Apr 18th 2008
From Economist.com
"Fear not, the dumb old internet can still cope
A DOZEN years have passed since David Isenberg, then a distinguished engineer at AT&T Labs, wrote his seminal essay “The Rise of the Stupid Network”. In it, he outlined how a new philosophy and architecture were changing the communications business, and pointed to some of the cataclysms ahead.
Far from being a scarce resource used intermittently, Dr Isenberg argued that future networks would be “always on”, with their intelligence located in the end-user’s equipment rather than within the network itself. They would make no fancy routing or traffic-management decisions; they would just “deliver the bits”.
Unlike the telephone circuits of the day, which used their built-in smarts to determine where messages were to be delivered, the data would tell the network where they wanted to go. In short, the data would be boss.
Far from being a scarce resource used intermittently, Dr Isenberg argued that future networks would be “always on”, with their intelligence located in the end-user’s equipment rather than within the network itself. They would make no fancy routing or traffic-management decisions; they would just “deliver the bits”.
Unlike the telephone circuits of the day, which used their built-in smarts to determine where messages were to be delivered, the data would tell the network where they wanted to go. In short, the data would be boss.
The stupid network Dr Isenberg had in mind was, of course, the internet we know today. Central to his vision was the radical notion that end-users—or customers—would be free to do as they pleased, and the network would make no assumptions about the kind or content of data being transmitted.
The engineering community applauded the idea. The phone companies (AT&T especially) thought it stank. And Dr Isenberg wound up working for himself.
Dr Isenberg will likely be watching this week’s deliberations by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with interest. As your correspondent was scribbling away, the FCC was preparing for its second hearing on network-management practices. The meeting, held at Stanford University on April 17th, concerns whether internet service providers (ISPs) should be allowed to shape, filter or even block content travelling over their networks.
The hearing stems from a complaint filed last autumn alleging that Comcast, America’s largest cable-TV company and one of its biggest ISPs, was blocking a perfectly legal file-sharing program called BitTorrent. Ever since, Comcast has been scrambling to prevent the FCC from rewriting its rules about peer-to-peer (P2P) software like BitTorrent, which is widely used to download video and other large multimedia files."
The engineering community applauded the idea. The phone companies (AT&T especially) thought it stank. And Dr Isenberg wound up working for himself.
Dr Isenberg will likely be watching this week’s deliberations by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with interest. As your correspondent was scribbling away, the FCC was preparing for its second hearing on network-management practices. The meeting, held at Stanford University on April 17th, concerns whether internet service providers (ISPs) should be allowed to shape, filter or even block content travelling over their networks.
The hearing stems from a complaint filed last autumn alleging that Comcast, America’s largest cable-TV company and one of its biggest ISPs, was blocking a perfectly legal file-sharing program called BitTorrent. Ever since, Comcast has been scrambling to prevent the FCC from rewriting its rules about peer-to-peer (P2P) software like BitTorrent, which is widely used to download video and other large multimedia files."
For more on this article please click on the following original link: Delivering the bits
Photo from Shutterstock
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment