The Computer as a Communication Device

J.C.R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor

Reprinted from Science and Technology, April 1968.

©Science and Technology 1968

This paper was also reprinted in:

In Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider 1915-1990
Research Report 61
Digital Equipment Corporation Systems Research Center
August 1990
http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/research-reports/abstracts/src-rr-061.html
 The Computer as a Communication
Device
In a few years, men will be able to communicate more effectively through
a machine than face to face.
That is a rather startling thing to say, but it is our conclusion. As if in
confirmation of it, we participated a few weeks ago in a technical meeting
held through a computer. In two days, the group accomplished with the aid
of a computer what normally might have taken a week.
We shall talk more about the mechanics of the meeting later; it is suf-
ficient to note here that we were all in the same room. But for all the
communicating we did directly across that room, we could have been thou-
sands of miles apart and communicated just as effectively-as people-over
the distance.
Our emphasis on people is deliberate. A communications engineer thinks
of communicating as transferring information from one point to another in
codes and signals.
But to communicate is more than to send and to receive. Do two tape
recorders communicate when they play to each other and record from each
other? Not really-not in our sense. We believe that communicators have
to do something nontrivial with the information they send and receive. And
we believe that we are entering a technological age in which we will be able
to interact with the richness of living information—not merely in the passive
way that we have become accustomed to using books and libraries, but as
active participants in an ongoing process, bringing something to it through
our interaction with it, and not simply receiving something from it by our
connection to it.
To the people who telephone an airline flight operations information ser-
vice, the tape recorder that answers seems more than a passive depository.
It is an often-updated model of a changing situation—a synthesis of informa-
tion collected, analyzed, evaluated, and assembled to represent a situation
or process in an organized way.
Still there is not much direct interaction with the airline information
service; the tape recording is not changed by the customer’s call. We
want to emphasize something beyond its one-way transfer: the increasing
significance of the jointly constructive, the mutually reinforcing aspect of
communication—the part that transcends “now we both know a fact that
only one of us knew before.” When minds interact, new ideas emerge. We
want to talk about the creative aspect of communication.

21
 Creative, interactive communication requires a plastic or moldable medium
that can be modeled, a dynamic medium in which premises will flow into
consequences, and above all a common medium that can be contributed to
and experimented with by all.
Such a medium is at hand—the programmed digital computer. Its pres-
ence can change the nature and value of communication even more pro-
foundly than did the printing press and the picture tube, for, as we shall
show, a well-programmed computer can provide direct access both to infor-
mational resources and to the processes for making use of the resources,

Communication: a comparison of models

To understand how and why the computer can have such an effect on com-
munication, we must examine the idea of modeling-in a computer and with
the aid of a computer. For modeling, we believe, is basic and central to com-
munication. Any communication between people about the same thing is
a common revelatory experience about informational models of that thing.
Each model is a conceptual structure of abstractions formulated initially in
the mind of one of the persons who would communicate, and if the concepts
in the mind of one would-be communicator are very different from those in
the mind of another, there is no common model and no communication.
By far the most numerous, most sophisticated, and most important mod-
els are those that reside in men’s minds, In richness, plasticity, facility, and
economy, the mental model has no peer, but, in other respects, it has short-
comings. It will not stand still for careful study. It cannot be made to repeat
a run. No one knows just how it works. It serves its owner’s hopes more
faithfully than it serves reason. It has access only to the information stored
in one man’s head. It can be observed and manipulated only by one person.
Society rightly distrusts the modeling done by a single mind. Soci-
ety demands consensus, agreement, at least majority. Fundamentally, this
amounts to the requirement that individual models be compared and brought
into some degree of accord. The requirement is for communication, which
we now define concisely as “cooperative modeling” —cooperation in the con-
struction, maintenance, and use of a model.
How can we be sure that we are modeling cooperatively, that we are
communicating, unless we can compare models?
When people communicate face to face, they externalize their models
so they can be sure they are talking about the same thing. Even such
a simple externalized model as a flow diagram or an outline-because it

