A History Of The Future Of The Internet 2008 (Tin180 Com)
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
1 j'aime•280 vues
Online Documentation: Socical Media and Internet Trend (http://tin180.com)
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à A History Of The Future Of The Internet 2008 (Tin180 Com)
Similaire à A History Of The Future Of The Internet 2008 (Tin180 Com) (20)
Plus de Tin180 VietNam
Plus de Tin180 VietNam (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
A History Of The Future Of The Internet 2008 (Tin180 Com)
- 1. A history of the future of the Internet Ian Graham IT Strategy & Planning www.iangraham.org/talks/
- 3. 1790
- 5. Codes
- 6. Networks
- 10. N D N uclear D isarmament
- 11. 1838
- 12. Telegraph
- 14. Legacy
- 16. The “1891” World Network ...and also pre-1914
- 20. 1877
- 22. Explosive Growth
- 27. Internet
- 28. History
- 32. slow growth <100 Number of Domains
- 34. 1993 ....
- 36. ....which led to mosaic.
- 38. N=e t 1.2 billion internet users 18,000 342,000 No. of ‘responding’ domains 160 million domains
- 40. Physical layer evolution ( 1275 DVDs / second )
- 42. synergy innovation in and between layers more customers bandwidth ↑ new services Cost ↓
- 46. The future..... & Banking?
Notes de l'éditeur
- The beautiful graphic comes from http://www.caida.org/research/topology/as_core_network/2007/. It represents a graphical mapping of the connectivity and topology of the Internet. I work in the IT Strategy & Planning group at BMO. Our role is to work with our business and technology executives to build technology strategies, plans and roadmaps that will support business plans and strategies. This talk has nothing to do with that, though ;) This talk asks some questions about the Internet, such as “ how did we get here?” “where is it going” “How do we fit in” To do this I want to talk about the history of ‘packaged data’ communication – it’s far older than you think’ – and also talk about how innovation, at many different levels, has driven this along. As for my credentials to talk about this – well, no better than most folks. I do have a Facebook account, and use it regularly. I also play with blogs and wikis, and other fun stuff. But I am not 2x years old ... ;-)
- You could really go back 2000 years to talk about communication technologies. But here we want to focus on the last 40 years, and the growth of the Internet. But it helps to go back to the late 18 th century, and look to the technologies that preceded (and to some degree, coexist with) the Internet. That’s because the Internet was built on the knowledge and experience of these older layers, so understanding them explains some of the reasons behind how the Internet works the way it does. Also, these previous technologies also had their own ‘Internet boom/bust” cycle, and introduces their own huge changes in culture. So it helps to look to the past to see what isn’t really so new, and separate that from what are real, fundamental and different changes this time.
- You could really go back 2000 years to talk about communication technologies. But here we want to focus on the last 40 years, and the growth of the Internet. But it helps to go back to the late 18 th century, and look to the technologies that preceded (and to some degree, coexist with) the Internet. That’s because the Internet was built on the knowledge and experience of these older layers, so understanding them explains some of the reasons behind how the Internet works the way it does. Also, these previous technologies also had their own ‘Internet boom/bust” cycle, and introduces their own huge changes in culture. So it helps to look to the past to see what isn’t really so new, and separate that from what are real, fundamental and different changes this time.
- Optical telegraphs are incredibly interesting, and also quite beautiful. The model is simple: build a chain of towers and relay messages form one tower to the other, using a system of codes for each letter / number / control code. Each tower would have a team of operators to operate the ‘semaphore’, and the messages would be passed between stations where they would be transcribed and carried by foot (or horse) to the recipient. They were invented in France by Claude Chappe, with the first line going into operation in 1794 (Paris-Lille). Other countries soon followed, with their own distinct technologies. It must’ve been quite a site to see these towers flashing messages!
- This sample of semaphore codes is taken from http://www.royal-signals.org.uk/Datasheets/Telegraph%20.php. Note that different countries had quite different mechanical systems of coding (flags, arms at different positions, etc., etc.) for numbers and letters. Each country also used different mechanisms for sending command codes (i.e. switch from alpha to numeric, end messages, etc.) Shorthand codes were also introduced to speed up sending of common messages sequences. Because of physical limitations, this system only worked during the day, and not long distance over water. Also, the maximum distance between towers was around 15 miles (less pollution then, I suppose!). Best data rates were around 3bps (a few words / minute) – not so fast, but over distance up to 90 times faster than a horse and rider. ( The 90 times faster quote comes from http://www.bookrags.com/research/semaphore-woi/. )
- It didn’t take long to build up large networks – by the early 1800’s France was interlaced with telegraphy towers (to help coordinate Napoleon’s military, in part) as was southern England. Still, the network really only consisted of 10s of real ‘stations’ – the rest being just repeater towers that passed the messages on. Indeed, military messages were sent in cipher codes – so that the tower operators could not even read the messages they were sending! This made signal / noise issues a concern – so there was lots of interest in finding coding schemes that would work if parts of a message were lost. The nature of networks management / ownership varied also. France’s network was a government monopoly, while in England there was a largely entrepreneurial approach.
- In the early 19th century, it was possible to transmit a short message from Amsterdam to Venice in one hour’s time. A few years before, a messenger on a horse would have needed at least a month to do the same. This figure gives a measure of the scale accomplished in such short order: in just 30 years optical telegraph went from an invention to a cross-continental network (albeit with some complicated bridging needed between nation states) This quote is from an article at the online LowTechMagazine -- http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2007/12/email-in-the-18.html How can we characterize these first telegraph networks. Small, disconnected networks; typically less than 100 stations in any country, most towers being just ‘routers’ High unit cost – very expensive to send messages, so very limited user base – maybe a few hundreds at most. Limited capabilities (text-only messages), and limited technology. Transport bound to utility – the whole system was vertically integrated, with coding mechanically tied to how the towers worked. If you wanted to change the code, you would have to rebuild the entire network!
- Monolithically, all “layers” of the network are intimately tied – you can’t modify one without modifying or changing the others. Thus the physical transport layer (towers and flags) is tied to the data link layer (how data is moved) which is tide to the network (how you address things) and transport (how you get the data in and out). Indeed, this separation doesn’t make sense for this simple model. This makes it hard to innovate in this model – innovation requires changing everything, at great expense.
- Optical telegraphy / semaphores had limited runway for improvements – you could make better semaphore schemes, and use lights to improve evening operation, but the raw limitations of the technology (tower construction, labor-intensive operation, etc.) meant there was little scope for huge improvements. Once electrical telegraphy was invented, optical’s days were numbered. It’s legacy remains in terminology (semaphore, telegraphy), in names (Telegraph Hill, Telegraph Road, etc.) and in special uses, such as ship-ship and ship-shore communication, and other ‘flag’ style communication tools (e.g. flags to signal taxiing aircraft, control aircraft on an aircraft carrier flight deck).
- Next came the electric telegraph. The first operational electric telegraph was launched in 1839, in England. The US came next, in 1844 (Samuel Morse), while France lagged to 1845 (they did love the mechanical towers!). The idea was similar to optical telegraphy: a person would receive a message from a station, write it down, and retransmit it to the next station in the line. But by using wires and electricity the distances between stations could be much longer: plus things could work 24 hours a day, as opposed to just during daylight hours. Moreover, technology improvements gave a big upside to electrical versus optical telegraphy. For example, improved cable design and amplifiers made underwater – and eventually transoceanic cables – possible, while electromechanically input devices, like teletypes, made input and output faster, and allowed for automated retransmission (people were no longer needed). And then radio and wireless opened up whole other channels of communication, and turned a point-to-point technology into a point many communications medium. Telegraphy’s peak was in the late 1800’s – it faded out over time, due to competition form the telephone. But for a time telegraphy provided the innovation highway for many new businesses and industries.
- graphic from http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/archives/images/set2/telegraph1.jpg There are lots of great references on telegraphy. Here are a few http://www.morsetelegraphclub.org/mtc_telegraph_docs.asp
- Initial growth in telegraphy was often synergetic with Railways: Railways needed ways of signaling / communicating between stations, so they could coordinate sharing of rail lines by different trains. Telegraphy let railways get way more utility out of the same rail infrastructure, so the business case for them was huge. All around the world there was huge boom in telegraph construction alongside existing and new railway lines. But of course not all the bandwidth was needed by the railways. There very quickly came a market for commercial and private messages, and whole businesses sprung up (Western Union dominating in the US) for commercial telegraphy, borrowing on the railway networks and building their own. In the US, Western Union became an effective monopoly (but blew it on the Telephone – they too didn’t see how telephony would kill their telegraph business!) Western Union delivered a bunch of services based on their telegraph network, including Stock Tickers (‘ticker tape parade’) , Money (wire) transfers, etc. ( Locomotive image from http://www.soo2713.org/pb/wp_89e2d046/wp_89e2d046.html)
- You can still today see the legacy of the connection between railways and telegraphy, in the telegraph poles and collapsing telegraph lines following existing rail lines. Because standard telegraphy only supported one ‘channel’ per wire, telegraph poles often piggybacked dozens of lines, each for a single telegraphy channel. Railway image from http://www.martin.loader.btinternet.co.uk/Yarnton_Junction.htm), Note the poles could also be carrying telephone lines – it was common for telephony networks to piggyback on top of existing infrastructure).
- Because of the high cost, many ‘shorthand’ codes were developed (this is an example of the Phillips code, documented at http://www.morsetelegraphclub.org/files/phillips.pdf).[ About breakfast check if children ] So texting shorthand is not so new, after all. And social concern for telegraphy’s impact on people parallels concerns today. “Ella Cheever Thayer's novel &quot;Wired Love&quot; (1879) was based on online romances. An article entitled &quot;The Dangers of Wired Love&quot; (1886) told the story of George McCutcheon, who installed a telegraph in his newsstand and set Maggie, his 20-year old daughter, to operate it. Soon, she was flirting online with several young men. Soon, she was involved with Frank Frisbie, a married man. Father yanked out the telegraph, but Maggie found a job at a nearby telegraph office and resumed the online affair. “ (from http://www.andreas.com/faq-steamnet.html (see also Digital Ego: Social and Legal Aspects of Virtual Identity, By Jacob Van Kokswijk, Eburon , 2007, p58 ). “ Marriages were performed online, with the minister telegraphing the ceremony, and the bride and groom, apart in different cities, taping &quot;I do.&quot; All of the telegraph operators along that line were present online at the wedding. “ (from http://www.andreas.com/faq-steamnet.html )
- When technology made it possible to create submarine cables, telegraphy went international. In the late 19 th and early 20 th century there was a huge push to wire up the world with intercontinental submarine cables – much like the gold rush in fiber-optic cable laying in the late 1990s early 21 st century. There were strong economic reasons for wireless cables also – communications times were reduced from months, to hours, enormously improving business’s ability to coordinate seaborne trade. And, at the same time, there was also an ‘arms race’ (so to speak) in telegraphy – the government that could be most quickly informed of overseas affairs could better manage their concerns. So telegraphy became the currency of international diplomacy. So once again, ciphers and cipher codes were a hot commodity. (underlying graphic from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1891_Telegraph_Lines.jpg. Overlay graphic from http://www.terrastories.com/bearings/radios-rise-during-world-war-I )
- Electric telegraphy is in characteristics similar to optical, but with the big benefits of reduced costs and vastly increased range. There were many more users, but these ‘users’ were really telegraph operators – no the real people who send / receive messages. Thus this is still a station-to-station technology, and not person to person. Historically telegraphy started out as non-monopolistic – dozens of telegraph companies were set up, many using vastly different technologies. But the economies of scale – and the benefits of a wide network – caused rapid consolidation to a few large-scale carriers. Just like with telephony many years later.
- With the telegraph, the layers start to separate. Physical transport was possible by a variety of mechanisms – telegraph lines on poles, undersea cables, and eventually wireless, while data link was the system of codes and initially manual error correction (operators would ask to repeat messages). Many years later technology would allow for automated data and error correction, splitting the physical and data link layers. But that was way in the figure – initially they were intimately tied together.
- Growth in telegraphy was fast. In the US the number of telegrams sent in a given year grew from 9.158 million in 1870 (23 messages per person) to a peak of 236.169 million in 1945 – 168.8 telegrams for person (each man, woman, or child) in the US. Of course, most of these were for commercial purposes, but for a long time telegraphy was the only fast and reliable way of sending messages long distances, or around the world. (Data from “From Gutenberg to the Internet: A Sourcebook on the History of Information Technology, Jeremy M. Norman, ed. Historyofscience.com, 2005, p 38).
- The telephone was invented in the late 1870, and was quickly commercialized. This was a non-digital technology (unlike telegraphy, which was sort-of-digital), and was based on a point-point as opposed to station-station: the clients for telephones were individuals or offices. It was also bi-directional – you could have a conversation –which was not easily possible with telegraphy. Indeed, telephony evolved as an artifact of trying to improve telegraphy: that is, trying to find ways of multiplexing multiple telegraph signals onto the same physical wire. Alexander Graham Bell (A Canadian) was working on this problem when he happened upon the idea behind the telephone. (http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Str-The/Telephony-Voice-Telecommunications.html) Interestingly, western union had no interest in the telephone, and couldn’t see why it would be of interest, as telegraphy was much faster to communicate messages, of various types. Missing the point that telegraphy required trained operators, but anyone could use a telephone, thus exploding the user base. In a sense, the telephone removed the intermediary of the telegraph office – but telegraph companies didn’t see that, to their detriment. Funny how things repeat themselves. (Telephone photo from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1896_telephone.jpg – a Swedish telephone from 1896).
- Telephone growth was phenomenal: from 0 to almost 4 million subscribers (in the US) in 30 years. The curve is essentially exponential – just like the initial growth in Internet subscriptions. This growth drove substantial innovation in technologies: both to satisfy customer demands, but also to support enormously increasing scale in user demands. For example, telephone dialing / switching networks replaced operators with patch boards. Multiplexing technologies let multiple ‘virtual’ lines share the same physical line. And developments in signal compression, error correcting coding, and digital compression / multiplexing technologies let the telcos improve the underlying backbone infrastructure while preserving the simple ‘point to point’ virtual connection technology that make the telephone so easy and successful. But this underlying digital and packet-switched network could also server other purposes. Like the internet. The overlaid chart of access rates is from: From http://www.ipbusinessmag.com/departments.php?department_id=17&article_id=335
- Growth was fast because it could leverage existing infrastructure – namely the telegraph lines and poles already interlinking city locations. It also spurred innovative uses of those lines, through amplification to allow for long distance, and pegboard switching to allow for ‘switching’ and connecting different parties together. Innovation on top of this included phone numbers (a form of addressing), and interconnect standards for connecting different zones, then countries. And then under the covers there was much innovation to improve the underlying transport (wires, signal processing, etc.) – since this layer was separate form the application, innovation could happen here without affecting telephony.
- Telephony changed a lot of things.
- The ‘backbone’ phone network became the backbone for the nascent internet. The phone company’s moved in the 1970s to digital data transmission, so they could get more capacity (and multiplexing) on their existing cable, microwave, and satellite networks. This meant they started separating the telephony ‘service’ from the underlying transport. Indeed, the telcos spent billions of dollars on multiplexing / signal compression technologies, including digital technologies for multiplexing/ de-multiplexing signals on a cable. But this left room for other services on top of the ‘physical’ network layer. And they tried to build services, like ISDN (Integrated Subscriber Digital Networks), etc, to little success. Someone else ended up doing it.
- Telephony, and the technical advances that came with it, split the layers even further – now the underlying wires were separated from the network / addressing, which was separate from how the data was encoded and transported to the other end. This led to lots of innovation at each layer: multiplexing on lines, and different transport / application layer tools (e.g. fax,modems, etc.), and even digital things like ISDN. But the monopoly model that came into being stifled deeper innovation – it was hard to innovate without breaking the existing revenue models (leased lines).
