Mashed Articles

Linux doesn’t have a CEO. Consequently, there’s no annual keynote hosted by a charismatic alpha male. But if it did, and if there were a conference covering the first half of this year, the first speech would start with three words: ‘Linux is winning’.

Firstly, a market research firm in the US called The NPD Group revealed that sales of Google’s Android platform overtook those of Apple’s iPhone in the first quarter of 2010, propelling itself into second place behind the waning RIM. Android is becoming increasingly competitive, spanning both the smartphone and the emerging tablet markets, with devices from Dell and HP on the near horizon. This might be why Apple has started a patent infringement lawsuit against HTC, using many of its Android-based phones as physical exhibits in its litigation.

Secondly, Google announced its intention to open source the VP8 video codec. This was acquired when it bought On2 earlier in the year and it will be used alongside Vorbis and the MKV container to create Google’s WebM video format. This is vitally important for Linux. The nascent H.264 format, as used by Apple and many HTML5 video streams, is encumbered by patents, and current open-source implementations live under the shadow of legislation. VP8 and WebM have the potential to match it for quality, and while WebM will undoubtedly attract similar litigious trouble, having an umbrella the size of Google should satisfy many Linux distributions, especially when Mozilla, Opera and Adobe have already pledged their support.

Finally, the UK’s new coalition government has published its Programme for Government. There are two points in the section on Transparency that are great news for free software. One states, “We will create a level playing field for open-source software,” while the other adds, “We will ensure that all data published by public bodies is published in an open and standardised format, so that it can be used easily and with minimal cost by third parties.” If these promises come true, it will transform attitudes to open-source software and Linux, and hopefully open the door for its use within government and schools, two areas where it’s ideal.

Many of us used to think that for Linux to be judged a success, it had to be installed and running on more desktop computers than Microsoft Windows. And there are great swathes of Linux users who still feel the same way. But the world of computing has changed. There’s more than one way of judging the success of something that started as just a good idea.

Windows, Linux and OS X are survivors. They’ve lasted this long because they exist within their own ecosystems. Linux, for example, is fed by a curious mixture of enterprise investment, embedded hardware vendors and a community brimming full of zealous commitment. There’s a low-cost threshold to entry and a subsystem that maintains itself with very little investment. It’s these factors that have shaped how it looks, how it feels and how it’s operated.

The ecosystems inhabited by both Microsoft and Apple are equally well-adapted to their environments. The former is the domain of the utilitarians, offering straight functionality for an up-front price. The latter is an increasingly important fusion of fashion and function. But things have changed. The borders between the ecosystems have become indistinct. Apple has surpassed Microsoft in market value, winning thousands of new fans through it’s no-fuss interfaces and lower prices. There’s a shift in the balance of power.

And thanks to Google, Linux is becoming less free and less open, proving that in the new markets where it’s having the most commercial success, it’s becoming more like Apple. ROMs are encrypted and need to be rooted for user-hacking, third-party applications have to be sold through a single vendor and personal information is held in the cloud by a sole provider. If Linux wants a taste of similar success, it might find it if it makes similar concessions to a user’s freedom.

But then we’d have failed. The Linux ecosystem would have become too polluted, bogged down by sponsored kernel additions, paid-for support and short life cycles. It may be a commercial success, but no longer an active one. Our hypothetical CEO might make further compromises, and make judgements against the interest of Linux users. Which is exactly why we don’t have a CEO, and exactly why the success of open-source software is so difficult to judge using the same language as its competitors.

It’s easy to take education for granted, especially when you consider that every child in the UK has access to a computer, whether it’s at home or at school. But what most people forget is that 1 billion children in the developing world have little access to education, and no access to computers, which is where a burgeoning non-profit organisation called One Laptop per Child (OLPC) comes in.

Nigerian school children get their hands on the XO and immediately start learning how to use it.

