What Does the 'Next Internet' Look Like?

Kraisch writes with a link to the Guardian website, which again revisits the subject of reconstructing the internet. This time the question isn't whether it should be done, but what should the goals of a redesign be? From the article: "'There's a real need to have better identity management, to declare your age and to know that when you're talking to, say, Barclays bank, that you're really doing so,' said Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet governance and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute. At the moment we are still using very clumsy methods to approach such problems. The result: last year alone, identity theft and online fraud cost British victims an estimated £414m, while one recent report claimed 93% of all email sent from the UK was spam ... Many ideas revolve around so-called "mesh networks", which link many computers to create more powerful, reliable connections to the internet. By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack."

Comments

My ideals on the "next internet".

[necro2607]

What should the "next internet" be? Wireless. Configuration-less. Always connected. High speed. Low cost. Cross-platform, cross-device, and accessible by even the simplest devices (wristwatch syncing to online time server?). Access/infrastructure not controlled by single corporations.

Ever seen the Ghost in the Shell movies and series? Make that "Net" real. :)

Missing the point

[orclevegam]

We don't need a new internet, the internet serves a purpose, and it does it well. What we need is something like the internet but designed to solve particular problems. A network with certified identity of all participants would be good for banking, and financial transactions, although it would be terrible as a internet replacement because part of the good of the internet is the possibility of anonymity. Similarly, I think the push to cram ever more rich functionality into JS and AJAXish things is probably a bad idea, when what we really need is a application browser in the same vein as a web browser. Don't take working systems and cram more stuff into them, make new systems designed to do what you want.

ID theft is not an internet problem.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The root cause of identity theft is that the credit industry wants to lend without too much of checking and authentication. If someone has an impulse to borrow, they want to lend it immediately before the moment passes. If they issue a few bad loans they consider it cost of doing business. If criminals take advantage of it and borrow both the identity and the money, the credit industry does not care because there is no serious liability to the lender who lent the money. A few thousand dollars, big deal, cost of doing business for them. It is the victims of id-theft who raise a hue and cry.

ID theft is not limited to the internet. The waiter who takes away your credit card, or people who steal from your mailbox, or people who file a change of address form to intercept your mail, or employees who have access to the credit card numbers in the sales/accounting dept, employees in doctor's offices or hospital billing dept, can steal identities.

It is stupid to assume id theft is an internet problem or to find technical solution for it when there is no incentive for the credit industry to cut down on it. If a lender damages my credit rating by lax lending, the lender is liable for a sum like 10% of my annual income. Then they will clean up their act in a hurry.

The real issues, and how to fix them.

[Animats]

There are only a few major issues:

• Identifying sellers. If you're a seller, you can't be anonymous. That's the law in California and the European Union, but enforcement is weak. We're dealing with that at SiteTruth, where we try to find the business behind the web site. If we can't, we downgrade their search ranking.
• Identifying buyers. That's a problem for the credit card industry. If they really considered it a problem, they'd fix it. They have the tools. One-time credit card numbers, confirmation by cell phone, smart credit cards - solutions are known.
• Spam Spam by legitimate businesses mostly died with CAN-SPAM, because anything clearly identifiable can be easily filtered. Everything left comes from crooks. And not very many different crooks. Notice how few different spams get through your filters. What's left is a law enforcement problem. Someday the main Viagra spammer will be found and arrested, and that problem will shrink. The US SEC is working the pump-and-dump problem.
• Vulnerable clients Make Microsoft financially liable and the problem gets fixed, fast.

We don't need to redesign the Internet, much as some telcos would like to so they can raise rates. All the major problems are at the endpoints.

Re:The "new internet"

[halcyon1234]

A couple disagreements:

* Probably less spam. Tighter controls will make it harder for spammers to get their unwanted traffic into the intertubes.

Correction, less unauthorized spam. You'll get more than your daily dose of Real Official Good For You spam straight from whoever owns the Internext.

* Better security. Locking the internet down will help somewhat in keeping the criminal element out, because it will (theoretically) be a lot easier to trace where they're coming from.

I'd lean heavily on the "theoretically" part. There's still registered handguns killing people, licensed drivers doing illegal things on the road, and scammers using Ma Bell's network. The Internext might change the frequency and face of Bad Shit Going Down, but won't eliminate it.

Re:The "new internet"

[Tom]

I doubt the "better security" part, but maybe that's just because I work in that industry.

Large corporations are horrible with regards to security. It's a rare exception that they have better security. More importantly, on this level they will - if at all - have the better security for them, not for the users. Which means we will face the same virus, trojans and bot networks problem as right now, with the spam coming right out of those owned machines.

The most likely bullet point that you forgot to mention is this one:

* It won't work. There will be 500 incompatible, competing, closed protocols for everything. And players like MS will add new variations on purpose all the time, so every time the market consolidates, it'll be splintered again, except among less players.

Re:It looks like

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how many problems we could solve by putting the open network back on the terms that it should never have left?


The OP meant 1984 in an Orwellian sense. Which is much likelier than the scenario you describe.

I dread an overhaul of "The Internet", whatever that even means, because there is no way in hell it would be allowed to be the Wild West that it is today. It would certainly be much more like television or radio in that large corporations would "broadcast" to you and user generated content would be completely on their terms. Gone would be the days where anyone could start up a website about anything; some sort of expensive license would be required and personal pages would be relegated to whatever version of Myspace or Facebook still exists. Anonymity would, of course, be impossible.

The goverment and communications companies were taken by surprise the first time around.. That's not happening again.

Re:The "Problem" Is Open Endedness

[Bluesman]

Amen.

The layered approach is the greatest thing ever. The network we use today looks nothing like it did in the 80's, and yet nobody had to build a "new Internet" to get us here. Does anyone remember the big wavelength division multiplexing upgrades in the 90's? Or the shift away from ATM? No, you don't, because it happened without you having to realize it. (I know, unless you work for a communications company...)

In order to have this flexibility, you need to have a dumb network at the base, that simply routes packets as quickly as possible. Any tradeoff designed to increase performance will adversely affect flexibility, and I think we can all agree the flexibility is a huge win.