22
can be seen by all the communicators—serves as a focus for discussion. It
changes the nature of communication: When communicators have no such
common framework, they merely make speeches at each other; but when
they have a manipulable model before them, they utter a few words, point,
sketch, nod, or object.
The dynamics of such communication are so model-centered as to sug-
gest an important conclusion: Perhaps the reason present-day two-way
telecommunication falls so far short of face-to-face communication is simply
that it fails to provide facilities for externalizing models. Is it really seeing
the expression in the other’s eye that makes the face-to-face conference so
much more productive than the telephone conference call, or is it being able
to create and modify external models?

The project meeting as a model

In a technical project meeting, one can see going on, in fairly clear relief,
the modeling process that we contend constitutes communication. Nearly
every reader can recall a meeting held during the formulative phase of a
project. Each member of the project brings to such a meeting a somewhat
different mental model of the common undertaking—its purposes, its goals,
its plans, its progress, and its status. Each of these models interrelates the
past, present, and future states of affairs of (1) himself; (2) the group he
represents; (3) his boss; (4) the project.
Many of the primary data the participants bring to the meeting are in
undigested and uncorrelated form. To each participant, his own collections
of data are interesting and important in and of themselves. And they are
more than files of facts and recurring reports. They are strongly influenced
by insight, subjective feelings, and educated guesses. Thus, each individual’s
data are reflected in his mental model. Getting his colleagues to incorporate
his data into their models is the essence of the communications task.
Suppose you could see the models in the minds of two would-be commu-
nicators at this meeting. You could tell, by observing their models, whether
or not communication was taking place. If, at the outset, their two models
were similar in structure but different simply in the values of certain pa-
rameters, then communication would cause convergence toward a common
pattern. That is the easiest and most frequent kind of communication.

23
 When mental models are dissimilar, the achievement of
communication might be signaled by changes in the structure
of one of the models, or both of them.

If the two mental models were structurally dissimilar, then the achieve-
ment of communication would be signaled by structural changes in one of
the models or in both of them. We might conclude that one of the communi-
cating parties was having insights or trying out new hypotheses in order to
begin to understand the other—or that both were restructuring their mental
models to achieve commonality.
The meeting of many interacting minds is a more complicated process.
Suggestions and recommendations may be elicited from all sides. The inter-
play may produce, not just a solution to a problem, but a new set of rules
for solving problems. That, of course, is the essence of creative interaction.
The process of maintaining a current model has within it a set of changing
or changeable rules for the processing and disposition of information.
The project meeting we have just described is representative of a broad
class of human endeavor which may be described as creative informational
activity. Let us differentiate this from another class which we will call infor-
mational housekeeping. The latter is what computers today are used for in
the main; they process payroll checks, keep track of bank balances, calculate

24
orbits of space vehicles, control repetitive machine processes, and maintain
varieties of debit and credit lists. Mostly they have not been used to make
coherent pictures of not well understood situations.
We referred earlier to a meeting in which the participants interacted
with each other through a computer. That meeting was organized by Doug
Engelbart of Stanford Research Institute and was actually a progress-review
conference for a specific project. The subject under discussion was rich in
detail and broad enough in scope that no one of the attendees, not even the
host, could know all the information pertaining to this particular project.

Face to face through a computer

Tables were arranged to form a square work area with five on a side. The
center of the area contained six television monitors which displayed the
alphanumeric output of a computer located elsewhere in the building but
remotely controlled from a keyboard and a set of electronic pointer con-
trollers called “mice.” Any participant in the meeting could move a near-by
mouse, and thus control the movements of a tracking pointer on the TV
screen for all other participants to see.
Each person working on the project had prepared a topical outline of
his particular presentation for the meeting, and his outline appeared on the
screens as he talked—providing a broad view of his own model. Many of the
outline statements contained the names of particular reference files which
the speaker could recall from the computer to appear in detail on the screens,
for, from the beginning of the project, its participants had put their work
into the computer system’s files.
So the meeting began much like any other meeting in the sense that there
was an overall list of agenda and that each speaker had brought with him
(figuratively in his briefcase but really within the computer) the material he
would be talking about.
The computer system was a significant aid in exploring the depth and
breadth of the material. More detailed information could be displayed when
facts had to be pinpointed; more global information could be displayed to
answer questions of relevance and interrelationship. A future version of this
system will make it possible for each participant, on his own TV screen,
to thumb through the speaker’s files as the speaker talks—and thus check
out incidental questions without interrupting the presentation for substan-
tiation.