The organisation hit the headlines in 2007 when it developed a low cost laptop called the XO, which was designed to be bought cheaply by governments of developing countries and distributed among school children. The XO was originally dubbed the $100 laptop, and although three years on it still hasn’t achieved its target price, it has been purchased by 21 developing countries and distributed to 1,284,500 children across the world. However, while the organisation has helped so many children around the world, it has courted controversy, created rifts with the world’s biggest technology companies, and spearheaded the biggest consumer technology trend in the last decade.

One Laptop per Child was the realisation of an altruistic dream by a MIT director and professor Nicholas Negroponte. In 2005 he unveiled his plan to see a laptop given to every child in the developing world, to aid their education, and offer them the similar advantages in the digital age as children in the developed world. The idea was based on the creation of something completely unique: A laptop which was durable enough to withstand the stresses and strains of life in a developing world, cope with the challenges of intermittent power and internet availability, and cost just $100.

The design of the XO PC was outstanding, and should be regarded as a feat of computer engineering. Against the back drop of the prices of technology in 2005, before low cost and low power components were prevalent, Negroponte designed a laptop with a 433MHz processor, 256MB RAM, a 7.5” LCD display and wireless networking. This may not sound impressive, but its base cost of £199 was unheard of at the time, it had enough power to drive its bespoke Linux operating system dubbed Sugar, it could function as a laptop, ebook reader, had a screen which was clearly visible outside in direct sunlight, had 12 hours of battery life and was completely shock-proof, waterproof and dust-proof.

While the XO preceded the market in terms of design, its biggest challenges were to overcome the rigours of a life in the hands of children in developing countries. Availability and reliance on power was a problem for Negroponte, and the XO could not succeed if it was too power hungry. They also had to iron out the biggest failing point on consumer laptops: Hard disc crashes. The XO introduced flash drives, which eliminated the mechanical wear and tear of traditional spinning disc drives. What’s more, the XO featured a revolutionary new screen, which used a dynamic LED backlight, which reduced operating wattage down to 3W under normal conditions. This put battery life at 12 hours, far beyond that of normal consumer laptops, and made the XO a force to be reckoned with.

A new kind of PC

The XO laptop caused such a stir, that it’s credited with spearheading the resulting netbook craze, which is still the only PC sub-market which is growing. Once OLPC had mastered the low power components, screen and size, it started selling them in the US. They retailed the laptop as part of the Give One Get One campaign, where a US consumer would purchas a laptop for $400, and donate one to a child in a developing country at the same time. It’s this that Wayan Vota, editor of OLPC News, an independent community of OLPC supporters, believes caught the eye of companies such as Asus and Acer.

The XO PC is waterproof and dustproof, making it ideal for children in the developing world.

“The real threat of OLPC introducing a “$100 laptop” was enough to spur technology companies into action. And they had to act fast. OLPC sold 160,000 XO laptops at $400 for two- and you didn’t even get both. That had Asus rightly excited when they launched the EeePC line to amazing success,” he said.

Once ASUS made a commercial success of their EeePC, the whole market had to catch up, and within six months, every laptop manufacturer was shipping its own netbook version. In 2009 there were 33.3 million netbooks sold globally, and the sector achieved a 72% growth in sales, compared to a 13% decline in amount of notebooks sold. If its supporters are correct, One Laptop per Child caused one of the biggest technology sensations of the decade.

“The creation of the netbook market is largely, and appropriately credited to OLPC,” says Ed McNierney, Chief Technical Officer of OLPC. “We wouldn’t have $300 netbooks in the consumer market if that push from OLPC hadn’t happened.
Consumer product companies in the technology world are not known, in general, for their risk-taking behaviour,” he told PC Plus.

When asked for a comment, an ASUS spokesman told PC Plus that the XO had no bearing or effect on the creation of the EeePC 701 which launched in 2008, and that the company would have come to market with a similar product even if the XO hadn’t been invented.

