The value of data transport protocols other than TCP/IP has been growing for the past decade. Those of you with long memories might recall that the global telecom industry debated the protocols for its next-generation network in the 1990s, with many favoring asynchronous transfer mode.
To make a long story short, the industry chose TCP/IP, itself once believed to be a “transition” protocol. There were lots of reasons, but chief among them was the cost of connecting. ATM was relatively expensive; TCP/IP was radically cheaper. And not even volume deployment was going to eradicate the price differential.
But there is another sense--beyond transmission costs--that is likely to become even more important in the decade ahead: the business value. We often forget that TCP/IP is based on “layers” that separate functions from each other.
That has led to the “over the top” way applications are created and owned on all networks using TCP/IP, and at this point that is virtually all networks. In part, that is because all networks now are computer networks, and TCP/IP was originally conceived as a data networking protocol.
As we create applications on computing networks--applications separated from connectivity--so we also create applications running on public and private wide area networks.
“Anonymity” has been one feature of the internet that can be troublesome, for social reasons such as enabling bullying, financial fraud, phishing, spoofing and catfishing, to note a few problems.
But “trust” has become a significant business issue in the internet era. Is it possible that business models that inherently have better “trust” attributes could supplant much of the “zero trust” nature of the internet?
Some might argue blockchain is a candidate to change the “trust” dimension of the internet, for consumers and business users. It once was argued that anonymity was important for political dissidents living under repressive regimes, and there is logic there.
But that same anonymity arguably makes the consumer internet less useful, and positively harmful, for a similar reason: anonymity frees human beings from the in-person courtesy and respect they might otherwise show people. Anonymity encourages extreme expressions.
Known identities have become more important, for all sorts of good reasons. Maybe a shift to blockchain--with a new emphasis on verifiable identities, will be a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment