Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf on the Future of the Net
johnd writes "The internet is set to become the basis for just about every form of communication, according to net pioneer Vint Cerf, and he should know what he is talking about. Not terribly in depth, but an interesting read all the same."
The internet is set to become the basis for just about every form of communication, according to net pioneer Vint Cerf, and he should know what he is talking about.
Why should Vint Cerf know what he's talking about? Sure, he knows all about the Internet; but does he know all about communication in general?
Would the sotry submitter agree with the (equivalently valid) statement that "Microsoft Windows is set to become the basis for just about every form of personal computing, according to Bill Gates, and he should know what he is talking about"?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
From the article:
The next decade, he believes, will see the net spread even further and start to become the basic communications infrastructure for almost anything.
This unnerves me a little. We saw the dot com bubble burst after everyone decided thast the internet was the future of commerce, and we still have not fully recovered from that one. I sure as hell don't want to put all our eggs in this basket all over again and potentially see another messy commercial disaster take out the communications infrastructure... Maybe I am being a little too uptight about it, but I can't shake the feeling after last time.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
That's pretty much all I use for communication, that and the traditional face-to-face, sure I use the phone once in a while but that's about it.
As long as most (older) people I know have a 56k or 64k internet connection, and have to pay per minute online time, VoIP and the like will not become mainstream soon.
It is not that those people do not want a broadband connection, it is just not available at an affordable price in a lot of places.
And in order to make something successfull it should be available to (almost) everyone.
Troll: Large Giant, 63 hp, AC 16, Usually chaotic evil.
This should fall into a category of information that is labeled "duh". It doesn't take an engineer or a market analyst or even a high-school diploma to predict the rise of the internet as the medium for communications. IT'S ALREADY HERE! Point to a method of communication and I just bet that the internet has some relation to it now, or is expanding to include it. This is like me writing an article about how the sky will soon be blue, and all of you slashdot readers go outside and say: "That Jude character was right! The sky is BLUE!"
Get a grip folks. This guy is no futurist. And he didn't predict this any more than Al Gore invented the internet. I.E.: They were involved but it would have happened without them.
The Arpanet came before the net and demanded that all computers that connect to it do so with the same hardware and software.
I was really disappointed to read this in the article. First, it wasn't true. There were a lot of such restrictions in the early implementations, but by the time that TCP was spec'd, there were already cases of interconnected hardware and software from different vendors. TCP was a (pretty good) attempt to codify what had been learned about how to do this.
But more important is the point that such single-source restrictions were exactly why ARPA started funding what became the Internet. It was, to a great extent, a response to ongoing problems with electronic gadgets that couldn't talk to each other. The military (and ARPA was a military research agency) wanted this problem solved. What good were all those fancy-schmancy electronic thingies if they couldn't exchange data?
If you look up the early docs from the ARPAnet, you'll see pretty pictures all over the place showing large numbers of electronic gadgets, obviously from a lot of different manufacturers, with lines between them showing the comm links. It's obvious that interconnecting hardware and software from different vendors was a major goal right from the start.
There have been a number of comments on why ARPA gave their development money to universities rather than to commercial vendors. A number of military types were open about this from the start: They had learned that military contractors simply couldn't be forced to work together. Most attempts to get them to cooperate with data comm were pretty much dismal failures. They were competitors, after all. They would pretend to be cooperating, while doing everything they could to fix things so their competitors couldn't cooperate. This is still a problem, of course, and probably always will be. Commercial vendors sabotaging standards is a very familiar process.
So ARPA took the approach of funding an independent gang of academic hackers. Give them equipment and money to pay students to hack away. Fund a few overseers to attempt to coordinate this herd of cats. When they seem to have something working, buy them some fun new hardware and challenge them to incorporate it with the old stuff. Try not to let them get lazy and develop a monoculture of equipment from a single vendor. Watch what they do, and carry off anything they produce that seems useful.
But the intent from the start was to make all electronic gadgets talk sensibly to each other. If the early setups didn't achieve this, it was simply a case of "We're not there yet". The intent was to get there.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The internet will be important in the future but we need to change the ownership. We need a non-profit body to run the internet and not a company.
Isn't that the one that's a major player in that dubious corporation, ICANN?
This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
At a conference some years back, I noticed that Vint Cerf was wearing a t-shirt that said "IP on everything".