25
At a project meeting held through a computer, you can thumb through the
speaker’s primary data without interrupting him to substantiate or explain.

A communication system should make a positive contribution to the

discovery and arousal of interests.

26
 Obviously, collections of primary data can get too large to digest. There
comes a time when the complexity of a communications process exceeds the
available resources and the capability to cope with it; and at that point one
has to simplify and draw conclusions.
It is frightening to realize how early and drastically one does simplify,
how prematurely one does conclude, even when the stakes are high and
when the transmission facilities and information resources are extraordi-
nary. Deep modeling to communicate—to understand—requires a huge in-
vestment. Perhaps even governments cannot afford it yet.
But someday governments may not be able not to afford it. For, while
we have been talking about the communicant ion process as a cooperative
modeling effort in a mutual environment, there is also an aspect of com-
munication with or about an uncooperative opponent. As nearly as we can
judge from reports of recent international crises, out of the hundreds of al-
ternatives that confronted the decision makers at each decision point or ply
in the “game,” on the average only a few, and never more than a few dozen
could be considered, and only a few branches of the game could be explored
deeper than two or three such plies before action had to be taken. Each side
was busy trying to model what the other side might be up to-but modeling
takes time, and the pressure of events forces simplification even when it is
dangerous.
Whether we attempt to communicate across a division of interests, or
whether we engage in a cooperative effort, it is clear that we need to be able
to model faster and to greater depth. The importance of improving decision-
making processes—not only in government, but throughout business and the
professions—is so great as to warrant every effort.

The computer—switch or interactor?

As we see it, group decision-making is simply the active, executive, effect-
producing aspect of the kind of communication we are discussing. We have
commented that one must oversimplify. We have tried to say why one must
oversimplify. But we should not oversimplify the main point of this article.
We can say with genuine and strong conviction that a particular form of
digital computer organization, with its programs and its data, constitutes
the dynamic, moldable medium that can revolutionize the art of modeling
and that in so doing can improve the effectiveness of communication among
people so much as perhaps to revolutionize that also.
But we must associate with that statement at once the qualification that

27
the computer alone can make no contribution that will help us, and that
the computer with the programs and the data that it has today can do
little more than suggest a direction and provide a few germinal examples.
Emphatically we do not say: “Buy a computer and your communication
problems will be solved.”
What we do say is that we, together with many colleagues who have had
the experience of working on-line and interactively with computers, have
already sensed more responsiveness and facilitation and “power” than we
had hoped for, considering the inappropriateness of present machines and
the primitiveness of their software. Many of us are therefore confident (some
of us to the point of religious zeal) that truly significant achievements, which
will markedly improve our effectiveness in communication, now are on the
horizon.
Many communications engineers, too, are presently excited about the
application of digital computers to communication. However, the function
they want computers to implement is the switching function. Computers
will either switch the communication lines, connecting them together in
required configurations, or switch (the technical term is “store and forward”)
messages.
The switching function is important but it is not the one we have in
mind when we say that the computer can revolutionize communication. We
are stressing the modeling function, not the switching function. Until now,
the communications engineer has not felt it within his province to facilitate
the modeling function, to make an interactive, cooperative modeling facility.
Information transmission and information processing have always been car-
ried out separately and have become separately institutionalized. There are
strong intellectual and social benefits to be realized by the melding of these
two technologies. There are also, however, powerful legal and administrative
obstacles in the way of any such melding.

