Slashdot Mirror
Telecosm
"The computer age is over."
In the first sentence of his book Telecosm, George Gilder seeks to garner your attention, shattering the widely held belief, especially on forums like Slashdot, that computers are still the most important development around. However, this is by no means an act of yelling "Fire" in the theatre, as Gilder goes on to explain exactly why patterned silicon [the level of the Microcosm, a previous Gilder book] is increasingly irrelevant to propelling the wave of revolution.
Gilder's thesis is relatively straightfoward: ages are defined by their scaracities and abundances. We've just gone through an age where silicon/computing power was scarce; now, it's become highly abundant. Presently, bandwidth is still relatively scarce [unless you live close to Silicon Valley or other metropolitan hubs]... but very soon, there will be a tremendous amount of bandwidth between everyone. With abundant bandwidth, things will start to change ...
Covering a lot of ground in his book, Gilder jumps casually between quantum phsyics and business sensiblities, from undersea cables laid by Global Crossing up to the LEO satellites launched by Globalstar. In between, he tells well-researched stories about Gates, Grove, Andreesen and many others. Gilder, also author of the Gilder Technology Report, has established his position in the finiancial-information world as someone who's horizon of clarity extends further than most others, and tailors his book to these readers [Appendix A, for example, is a listing of Telecosm players, with their symbols, stock prices and market caps; Appendix B consists of ~1 page detail about these companies.].
Gilder tells the stories of the invention of single-mode fiber, using the fused silica as a wave-guide for the light instead of simply a reflective-clad glass pipe. How the single-mode fiber is enhanced with erbium-doped amplifers, and how wavelength-division multiplexing brings the fiber into it's own, able to supplant the entire old intelligent networks with a simple, all-optical dumb network of enormous capacity. Gilder also quickly summarizes the difference between CDMA and TDMA, and makes more than a couple of references to Shannon, entropy and information theory.
After explaining the seven layers of the OSI model, Gilder argues that they will all be supplanted in the telecosm by the fibersphere, "eliminat[ing] virtually everything but the physical layer from the center of the network". After further proclaiming the imminent death of InterOp, Gilder talks about Metcalfe and the Ethernet as part of his larger message: the classic telecom companies have locked themselves into "copper cages," filled with expensive, intelligent and ultimately doomed control and switching equipment. As available bandwidth approaches infinity, this is not only unnecessary, but ultimately an impediment to communication [the light-into-electrons problem faced by optical-networking companies]. Later, Gilder dismisses ATM, with the statement, "Looming intelligence on the edge of the network will relieve all the current problems attributed to ethernets and will render the neatly calculated optimizations of ATM irrelevant."
While this is not to say that these companies cannot break out of their self-imposed cages, Gilder provides examples of the decisions made which allow new players to come up and stake their claims. How GE focus-grouped itself out of computers, networks and software. How AT&T can only go so far to increase their voice quality because of the cost of upgrading every component of the intelligent network. How government regulation helps create and keep the "Digital Divide" intact.
Gilder also profiles the smart decisions made -- usually by smaller, more nimble companies -- which have started to enable the fibersphere. For each, Gilder talks about the people behind these companies. How Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom flunked out of two "distinctly second-tier" colleges, then created WorldCom from scratch. How John Malone of TCI created a very veritcal arrangement of conduit and content, only to merge conduit and conduit later [merging with AT&T]. How Gary Winnick of Global Crossing, a disciple of Michael Milken, created one of the most exciting companies in the Telecosm. This is a book of names and companies, and by understanding who they are and from whence they came, Gilder allows us to understand just how powerful a force they are.
However, when it comes to predicting the changes associated with infinite bandwidth, Gilder begins to fall short. In just two fanciful chapters at the end, Gilder recaps on some themes of the work, and tells a story or two about the family of the Telecosm, reminiscent of 1950s-style "House of the Future" exhibits. Gilder here tells a story about dad listening to his computer tell him about his portfolio fluctuations while he shaves, the son getting immediate medical attention from the diagnostic sensor linked to the Internet, his daughter submiting her Calculus problems over the net, and his wife doing all the grocery shopping, online, by 9 a.m.
He does, however, have some very important words for the changing face of information delivery in the Telecosm, making promises impacting the nature of society. "The new rule is: The customer is sovereign and he knows what he wants: It is not your product; it is time." Gilder promises that businesses will be forced to abscond their implicit drive to waste your time. The average 38-month wait for the installation of a phone line, and the further telemarketing interruptions. The "supreme time waster", television. The decline of lame mass-market advertising, leaving only supremely-targeted ads which actually have a chance of being beneficial to you. Collaboration enabled by the fibersphere will be "liberated from hierarchies that often waste their time and talents," creating new cottage industries which will thrive and grow. This is a future in which the sovereign individual is freed to become as much as she allows.
