ITEM 1
Congress May Balk on Net Upgrade
  (Reuters--June 2)

  Word is Congress may be skeptical about funding scientists' work on the next
generation of the Internet.

  Rather than stumbling over new hardware or software, the next generation
network has quickly run into several road blocks on Capitol Hill."

  This week scientists involved with the project -- including President
Clinton's top science adviser John Gibbons -- are heading for a Senate hearing
to try to soothe concerns.

   Some lawmakers worry the project lacks focus and is not sufficiently
different from a related university project known as Internet2.

  Announced with great fanfare in Clinton's re-election campaign last year,
Internet2 aims to send data at 1,000 times the speed of today's net, which
could spur a host of new uses for the network, some with sound and video.
Candidate Clinton pledged the government will spend $100 million annually for
five years to build the super high-speed network and promote its use.

  "The money was to come from reallocating existing research funds," says
Pressman, "but that plan is already in trouble. In April, the House of
Representatives passed a budget for the National Science Foundation that
specifically barred any spending on the next generation Internet. The bill is
awaiting action by the Senate and could be modified before going to the
president's desk."

  Last month, 28 senators sent a letter to science adviser Gibbons complaining
about the composition of the next generation Internet's advisory board.
Representing both political parties but all from rural states, the 28 noted the
board's 20 members came from only eight states.

  Said the letter, "Instead of a potentially major positive development,
therefore, 'Next Generation Internet' and Internet2 becomes a significant
source of concern for us."

  Meanwhile, officials with the National Science Foundation told the wire
service they are confident the program will go forward. Says NSF spokeswoman
Elizabeth Gaston, "Next Generation Internet is a presidential initiative that
will have a lot of congressional involvement."

  But some congressional staffers say they remain confused about the
administration's priorities, including details of which agencies get which
portions of the budget.

  To some degree the confusion reflects the changing fortunes of the
Internet. While the original Internet, including connections to
universities, was largely funded by government, this time around higher
education and industry are more likely to foot some of the bill. More than 100
schools have pledged to spend $50 million a year on Internet2, mainly for
higher speed connections and switches. The schools are also seeking corporate
sponsorship.

SECOND ITEM
New Net Must Involve Rural U.S.
  (Reuters--June 4)

  Powerful senators are warning the White House technical advisors that
development of the next generation of the Internet must involve rural states or
Congress won't fund it.

  At yesterday's hearing before the Senate Commerce subcommittee on
communications, senators appeared unhappy that "elite urban universities"
seem to have the best representation on a White House planning committee
for a new generation of the Internet, which backers say will run 100 to
1,000 times as fast as the existing one.

  Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican who chairs the Appropriations
Committee, said, "Why proceed with a proposal that will isolate the rural
universities? This proposal leaves us entirely out. You go back to the drawing
boards."

  As reported, President Clinton made the so-called "Internet2" proposal a
major issue in last year's re-election campaign, promising the government would
spend $100 million annually for five years to build the super high-speed
network and promote its use.

  However, some key senators are grumbling. For instance, Committee Chairman
Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican, says, "I am very concerned that rural
states are not being given a seat at the table as critical decisions are being
made," adding that of 20 members on Clinton's advisory committee on the new
Internet, 11 are from California and only eight states are represented overall.

  But, members of Clinton's technology team tell Lawsky they are ready to
accommodate the concerns of Congress as they fill existing vacancies on the
25-member committee.

  For instance, Henry Kelly, acting associate director of technology in the
White House Office of Sciences and Technology Policy, told the wire service,
"It was always our intention to get rural people on the committee."

  While Sen. Stevens said the new information highway sounded to him like an
ordinary highway project (where rural states need far more money than urban
states because they "drive five times longer"), director Neal Lane of the
National Science Foundation said the new Internet "is not (established)
infrastructure like a highway."

  Lane said this "is a work in progress, it is experimental. That is the reason
we need the nation's researchers to help us move forward."

  And Sen. Burns said that despite the dispute, he thought yesterday's hearing
set the stage for introduction of a bill to provide the needed money. Added
Burns, "We have to find a mechanism to put (the plan) together and present it
to Congress. I personally place a high importance on this project. People in
remote areas should have access to this new technology."