Competition

It’s not often that a non-profit organisation courts competition and controversy, but the technology industry can be an unpredictable world, and it wasn’t long before OLPC found itself embroiled in a war of words with Intel. The world’s biggest chip maker had seen the market potential of the developing world and built its own low cost laptop, the Classmate PC, soon after the announcement of the OLPC XO- a move which incensed Negroponte. He called Intel ‘predatory’ in a lecture at MIT, accused the company of “hurting the [OLPC] mission” on the CBS news show 60 minutes, back in 2007. If this wasn’t enough, Negroponte then accused Intel of selling its Classmate PC to the same governments he was trying to persuade to take up orders of the XO, but “dumping” them at a loss making sum, scuppering his project.

Children in Nigeria recieve a traditional lesson from their teacher, but use the OLPC XO laptop to support their learning.

In the face of widespread criticism, Intel joined forces with OLPC in December 2007, in an uneasy alliance, which caused public disconcertion from AMD, who was a founding partner of the OLPC project. While the Intel – OLPC partnership promised a new beginning, the reality was very different. Less than six months later Negroponte dropped Intel representatives from OLPC’s board of directors, demanding that Intel dumped its Classmate project if the two companies continued to work together. With the money Intel has invested in its own project it was never going to can the Classmate PC project, and the relationship ended.

Since 2007, both laptops have seen their share of success and failure, with Intel shipping 1 million Classmate PCs to Venezuela and 150,000 to Libya. OLPC has saturated Uruguay and Peru with approximately 1 million XO laptops, as well as completing smaller orders from Colombia, Rwanda and Mexico. Whether Intel’s Classmate PC project hurt the OLPC effort is still the subject of debate, but Wayan Vota, editor of OLPC News, an independent community of OLPC supporters, doesn’t think so. He believes that the enthusiasm created by the XO and Classmate PC made Negroponte’s dream a reality: “I’ve heard from Intel insiders that the XO laptop moved the netbook revolution forward by a few years. Intel would’ve come out with a Classmate-like device, but not as soon as they had to with OLPC’s pressure. For this, both organizations should be thankful because netbooks are the only bright spot in the laptop business,” he told PC Plus.

However, the bright spot of technology might not look so good for OLPC. It’s not been able to get its cost down to the desired $100, and orders have been far from overwhelming. What’s more, the consumer market has caught up, and it’s possible to buy standard netbooks at cost as cheaply as an XO. While they’re not built as ruggedly with the developing world in mind, they do feature fully functional operating systems, such as Windows, which some say would better prepare children for a connected future.

An ‘irresponsible strategy”

Despite its rocky road to success, OLPC still has a long way to go before it can claim any kind of success. Its intention to deliver PCs into the hands of the world’s poorest children is admirable, but experts have called its methods in question, warning that the charity risks wasting the hard work and achievements by equipping communities with laptops and then leaving them to work out how to use them for themselves- a criticism which Walter de Brouwer, European CEO of One Laptop per Child flatly rejects. “The charge is false,” he told PC Plus in an exclusive interview. “Typically, teachers and schools receive a two-week introduction not only to the machine and its technical features and operation, but more critically on how to integrate it into the learning experiences,” he said. De Brouwer continued: “OLPC works with the country to develop a team that works with the schools. The team supports the schools, technically and pedagogically. This team also works to develop capacity at the schools and locally in the communities.”

In the UK schools require entire departments to keep their networks and PCs in running order, and the use of IT in classrooms as a key part of teacher’s training. Wayan Vota, an outspoken supporter of the OLPC project, has questioned the level of support provided by OLPC called their deployment strategy “irresponsible.”

“OLPC has always maintained distance from actual implementation, claiming it was the country’s responsibility to integrate XO laptop into their educational system. That might work for Uruguay, a stable, advanced country. But it’s irresponsible in lesser developed countries. OLPC has the responsibility to educate countries on what they are buying – an XO laptop should be one small part of a whole educational system change,” he said. “Just handing off the XO laptop, like it’s a self-installing app, leads to Ethiopian teachers banning them from classrooms as a plague on education.”

