* * * * * The Stupid Network > The paradox arises from the meaning of “best.” If “best” meant, "generate > the most cash for the network owner," there would be no paradox. But if we > accepted this meaning of best, we'd have to be content with the tightly- > controlled, relatively thin stream of bits that the telephone companies > currently grant us. Communications networks have a more important job than > generating return on investment—their value comes from their connectivity > and from the services they enable. Therefore, the best network delivers > bits in the largest volumes at the fastest speeds. In addition, the best > network is the most open to new communications services; it closes off the > fewest futures and elicits the most innovation. > > Designing a network that is intelligently tuned (optimized) for a > particular type of data or service—such as TV or financial transactions— > inevitably makes that network less open. As software engineers say, > “Today's optimization is tomorrow's bottleneck.” Thus, the best network is > a “stupid” network that does nothing but move bits. Only then is the > network truly open to any and all services that want to use it, no matter > how innovative or how unexpected. In the best network, the services live at > the edges of the network and use the network to transport bits; they do not > rely on any special characteristics of the network itself. > Via How to Monopolize the New Network [1], “The Paradox of the Best Network [2]” This, along with Rise of the Stupid Network [3] explains why the Internet has gained such a significant role in the world's infrastructure since it was commercialized nine years ago. The network doesn't care what traffic it carries, only that it does; it's up to the edges to add intelligence, which is easier to do than adding intelligence in the network itself. [1] http://isen.com/archives/030304.html [2] http://netparadox.com/netparadox.html [3] http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html Email Sean Conner at sean@conman.org .