... ;-)
Sorta sums it up
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
When this network was designed, it was intended to be used only by responsible and trustworthy people. Sure people have made bandaids to address reliability and security concerns; Various things such as ipsec, ssh, etc... Is this the system we all really want to rely one, one comprised of patch ontop of kludge?
We should all ask ourselves: The internet was not designed for this, wouldn't it be better to use something that was?
I can't remember the last time I've had human contact that wasn't over a computer...
activestudios web design
Why is this such a big leap in thinking? How many Vonage articles has Slashdot posted? What communications do you think won't be replaced by the Internet? Radio? TV? Phone? It's all just data. Radio is already on the Internet and Video-on-demand is somewhat available through *ahem* certain less than legal means. And we are starting to see phone. When wireless internet catches on how long till we see VoIP cell phones?
What do you see as not being replaced eventually?
Brian Ellenberger
The internet was not designed for such things as real time video, audio and broadcasting of any form. A lot of 'hacking' of the original protocols is necessary to support all these efficiently on the internet. VoIP and video on the web are 'cheap' simply because of the different way ISPs charge for bandwidth compared with telcos, and not because there is something inherently superior about using the net for everything. So there is the possibility of the internet continuing to run side by side with other communication systems.
Yes, side-by-side.
and let's not forget perls of the past such as "the information superhighway will revolutionize people's way of living", the "global village", the "new economy", "fridges will all be connected to the world wide web and will order food for you automatically".
Visionary my foot
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
One more and I swear I'm going to turn into one of those single-purpose trolls like the apt-get guy or the Cory Doctorow troll. At least apt-get and Doctorow (admittedly two concepts I've never paired together before) have done something useful in the last decasde.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Fact is that yes more and more of us have the internet but Id hardly call a growth of 4% of the worlds population using the net: a basis for saying that all communication will happen via the internet. People just cant afford it.I see the internet as THE means of communication could happen for the moneyed clasees but conditions just arent there for it to be a universal means. After all a stamp at a one time price of 28p in the Uk costs a darn site less than the charges your isp slaps on you every month. While we have massive poverty in the world and inequlaities in socio-economic conditions then the net will not be THE way of communication.
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
'Nuff said.
Damn! Lost track of where I was and replied to the Mozilla article on the wrong thread!
Elf needs coffee badly. Bracing for "Off Topic" moderation impact.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
"Mr Cerf has proposed extending the net to other planets"
.........
l33td00d: ph34r my l33t skillz!
marvin01: I have an Iludium pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator that can blow up the entire planet.
l33td00d: haha n00b! I pwn j00!
marvin01: Soon I will finally be able to see Venus clearly.
l33td00d: ha! I w1ll fuxX0r j00 up, l4m3r!
marvin01: Look outside, Earthling!
l33td00d: wtf!?
I think one thing that many 'visionaries' overlook is that someone will probably have to provide the information behind these magic new URLs like UPC:3466745689.
In that case, the manufacturer would be a good bet... but what does ISBN:1-84146986-4 take you to?
While I agree with all these visionaries, there is much that needs to be worked out first. A cynic would say that the open nature of the internet doesn't mesh with commercial enterprises, but I hope a compromise can be reached!
You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
The internet (IP-based, as we know it) is only a complement to other forms of coummications. Phone-style networks that are switched and provide a virtually copper wire from one person to another (or several) is there to stay, because it provides constant, low latency. Postal services are there to stay as well because they can transport physical good (that can be information too).
The only thing missing is a secure network. That's the fourth element that's really missing. If people had a secure network, they could vote and pay online. Current over-IP methods aren't good enough, and don't provide the sense of security needed. over-the-phone solutions aren't very secure either.
The closest thing to a secure network I can think of it France's government-run X25 network, that powers the national Minitel network, that is inaccessible to anybody but authorised France Telecom personel, and runs completely separate from the internet. In fact, it was there before the internet. People in France use it massively to order and pay for things online, and some exams, notably the amateur radio exam, is taken on the Minitel too. Many people predicted the death of the Minitel because it's slow (1200/75 bauds) and very expensive (0.34 EUR / minute) but it's still around and going strong because people trust it, with good reasons.
Once we have (1) the internet for most mundane data transfers, (2) the phone services, (3) the postal services and (4) the secure network, then people's habit will really change. As long as the secure network is missing, I don't think the internet alone will change much of anything.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Let me introduce you to the word "jealous" ...