Gilder's writing is quite readable, at times bordering on poetic. Though the typos in this edition are a bit annoying, they hardly detract from the quality of the content. However, Gilder does miss one important point; in the abundance of bandwidth, there becomes a new scarcity of content. In the end, Gilder's book may best be thought of as a call to arms: start wasting bandwidth, and start working on solving the next problem -- one of novel creation.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
I may be a lame ol' anonymous coward, but.. go check that link to worldcom given by an earlier poster.. does anybody get the idea that this book is really just a prolonged advertisement for worldcom?
the telecosm kids!!!
Wendy Wireless
Bobby Bandwidth
Pots!
(seriosuly, I worked at a dotcom who was actually thought a brochureware site with some poorly drawn cartoons and tech buzzwords would get picked up as a kids show. I'm fairly sure they stole the term telecosm from this guy)
For instance, no-one in our modern culture should be just watching TV. If they just do that, they're going to be only consuming one thing at a time. If they eat a bag of Doritos(TM) while watching TV, thay are consuming two things at once. If they eat a bag of Doritos and drink a Pepsi(TM), now they are consuming three things at once. Now the economy's really moving along. If they watch that TV with a TiVo(TM), or while having a TV Guide(TM) open to check other listings, now they're Quad-Consumers(TM) and are really helping out.
This is why we need mobile solutions. Read /. at home in your underwear, and you're only consuming one thing. If you have the JennyCam open in a second window, that's only two things. But read the site on your Palm Pilot(TM) at McDonalds(TM) and stop to play the Millionare(TM) game on the side of the Kollectible Klassic Kups, all while wearing Tommy Hilfiger(TM) clothes and Nike(TM) shoes, and your contribution to the GNP will be noticeable!
And if you read while you're driving with your Sprint PCS(TM) phone, and get in an accident and are taken to the Mercy Hospital(TM) in a Professional EMS Emergency Vehicle(TM), and have your heart re-started with a GE Shock-em Defibrillator(TM), all paid for by US Healthcare(TM), wow, you're a SUPER-CONSUMER! Right up to the time you're buried in a Casket Royale(TM)!
The old technologies generally don't disappear, but merge and are transformed by the new technologies. Take agriculture for example. Food production is as important as ever, but can be done by one percent of the population instead of fifty percent. Although a ten-thousand year old technology, it has embraced and been transformed by metallurgy (plows), chemicals, energy, computers, biotech, corporate management, and telecommunications (e.g. knowing the position of a tractor or grain shipment at all times).
Telephones haven't reached this state yet, either. Witness these horrible office systems with dozens of numeric function codes and the archaic system of phone numbers. When they become the "communicators" of Star Trek by automatically routing your messages, then they will have become true communications devices.
I got this book free online a couple weeks ago, although I haven't had time to read it yet...link is here: http://www.worldcom.com/us/info/t1/
Enjoy!
How did this get to be [4: insightful]?
It was written at the leading edge of the dotcom boom, and probably helped fuel some of the irrational exuberance that led to disasters like PSInet stock.
That's right, because saying the computer age is over is sure to drive up tech stocks. WTF?!?!
Gilder takes a few facts and selectively uses them to decorate a pre-existing world view.
Right, as opposed to what you do in the next paragraph, where you decry the Laffer Curve because the deficit increased, even though the Laffer Curve did accurately predict the increase in government revenues that did in fact occur. Talk about selective use (or misuse, rather) of facts.
Basically, your argument is this: Hey, this guy is a Republican, and the book as new as the latest Linux kernel, so why do we care?
Here's why you should care: the guy predicted that the computer age was over, and down it came. All sorts of computer manufacturers are losing money because PCs have become commodities, and even some of the telecom companies are starting to lose cash as their monopolies break up. His views on evolution aren't terribly relevant to the computer industry, and bringing them up is a cheap way to avoid having to address his arguments.
Finally, just about everything in economics (and every other "social science") is far from proven. Say's Law, the basis of supply-side economics and classical economics, has its successes and its failures, as does Keynesian economics, its main competitor. What's your point?
