The Future Of Internet.

The future as general and the future of Net
as particular are some subject that makes us
insecure. We hear all over that the
technology will do this and do that in very
close future. The question is are we ready,
are people out there ready to change as fast
as these technologies are growing. If the
nature of us as human being needs much
more time to change, than a certain section
of science, what will happens? At the same
time we have to prepare our self for these big
changes. We have to start from our selves.

Those who argue that the current Internet does not need fixing “tend to be people who sell a lot of antivirus
software,” says John Wroclawski, director of the computer network division at the University of Southern California’
s Information Sciences Institute.
The Internet did not really become a mass-market communications tool until after 1983, when the U.S.
government’s original ARPANET—short for Advanced Research Projects Agency Network—changed
communications protocols and hooked up with a computer network linking academic computer science
departments nationwide, helping usher in the web we know today. It was built on the telephone network and
satellite and radio systems of the day, and adapted amazingly well to new technology. But “a new version of the
Internet is certainly imaginable,” says Mr. Cerf.
Mr. Wroclawski, working with a team of graduate students as well as some of the Internet’s pioneers, is trying to
rethink the Internet from scratch. The idea is to keep an open mind to what works, including preserving the best of
what we have today. To that end, they are participating in the Global Environment for Networking Innovations
(GENI), a new National Science Foundation project to build an advanced test-bed network for piloting new
protocols and applications on the Internet.
A second NSF initiative, the Future Internet Design (FIND), is one of many projects aimed at generating new
approaches that can be tested over GENI’s advanced test-bed network.
“We don’t presently have a roadmap of where we are trying to go with the Internet,” says MIT’s Mr. Clark. Instead
of worrying about backward compatibility and migration issues, the focus has shifted to “where we would like to be
in 10 to 15 years,” he explains. “If the story is compelling enough, people will figure out how to get there.”
There are different schools of thought about GENI’s ultimate impact on the Internet’s technical underpinnings.
Some, like Nick McKeown, a Stanford University professor involved in three different “clean slate” initiatives,
believe that after testing new technologies over the GENI platform, a consensus will emerge on one approach and
entrepreneurs will innovate around that—and commercialize their products with the help of venture capitalists.
Others think entrepreneurs will end up commercializing different approaches addressing different problems. In this
scenario, specific applications will have their own dedicated networks that will coexist indefinitely running over
GENI, which, as a platform, will become the new Internet.
Search will remain big. Big players will continue to dominate online, says Paul Saffo, director of the Palo Alto,
California-based Institute of the Future. “The lesson is, if you want to become big you do so by empowering and
enabling lots and lots of small players.” The same way that Google, Amazon, and eBay did, he adds.
So just how big will Internet business be? “My whole thesis is that information technologies are growing
exponentially. Things that we can measure like price performance, capacity, and bandwidth are doubling every
year so that’s actually a factor of a thousand in 10 years,” says Mr. Kurzweil. “So if the Internet is already very
influential—if there is already a trillion dollars of e-commerce, already a very democratizing technology, then
multiplying its size and scope by a factor of a thousand will be a very significant change.”
But this assumes that the current Internet, which was never designed to be a critical part of an economy’s
infrastructure, will be able to sustain a tripling of the number of people connected and the addition of billions—
perhaps even hundreds of billions—of devices.

Concerns about how to prepare for such a future took center stage at a March 8 meeting of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris. The meeting drew researchers, telecom executives,
academics, government officials, and economists from the United States, Europe, and Asia.

“The Internet is at a turning point and the changes are big enough in nature to warrant the high-level attention of
policy makers,” says conference organizer Andrew Wyckoff, head of the OECD’s information, computers, and
communications policy division.
Indeed, willful service disruptions, viruses, and the web’s fragility and lack of robustness have all become issues
of enormous importance as the Internet becomes central to the global economy and people’s lives. Even spam
has graduated from irritant to serious threat.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Senior Research Scientist Dave Clark, who has been actively influencing
the development of the Internet since the 1970s, believes the Internet needs a total overhaul, not just more
patches.
Mr. Cerf wonders about that himself. “Plainly the Internet continues to play an extraordinary role in the daily life of
its billion users, so in a sense it cannot be considered hopelessly broken,” he says. “But it is arguable that it can
be significantly improved.”
To date, the network’s core has been dumb—meaning its only job is to blindly carry data from one user to
another. All the innovation—think Mr. Berners-Lee and the World Wide Web or Niklas Zennström and Skype—
happened at the edges. But there are several proposals, all likely to be tested on GENI, that would move some of
the innovation to the Internet’s core.
One idea is to replace today’s routers, the boxes that direct Internet traffic, with much simpler dynamic circuit
switches, which would allow the introduction of new optical technology, says Mr. McKeown, director of a new
Stanford Clean Slate program, which will use outside donations to seed small projects that could end up changing
the Internet’s architecture in 10 to 15 years.
The upside of this approach could make service providers’ networks more efficient, lower their costs, and make
the model more sustainable. The downside, as USC’s Mr. Wroclawski sees it, is that “any move to change the
current overall Internet structure might be tremendously threatening to innovation in the future.”
government involvement in Internet issues will continue for the next 10 years, as will the debate over such
involvement. The Chinese government’s attempt to limit searches on Google is only the beginning
We can see easily that from one part all Bigs are working so hard to manipulate and control Net for their profits.
Other side of this coin is all the people that make the reality of this Net. With out them nothing will works, no one
will work. From our part as user or participant of this great event, we have to make sure the functionality of this
Net. We have to make it more and more secure for our activities. We have to block those who come here to cheat
on others, who with the face of one honest person destroy many people. The future of Net can be any thing, but
we have to clean it and keep it like that, we live with it.
Currently online there is a competition being run amongst internet marketers to see who can get their page to
rank number one for the search term “v7ndotcom elursrebmem”. This is a very intelligent marketing tactic from the
website v7n.com, the creators of the competition. Reportedly the site from where the competition originates has
experienced a doubling in traffic and forum members in the 2 short months the competition has been running.
These competitions are great to be a part of, they bring lots of previously not known people together. Many long
lasting personal and business relationships are formed in these competitions.
Not only that but it is a great way for marketers to study the complicated inner workings of the search engine
algorithms. People can intimately test their strategies against those of their competitions and can take note of
exactly what makes the differences in a ranking change of 1 spot.
People learn a lot from this about each of the major search engines.
It’s also a funny time when a competition like this is taking place. There is absolute madness. No friends or wives
can understand, when they see you and your friends jumping up and down in glee when your site raises one spot
in the competition.
They cannot understand that first thing in the morning upon waking, the first thing you do when returning home
from dinner, during all television commericals, all you ever want to do is go and check your rankings in the
competition!
And this goes on for 3 months!
This is one of the strange new phenomenons that appear in the age of the internet. We have to be worry more
about our contents in our sites than its ranks.
This is the point that we really have to pay attention to it. The point is not that I get better rank in search engines,
but we have to insist that the quality of the Net get better and better, with me or without. Now it is becoming the
biggest human knowledge resources. We all need it , so we have to help it to be more honest and human with
every body.