Distributed intellectual resources

We have seen the beginnings of communication through a computer—com-
munication 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

28
 magnetic tapes by messenger or mail. Computer programs are very impor-
tant because they transcend mere “data’’—they include procedures and pro-
cesses for structuring and manipulating data. These are the main resources
we can now concentrate and share with the aid of the tools and techniques
of computers and communication, but they are only a part of the whole
that we can learn to concentrate and share. The whole includes raw data,
digested data, data about the location of data—and documents —and most
especially models.
To appreciate the import ante the new computer-aided communication
can have, one must consider the dynamics of “critical mass,” as it applies
to cooperation in creative endeavor. Take any problem worthy of the name,
and you find only a few people who can contribute effectively to its solution.
Those people must be brought into close intellectual partnership so that
their ideas can come into contact with one another. But bring these people
together physically in one place to form a team, and you have trouble, for
the most creative people are often not the best team players, and there are
not enough top positions in a single organization to keep them all happy.
Let them go their separate ways, and each creates his own empire, large
or small, and devotes more time to the role of emperor than to the role of
problem solver. The principals still get together at meetings. They still visit
one another. But the time scale of their communication stretches out, and
the correlations among mental models degenerate between meetings so that
it may take a year to do a week’s communicating. There has to be some way
of facilitating communicant ion among people wit bout bringing them together
in one place.
A single multiaccess computer would fill the bill if expense were no ob-
ject, but there is no way, with a single computer and individual communi-
cation lines to several geographically separated consoles, to avoid paying an
unwarrantedly large bill for transmission. Part of the economic difficulty
lies in our present communications system. When a computer is used in-
teractively from a typewriter console, the signals transmitted between the
console and the computer are intermittent and not very frequent. They do
not require continuous access to a telephone channel; a good part of the
time they do not even require the full information rate of such a channel.
The difficulty is that the common carriers do not provide the kind of service
one would like to have---a service that would let one have ad lib access to
a channel for short intervals and not be charged when one is not using the
channel.
It seems likely that a store-and-forward (i.e., store-for-just-a-moment-

29
and-forward-right-away) message service would be best for this purpose,
whereas the common carriers offer, instead, service that sets up a channel
for one’s individual use for a period not shorter than one minute.
The problem is further complicated because interaction with a computer
via a fast and flexible graphic display, which is for most purposes far superior
to interaction through a slow-printing typewriter, requires markedly higher
information rates. Not necessarily more information, but the same amount
in faster bursts—more difficult to handle efficiently with the conventional
common-carrier facilities.
It is perhaps not surprising that there are incompatibilities between the
requirements of computer systems and the services supplied by the common
carriers, for most of the common-carrier services were developed in support
of voice rather than digital communication. Nevertheless, the incompatibil-
ities are frustrating. It appears that the best and quickest way to overcome
them—and to move forward the development of interactive communities of
geographically separated people—is to set up an experimental network of
multiaccess computers. Computers would concentrate and interleave the
concurrent, intermittent messages of many users and their programs so as
to utilize wide-band transmission channels continuously and efficiently, with
marked reduction in overall cost.

Computer and information networks

The concept of computers connected to computers is not new. Computer
manufacturers have successfully installed and maintained interconnected
computers for some years now. But the computers in most instances are
from families of machines compatible in both software and hardware, and
they are in the same location. More important, the interconnected comput-
ers are not interactive, general-purpose, multiaccess machines of the type
described by David [1] and Licklider [2]. Although more interactive multi-
access computer systems are being delivered now, and although more groups
plan to be using these systems within the next year, there are at present
perhaps only as few as half a dozen interactive multiaccess computer com-
munities.
These communities are socio-technical pioneers, in several ways out ahead
of the rest of the computer world: What makes them so? First, some of their
members are computer scientists and engineers who understand the concept
of man-computer interaction and the technology of interactive multiaccess
systems. Second, others of their members are creative people in other fields