At the same time though, Americans are reading less and less.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm surprised that /. is reviewing Telecosm now; it has been out for a few years now. It was written at the leading edge of the dotcom boom, and probably helped fuel some of the irrational exuberance that led to disasters like PSInet stock.
Gilder takes a few facts and selectively uses them to decorate a pre-existing world view. This is about what you'd expect from someone whose own home page is on the web site of a creationist group! He appreciates technology more than science; that's dangerous.
Gilder, you might recall, was the hack behind the "Laffer Curve", which was lame justification for Reagan's nutty tax cuts (what's a few trillion more on the national debt among friends?). As a supply-sider, he is always looking for, well, supply. Fiber optics promise an oversupply of bandwidth. Traditional economics looks at demand too. Gilder assumes that if you build it, they will come, and we'll all be the richer for it. It's, uh, far from proven.
With a UID of 300k that means you've most likely taken another account, or you just opened that up last year around August/September, and if thats the case quit your yapping.
/. or are you just being a troll for the hell of it? Don't cry for me Argentina I troll every so often, but all this whining shit, spork, goatse.cx shit is just lame on any level, and especially the whiney little bitches complaining about the content here.
Solution click on another link if the content doesn't appeal to you. So many people whine about the content and articles here, yet the same ones who complain have yet to submit an article they found interesting.
So why are you bitching in reality? How much did it cost you in life to visit this site? Did you have to pay to get here? Did you lose some blood somewhere down the line reading
Shame on the moderator who +1'ed this up, and shame on the one who -1'ses this one down.
If it doesn't appeal to you, then don't bother visiting, you'd save bandwidth when I read here, and alleviate the load on the servers when die harders post.
Want Root?
Could it be the author wrote this book left it on the shelf and avoided the problems which are plaguing the industry at this current time?
This is a future in which the sovereign individual is freed to become as much as she allows.
Wrong, this is a future where many are going to have to tiptoe through all sorts of scenarios to avoid having a future littered with legal worries from all sides of the spectrum. How can you become "freed" from anything when at the rate the tech field is going, we've seen a surge of lawsuits from all walks of life ranging from patents, to copyrights, to any other fabled scenario a company wants to spend money litigating?
Looking at that aspect, I'd say many would become rather restricted and reluctant to promote "the next best thing", or even themselves out of fear of retribution.
Secondly amidst all that nonsense, for those who either don't notice, or ignore the warnings, taking a look at the legal system itself regarding tech, it will only get worse, as laws (which are often so broad and obsolete to a circumstances) prohibits many from acting. (e.g. Jerome Hackenkamp, Max Vision, Keith Henson, Napster [corporations aren't free from actions either], Jim Bell and the list goes on) to promote or revolutionize, or even speak in today's world.
What world is the author living in I'd like to visit?
However, Gilder does miss one important point; in the abundance of bandwidth, there becomes a new scarcity of content. In the end, Gilder's book
may best be thought of as a call to arms: start wasting bandwidth, and start working on solving the next problem -- one of novel creation.
How can you expect to solve the next problem when the ones in front of you are ignored? What about taking a realistic approach to focusing on whats on the table now before crying over spilled milk later?
Want Root?
Bah.
There is no content shortage. There is a content surplus. There is an attention shortage. The consumer of content is a conscious intelligence, and each such consumer has a maximum of 24 hours per day of such attention to allocate to content.
Building content to expand to fill bandwidth will just result in bigger, faster and more extensive drivel. The content provider needs to focus on quality, and the network needs to find a way to pay for it.
mt
"." Gilder promises that businesses will be forced to abscond their implicit drive to waste your time. The average 38-month wait for the installation of a phone line, and the further telemarketing interruptions. The "supreme time waster", television. The decline of lame mass-market advertising, leaving only supremely-targeted ads which actually have a chance of being beneficial to you. Collaboration enabled by the fibersphere will be "liberated from hierarchies that often waste their time and talents," creating new cottage industries which will thrive and grow. This is a future in which the sovereign individual is freed to become as much as she allows."
If this is an accurate summary, this is Gilder at his computer-utopian worst.
Then again, what do you expect from a man who writes about the glory of computers the next and then goes off on the evils of teaching about natural selection the next.
- non-radio formatted audio
- television
- cellular communications
And dramatically limited the following:- cinema (it helps having small babies)
- periodical print media (WSJ being the sole exception)
I'm a long-term investor who knows enough to trust a professional financial advisor. I need 24x7 access to my portfolio. Oh, the contradictions of contemporary life.And you say I'll need high bandwidth access to fill that 544x372 screen? Interesting.
illegitimii non ingravare
I should read the whole book before giving a well-founded opinion about it.
