The Debate Between Stupid Network And Intelligent Network

STUPID NETWORK
Name of student
Institutional affiliation
STUPID NETWORK
Article:
Rise of the Stupid Network. (n.d.).Retrieved May 23, 2017, retrieved from /misc/stupidnet.html
Summary
The article “Rise of the stupid network” was written by David Isenberg trying to explain why the Intelligent Network at one time was a good idea but of late is not. He was considered a deviant, but is this nerd’s odd perceptions on the different value proposition relevant? In this article, he was protesting his employer’s latest initiative to promote "The Intelligent Network." The objection gives rise to the debate between “Stupid Network” and “Intelligent Network.” Isenberg's focus on the article is the development of a smart network at its endpoints.
Isenberg’s idea is in contrast to the modern smart networks developed by phone corporations composed of stupid endpoints. Smart networks also charged with the role of handling the entire call control, but what the difference between an “intelligent” and “stupid” network? His key point is that a stupid network, the Internet, is generating new value structures by transforming the smart network to a stupid network paradigm. Isenberg noted that "The Intelligent Network was a telephone company attempt to engineer vendor independence, more automatic operation and some 'intelligent' new services into existing network architecture. However, even as it rolls out and matures, the Intelligent Network is being superseded by a Stupid Network (the Internet)," explains Isenberg (1997). His employer dismissed the idea of predictability. In the paper, he is explaining that “stupid network," is characterized by very stupid switches, plentiful bandwidth, and intelligent end points, therefore, the "stupid," that is, the Int...