Last year, teachers and parents in Ethiopia criticised the deployment of the XO, claiming that it was a distracting toy for the children, and could not be a worthwhile tool in their education system built around memorising from a blackBoard and then passing the national test. Without teacher training to implement the laptops, the XO couldn’t fulfil its function. While self-learning is an important part of the XO’s purpose, it’s clear that there’s a serious risk that the laptops will either not be used effectively, or fall into disrepair.

One has to admire what Negroponte and OLPC has achieved in the last three years, battling adversity which would have overcome many other organisations. OLPC claims that attendance in schools improves with the introduction of the XO. OLPC is currently working on a new version of its laptop, the XO-1.5, which it hopes to start deploying later this year, and has released concepts of a $75 tablet PC which it aims to make a reality by 2012. No-one can argue that getting an internet connected laptop into the hands of children in the developing world is essential for those countries to grow and prosper. However, unless OLPC ask difficult questions of the XO’s recipients, it risks wasting an opportunity to really make a difference.

Concept of success

No-one can accuse Negroponte of not being ambitious and if his mission to put an internet connected PC into the hands of every child in the developing world wasn’t challenging enough, he wants to build a paper thin touchscreen tablet PC which will retail at under $100. This concept design is the OLPC XO-3 (pictured) and is the latest dream of OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte. It’s to be based on the XO 1.75 spec, which will feature an ARM mobile processor, which will provide twice the speed of the XO-1 and operate at 25% of the power. However, the main difference is the form. Negroponte wants to move away from a standard laptop form, and go for a purely touchscreen device.

A vision of the future: Negroponte wants to launch a handheld tablet similar to this concept, costing less than $100, in 2012.

Whether or not the XO-3 can actually be achieved is another matter. Producing something similar to the iPad in form, in just two years and dropping the cost to under $100 seems ludicrous, and whether such a device could power an OS capable of supporting a child’s education is another matter. What’s more, whether this form factor is suited to education is another matter. It seems that Negroponte has learned a few things about the nature of the technology industry, in the last three years promoting the XO. While the threat of releasing a sub-$100 netbook spurred the rest of the industry to react is a seismic way, he’s hoping that the design of a low-cost tablet could have the same effect. He told Forbes: “We don’t necessarily need to build it, we just need to threaten to build it.”

If OLPC can use the industry to its advantage this time, rather than do all the leg work while the consumer market reaps the benefits, then the dream of getting tablet PCs into developing countries could become a reality.

No crime, no lag, no malware: 2020′s internet sounds like heaven. PC Plus checks out its foundations.

Safe, secure and speedy: that’s the internet of 2020. In a decade’s time, the web will be a very different place. There will be no crime, no malware and no fake online banking sites. Latency won’t be a problem. High-definition video will be smooth, and buffering will be a distant, nightmarish memory.

And that’s not all. The internet will have grown dramatically, making room for a new generation of connected devices: cars, phones, TVs, everything. Super-fast speeds are the rule, not the exception. To borrow a phrase, it just works.

At least, that’s what we hope the web will be like. To make it happen, engineers merely need to rethink the way the internet works and change pretty much everything. What could be simpler? Some big changes are already in progress. The explosion of internet-
enabled devices means that we’re running out of IP addresses even more quickly than expected: RIPE NCC’s Managing Director Axel Pawlik noted in January that the pool of unassigned IPv4 addresses would run out as early as 2011. But the move to IPv6, which can handle around “a trillion trillion trillion” addresses – 3.4×1038 if you’re feeling pedantic – is largely a software, not hardware, issue. “In most cases it’s very easy to reprogram connectivity software on a chip to ensure a device is IPv6 compatible,” Pawlik says.

But things aren’t progressing as straightforwardly as you would think. “Despite the simplicity of ensuring compatibility, widespread IPv6 take-up has so far been slow, and many of the best known digital devices available today, including the iPhone, do not yet support the next generation of IP addressing,” warns Pawlik. That lack of urgency is disappearing fast, with big names like Google implementing IPv6 support, router firms embracing the new system and new operating systems – including Windows and OS X – supporting it.

