* * * * *
The Stupid Network
> The paradox arises from the meaning of “best.” If “best” meant, "generate
> the most cash for the network owner," there would be no paradox. But if we
> accepted this meaning of best, we'd have to be content with the tightly-
> controlled, relatively thin stream of bits that the telephone companies
> currently grant us. Communications networks have a more important job than
> generating return on investment—their value comes from their connectivity
> and from the services they enable. Therefore, the best network delivers
> bits in the largest volumes at the fastest speeds. In addition, the best
> network is the most open to new communications services; it closes off the
> fewest futures and elicits the most innovation.
>
> Designing a network that is intelligently tuned (optimized) for a
> particular type of data or service—such as TV or financial transactions—
> inevitably makes that network less open. As software engineers say,
> “Today's optimization is tomorrow's bottleneck.” Thus, the best network is
> a “stupid” network that does nothing but move bits. Only then is the
> network truly open to any and all services that want to use it, no matter
> how innovative or how unexpected. In the best network, the services live at
> the edges of the network and use the network to transport bits; they do not
> rely on any special characteristics of the network itself.
>
Via How to Monopolize the New Network [1], “The Paradox of the Best Network
[2]”
This, along with Rise of the Stupid Network [3] explains why the Internet has
gained such a significant role in the world's infrastructure since it was
commercialized nine years ago. The network doesn't care what traffic it
carries, only that it does; it's up to the edges to add intelligence, which
is easier to do than adding intelligence in the network itself.
[1]
http://isen.com/archives/030304.html
[2]
http://netparadox.com/netparadox.html
[3]
http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html
Email author at
[email protected]
