Wikipedia

User:Ramloc11/sandbox

< User:Ramloc11

David S. Isenberg edit

David S. Isenberg is a telecommunications consultant, the founder of F2C: Freedom to Connect, isen.com, and a former senior scientist at AT&T Bell Laboratories. He is best known for his influential contributions to the telecommunications industry. Isenberg gained fame as the author of The Rise of the Stupid Network, which highlights the differences between the 'intelligent' network (telephone network) with the 'stupid' network, like the one the public Internet is built upon. Isenberg received recognition in the telecommunications industry for his vision of the Internet.[1]

David worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories for 12 years until his 1997 paper. AT&T found the ideas described in the paper offensive because it criticized their telephone network paradigm. In January 1998, Isenberg left AT&T and found isen.com, LLC. Isen.com,LLC, is an independent telecommunications analysis firm based in Cos Cob, Connecticut.[2] He also publishes The SMART letter, a commentary on Internet-related issues.

Isenberg is a proponent of Internet freedom. In addition to publishing newsletters to raise awareness about technical issues of the Internet, David organizes technology policy conferences aimed at keeping the Internet open and free, and access to it technologically advanced.[1]

David Isenberg first coined the term "Stupid Network."[3] "The Rise of the Stupid Network: Why the Intelligent Network was once a good idea, but isn't anymore. One telephone company nerd's odd perspective on the changing value proposition" was written in May 1997 but the paper was not released onto the Internet officially until June 1997 by AT&T. AT&T did not fully understand the paper's significance when the company released it on the Internet .[4] Soon after the paper was officially published, it was republished in many different places on the Internet. In August 1997, Harry Newtown, co-founder of Computer Telephony, published the article in the magazine, without AT&T's permission. Using the telephone network in ways which was not specified by AT&T was forbidden. Isenberg was prohibited by AT&T from discussing his ideas of The Rise of Stupid Network with people in the telecommunications community. Working for AT&T became controversial for Isenberg because his telecommunications ideas differed from AT&T's. He left AT&T in 1998, and shortly after he left, he was asked by AT&T to remove The Rise of the Stupid Network paper from his Website.[5] [6]

 
David S. Isenberg at a Freedom to Connect conference

The Rise of the Stupid Network edit

David Isenberg, in The Rise of the Stupid Network, examined the network paradigm of the existing telecommunications business model, and presented how the telecommunications business would be changed by the Internet. He argued that the Internet was creating a new network model, shifting from an 'intelligent' network to a 'stupid' network.[4]

"Intelligent" networks are the networks built, by telephone companies, to support voice communication. These networks have several computers inside them. The computers and their software were designed to support the kind of applications that the creators of the 'intelligent' network thought everybody would want.[4] The designers of the intelligent network thought that these were all applications built around voice communication and the routing of voice calls. The intelligent network knows all about voice communication. It amplifies and reduces noise in the network so that there is a level of quality and clarity. It is impossible to build any additional applications for the intelligent network that the designers did not have in mind at the time they put the 'intelligence' in.[4] Moreover, one cannot build any applications for the intelligent network at all because the intelligence is controlled by the telephone company. Nor can any other innovator except for those who work for the telephone companies.[4] Control in this network model is central in the network itself. Additional modifications cannot be made in the 'intelligent' network because the network infrastructure was designed so that no one can control the network from the communication endpoints.The communication endpoints (telephones) are considered "stupid" in this network model because the end-user cannot control activity, only the telephone company can do so.

"Stupid" networks are the networks that support data communication. It is made up of several routers that know how to get packets to their destinations.There is no "intelligence" in the inner part of the network. The 'intelligence' is in the communication endpoint where users can write and control any application such as email, audio and video. The network's only function in this paradigm is to deliver the packets.[4] The "stupid" network does not make any assumptions about what are in the data packets. "Intelligence" can be placed into the devices out at the edges of this network model and write almost any application because the network does not know what information is contained in the data packets.

David Isenberg argued that there is room for innovation in the "stupid" network. End-users can control the network's activity so that modifications and new applications can be built at the communication endpoints. "Stupid" networks also has DNS servers which translate human readable Web and e-mail addresses into routable IP addresses.[4] The Internet is considered a 'stupid' network because the network consists mainly of routers sending packets to their destinations.

Controversy with AT&T edit

In the early 1990s, AT&T was facing competition from Sprint. As a response to competition, David Isenberg, senior scientist at the time, was trying to implement upgrades to the voice quality of AT&T's network but change was difficult to implement because AT&T's network was not modularly programmed.[7] This meant that any effort to change a layer in AT&T's network would disable other layers. The program modules could not be separated to execute only one aspect of the network.