If we’re late embracing IPv6, the internet won’t grind to a halt – existing IP addresses will keep working – but as the European Commission reports, “the growth and also the capacity for innovation in IP-based networks would be hindered”. The EU is pushing IPv6 hard, and it expects European ISPs and “the top 100 European sites” to be IPv6-enabled this year.

As a happy by-product of IPv6, widespread adoption will make the internet more secure too. The IPsec security protocol is a compulsory part of IPv6, which means all IPv6 communications can be encrypted and authenticated.

Route masters

We’re using the internet in ways its creators couldn’t possibly have imagined, from the rise of video to the sheer number of connected devices. We’re constantly pushing the internet’s capacity, stability and security, and inevitably cracks are beginning to show.

Aaron Falk is the Chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Engineering Lead with the Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI). “There are many areas where the current architecture is straining to meet the needs of the users,” he says. “In particular, the areas of mobility, security, and network management were not well addressed in the original architecture, leading to a patchwork of mechanisms. The greatest concern is not so much that today’s traffic is challenged but that the ad-hoc machinery being inserted into the network will inhibit future innovations. I worry about tomorrow’s applications more than today’s.”

The IRTF is a technological trouble-shooter for internet architecture, as Falk explains: “The IRTF hosts research groups that work in areas ‘adjacent’ to the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). This can be pre-standards technologies, hard problems that emerge from the IETF or operations communities, technologies where the internet may be one of many possible communications strategies, or architectural issues.”

He continues: “Sometimes research groups assist IETF working groups by bringing researcher expertise or otherwise ‘pre-baking’ technologies so they are ready for standardisation. For example, the Mobility Optimizations Research Group has been working on IP mobility solutions that feed into the MIPSHOP (Mobility for IP: Performance, Signalling and Handoff Optimization) working group for standardisation. Another example is the IRTF Research Group on Internet Congestion Control (ICCRG) which evaluates new congestion control proposals that arise in the IETF.”

I dream of GENI

One of the problems with the current web is that it’s too big and too important to muck around with. That’s where GENI comes in. The Global Environment for Network Innovations is funded by the US National Science Foundation, and it’s best described as a (serious) playground where new ideas can be tested out. “GENI will support two major types of experiments,” the organisation says. “Controlled and repeatable experiments, which will greatly help improve our scientific understanding of complex, large-
scale networks, and ‘in the wild’ trials of experimental services that ride atop or connect to today’s internet and that engage large numbers of human participants.

“We’re well underway on the second year of GENI prototyping, GENI Spiral 2,” Falk says. “One of our more exciting activities is what we are calling ‘meso-scale deployments’ of virtualisable, programmable routers, switches, and WiMax base stations on 14 campuses and two national research backbone networks. Deployments like these are particularly exciting because they’ll allow experimental applications and services built on GENI to directly reach real users on university campuses. Thus researchers will have the ability to build new services – perhaps incompatible with the current internet – and test them at-scale with real end-users.” One area of concern is routing tables, which the net’s backbone routers use to direct online traffic. The BGP (border gateway protocol) routing table has grown hugely, doubling in size between 2003 and 2009, and there are concerns that if the level of growth continues, router hardware won’t be able to cope. The IRTF’s Routing Research Group (RRG) is investigating alternatives, and its goal is to produce solid recommendations that the IETF can implement. Another related program is Rochester Institute of Technology’s Floating Cloud initiative, which hopes to address the problem of routing table growth by moving the routing tables from inside routers to network clouds. Initial testing took place on a dozen Linux boxes, and the next step is to try it on GENI.

The BGP routing table doubled in size between 2003 and 2009, and it’s still getting bigger.

GENI isn’t the only initiative that the NSF is helping to fund. Its Future Internet Architectures (FIA) program is offering $30million to fund projects that will transform the net. As the NSF puts it: “Proposals should not focus on making the existing internet better through incremental changes, but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.”

