry that generate nearly 3% of
the gross national product of the United States.

 

The new knowledge and discoveries that result from basic research create the
foundation for surprises in the future of communication. The same knowledge
also helps prevent unanticipated surprises. For example, electronic,
computer-controlled switching changed telephone switching. Yet the basic
concepts of electronic switching were discovered decades before its
implementation in actual switching machines. There is a need for scouting by
competent researchers of where technology is going, since this helps
illuminate the future.

 

Yet innovation appears to be on the decline in the United States. It is
debatable whether this is unique to the United States or a worldwide trend.
If unique, then the United States risks being left behind other countries in
the discovery of new knowledge and its application to goods and services.

 

Basic research is important to global competitiveness in another way.
Developing nations seem able to manufacture anything more cheaply than
anyone else. Thus with such globalism, the only way to stay ahead is to
innovate. Those doing the basic research have clear ³first mover²
advantages.

 

There is a need for the real innovations that come from basic research in
telecommunication. The future of telecommunication was determined very much
by such research in the past. Today¹s world of telecommunication would be
very sparse without these past innovations. These past discoveries and
innovations indicate that research will result in future innovation, equally
impressive and significant.

 

National security is of much concern, along with issues of network
reliability and vulnerability. A broader view of networks is required to
supplement and even replace the disjointed views of individual carriers.

 

 

IS THERE A PROBLEM?
 

The overall majority of the participants believed strongly that there is a
problem with the current state of telecommunication basic research. Some
felt that the problems were specific only to certain areas. In comparing
today¹s Bell legacy with Bell Labs before divestiture, it appears that the
number of researchers has not changed. However, the numbers conceal what is
really going on, namely, an emphasis on short-term practical applications
rather than researcher-driven investigations. It was observed that ³horizons
are getting shorter.²

 

Today there are small numbers of self-directed people still doing basic
research, but the numbers thus engaged are not sufficient for today¹s
problems and for assuring the future. Also, much of today¹s research
emphasizes incremental progress rather than the risky work that can produce
real breakthroughs. What appears broken is the level of funding for basic
research to create new ideas that emphasize longer-term horizons.

 

Some of the participants felt that venture money was available for research.
However, the long-term horizons of research with uncertain payoffs would
most certainly not appeal to today¹s venture capitalists. The researchers
are there and the real problems are there. The missing link in the chain is
the lack of investment in supporting the research.

 

 
DEFINING THE NEED FOR BASIC RESEARCH
 

In the past, much research resulted in innovations in products that were
ultimately manufactured and provided. Today¹s broader context is in
services. The future challenge is no longer the physical layer that so
stimulated much of the research of the past.

 

Some research topic areas that were mentioned include: operations,
networking, security and resiliency, database algorithms, provisioning,
management of networks, worry-free networks, and network stability and
interoperability. Most of these topics are service oriented in terms of
their application. 

 

Transmission and switching enable connectivity. But today the provisioning
of connectivity has become a commodity. Differentiation and value are
created in the provisioning of services delivered over connectivity. This is
a fundamental change in telecommunication with implications for research.

 

A critical mass of researchers is needed. A few scattered researchers at
different companies is not an effective way to perform the basic research
that is needed for telecommunications.

 

To justify the support of and the investment in basic research, a vision of
the accomplishments and rationale for basic research in telecommunication
needs to be articulated and promulgated. This vision must capture the
imagination and demonstrate a national significance.

 

 

SUPPORT MECHANISMS
 

Businesses that are real or virtual monopolies (such as the old Bell System,
IBM of the past, and today¹s Microsoft) are able to support their own basic
research laboratories, since the expense can be subsidized by monopoly
profits. Businesses in competitive industries are less able to do so,
because the long-term horizons and broader relevance of such basic research
are inconsistent with the near-term financial imperatives of competitive
markets. Thus, government‹the ultimate monopoly‹is really the only source of
support for basic research to benefit competitive industrial sectors.
Telecommunication today is much more competitive than in the days of the old
Bell monopoly, and thus government support of basic research in
telecommunication is now needed.