According to Lawrence Lessig, Isenberg became "increasingly frustrated" with the "smart" network that AT&T was[6]. The telephone network employed specialized technology intended to optimize the delivery of voice communication.[8] Isenberg found the fundamental design of this network faulty. He argued that AT&T's network was burdened by the 'intelligence' built into it.[6]

AT&T, on the other hand, resisted the development and interconnection of other technologies to its telephone networks because they did not want to change their business model. There were rumors that the company feared the Internet's effect on its business model.[5] In the early 1960s, RAND researcher, Paul Baran, proposed a design idea for the Internet to AT&T but AT&T rejected the proposal, arguing that maximizing its control over its network was profit-maximizing.[5]

AT&T governed its business by controlling the network from end to end. The telephone company was not receptive to using their network in unspecified ways.[5]

Bellheads vs. Netheads edit

'Bellheads' refer to supporters of the traditional centralized telecommunications networks focused on telephony services (the "intelligent" network). 'Netheads' refer to supporters of the Internet, its flexibility and technical underpinnings focused on Internet Protocol (the "stupid" network).[9]

 
Illustration of an application (Wikipedia) of the Stupid Network (The Internet) David Isenberg described in 1997

'Bellhead' networks are the classic PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network), circuit-switched voice telephony system, and 'Nethead' networks are packet-switched, Internet-like, systems.

Packet-switched networks are more open, permitting third parties to provide services at the edge of the network, without the permission, control or involvement of the network owner. Whereas, 'Bellhead' networks are controlled centrally enabling operators to define services, set prices and to determine standards.[10]

AT&T: The Most Important Bellhead edit

AT&T can trace its origin back to the original Bell Telephone Company founded by Alexander Graham Bell, who was credited for the invention of the telephone.[11] Alexander Graham Bell also established American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) in 1885, which acquired the Bell Telephone Company and became the primary phone company in the United States.[12]

At the time when Isenberg worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories, it was the world's largest and most important Bellhead platform.[13] The term 'Bellhead' derived from the name Alexander Graham Bell. [14]

AT&T was a supporter of the traditional centralized telecommunications networks. The company conceived the Internet to be a threat to their business model.[15] And for this reason, AT&T opposed David Isenberg's ideas of the "stupid" network.

The End-to-End Principle edit

The "end-to-end" principle is a design concept in computer networking. It is the central design of the Internet. The "end-to-end" principle suggests that the "intelligence" in a network should be located at the top of a layered system- at its 'ends,' where users put information and applications onto the network.[5]

The "end-to-end" principle was first articulated explicitly as a principle in 1981 by Jerome Saltzer, David P. Reed and David D. Clark. They argued that network systems should be left as simple as possible and push all the functionality to the ends.[5] [16] Saltzer, Reed and Clark presented the 'end-to-end' design as a concept that emphasizes making underlying systems more flexible for the applications that run them.[16]

One example of an implementation of the "end-to-end" principle is end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a system of communication where only the communicating users can read the messages. In principle, it prevents potential eavesdroppers – including telecommunications service providers, Internet providers, and even the provider of the communication service – from being able to access the cryptographic keys needed to decrypt the conversation.[17]

David Isenberg described the 'end-to-end' principle in his paper, The Rise of the Stupid Network, to explain explicitly how the telecommunications business model would be changed by the Internet. The tool of the Internet is Internet Protocol (IP) and the intelligence is end-to-end rather than hidden in the network.[6] He argued that the "end-to-end" principle enables anyone with an Internet connection to design and implement a better way to use the Internet, rather than relying upon a small group of innovators controlling the network.[5]. For example, voice over IP and the World Wide Web are applications created by end-users of the Internet[5]

During the 1970s, the Internet was used by computer experts, engineers, scientist, and librarians.[18] The people who engaged in discourse about the Internet were these small number of individuals who were involved in engineering, building and nurturing the Internet's growth. In order to have access to the Internet, you had to work at a major research facility, like AT&T Bell Labs, or attend one of the few Internet-connected academic institutions, like Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or Stanford University.[19]

Isenberg's paper was received with acclaim because it acknowledged the existence of the Internet which functioned privately for the first twenty years of its existence."[19] [20]

Net Neutrality edit

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.[21] Net neutrality advocates argue that net neutrality is needed in order to maintain the 'end-to-end' architect of the Internet.[22] [23]