For several years running? But not in this article.
Although I do think that this is the way things are moving it won't be that simple.
In the uk, where we don't have free local calls the home phone is on the point of dying out. Allot of people in their 20s already do without a home phone and simply rely on their mobiles. As the price of mobile calls drops and BT maintain their rediculous pricing it is not outragous to imagine the only place where phone lines are used are for small bussinesses.
Larger organisations are already switching to IP phones and its likely that this could become the normal for small bussinesses aswell.
I think any hardlines will be, within a few years, mostly broadband in one guise or another, with voice and data services both being run through the net. Thsi could lead to some interesting additions to the telephone service - more advanced caller ID, the ability to send bits of text and photos as part of the phone call(rather than telling someone to check their email), who knows what else.
Mobile phones will be far more difficult to predict. They are still very much an area of growth rather than decline. Even the future of 3G phones is uncertain but I can imagine some integration with the expansion of wifi. An interesting case to look at is that of Rabbit - a pre-mobile phone idea which ran phones through local hotspots. A bit like a cordless phone with base stations around the country. We could well see Nokia producing dual phones that run through wifi if its available.
One thing that is likely to happen is a diversification between the infrastructure and the services. You will have your mobile and hardlines provided by one company but then run your (god forbid) metred wifi access, phone calls, mobile calls and god knows what else through virtual companies. This can already seen through these companies offering cheap international calls such as OneTel.
Vint has made a habit of predicting things that do not come to be. IIRC, he has predicted several times that Linux would go nowhere. Reminds me of Bill Gates and Dorvack's predictions.
IMHO, never trust somebody who has a vested interest in the outcome to make good predictions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Maybe it's should as in he ought to know, he darned well better know, he's paid to know, why doesn't he know?
Rather than as in of course he knows.
Better example of the first instance is President Shrub, as in it's a damned cockup that he doesn't know much at all.
Better example of the second instance is Donald Knuth on a whoel lot of topics, where everyone knows that he knows what he is talking about.
Infuriate left and right
... he also coined the phrase "cerf the internet"
Nice going Vint!
I submitted it because I thought it would be of interest, not because I agreed with it! And your point fails, because Bill Gates gets money directly from windows wheras you can use the internet without paying Vint Cerf. So no, I don't agree with your analogy. Thanks for commenting anyway though.
Vint oughta know; he's been claiming credit for inventing the Internet since Al Gore was in Vietnam.
--
make install -not war
You are probably thinking of Bob Metcalfe. The man behind ethernet.
Vint Cerf may be the father of the Internet, :P
but we're the mothers that have to make it work.
I can't say I've eaten any of their dog food, but petfooddirect.com is still in business 6 years after their founding. Disclaimer: They're a long-time colo customer of the ISP I work at and, trust me, they must be paying their bills.
(posting AC for NDA compliance purposes)
Canada (Montreal, at least) had something similar in 1998, "Alex" as well as Videotron's Videoway (which was cable TV-based).
mmmm.. flame broiled slashbot.
If you look at the sentence again, what he is saying is the equipment required to connect to the ARPAnet had to be the same - and it was - all connections were via IMPs or Interface Message Processors. There were different types of computers behind the IMPs
If you use the OSI RM to classify the ARPAnet, as all connections and technology was the same, it was mostly just a big link or data link layer network.
Actually, being more specific, it was sort of like a cross between the network and link layers. It performed routing (network layer characteristic), but all devices were connected together via the same technology (a data link layer characteristic).
The revolution Vint was involved in was the idea of creating a link layer agnostic layer 3 ie. the network layer, hence, that is why he is one of the inventors of IP. Abstracting the network layer functions stopped the network being tied to a link layer technology, which allowed the network to then incorporate links such as satellite links, ethernets, pigeons, two cans and a piece of string, etc. etc. etc. This was not possible on the ARPAnet.
Interestingly, the early model of "TCP/IP" had TCP and IP merged as a single layer. During that development, Vint realised that TCP was a logically separate function to IP, and so it became TCP/IP.
It is also important to realise that the ARPAnet protocols were developed and deployed in the late 1960s, early 70s, where as TCP/IP was developed and started to be deployed in the late 1970s, early 80s. Admittedly, I haven't RFTA quite yet, but it sounds like they may have mixed together the history of the ARPAnet and the Internet, which can cause confusion.
