The openness of the internet is no doubt the major contributing factor for its success. Through the simplicity of dumb pipes, and with timeless principles such as the end-to-end principle and network neutrality, the internet grew and became what it is today: relevant for everyone, everywhere.
At least this is my opinion. Others, mainly telecom companies, argue that a more regulated and “smart” internet is necessary for its future expansion. Through “smart pipes” a better internet can be constructed, where the idea seems to be that intelligent wiring allows for more features and markets to be exploited, mainly by telecoms.
However, I believe there are important issues to be raised, and for relevant arguments to be heard, in favor for the pipes to remain dumb.
First and foremost, the fact that no smart pipes were needed to build today’s state-of-the-art should be a strong argument. On the other hand, the established internet is different today than it was during its build-up phase. The question is, then, whether the future expansion demands deep-packet inspection and other such technologies?
This question can only be answered with business cases detailing important end-user problems that would be solved, should these technologies be implemented. Examples where smart pipes are falsely claimed to solve problems are spam protection (already solved for end-customers; I haven’t seen spam in 5+ years), location (already solved by GPS, or location-databases such as Skyhook) or streaming (my YouTube works fine, thank you very much).
Regarding tiered pricing, service-specific connectivity or any such regulatory “innovation”, I’m afraid they will produce walled gardens that are, at best, only slightly cheaper for the end-customer — a discount not worth paying for.
In the future, three scenarios may emerge. Hopefully smart pipes will be used for solving some problem in need of real innovation. Alternatively, they will simply produce software-services by companies whose core-business is not software — harmless but useless. Finally, and most dangerously, they might contribute to a radical change in end-user connectivity. This scenario is frightening because there is nothing I, as a developer, dislike more than walled gardens.
The vast majority of the creative and profitable internet is the product of young programmers’ ideas, and therefore the industry’s continued growth is largely dependent on these people remaining innovative. Dumb openness is the way to go — because creativity does not thrive within walls.