Structural Separation edit

David Isenberg is also known for his advocacy for net neutrality. In 2007, he proposed a solution, Structural Separation, to guarantee net neutrality of Internet providers.[24] Isenberg described Structural Separation as "a law that would keep government out of the network management business." The main idea of this proposition is that network operators must not have a financial interest in any of the content carried by that network.[25] Not having a financial interest, ensures that when the Internet provider performs network management, they are not motivated to discriminate in favor of one content or service provider at the expense of another.[26]

The term 'net neutrality' was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003.[27] [28] In the 1990s,when Isenberg wrote his paper, the term 'net neutrality' had not yet been introduced in technology jargon. Internet advocates were concerned about changes that threatened 'end-to-end' architecture of the Internet.[8] The net neutrality debate grew out of the concern that the end-to-end principle was in jeopardy due to changes in technology and differences in regulation. The fear was that network operators would increase control over the content and applications on their networks.[8]

Supporters of the 'end-to-end' design principle, such as David Isenberg and Lawrence Lessig, have pushed for net neutrality legislation to prevent the Internet access providers from placing any "intelligence" in the inner part of the network.[29] Robert W. Hahn and Robert E. Litan examines, in The Myth of Net Neutrality and What We Should Do About it, how the end-to-end argument relates to the net neutrality debate.[30] They stated that the ideal of a "stupid" network, for proponents of the 'end-to-end' principle, "would be achieved simply by preventing access providers from charging content providers for priority delivery or other quality enhancements."[30]

F2C: Freedom to Connect edit

FC2:Freedom to Connect is an annual conference, produced by David S. Isenberg, about protecting Internet freedom and using the Internet to preserve and foster human freedoms. The conference is a two-day event where the builders and users of the networked economy engage communications policy makers, network technologists, application creators, and the builders and operators of the Internet's infrastructure.[31] [32] Developed in 2005, F2C is also devoted to addressing net neutrality and related issues such as preventing control of big corporataions in broadband and overall digital economy.[33] [34] [35]

Speakers at Freedom to Connect edit

Keynote speakers at past Freedom to Connect events include Vint Cerf, Lawrence Lessig, Thomas Friedman, and Aaron Swartz.[36]

Vint Cerf, an American Internet pioneer, who is recognized as one of the "fathers of the Internet"[37], has long been a supporter of Internet freedom. In 2012, he was reported on The Hill as saying that Internet freedom is under threat. Cerf argued, at Freedom to Connect 2012, that the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) was "likey to try and lock in mandatory intellectual property protections as a backdoor for easy Web surveillance." He said, "Political structures are often scared by the possibility that the general public might figure out that they don't want them in power."[38]

Aaron Swartz, an American computer programmer[39], also spoke at Freedom to Connect conference in 2012. Swartz campaigned against the Internet censorship bills at the Freedom to Connect 2012. Swartz is the founder of Demand Progress, which launched the campaign against the Internet censorship bills, SOPA/PIPA.[40] [41]

The conference is sponsored by various organizations including The Internet Society, Google, Media Democracy Fund, Thought Works and Ting Inc, and is produced by isen.com, in partnership with the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, Tropos Networks, Reilly Media, Public Knowledge, OneWeb Day, Broadband Properties, Voxeo, and LavaLife.[42]

Education edit

David S. Isenberg hold a Ph.D. in Biology from the California Institute of Technology (1977) and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Oregon (1971).[43]

Other Accomplishments edit

David Isenberg is a Fellow of Glocom, Institute of Global Communications of the International University of Japan. He is a founding advisor of the World Technology Network and was a judge for the World Communication Awards in 1999 and 2001.[2]

David Isenberg's story of his career at AT&T Bell Laboroties, and his article The Rise of the Stupid network has been cited and quoted in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Forbes, Fortune, and Wired. His ideas have also appeared in business books including The Future of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig, and Telcosm by George Gilder.[2]

In addition to writing The SMART letters, Isenberg has written articles for a number of publications including IEEE Spectrum, American's Network, VON Magazine and ACM Networker.

Past clients of his telecommunications consulting includes Cisco Systems, NTT, CityLink, and Motorola.

