G. Stupid

1. The internet is therefore a "virtual network" to begin with. The rise of the VPN (Virtual Private Network), therfore, is an interesting addendum to this. The Virtual Private Network takes advantage of this virtuality to encode data and ensure privacy by still using the internet. The network is well specified virtually (i.e. in a software application that a set of people share) but can be connected from any point on the internet. Problems of security, privacy, and ultimately, sovereignty all migrate to the edges of the network. In the absent center is only a sea of bits. The fantasies of jacking in, or of The Matrix are relavant here: in one scene in the latter, a character is looking at "the matrix" on several screens, but all that is shown is a series of green characters spinning by at illegible speeds. Keanu Reeves asks why he looks at it that way, and the response is "that's the only way to see the matrix." Later in the film, when Keanu Reeves becomes The One, he too begins to see the matrix as only numbers. Friedrich Kittler's formalistic insistence on the reaity of numbers also takes this form, as a kind of macho hermenaut who can read computer code in machine or assembler, sometimes even in hexadecimal and binary See Literature Media Information Systems [Kittler97a]. Whoa.


	G. Stupid An article from the field is used to explain some things — modernity and progress are related to standards for networks — differences between Other Networks and The Internet are stressed — questions are posed — a word becomes tiresome. Adrian gave me an article [Isenberg98] from an ACM publication called netWorker, called "The Dawn of the 'Stupid Network.'" The article briefly emplots the history of telecommunications companies as one of simple self-perpetuation. High point: the invention of the stored program control switch in the 1970's for "cost reduction and reliability." The increased flexibility of using a programmable switch led to innovative call routing and billing services, the possibility of competition (1984- that fateful year for telecommunications) increased as the "intelligent network" became commonplace. Isenberg chastises the Telcos for "falling asleep at the switch at the core of their network" while the "Stupid Network" was taking shape. No futurology would be complete without reference to George Gilder, who is cited here to give credence to the idea of a stupid network. Gilder, prophet of the ever-new, would not be Gilder if he were not hearalding a new age by denouncing the conservatism and inertia of the status quo. But strangely, in this instance, stupidity is complex. Telco's are stupid for making intelligent networks, while stupidity is made an engineering virtue by aligning it with simplicity. "In a stupid network control passes from center to the edge, from the telco to the users with an abundance of processing power at their fingertips. The center of the network is based on plentiful infrastructure— cheap bandwidth and switching— that is about as smart as a river. The water in a river, like a data object in a stupid network, gets to where it must go adaptively, with no intelligence and no features, using self-organizing engineering principles, at virtually no cost." (26) This difference—and this is of utmost importance here— is written off to 'culture': Eric Clemons, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton school of Business, makes the distinction between strategy and doctrine. 'Strategy,' he says, 'is learning how to deal with dogs. Doctrine is about belief: "Dogs don't do that."'" Telco doctrine, formed in the age of monopoly and scarce infrastructure, is rarely examined explicitly. When there was only one telephone company, what Ma Bell did defined how things were. So today, even though the new era of competition requires clear thinking and new beliefs, telco culture inexplicably mixes doctrine and strategy. (26) Watch carefully how stupidity, culture, and business environments mix here. Telcos, those sleeping stupid giants, had it easy because the government helped turn their strategy into doctrine. But in the "new era" of competition, the simplest solution wins, stupid networks triumph over stupid telcos, because telcos live in a world of tradition and dogma. Enlightenment comes to us once again: forget all those old beliefs and modernize with stupidity. The specific assumptions (strategies) that telcos made about the world, and then turned into doctrine, concerned the making of telephone calls. The assumption was that 9 out of 10 phone calls would be short, inexpensive connects, so that the "climate of scaricty" concerning infrastructure could be accomodated. So even though any given local exchange might have 10000 phone numbers to give out (826-000 to 826-9999), telcos count on only 10 percent of the possible connections being used at a time. "But should these assumptions change temporarily (e.g., an earthquake in California) or permanently (calls to AOL lasting several times longer than normal voice calls), the network hits its limit." (27) This is why, when the explosion of the web hit, telcos were left unable