30
 and disciplines who recognize the usefulness and who sense the impact of
interactive multiaccess computing upon their work. Third, the communi-
ties have large multiaccess computers and have learned to use them. And,
fourth, their efforts are regenerative.
In the half-dozen communities, the computer systems research and devel-
opment and the development of substantive applications mutually support
each other. They are producing large and growing resources of programs,
data, and know-how. But we have seen only the beginning. There is much
more programming and data collect ion—and much more learning how to
cooperate-to be done before the full potential of the concept can be real-
ized.
Obviously, multiaccess systems must be developed interactively. The
systems being built must remain flexible and open-ended throughout the
process of development, which is evolutionary.
Such systems cannot be developed in small ways on small machines.
They require large, multiaccess computers, which are necessarily complex.
Indeed, the sonic barrier in the development of such systems is complexity.
These new computer systems we are describing differ from other com-
puter systems advertised with the same labels: interactive, time-sharing,
multiaccess. They differ by having a greater degree of open-endedness, by
rendering more services, and above all by providing facilities that
foster a working sense of community among their users. The commercially
available time-sharing services do not yet offer the power and flexibility of
soft ware resources—the “general purposeness’’—of the interactive multiac-
cess systems of the System Development Corporation in Santa Monica, the
University of California at Berkeley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in Cambridge and Lexington, Mass.—which have been collectively serving
about a thousand people for several years.
The thousand people include many of the leaders of the ongoing revolu-
tion in the computer world. For over a year they have been preparing for
the transition to a radically new organization of hardware and software, de-
signed to support many more simultaneous users than the current systems,
and to offer them—through new languages, new file-handling systems, and
new graphic displays—the fast, smooth interaction required for truly effec-
tive man-computer partnership.
Experience has shown the importance of making the response time short
and the conversation free and easy. We think those attributes will be almost
as important for a network of computers as for a single computer.
Today the on-line communities are separated from one another function-

31
ally as well as geographically. Each member can look only to the processing,
storage and software capability of the facility upon which his community is
centered. But now the move is on to interconnect the separate communi-
ties and thereby transform them into, let us call it, a supercommunity. The
hope is that interconnection will make available to all the members of all the
communities the programs and data resources of the entire supercommunity.
First, let us indicate how these communities can be interconnected; then we
shall describe one hypothetical person’s interaction with this network, of
interconnected computers.

Message processing
The hardware of a multiaccess computer system includes one or more central
processors, several kinds of memory—core, disks, drums, and tapes—and
many consoles for the simultaneous on-line users. Different users can work
simultaneously on diverse tasks. The software of such a system includes su-
pervisory programs (which control the whole operation), system programs
for interpretation of the user’s commands, the handling of his files, and
graphical or alphanumeric display of information to him (which permit peo-
ple not skilled in the machine’s language to use the system effectively), and
programs and data created by the users themselves. 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.
For each node there is a small, general-purpose computer which we shall
call a “message processor.” The message processors of all the nodes are
interconnected to form a fast store-and-forward network. The large multi-
access computer at each node is connected directly to the message processor
there. 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 selected combinations of those resources. The
message processors, being all alike, introduce an element of uniformity into
an otherwise grossly nonuniform situation, for they facilitate both hardware
and software compatibility among diverse and poorly compatible computers.
The links among the message processors are transmission and high-speed
digital switching facilities provided by common carrier. This allows the link-
ing of the message processors to be reconfigured in response to demand.