Works Cited edit

  1. ^ a b "David S. Isenberg". Broadband Properties. Retrieved 8 December 2016. Cite error: The named reference "Founder of F2C" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c "Biographical Statement: David Isenberg". isen.com. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Cite error: The named reference "bio" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ Ford, George S.; Koutsky, Thomas M.; Spiwak, Lawrence J. (April 2006). "Net Neutrality and Industry Structure". Pheonix Center Policy Paper Number 24: 5. Retrieved 8 December 2016.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g Evslin, Tom. "David Isenberg and The Rise of the Stupid Network". Fractals of Change. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Lemley, Mark A.; Lessig, Lawrence (2000). "End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era". UCLA Law Review. 48: 933. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Cite error: The named reference "UCLA Law Review" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b c d Lessig, Lawrence (2001). The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. New York: Vintage Books. p. 38. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Cite error: The named reference "Lessig" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Modular programming". Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  8. ^ a b c Martinez, Jorge Perez; Caballero, Antolin Moral; Sanz, Ana Olmos; Pardillo, Arturo Vergara (30 March 2011). Net Neutrality: Contributions to the Debate. Fundacion Telefonica. p. 48. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Cite error: The named reference "Contributions to Net Neutrality" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  9. ^ "Bellhead". Wiktionary. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  10. ^ Budd, Leslie; Harris, Lisa (13 January 2009). e-Governance: Managing or Governing?. Routledge. p. 3. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  11. ^ "AT&T". Wikipedia. 2016-12-05.
  12. ^ "History of AT&T". Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  13. ^ "List of telephone operating companies". Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  14. ^ Gray, Charlotte (2006). Reluctant Genius: The Passionate Life and Inventive Mind of Alexander Graham Bell. New York: Arcade. p. 419. ISBN 1-55970-809-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  15. ^ Menard, Francois. "Netheads versus Bellheads" (PDF). T.M. Denton Consultants. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  16. ^ a b Saltzer, Jerome H.; Reed, David P.; Clark, David D. (1 November 1984). "End-to-End Arguments in System Design" (PDF). AMC Transactions on Computer Systems. 4 (2). Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  17. ^ "End-to-end encryption". Wikipedia. 2016-10-22.
  18. ^ Howe, Walt. "A Brief History of the Internet". Walte Howe. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  19. ^ a b "The Internet Revolution" (PDF). Ironbound Press. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Cite error: The named reference "revolution" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  20. ^ Friedman, Rob. "Revenge of the Bellheads: how the Netheads lost control of the Internet". ScienceDirect. Elsevier. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  21. ^ "Net neutrality". Wikipedia. 2016-11-28.
  22. ^ "Net Neutrality". Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  23. ^ Lessig, Lawrence; McChesney, Robert W. "No Tolls on The Internet". The Washington Post. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  24. ^ "Structural Separation". P2P Foundation Wiki. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  25. ^ Shaw, Russell. "Don't like Net Neutrality? What about 'Structural Separation?'". ZD Net. IP Telephony. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  26. ^ Rosenberg, Tracy. "Some Internet Activists Say Obama Didn't Go Far Enough". Nigerian Newspapers Today. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  27. ^ "Net neutrality". Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  28. ^ Wu, Tim (2003). "Net Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination" (PDF). Journal on Telecomm & High Tech Law. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  29. ^ "Google accused of turning its back on net neutrality". CBC News. Retrieved 2016-12-10.
  30. ^ a b Hahn, Robert W.; Litan, Robert E. (November 2006). "The Myth of Network Neutrality and What We Should Do About It". AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies: 1. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Cite error: The named reference "litan" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  31. ^ "F2C: Freedom to Connect 2007". Benton Foundation. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  32. ^ "F2C: Freedom to Connect". Freedom to Connect Net. isen.com, LLC. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  33. ^ Atkinson, Robert D. (11 April 2008). "Which Broadband and IT Vision for America?" (PDF). The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  34. ^ "Freedom to Connect". Computer Desktop Encyclopedia. The Computer Language Company Inc. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  35. ^ Horrigan, John B. "Freedom to Connect conference, March 31 & April 1". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  36. ^ Lovelace, Candice Paige. "Aaron Swartz Address at F2C: Freedom to Connect Conference". American Rhetoric. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  37. ^ Cerf, Vint G. (28 October 2009). "The day the Internet age began". Nature. doi:10.1038/4611202a. PMID 19865146. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  38. ^ Feinberg, Andrew. "'Father of the Internet' warns Web freedom is under attack". The Hill. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  39. ^ "Aaron Swartz". Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  40. ^ Matthews, Laura. "Who is Aaron Swartz, the JSTOR MIT Hacker?". International Business Times. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  41. ^ "Aaron Swartz". Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  42. ^ "Freedom to Connect Conference 2006". Benton Foundation. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  43. ^ "Resume: David S. Isenberg". isen.com. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ramloc11/sandbox&oldid=754065527"