to meet the suddenly enormous demand on networks. So why is stupid better? According to Isenberg: abundant infrastructure, underspecification, and universal network protocol (IP, Internet Protocol). Abundant infrastructure obeys Moore's law, or better, providing massive increases in capacity with minor increases in cost. Rarely does anyone ever ask how this particular economy is possible (I imagine only an economic investigation of the location of manufacturing production, especially in chips, fiber optics, circuit board, etc. would uncover the conditions of possibility of Moore's law, but this is not my project), but it certainly makes bank in providing cheap infrastructure. Such infrastructure is cheap because 'underspecified': "The intelligent network is tightly specified for voice...The stupid network is underspecified—this means bits-in, bits-out...You stuff bits in one end of the network, and they find their way to the other end of the network. Packets carry their address with them, and out they come at the other end, right where you want them to be. Internet protocol (IP) is the most specific reason for the rise of the stupid network. "To IP, it doesn't matter if the underlying transport is circuit, SONET, Ethernet, Bitnet, FDDI, or smoke signals... IP neatly takes the provider of the physical network infrastructure out of the value proposition. No matter how intelligent a telco's network might be, if it is running IP, its intelligence is reduced to commodity connectivity[1]." (29) But WHY is stupid better? The ultimate reason rests with the hosanna of the new economy: "Users gain end-to-end control of interactions, which liberates large amounts of innovative energy; innovative applications are rapidly tested in the marketplace; and innovative companies attract more capital and bright people."(27) "In contrast the intelligent Network impedes innovation. Existing features are integrally spaghetti-coded into the guts of the network, and new features must intertwine with the old."(29) Thus modernity finds a new way to be more modern, innovation replaces stagnation, and bright people and more capital freely flow. BUT. And here is the heart of the issue: "Intelligent Network advocates point out that networks need to treat different types of data differently."(30) This is the QoS issue. Medical data, especially sensitive or high bandwidth data must be treated differently by the network itself (here find Tim O'Neil's description, as advocate, of how a network recognizes data and guarantees it) in order that it can be reliably transmitted. Someone must be in charge, some one must specifiy, in the guts of the network, how different data is to be handled; is your echocardiogram going to take precedence over my pornography? who will decide? Isenberg's response: "Right now, they're absolutely right. (emphasis added)" (30). "Quality of Service (QoS) is an intermediary step in the journey from separate networks to a single, simple Stupid Network." (30) We are at the heart of a problem of how we recognize communications: on the one hand, traditionalists, the barbarian telcos advocate for treating statements according to their meaning, data according to its content. On the other, enlightened modernists argue for treating all statements (data) the same when in the world (on the network), and letting the free individual decide on the value and use of information. The former leads to stagnation and sameness, the latter development and growth. Isenberg's closing couldn't be more straightforward on this cyclical point: "The Stupid Network ensures the next paradigm-breaking, market-making 'new thing.' The only question is who will become the next Netscape, the next Microsoft— or the next Ma Bell. And that's not a stupid question."(31).
1. The internet is therefore a "virtual network" to begin with. The rise of the VPN (Virtual Private Network), therfore, is an interesting addendum to this. The Virtual Private Network takes advantage of this virtuality to encode data and ensure privacy by still using the internet. The network is well specified virtually (i.e. in a software application that a set of people share) but can be connected from any point on the internet. Problems of security, privacy, and ultimately, sovereignty all migrate to the edges of the network. In the absent center is only a sea of bits. The fantasies of jacking in, or of The Matrix are relavant here: in one scene in the latter, a character is looking at "the matrix" on several screens, but all that is shown is a series of green characters spinning by at illegible speeds. Keanu Reeves asks why he looks at it that way, and the response is "that's the only way to see the matrix." Later in the film, when Keanu Reeves becomes The One, he too begins to see the matrix as only numbers. Friedrich Kittler's formalistic insistence on the reaity of numbers also takes this form, as a kind of macho hermenaut who can read computer code in machine or assembler, sometimes even in hexadecimal and binary See Literature Media Information Systems [Kittler97a]. Whoa.
Last Modified 11-Sep-99 9:01 PM ckelty@mit.edu Go Back to the Start