SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Stay informed! Sign up to get expert advice and insight delivered direct to your inbox
Debate: Smart Vs. Dumb Networks
I've just finished sitting through a very bizarre (for lack of a better word) session at the NGN Conference where two panelists directly debated the notion of smart (central, AT&T-like) networks vs. dumb (deregulated, open public Internet-style) networks. Here are...
November 3, 2004
3 Min Read
I've just finished sitting through a very bizarre (for lack of a better word) session at the NGN Conference where two panelists directly debated the notion of smart (central, AT&T-like) networks vs. dumb (deregulated, open public Internet-style) networks. Here are a few highlights from what turned out to be a very spirited debate.
Representing Stupid Networks: David Isenberg, Principle Prosultant (sm) with Isen.com
Definition: Intelligent networks:
Application-specific
Application-aware
Run by experts
Centrally administered
Centrally planned
Resource optimized (QoS, load balancing)
Costs:
Ridged
Expensive
Inflexible
Quote: Nicolas Negroponte: "Some bits are worth more than other bits."
We should optimize what's plentiful. We should build a network of the future with what scales--a big, fat-piped stupid infrastructure.
Is there enough raw material out there? Oh yes. Just look at these two laws:
Gilder's law (transmission capability)
Moore's Law (transistor density)
Definition: Stupid Networks
Are general purpose networks (not application aware)
Separate networks from applications
Are innovation-friendly
Not centrally planned
Have unreliable physical and link layers (but reliable where it matters)
Have explicit costs (buy as many 9s as you need)
90s wins: e-mail, e-commerce, Web, audio on demand, instant messaging, blogging, telephony, all were created at the edge of the stupid network.
Intelligent Network Failures: AT&T true voice, three years and $800 million to boost 3db to make voice sound better. And it broke applications (speech recognition).
Stupid Network Success: Skype: twice the audio bandwidth, runs over unmanaged public network, uses an echo canceller at the edge of the network.
The stupid network is built on the end-to-end principle: If you're doing something in the middle of the Net or at the edge, do it at the edge.
Quote: "Googin's paradox: The best network is perfectly extensible, and perfectly capital repellant."
The politics of the stupid network:
Freedom of speech
Participation
Pluralism
Diversity of opinion, believe actively
Competitive markets
Freedom to success or fail on merit
But not:
Big companies
Big government
Regulation of/by/for insiders
Monopoly/duopoly
Locked in slow growing markets
Freedom to pick any color phone you want as long as its black.
Representing Smart Network: Tom Nolle, President, CIMI Corp.
There are three reasons why dumb networks are a dumb idea:
There aren't any dumb networks
There aren't enough buyers for dumb networks even if we had them
There isn't enough profit
You cannot have a market that only consists of consumers and not producers. Our mission is not to satisfy consumer demands at the expense of the provider.
The average router today has more intelligence than a 70s mainframe.
Consider Knights Constant: Ck=InIu
If you have a dumb service, you need smart people to consume it. If you have a smart service, it can't be served by dumb people.
90 percent of business sites have no technical support for their networks whatsoever.
Economics really do matter.
Quote: "We thought technology triumphed over dollars, and it doesn't. All the people who believe that still need to get paid."
ROI on dumb networks would be less than 18 percent, a profit margin suitable only for public utilities. In a world of declining margins, the last man standing is the guy with the lowest rate of return.
Quote: "There is no chance whatsoever in my lifetime that we'll re-regulate. If we can't change fundamental policies and regulations, what chance do we have to repeal basic economics? We'd have to re-regulate to retain capital credibility for the carrier industry in the dumb network scenario."
Worldwide, we've left utility status for carriers in favor of competition, which depends on opportunity.
What this is about is bucks not bits.
Quote: "We're talking about making tech open to all, not just to all technical yuppies. To do that, we need to have a producer whom we're willing to pay."
The debate we should have here is: How are we going to preserve the useful properties of the open Internet, the small number of sensible compelling things; how are we going to preserve those things while we create a network that's both consumable and profitable.
Quote: "So consider the truth: We know that populace-free networking doesn't work. Do we vote for smart networks and make those work or do we stick our heads in the Marxist sands of a lawless Internet?"
You May Also Like
More Insights