 

Such service providers as the Baby Bells are not supporting any basic
research. It seems difficult for them to make a rationale for such support.
Instead, they rely on the research performed by the manufacturers, such as
Lucent¹s Bell Labs.

 

The Federal government should make the funds available for the support of
basic research in telecommunication. This research should develop new ideas
for the long-term future of telecommunication in the United States. The
clear beneficiary of this research would be the country.

 

Various sources of funding were discussed, such as tax credits,
reprioritizations of existing funds, the 3% excise tax on
telecommunications, spectrum auctions, and the Universal Service Fund.
Political factors could make access to some of these sources quite
challenging. There is a risk that tax credits and some sources of research
funds simply disappear into companies¹ general budgets and do not directly
support research. With the large amount of R&D funding by the Federal
government, a small reprioritization could result in substantially increased
funds for telecommunication basic research, which has been under funded
historically, possibly because of the past extensive commitment by the old
Bell System.

 

Some form of endowment should be created over time to create financial
security and independence. One possible source for such an endowment would
be from the value of intellectual property.

 

The old Bell Labs performed the function of a national laboratory in
telecommunication basic research, producing a long list of discoveries and
innovations with broad benefits to the United States and communications.
Competitive pressures mitigate against industry support of such benevolence
today. Thus government support of telecommunication basic research is
warranted and needed to assure the long-term future of telecommunication and
the role of the United States in guaranteeing innovation.

 

There are many different venues for such basic research, including
universities, university/industry partnerships, consortia, industry
laboratories, and government laboratories. Each has their own advantages and
disadvantages in terms of effectiveness, relevance, and excellence.

 

U.S. government-funded research, in the past, has seeded such crucial
developments as the Internet, and has advanced fiber optics (Multiwavelength
Optical Network, or MONET). Both were sponsored by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The National Science Foundation has
provided important fellowships and funded research in the field. Priorities
and processes within either of these organizations could be studied and
recast, as necessary, to handle a larger portfolio of basic research in
telecommunication. 

 

Some form of national telecommunication laboratory might be warranted. Such
a national telecommunication laboratory should be a separate not-for-profit
corporation‹not a government laboratory. Some of the factors essential for
success of such a facility include independence, competent management, links
to relevant problems, a national rationale, and continuity of financial
support. At its peak, before the divestiture of 1984, Bell Labs supported
research at a level of about $300 million (1,200 researchers).
Consideration should be given to achieving similar levels today through a
combination of government and industry funding. Such funding should be
considered within the context of the telecom industry¹s nearly 3%
contribution to national GNP.

 

Research needs freedom, but also exposure to real problems. Basic research
must somehow be connected to the business models in the market. Lucent, to
its credit, has attempted this, as expressed in its branding of ³Bell Labs
Innovations.²

 

The transfer of technology from research to application is essential. One
possible way of transferring technology and assuring relevance is through
the transfer and sharing of people. Industry people could come to the lab
and visa versa. But it was observed that when this mechanism has been used
usually junior people who are not essential are the ones sent, which loses
any real impact.

 

A consortium model for linkages to practical problems and technology
transfer has been tried repeatedly but mostly with poor results. Bellcore is
an example of a failed consortium to support telecommunication research. The
management of the Argonne and Brookhaven laboratories could be possible
models for a national telecommunication laboratory. So too could the Sandia
Laboratory, which was managed for years by Western Electric, with close ties
to practical problems.

 

Fellowships, administered through the National Science Foundation, are an
appropriate and successful mechanism to attract and support young
researchers in telecommunication-related fields and topics.

 

 

Appendix A. Wall Charts
 
 

Terminology

 

            € Basic Research

            € Applied Research

            € Systems Engineering

            € Exploratory Development

            € Development

 

 

 

 

Number of Bell Family Researchers vs. Time

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Conditions for Research

 

            € secure, stable, long-term funding

            € sense of purpose & clear mission

            € freedom to fail

            € ties to real-world problems

 

 


 

Research Fragmentation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Discoveries & Innovations

(representative list)

 

RADIO ASTRONOMY

HI-FI

NEGATIVE FEEDBCK

COMMUNICATION THEORY

TRANSISTOR

UNIX OPERATING SYSTEM

CELLULAR WIRELESS

LASER

VOCODER

ADAPTIVE ECHO CANCELLER

COMPUTER ART & MUSIC

SOLID-STATE PHYSICS

PULSE CODE MODULATION

FAST FOURIER TRANSFORM

ELECTRET MICROPHONE

PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR CELL

ERBIUM-DOPED FIBER AMPLIFIER

CCD IMAGER

COMMUNICATION SATELLITES
 
 
Appendix B. Participant Comments
 
The participants in the workshop were given an opportunity to comment on a
draft of this report and to express their own thoughts. This section
presents those comments.
 
Rob Calderbank

 

When there was one Bell System, there was vertical integration of service
infrastructure, network / service / customer management, and network
infrastructure within a telecommunications monopoly. The business model of
guaranteed return on investment made it possible to use service revenue to
fund basic research across a broad spectrum of research disciplines. In fact
this model encouraged unfettered exploration, since the greater the
investment, the greater was the return.

 

Vertical integration is no more, and today, the telecommunications industry
is fragmented into different horizontal layers. Service infrastructure
supports the business solutions practice that is of primary importance to
IBM and others, network / service/ customer management is the core
competence of multiple carriers as well as an emerging service industry, and
Lucent is one of very many network infrastructure providers. These different
layers have very different economics. Today connectivity is a commodity
business, and success is tied to sales to the enterprise, and to sales at
the edge of the network rather than the core. The higher margins are
associated with value added services, for example, running distributed
applications across wide area networks. What IP networking does is reinforce
this separation of service value from network connectivity.

 

It may be that connectivity became a commodity business through the madness
of over investment in telecommunications, and that margins may return over
time, but commodity businesses can not be expected to sustain significant
long term investment in basic research. Today, all network infrastructure
players are embracing network and service management as a new growth
business, and are reorienting basic research to support the shift. There is
not a strong tradition of support for basic research within
telecommunications carriers, and where there are long term investments they
are tightly coupled to improving operational efficiency, so that even where
there is basic research, it is a means rather than an end. On the other
hand, there is a long tradition of support for basic research within IBM and
HP, and a shorter history at Microsoft. Within IBM, I think it would be
instructive to look at total numbers over time, but particularly at the
distribution between IT infrastructure and services.

 

This analysis is consistent with the observation of declining support for
basic research within the Bell family of companies and increasing emphasis
on custom network solutions. There is in fact reason to consider the near
term value of innovation to carriers and network infrastructure providers
that are encumbered by significant legacy businesses. For example, advancing
the practicability of VoIP cannibalizes legacy voice revenue, and direct
wireless connection to an IP network substitutes for legacy cellular
connection. There has been more innovation at the network edge and this is
consistent with there being less friction associated with introducing
innovation in services.

 

Federal support for a national telecommunications laboratory can only be
justified by importance to the nation. Even if we were to find that the Bell
family of companies has fallen short in its support for fundamental
research, it would be necessary to identify consequences in terms of global
competitiveness, or national security that are sufficiently compelling to
justify federal funding. Certainly there is reason to be concerned about
access to broadband, the stability of IP networks, and the security of IP
services.  

 

 

 

 

 

A. Michael Noll

 

In order to justify the support of and the investment in basic research, a
vision of the accomplishments and rationale for basic research in
telecommunication needs to be articulated and promulgated. This vision must
capture the imagination and demonstrate a national significance. Of basic
research in telecommunication.

 

This might imply a need for public illumination and education of the role of
telecommunication basic research. Some form of telecommunication museum
(perhaps at the Smithsonian or at some location in New Jersey where so much
of the research was performed) might make sense to help achieve this goal.
Another mechanism would be a focused media campaign, using appropriate
researchers to humanize the message and also to attract young people to this
field. Clearly attention should be given to these and other media relations
and public relations aspects of telecommunication basic research.

 

What seems required is a spokesperson who can clearly articulate the need
and mission of telecommunication basic research, drawing on the relevance of
past accomplishments and expressing excitement for the future. In the past,
John R. Pierce and William O. Baker of Bell Labs very much had that role.
The computer industry has quite a few very visible advocates,
telecommunication research needs equivalent spokespersons and advocates.

 

A ³national telecommunication laboratory² might seem warranted, managed in a
corporate style but funded by the government. A number of smaller
laboratories, located in a variety of venues, but linked together might also
function as such a national resource in a manner loosely similar to the old
ARPA community. The key conclusions, though, seem to be that basic research
in telecommunication has suffered as a result of the fragmentation of the
telecommunication industry, that such research will continue to be essential
to the future of telecommunication, and that some broader form of support is
required.

 

The precipitous drop in the number of researchers seems to be a trend that
will continue. But numbers alone do not tell the story. There has been a
radical change in the nature of the work that is classified as ³research,²
with the majority of it today being much more of an exploratory and applied
nature. While in the past of a few decades ago, over 90% of the work
classified as research was fundamental basic research, today the feeling is
that only 10% (or even less) is basic research. Most of ³research² today is
incremental in nature or in support of existing products and services.

 

 

Appendix C. List of Workshop Participants:
 

Industry, Government, Academic Representatives:

Robert Calderbank ­ AT&T Labs

David Farber ­ University of Pennsylvania

A. G. (Sandy) Fraser ­ Fraser Labs

Jeffrey Jaffe ­ Bell Labs Research

John C. B. LeGates ­ Harvard University

Robert W. Lucky ­ Retired, Telcordia

Andrew M. Odlyzko ­ University of Minnesota

Mark Pinto ­ Agere Systems

Lawrence R. Rabiner ­ Rutgers University

Casimir Skrzypzak ­ Retired, NYNEX

Edmond J. Thomas ­ Federal Communications Commission

 

Sponsor Representatives:

Robert C. Atkinson ­ Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

Darcy Gerbarg ­ Marconi Fellowship Foundation

John Jay Iselin ­ Marconi Fellowship Foundation

Eli Noam ­ Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

 

Chair:

Karen Lynch ­ Markle Foundation

 

Organizer & Rapporteur:

A. Michael Noll ­ Annenberg School at USC

 

Sponsors:

The workshop was sponsored jointly by:

€ the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern
California;

€ the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information at Columbia University; and

€ the Galileo Marconi International Fellowship Foundation at Columbia
University.

Planning and arrangements were performed by the Marconi Fellowship
Foundation, and the Annenberg School provided financial support. The
workshop was coordinated with a panel of the National Research Council that
is studying research in telecommunication and was held with the cooperation
of the Markle Foundation.

 


 
Appendix D. Readings:
 

Noll, A. Michael, ³Bell System R&D Activities,² Telecommunications Policy,
Vol. 11, No. 2 (June 1987), pp. 161-178.

 

Pierce, John R., ³Some Thoughts About Laboratories And Research Therein,²
June 13, 1986, unpublished piece.

 

Noll, A. Michael, ³The Effects of Divestiture on Telecommunications
Research,² Journal of Communication, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Winter 1987), pp.
73-80.

 

Pierce, John R. & A. Michael Noll, SIGNALS: The Science of
Telecommunication, Scientific American Books (New York, NY), 1990, ³The
System That Was,² pp. 219-223.

 

Noll, A. Michael, ³The Future of AT&T Bell Labs and Telecommunications
Research,² Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 15, No. 2  (April 1991), pp.
101-105.

 

David, Jr., Edward E., ³Science in the Post-Cold War Era,² The Bridge,
Spring 1994, pp. 3-8.

 

Odlyzko, Andrew M., ³The Decline of Unfettered Research,² October 4, 1995,
unpublished essay.

 

Noll, A. Michael, ³The communications revolution began in New Jersey; it may
end here,² The Sunday Star-Ledger, April 21, 1996, Section Ten, p.5.

 

Stix, Gary, ³The Relentless Storm,² Scientific American, March 2003, pp.
42-45.

 

Noll, A. Michael, ³Telecommunication Basic Research: An Uncertain Future for
the Bell Legacy,² Prometheus. 2003. Accepted for publication.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/