FIA is a continuation of FIND, the NSF’s Future Internet Design project. FIND asked researchers to redesign the internet from scratch, and FIA will narrow around 50 FIND projects down to two, three or four serious contenders.

Safety and security

With the existing internet, security is something that’s largely been bolted on as an afterthought – but the FIA program expects security to be a key consideration from the outset. That’s leading to some interesting ideas, including one security system that takes its cues from Facebook. Davis Social Links (DSL) adds a “social control layer” to the network that identifies you not by your IP address but by your social connections. If it works – and DSL is in the very, very early stages of development – it could make a major dent in problems such as spam and denial of service attacks.

Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of Kaspersky Lab, would like to take things even further. In October, he argued that the internet’s biggest weakness was anonymity, and that everyone should have online passports. “I’d like to change the design of the internet by introducing regulation – internet passports, internet police and international agreement – about following [web] standards,” he told ZDNet Asia.

Kaspersky explained further on the Viruslist.com blog: “When I say ‘no anonymity’, I mean only ‘no anonymity for security control’,” he writes, explaining that he couldn’t care less what people posted on blogs or downloaded through BitTorrent. “The only [requirement] – you must present your ID to your internet provider when you connect.” Kaspersky argues that such requirements are inevitable, with some EU countries already introducing digital IDs. “Another prototype of e-passports is the two-factor authentication we use to access corporate networks,” he says. “The only thing missing today is a common standard.”

Security guru Bruce Schneier isn’t convinced. “Mandating universal identity and attribution is the wrong goal,” he writes on Techtarget. “Accept that there will always be anonymous speech on the internet. Accept that you’ll never truly know where a packet came from. Work on the problems you can solve: software that’s secure in the face of whatever packet it receives, identification systems that are secure enough in the face of the risks. We can do far better at these things than we’re doing, and they’ll do more to improve security than trying to fix insoluble problems.”

The quest for improved security is attracting a lot of attention – and a lot of money. The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded contracts worth $56million in January to two firms as part of its National Cyber Range security programme, which will enable network infrastructure experiments, new cyber testing capabilities and realistic testing of network technology. A month previously, Raytheon BBN Technologies was awarded an $81million contract by the Army Research Laboratory to build the largest communications lab in the US, again to research network security.

David Emm is part of Kaspersky Lab’s Global Research and Analysis Team. “It would be unrealistic to expect a wholesale re-architecture of the internet, or even of some of the technologies that are used online,” he says. “If we fix the problem by removing the facility, we run the risk of damaging legitimate activity too.”

There’s also the issue of displacement: if the internet becomes tougher to compromise, villains will simply switch to social engineering instead. As Emm points out, corporate email filtering to remove attached ‘.exe’ files simply spawned the use of links rather than attachments to spread viruses and other malware. “There has always been a human dimension to PC attacks,” he says. “Patching code is fairly straightforward once you know what you need to fix. But patching humans takes longer and requires ongoing investment.”

The last mile

There’s another big piece of architecture that needs upgrading: the bit between your ISP and you. Whether that’s a wired connection or a wireless one, today’s technology needs a serious speed boost. As Tim Johnson of broadband analyst Point Topic explains, “ Over the past 15 years or so we’ve seen the data speeds that typical home users get going up roughly 10 times every five years. I think that will continue over the next decade so that by 2020 many users will be getting a gigabit on their home broadband.

BT’s 21CN project is a software-driven network that aims to drive innovation.

“The big barriers that must be overcome to get there are (a) extending fibre all the way to the home, and (b) providing the backhaul capacity and the interconnect standards to make it useful,” he elaborates. “Both of those are do-able but I think it will be quite late in the teens before they are achieved.”

Johnson reckons that things will get particularly interesting when 100Mbps+ connections are the norm, as they will be able to deliver immersive, high-definition environments and “a huge new space of technology, applications and lifestyle possibilities”. But he’s not convinced the internet can even handle that – not in its current form, anyway.