- The “Internet” really began in 1969 – that’s when the first ARPAnet network was created, consisting of a few (<10) computers connected together using the first version of IP. This was experimental military networking technology, designed to run initially over small local networks (whatever happened to be lying about connecting one computer to another), but eventually branching out to run over existing telco networks. As a military project, fault tolerance was a key design goal –so it was designed to be a multi-pathed, packet-switched network, so that if you took a node or ‘router’ down, then the whole network would heal and ‘route around’ the dead node. A very useful feature if a nuclear bomb blows up part of your network. Key aspects of this design though are clear separation of the logical TCP/IP network from the physical underpinnings (Ethernet, token ring, twisted pair RS232 cables, telco networks, etc.) – thus the Internet can run on top of anything, pretty well. There is even a specification for CPIP (Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol, RFC 1149). Bryan Adams album cover photo from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bryan_Adams_-_Summer_of_%2769.jpg
- This diagram, taken from http://www.ziplink.net/~lroberts/internet_history_information.htm, shows how the early internet technologies evolved. The author of this, Lawrence Roberts, was one of the founders of the underlying Internet technologies. It took over 10 years of serious work and thinking to produce the TCP/IP and other protocols on which the current Internet is built.
- Indeed, the internet grew out of several key themes – although the implication of these themes is easier to see in hindsight. The first was that of a logical network: TCP/IP defines how data transport happens on a logical network, independent of the underlying physical medium. This is key, as it then means that TCP/IP is agnostic w.r.t. transport (how messages get around) and w.r.t. the computers doing the work. This opened up enormous new opportunities for innovation in technology and design – something that wasn’t possible with telephony, for example. It was also computer agnostic – any type of machine could be connected. Indeed, early on there were competing product-specific networking protocols (bitnet [IBM], Decnet [Digital Equipment], etc.) but these soon faded out in faviour of something universal. It was also peer-to-peer. Any node could address and talk to any other node. It was also minimal. Just about getting digital data from one place to the other. What you did with the data – and what applications were built on it – was left to be determined. It was also extensible on top of this base, using an open technology-driven process.. The Internet RFC process documents all these new ‘standards’ for how the underlying Internet works.
- Monolithically, all “layers” of the network are intimately tied – you can’t modify one without modifying or changing the others. Thus the physical transport layer (towers and flags) is tied to the data link layer (how data is moved) which is tide to the network (how you address things) and transport (how you get the data in and out). Indeed, this separation doesn’t make sense for this simple model. This makes it hard to innovate in this model – innovation requires changing everything, at great expense.
- Telephony changed a lot of things.
- But it took a while to take off. Initially this was a US military experimental project, under DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). But when released in the general public, academic and technology researchers took it on and started to evolve / develop it, through a formal process known as RFCs. This led to a whole spectrum of basic functionality, or services, that served as the core of that initial internet. These were invented at that time..... FTP – file transfer protocol (1971) Telnet – terminal protocol (1971-72) SMTP – Simple Mail Transport Protocol (1981) User datagram protocol (UDP) – 1980 IP – (1981) TCP – (1981) POP – (1985) Whois MIME .....
- Things grew from 87-93, but slowly. The internet was reserved, due to functionality and cost, to academic or business users with high-priced machines and an interest or need to exchange data. The ‘Intenet’ was still growing, but not that fast. Connectivity to the net was still expensive, and broadband was really limited to T1 lines (1.44 MBPS), leased at usurious rates by the telcos ($10,000+ per month). Life was not good if you wanted to connect to the internet.
- This is Tim Berners-Lee. In 1991 or so he dreamt up the Web – that’s right, the whole damn thing. He invented HTML (the language of Web pages), and HTTP – the tool for distributing data form servers to web browsers. And he also invented URLs – those weird http:// thingys – so you could point your web brower at something, and it would go and get it and show it to you.
- So suddenly it was easy. All you needed was a web browser to read stuff, and a simple text editor (and some knowledge of HTML and URLs) to write stuff. Now not only was anyone able to access and use it (like the telephone), anyone was also able to publish and communicate. It was like the telephone, only ... Different. And in some ways better.
- Mosaic was the first ‘public’ web browser – it ran on Windows, and anyone with a Windows 3.1 PC connected to the Internet could use it. Suddenly you didn’t have to remember cryptic FTP commands – you could just point and read! It was a wow moment, with implications people didn’t really begin to understand.