32
 A message can be thought of as a short sequence of “bits” flowing through
the network from one multiaccess computer to another. It consists of two
types of information: control and data. Control information guides the
transmission of data from source to destination. In present transmission
systems, errors are too frequent for many computer applications. How-
ever, through the use of error detection and correction or retransmission
procedures in the message processors, messages can be delivered to their
destinations intact even though many of their “bits” were mutilated at one
point or another along the way. In short, the message processors function
in the system as traffic directors, controllers, and correctors.
Today, programs created at one installation on a given manufacturer’s
computer are generally not of much value to users of a different manufac-
turer’s computer at another installation. After learning (with difficulty) of
a distant program’s existence, one has to get it, understand it, and recode
it for his own computer. The cost is comparable to the cost of preparing a
new program from scratch, which is, in fact, what most programmers usu-
ally do. On a national scale, the annual cost is enormous. Within a network
of interactive, multiaccess computer systems, on the other hand, a person at
one node will have access to programs running at other nodes, even though
those programs were written in different languages for different computers.
The feasibility of using programs at remote locations has been shown by
the successful linking of the AN/FSQ-32 computer at Systems Development
Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., with the TX-2 computer across the
continent at the Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington, Mass. A person at a TX-
2 graphic console can make use of a unique list-processing program at SDC,
which would be prohibitively expensive to translate for use on the TX-2. A
network of 14 such diverse computers, all of which will be capable of sharing
one another’s resources, is now being planned by the Defense Department’s
Advanced Research Projects Agency, and its contractors.
The system’s way of managing data is crucial to the user who works in
interaction with many other people. It should put generally useful data, if
not subject to control of access, into public files. Each user, however, should
have complete control over his personal files. He should define and distribute
the “keys” to each such file, exercising his option to exclude all others from
any kind of access to it; or to permit anyone to “read” but not modify or
execute it; or to permit selected individuals or groups to execute but not read
it; and so on—with as much detailed specification or as much aggregation
as he likes. The system should provide for group and organizational files
within its overall information base.

33
 Interactive communication consists of short spurts of dialog . . . . .

At least one of the new multiaccess systems will exhibit such features.
In several of the research centers we have mentioned, security and privacy
of information are subjects of active concern; they are beginning to get the
attention they deserve.
In a multiaccess system, the number of consoles permitted to use the
computer simultaneously depends upon the load placed on the computer
by the users’ jobs, and may be varied automatically as the load changes.
Large general-purpose multiaccess systems operating today can typically
support 20 to 30 simultaneous users. Some of these users may work with
low-level “assembly” languages while others use higher-level “compiler” or
“interpreter” languages. Concurrently, others may use data management
and graphical systems. And so on.
But back to our hypothetical user. He seats himself at his console, which
may be a terminal keyboard plus a relatively slow printer, a sophisticated
graphical console, or any one of several intermediate devices. He dials his
local computer and “logs in” by presenting his name, problem number, and
password to the monitor program. He calls for either a public program, one
of his own programs, or a colleague’s program that he has permission to use.
The monitor links him to it, and he then communicates with that program.
When the user (or the program) needs service from a program at another

34
 . . . filibustering destroys communication.

node in the network, he (or it) requests the service by specifying the location
of the appropriate computer and the identity of the program required. If
necessary, he uses computerized directories to determine those data. The
request is translated by one or more of the message processors into the
precise language required by the remote computer’s monitor. Now the user
(or his local program) and the remote program can interchange information.
When the information transfer is complete, the user (or his local program)
dismisses the remote computer, again with the aid of the message processors.
In a commercial system, the remote processor would at this point record cost
information for use in billing.

Who can afford it?

The mention of billing brings up an important matter. Computers and long-

distance calls have “expensive” images. One of the standard reactions to the
idea of “on-line communities” is: “It sounds great, but who can afford it ?“
In considering that question, let us do a little arithmetic. The main
elements of the cost of computer-facilitated communication, over and above
the salaries of the communicators, are the cost of the consoles, processing,
storage, transmission, and supporting software. In each category, there is a