But taking the risk: one of the trends (at least in Europe and most of Asia) seems to be wireless networks and using these wireless networks for everything included carrying internet-traffic, and even with all this new capacities of fiber optics, still, there is a limited (short) bandwidth of the radio spectrum that can be used; I can't see how this is going to change in the future.
I think what he means is that software will all become more complicated and make more use the resources of the available processing and storage power. It's held as steady as Moore's law that the needs of current software will basically require a computer built in the last 2 years. To make the enviroment as immersive as possible is going to take a lot of computing power. And to date, we've seen no slow down in either Moore's law or the complexity of software.
The nature of broadband can't quite say the same unless you want to figure the endless stream of cable channels that are availble on my TV that I'll never watch. There's only so much data a person can actually request in one day. Massive bandwidth for the future will really only be needed by home users for broadcasting technologies like television and I question how much of that we really want or need.
In the "golden age" of radio, you were lucky to tune in a handful of stations, and some of them were not on 24/7... but lots of it was good.
Now, radio is filled with crap, but if you use a really good tuner, you can still find a handful of good stations. Small (often public) stations play really good jazz, radio plays, indie music, etc. Sure their signal is weak, and they don't have the money to put up billboards alerting you to their presense... but that was true of the "golden age" stations.
So, you see, nothing much has changed. Before there was a little good content. Now there is a little good content.
The only thing "lost" when a medium grows is the dream that it will somehow expand with nothing but high quality content forever. No matter what method it is delivered by, there are a finite number of people out there who are both willing and able to produce something better than the dreck that fills mainstream radio and TV. Therefore, all "growth" beyond that finite limit is the addition of useless crap. Because of this, when looking at a medium as a whole, the percentage of useful content drops... but that is a meaningless statistic when you stop and think about it. What matters is not the S/N ratio (if you know how to filter out the N properly). What matters is the actual ammount of useful content out there.
In other words, as long as CPAN and cool stuff like this is still out there, I really don't care what MSNBC is up to.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Most of the time, when people open a book or article by saying an age is "over", that is a pretty good clue that it ain't.
The industrial age may be "over", but nobody starts editorials by saying "the industrial age is over" anymore.
If the computer age were really over, the shock value of saying so would be diminished, to the point that opening a book with that phrase would not be very interesting.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
fiber links may act as "information wormholes", subverting this rule for the parties at each end of the link, but you can't run fiber links from everywhere to everywhere else. therefore links will inevitably turn into bottlenecks.
i think that people are still gravely underestimating the amount of bandwidth that we can use. think about distributed computing. for example, imagine a hypothetical future realtime computer simulation of a human brain: if you've got two of them, communication can take place just like it does for us (a telephone line!); but try splitting the simulation into its two hemispheres, each running on a different computer. how much bandwidth will this require? what about splitting it into four?!
ok, you might be able to do it for one such distributed calculation, but what if everyone is trying to do it? a conservative (read naive) estimate gives 10 terabits/s required... for one such calculation. that's more than the predicted maximum bandwidth of a single fiber for the foreseeable future. ok, it's maybe a contrived example, but what about peer-to-peer 3D virtual worlds? there are a billion possible computing tasks requiring that much bandwidth...
yup, that's right: cable (or some other point-to-point technology). so i still think my thoughts hold some weight.
and, BTW, Moore's Law doesn't theoretically go on for ever: for one thing, it's an entirely empirical law, with no actual theoretical basis; for another, it relates to the number of transistors you can fit on a chip, which tops out at one transistor per atom (a high limit, agreed, but nonetheless very finite, so bandwidth will still be fundamentally limited).
Say, "Spend more on schools" but vote for the guy who promises me a tax cut.
General Vibrators +3¾...Inflatable DollCo. -½...
President Lewinsky Denies Fondling Washington Momument
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, according to the European trade press, sitting in the ground, dark.
I don't know what the current situation is in the rest of the world, but certainly in the UK and the rest of Europe we're seeing the press state that the carriers have great gobs of fibre capacity going spare, and they're annoyed that they can't sell it.
But no bloody wonder when as a Network Manager I find myself having to pay £24,500 per annum for a 2M Internet connection (delivered on aforementioned fibres). Here in the UK we're being held back in business and at home by such high prices. I'd argue that it's regulatory bodies (in the UK, OFTEL) and predatory pricing by incumbent bodies (e.g. BT) that are holding back developments, NOT lack of capacity or content.
Matt