- Things grew from 87-93, but slowly. The internet was reserved, due to functionality and cost, to academic or business users with high-priced machines and an interest or need to exchange data. The ‘Intenet’ was still growing, but not that fast. Connectivity to the net was still expensive, and broadband was really limited to T1 lines (1.44 MBPS), leased at usurious rates by the telcos ($10,000+ per month). Life was not good if you wanted to connect to the internet.
- So now we’ve really got growth. But the real question is, why:
- New ‘application’-layer innovations occurred as user base grew, driven by synergies across all layers. Thus P2P grew as the number of users grew, but also because bandwidth growth made distribution of large files possible. And this does not include any ‘innovation’ higher-level user applications built on top of P2P, the Web, etc.
- So suddenly there was a huge driver for innovation – customers. This drove innovation in bandwidth and costs, which in term drove new customers. Moreover, as new services were invented, and also tool advantage of growing bandwidth (streaming audio/video P2P, etc). Further stoking the innovation cycle. The ‘net neutrality’ act helped make this possible, as did liberal taxation laws for the new industry.
- The root cause was the same thing as with the phone – the ability to innovate on top of the existing infrastructure without. In the case of the Internet, though, this innovation could happen on many levels: from the underlying networking infrastructure (Cisco, Nortel, cable modems / wireless / land lines, etc.) to the technology infrastructure (Internet protocols, XML, JavaScript, Flash, etc.) to applications design (P2P, social networking, click and mortar storefronts, search engines, etc.). IT may seem like we’ve come a long way, but we are truly barely begun.
- In the future just about every device will be a ‘node’ on the internet, capable of sending / receiving data. And with Moore’s law every driving down the cost of hardware, while pushing up the speed, soon we will be in a world where we can be always on and always know where we are, broadcasting live video 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and storing that – and all we say and do – for the rest of our lives. So will that make the internet boring? Maybe if you look at my video feed. But the implications are far from boring....
- In the future just about every device will be a ‘node’ on the internet, capable of sending / receiving data. And with Moore’s law every driving down the cost of hardware, while pushing up the speed, soon we will be in a world where we can be always on and always know where we are, broadcasting live video 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and storing that – and all we say and do – for the rest of our lives. So will that make the internet boring? Maybe if you look at my video feed. But the implications are far from boring....
- So can we apply the same model to financial services? The answer is likely yes, and much of our work hints at how we can make that happen: by layering out banking services so it is easier to innovate and create new products and services. But the Internet example tells us that we can’t do it alone - we need to find ways to open up and bring in partners / competitors to create new innovative opportunities we don’t think of and can’t imagine. How do we ‘open’ up our technology for layered innovation, and how do we (like manufacturing, or Internet companies, or others) “open up” our business model to help us and the whole market grow?
- Here are some other references you might find interesting http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/electrochemists3.htm – famous scientists involved in telegraphy, etc.
- ( The 90 times faster quote comes from http://www.bookrags.com/research/semaphore-woi/. ) Optical telegraphs are incredibly interesting, and also quite beautiful. The model is simple: build a chain of towers and relay messages form one tower to the other, using a system of codes for each letter / number / control code. Each tower would have a team of operators to operate the ‘semaphore’, and the messages would be passed between stations where they would be transcribed and carried by foot (or horse) to the recipient. They were invented in France by Claude Chappe, with the first line going into operation in 1794 (Paris-Lille). Other countries soon followed, with their own distinct technologies and. It must’ve been quite a site to see these towers flashing messages!
- The beautiful graphic comes from http://www.caida.org/research/topology/as_core_network/2007/. It represents a graphical mapping of the connectivity and topology of the Internet. I work in the IT Strategy & Planning group at BMO. Our role is to work with our business and technology executives to build technology strategies, plans and roadmaps that will support business plans and strategies. This talk has nothing to do with that, though ;) This talk asks some questions about the Internet, such as “ how did we get here?” “where is it going” “How do we fit in” To do this I want to talk about the history of ‘packaged data’ communication – it’s far older than you think’ – and also talk about how innovation, at many different levels, has driven this along. As for my credentials to talk about this – well, no better than most folks. I do have a Facebook account, and use it regularly. I also play with blogs and wikis, and other fun stuff. But I am not 2x years old ... ;-)