Internet of the Future panel

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jon Peha <peha () cmu edu>
Date: September 9, 2009 12:47:15 PM EDT
Subject: Internet of the Future panel

My blog discussing the first panel of last Thursday's workshop is now  
out at http://blog.broadband.gov/?p=247
The text is below.
(And on your comment, Dave, there was someone else there from industry  
- Dick Green from Cablelabs.  Although he was not listed in the  
initial announcement)
Jon






Innovation and the Internet

Jon Peha
FCC Chief Technologist
http://blog.broadband.gov/?p=247

Once something becomes a part of our everyday lives, we tend to assume  
that it will always be roughly as we see it now. In the case of the  
Internet, while we hope that even greater data rates will become  
available, and that these rates will become available to even more  
homes and businesses, we may assume that little else will change.   
Last week’s panel discussion on “the Internet of the Future” was a  
powerful reminder that the Internet, and broadband technology more  
generally, will continue to evolve.  Moreover, innovation is critical  
to an infrastructure that meets our long-term needs, and this has  
implications for broadband policy.  For this discussion, it was my  
privilege to bring together six true thought leaders:  engineers Dave  
Clark of MIT, Van Jacobson of PARC, Scott Shenker of UC-Berkeley,  
Taieb (Ty) Znati of NSF, Dick Green of Cablelabs, and economist Rob  
Atkinson of ITIF.

Moore’s law suggests that electronic devices will continue to improve  
exponentially, and if the Internet does not improve at a comparable  
pace, it may become what Dave Clark called a “sea anchor.” Moreover,  
progress does not simply mean we will see the same actors doing the  
same things but more quickly.  Although the Internet has been around  
for four decades,  elements of the current infrastructure,  
applications, and industry structure have emerged fairly recently,  
quickly, and sometimes unexpectedly – a phenomenon that could continue  
in the future.  Even a visionary researcher like Van Jacobson thought  
the world wide web was a surprise out of “left field” when it emerged  
in the late 1990s.  And as Dave Clark pointed out, today’s ISP, which  
many now see as the only possible form of service provider, emerged  
only 15 years ago, and at that time, ISPs generally leased  
infrastructure rather than building their own.  Are comparable changes  
ahead?  The panel discussed possible technical advances that could  
conceivably change the nature of the Internet  and associated  
businesses, creating new challenges and opportunities for policymakers  
in the process.  Will virtualization shift some control from the  
owners of communications facilities to a new kind of service provider  
that does not yet exist?  Will changes in switch design shift some  
control from equipment makers back to facilities-based providers of  
Internet services?  Will a proliferation of virtual networks operating  
over the same physical infrastructure “blur the boundary of what it  
means to be connected to the Internet,” as Dave Clark conjectured?  It  
is too soon to tell.

While much of the recent broadband policy discussion has focused on  
data rates, we know this is just one limitation of current technology  
that could motivate innovation.  The problem cited most in last week’s  
panel was security.  Other issues include mobility, manageability, and  
support for new device types such as sensors, or perhaps meter readers  
in a new smart grid.  Rob Atkinson pointed out that some Americans are  
not using the Internet not because it is unavailable or unaffordable,  
but because they find it difficult to use; this too could drive  
innovation.   If capacity does remain a limitation, there may also be  
ways to address it other than greater data rates.  Van Jacobson has  
suggested new ways of using increased storage as a substitute for  
increased communications capacity, although success may depend on  
finding more intelligent ways to share stored information across  
users, and more effective security mechanisms.

Some of the emerging technical approaches under consideration have the  
potential of facilitating subsequent innovation, creating a virtuous  
circle of rapid change.  Scott Shenker suggested that today’s complex  
switches may someday be replaced with commodity hardware combined with  
software that can easily be customized to meet its owner’s needs,  
perhaps giving the owners of networks (and server farms) a new ability  
to innovate.  Taeib Znati described how virtualization of some  
communications functions could enable what he called “evolvability,”  
allowing multiple Internets to exist in parallel. This could support  
multiple versions designed for the same purpose, thereby facilitating  
improvements, or it could support multiple architectures designed for  
very different purposes.

So is the U.S. prepared for the innovation to come?  Here, the views  
were more mixed, and the discussion more sobering.  On the one hand,  
it was suggested that the U.S. has strong abilities to commercialize  
new ideas quickly.  However, great concern was expressed about  
innovation over the longer term.  Dick Green discussed the need for  
experimentation.  Van Jacobson said fewer of the traditional research  
leaders are thinking long-term, citing DARPA’s desire to produce  
“commercially relevant” technology and the rise of the professor- 
entrepreneur as among the reasons.  Scott Shenker said that even in a  
research university it was difficult to do long-term work when one has  
to write many short-term funding proposals every year.  Dave Clark  
said many of his best students were choosing short-term work in  
industry over long-term research because they found the research  
climate in the U.S. too “hostile.”  Dave also considers the total  
funding level for research to be “simply miserable.”  Overall,  
according to a report by Rob Atkinson and his ITIF colleagues, the  
U.S. ranks 40th among the 40 nations ITIF considered in “progress  
toward the new knowledge-based innovation economy.” According to Dave  
Clark, many of our competitors overseas have an “articulated national  
policy” designed “to exploit our failure, in order to leapfrog us and  
make sure we are left in the past.” They believe they can do this  
because the U.S. is no longer “serious” about maintaining its  
technological leadership.   Let us hope they are wrong.




For the entire discussion, see www.fcc.gov/realaudio/mt090309.ram





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com