“This kind of application is rather different from what the internet was designed for and is good at,” he says. “From an engineering point of view it will mean provisioning capacity that will allow users to set up assured end-to-end symmetrical calls of at least 20Mbps each way. There also needs to be a huge amount of standards development and investment to support setup and switching. […] It’s possible that this could all be done across the open internet, but my own belief is that as this type of traffic grows it will create the need for more dedicated capacity. IP and intelligent multiplexing will still rule, but the basic architecture will be different.”

Going mobile

In developed countries, the internet is moving away from the desktop and onto mobile phones and other wireless devices, while in developing countries the internet is primarily a mobile medium already. In both developed and developing countries the number of mobile internet users will increase dramatically in the next decade. So if you think the mobile networks are creaky now, things could get considerably worse in a decade.

For the mobile internet at least, the future may look an awful lot like the past. As Jon Crowcroft of the University of Cambridge writes: “We are so used to networks that are ‘always there’ – so-called infrastructural networks such as the phone system, the internet, the cellular networks (GSM, CDMA, 3G) – and so on that we forget that once upon a time (why, only in the 1970s) computer communications were fraught with problems of reliability, and challenged by very high cost or availability of connectivity and capacity.”

Noting that technologies such as email coped fine in those conditions, Crowcroft suggests that, “It appears that it’s worth revisiting these ideas for a variety of reasons: it looks like we cannot afford to build a Solar System-wide internet just yet, [but] it looks like one can build effective end-to-end mobile applications out of wireless communication opportunities that arise out of infrequent and short contacts between devices carried by people in close proximity, and then wait until these people move on geographically to the next hop. It’s interesting to speculate that these systems may actually have much higher potential capacity than infrastructural wireless access networks, although they present other challenges (notably higher delay).”

Such systems – variously called Intermittent, Opportunistic or Delay Tolerant networks – have a wide range of applications. They’re useful in emergencies and in areas where there isn’t an existing network infrastructure, and they’re particularly well suited to emerging applications where a constant signal can’t be guaranteed, such as internet-enabled cars.

While such networks could ultimately be deployed in remote areas, for most of us the future of the mobile internet is very similar to what we’ve already got. LTE (Long Term Evolution) is a kind of 3G network with knobs on, and in the UK at least it’s generating much more interest than the rival WiMax technology. When LTE begins to roll out later this year it will deliver theoretical speeds of up to 140Mbps, rising to 340Mbps after a 2011 upgrade. An even faster version of the network, LTE Advanced, is in the works. It’s worth noting, though, that even the first version of the LTE network will take several years to roll out nationwide.

And WiMax? In February this year, Patrick Plas – Alcatel-Lucent’s Chief Operating Officer for Wireless – told reporters that the company “is not putting a lot of effort into this technology any longer” as mobile networks were showing “a clear direction taken by the industry towards LTE”. That’s an honest indication of where the mobile internet is heading.

Looking ahead

Predicting the future is a tricky business, and predicting the future of the internet is doubly so. However, it’s clear that the next decade will see some dramatic changes in the way the web works. Some changes are definite – the move to IPv6 will happen, albeit more slowly than many would like – while other developments such as opportunistic networks may never become mainstream.

What we can predict is that the internet of 2020 will be coping with user numbers and traffic volumes that we can barely imagine. To be able to cope with that, the net will probably become a hybrid: a mix of old and new. As Falk puts it: “Recent interest in ‘clean slate’ network architectures encourages researchers to consider how the internet might be designed differently if, say, we knew then what we know now about how it will be used,” he says. “But that is not to say we must discard the current internet to fix the problems. The internet has tremendous value, has supported astronomical growth and changed the lives of millions of people. I believe research in new internet designs will provide insights on where the high-leverage points are on the current design thus allowing us to understand, justify, and deploy changes that will bring the greatest benefit.”