35
wide range of possible costs, depending in part upon the sophistication of
the equipment, programs, or services employed and in part upon whether
they are custom-made or mass-produced.
Making rough estimates of the hourly component costs per user, we
arrived at the following: $1 for a console, $5 for one man’s share of the
services of a processor, 70 cents for storage, $3 for transmission via line
leased from a common carrier, and $1 for software support—a total cost of
just less than $11 per communicator hour.
The only obviously untenable assumption underlying that result, we be-
lieve, is the assumption that one’s console and the personal files would be
used 160 hours per month. All the other items are assumed to be shared
with others, and experience indicates that time-sharing leads on the aver-
age to somewhat greater utilization than the 160 hours per month that we
assumed, Note, however, that the console and the personal files are items
used also in individual problem solving and decision making. Surely those
activities, taken together with communication, would occupy at least 25%
of the working hours of the on-line executive, scientist or engineer. If we
cut the duty factor of the console and files to one quarter of 160 hours per
month, the estimated total cost comes to $16 per hour.
Let us assume that our $16/hr interactive computer link is set up be-
tween Boston, Mass., and Washington, D.C. Is $16/hr affordable? Compare
it first with the cost of ordinary telephone communication: Even if you
take advantage of the lower charge per minute for long calls, it is less than
the daytime direct-dial station-to-station toll. Compare it with the cost of
travel: If one flies from Boston to Washington in the morning and back in
the evening, he can have eight working hours in the capital city in return for
about $64 in air and taxi fares plus the spending of four of his early morning
and evening hours en route. If those four hours are worth $16 each, then
the bill for the eight hours in Washington is $128—again $16 per hour. Or
look at it still another way: If computer-aided communication doubled the
effectiveness of a man paid $16 per hour then, according to our estimate, it
would be worth what it cost if it could be bought right now. Thus we have
some basis for arguing that computer-aided communication is economically
feasible. But we must admit that the figure of $16 per hour sounds high,
and we do not want to let our discussion depend upon it.
Fortunately, we do not have to, for the system we envision cannot be
bought at this moment. The time scale provides a basis for genuine opti-
mism about the cost picture. It will take two years, at least, to bring the
first interactive computer networks up to a significant level of experimental

36
 activity. Operational systems might reach critical size in as little as six years
if everyone got onto the bandwagon, but there is little point in making cost
estimates for a nearer date. So let us take six years as the target.
In the computer field, the cost of a unit of processing and the cost of
a unit of storage have been dropping for two decades at the rate of 50%
or more every two years. In six years, there is time for at least three such
drops, which cut a dollar down to 12 1/2 cents. Three halvings would take
the cost of processing, now $5 per hour on our assumptions, down to less
than 65 cents per hour.
Such advances in capability, accompanied by reduction in cost, lead us
to expect that computer facilitation will be affordable before many people
are ready to take advantage of it. The only areas that cause us concern are
consoles and transmission.
In the console field, there is plenty of competition; many firms have
entered the console sweepstakes, and more are entering every month. Lack
of competition is not the problem. The problem is the problem of the
chicken and the egg—in the factory and in the market. If a few companies
would take the plunge into mass manufacture, then the cost of a satisfactory
console would drop enough to open up a mass market. If large on-line
communities were already in being, their mass market would attract mass
manufacture. But at present there is neither mass manufacture nor a mass
market, and consequently there is no low-cost console suitable for interactive
on-line communication.
In the field of transmission, the difficulty may be lack of competition.
At any rate, the cost of transmission is not falling nearly as fast as the cost
of processing and storage. Nor is it falling nearly as fast as we think it
should fall. Even the advent of satellites has affected the cost picture by less
than a factor of two. That fact does not cause immediate distress because
(unless the distance is very great) transmission cost is not now the dominant
cost. But, at the rate things are going, in six years it will be the dominant
cost. That prospect concerns us greatly and is the strongest damper to
our hopes for near-term realization of operationally significant interactive
networks and significant on-line communities.

