Intel Predicts Death Of WWW

LostCluster writes "Forbes is running a report saying that Intel's CTO claims that the WWW is 'running up on some architectural limitations' that will eventually cause its downfall. He's pushing a project called PlanetLab that has Princeton, Cambridge, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T on board, but Cisco is notably absent from that team."

Comments

Re-architecture

[el americano]

A worthless article to be sure, with no discussion of the web's architectural problems. (bad Slashdot) There is obviously more to the architectural problem than will be solved by IPv6, but allowing for IPv6 and higher capacity routers alone, I'm sure the web could go a long time with no other upgrade. I can only wonder how much money Intel will spend on convincing people that the web will die "sooner than you think." If it's anything like the $300 million they spent on telling people they have the best/only Wi-Fi solution, we'll be hearing this for a long time.

Re:Well...

[Alsee]

Last time Slashdot ran this story I did a little digging. I'm not sure of everything Intel has in mind, but part of their plan is to impose a Trusted Computing layer on top of the internet. "Security" "viruses" "authentication" blah blah blah. What it really amounts to is that if you do not "voluntarily" submit to Trusted Computing and turn over control of your computer you will be locked out.

Slashdot ran a story quite some time ago about Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router. The way they really work is they first scan that you are Trusted Computing Compliant, then they can scan exactly what software you are running, for example to ensure you are running the mandated firewall or anti-virus software or whatnot.

If you do not submit to Trusted Computing, or if you are not running the mandated software, then the router "quarantines" you until you come into compliance. In other words it denies you a network connection. Compliance is "voluntary", but you are blocked from the network until you comply.

-

Intel CEO Lyle Lanley, everyone!

[adoarns]

The Web was not created by companies like Intel. It wasn't created by companies at all, only in some cases co-opted by them.

When companies like Intel pitch these wide-ranging changes, it comes over like some seedy traveling salesman pitching a monorail.

If we want to make changes to the web, we will.

Re:Very Vague

[leifbk]

At least to me, they have not said what the problems are to begin with and further more have not said how they are going to address each one.

The problem, from a financial point of view, is of course that it isn't that easy to make money off the Internet as a lot of investors may have thought. TFA suggests as much when it's said that "the Internet will begin to collapse as millions of new computer users from developing nations begin to sign on." My guess is that most of those new users from developing nations hardly have the potential to generate profit remotely in proportion to their consumed bandwidth. So the Internet as a means to stockpile return on investment may well soon be a thing of the past.

And that probably sums up Forbes' interest in the case.

However, as long as the infrastructure of the 'net mainly consist of rather cheap hardware and essentially free software, I can't foresee the imminent death of what we really love about it: The free exchange of information around the globe. It's not the death of the Internet, then, it's rather a full turn of the circle back to Tim's vision. And good riddance to the money hoarders.
--
defenestrare necesse est