In addition to the few historical documents you can find on the net, a good book on the history of packet switching, the ARPAnet and the Internet is "Where Wizards Stay Up Late".
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Isn't that how a German pronouces "Wind Surf"?
If it isn't, then I suggest Rosco do some research into a few topics I've discribed below.
The internet (IP-based, as we know it) is only a complement to other forms of coummications.
The Internet will replace all other application specific networks. The advantage of the Internet (and the underlying technology) is that it is generalised to support many types of applications, not one particular type. The classical example of an application specific network is the traditional voice network. If you want to use it for any other type of application (eg fax, data comms), you have to shoe-horn every other application to look like a "voice call". As another example, ADSL overcomes a lot of the limitations of the old voice network, because it basically abandons the voice orientated architecture, yet takes advantage of the existing physical infrastructure ie. the copper wires in the ground.
Postal services are there to stay as well because they can transport physical good (that can be information too).
Until we invent devices such as a Star Trek Transporter, there will always be a requirement for physical goods networks.
Phone-style networks that are switched and provide a virtually copper wire from one person to another (or several) is there to stay, because it provides constant, low latency.
You are correct to characterise voice calls as latency sensitive or as a "real-time" application.
However, packet switched networks can also meet the same latency requirements as long as there enough capacity in the network to minimize or avoid congestion which will effect that latency. The technology success of VoIP i.e. that it works at all (it is only the market that is delaying adoption) is proof of that.
The only thing missing is a secure network. That's the fourth element that's really missing. If people had a secure network, they could vote and pay online. Current over-IP methods aren't good enough, and don't provide the sense of security needed. over-the-phone solutions aren't very secure either.
Hmm, I think you are mixing together the word "secure" and "trusted", into the word "secure".
Plenty of security technologies exist that are sufficient, for example, IPsec, SSL, AES, PKI etc etc etc.
However, the issue tends to be how much do we trust them, or rather, how can be sure they are working correctly, have been implemented correctly, or that they can have been architected correctly ?
I trust these technologies enough to pay my bills via the Internet. I've weighed up the risks, verses the reward, and the reward wins.
However, when it comes to voting, you have to think what you are risking. Well, usually "voting" implies control of the government. Control of the government usually involves control of the econonmy. Control of the economy is a far bigger "asset" to be concerned about than theft of financial details when paying utility bills. The problem we have is that the risks are too high to trust to our existing confidence in the technology.
The closest thing to a secure network I can think of it France's government-run X25 network, that powers the national Minitel network, that is inaccessible to anybody but authorised France Telecom personel, and runs completely separate from the internet. In fact, it was there before the internet. People in France use it massively to order and pay for things online, and some exams, notably the amateur radio exam, is taken on the Minitel too. Many people predicted the death of the Minitel because it's slow (1200/75 bauds) and very expensive (0.34 EUR / minute) but it's still around and going strong because people trust it, with good reasons.
A few questions :
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
No joke...4 years ago, Vint said that Al Gore actually *did* invent the internet.
He's a nice old man; I think he escaped the men with the nets.
If you guys had any idea how much corruption there is behind the scenes of ICANN and, worse, it's Department of Commerce "oversight" you'd be more than disgusted.
Keep in mind the original mandate of ICANN was for the preliminary board to ensure a member elected board was put in place in the first 6 months.
Or that the "white paper" that mandated this was a revision of the "green paper" that said there would be a handful of new tlds waaaay back when not 4 years after the fact.
Big business ownz the root zone you use and Darth Cerf gave it to them. Take it back; primary the root for yourself.
Need Mercedes parts ?
*SEVEN* years ago, Vint Cert was my boss's boss's boss at the MCI Internet Engineering Department. Considering that the internet had been around since the 1970s, and we all knew this, I am not so sure that Vint would ever say something so stupid.
In case anyone is wondering, Vint's personal presence is pretty much identical to Timothy Leary, who I've seen speak (but not met). And his license plate says "CERFS UP".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The Enum initiative attempts to turn phone numbers into net addresses and give people a universal way of contacting anyone, provided they know at least one e-mail, address, phone or pager number for them.
I don't know about you but all this sounds like is an advantage for marketers. If you can find out how to contact someone by just having one of those four pieces of information so you can get the other pieces of information, forget it. I like my anonymity thank you. Sure you can find out someone's phone number by knowing their address but then you can get an unlisted phone number. Keep it seperate. I like it seperate.