On-line interactive communities

But let us be optimistic. What will on-line interactive communities be like?
In most fields they will consist of geographically separated members, some-
times grouped in small clusters and sometimes working individually. They

37
will be communities not of common location, but of common interest. I n
each field, the overall community of interest will be large enough to support
a comprehensive system of field-oriented programs and data.
In each geographical sector, the total number of users—summed over
all the fields of interest—will be large enough to support extensive general-
purpose information processing and storage facilities. All of these will be
interconnected by telecommunications channels. The whole will constitute
a labile network of networks—ever-changing in both content and configura-
tion.
What will go on inside? Eventually, every informational transaction of
sufficient consequence to warrant the cost. Each secretary’s typewriter, each
data-gathering instrument, conceivably each dictation microphone, will feed
into the network.
You will not send a letter or a telegram; you will simply identify the
people whose files should be linked to yours and the parts to which they
should be linked-and perhaps specify a coefficient of urgency. You will
seldom make a telephone call; you will ask the network to link your consoles
together,
You will seldom make a purely business trip, because linking consoles will
be so much more efficient. When you do visit another person with the object
of intellectual communication, you and he will sit at a two-place console
and interact as much through it as face to face. If our extrapolation from
Doug Engelbart’s meeting proves correct, you will spend much more time
in computer-facilitated teleconferences and much less en route to meetings.
A very important part of each man’s interaction with his on-line commu-
nity will be mediated by his OLIVER. The acronym OLIVER honors Oliver
Selfridge, originator of the concept. An OLIVER is, or will be when there is
one, an “on-line interactive vicarious expediter and responder,” a complex
of computer programs and data that resides within the network and acts
on behalf of its principal, taking care of many minor matters that do not
require his personal attention and buffering him from the demanding world.
“You are describing a secretary,” you will say. But no! Secretaries will have
OLIVERS.
At your command, your OLIVER will take notes (or refrain from taking
notes) on what you do, what you read, what you buy and where you buy it.
It will know who your friends are, your mere acquaintances. It will know your
value structure, who is prestigious in your eyes, for whom you will do what

38
 Your computer will know who is prestigious in your eyes and
buffer you from a demanding world.

with what priority, and who can have access to which of your personal files.
It will know your organization’s rules pertaining to proprietary information
and the government’s rules relating to security classification.

Some parts of your OLIVER program will be common with parts of other
people’s OLIVERS; other parts will be custom-made for you, or by you, or
will have developed idiosyncrasies through “learning” based on its experience
in your service.

Available within the network will be functions and services to which you
subscribe on a regular basis and others that you call for when you need them.
In the former group will be investment guidance, tax counseling, selective
dissemination of information in your field of specialization, announcement of
cultural, sport, and entertainment events that fit your interests, etc. In the
latter group will be dictionaries, encyclopedias, indexes, catalogues, edit-
ing programs, teaching programs, testing programs, programming systems,
data bases, and—most important—communication, display, and modeling
programs.

39
 All these will be—at some late date in the history of networking—
systematized and coherent; you will be able to get along in one basic lan-
guage up to the point at which you choose a specialized language for its
power or terseness.

When people do their informational work “at the console” and “through
the network,” telecommunication will be as natural an extension of individ-
ual work as face-to-face communication is now. The impact of that fact,
and of the marked facilitation of the communicative process, will be very
great—both on the individual and on society.

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, communica-
tion will be more effective and productive, and therefore more enjoyable.
Third, much communication and interaction will be with programs and pro-
grammed models, which will be (a) highly responsive, (b) supplementary to
one’s own capabilities, rather than competitive, and (c) capable of repre-
senting 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 op-
portunity 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.

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.

On the other hand, 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.

Unemployment would disappear from the face of the earth forever, for
consider the magnitude of the task of adapting the network’s software to all
the new generations of computer, coming closer and closer upon the heels
of their predecessors until the entire population of the world is caught up in
an infinite crescendo of on-line interactive debugging.

40
Acknowledgements
Evan Herbert edited the article and acted as intermediary during its writing
between Licklider in Boston and Taylor in Washington.
Roland B. Wilson drew the cartoons to accompany the original article.

References
[1] Edward E. David, Jr., “Sharing a Computer,” International Science
and Technology, June, 1966.

[2] J. C. R. Licklider, “Man-Computer Partnership,” International Science

and Technology, May, 1965.

41