I can hardly disagree with you. What's the difference between Internet of Things and Industrial Internet? What the consortium should address are in my opinion (1) Security of internet of internet of things (2) software reliability in aspect of real-time in this era of cyberphysical systems of mobile devices, home devices, vehicles and industrial systems whilst inter-connecting/inter-operating. Although, if for the creation of new and distinct standards for industrial, i think a worthy one. Nevetheless, security should top framework agenda.
The Internet is fine. It's the Internet of Things that needs fixing.
IoT lacks what the Internet has-- a unified set of standards like IP, HTTP, HTML and etc so lots of people can do lots of great stuff. IoT is a Babel of protocols and proprietary implementations. It's a mishmash in which no one node knows how to talk to another one.
You can view this Web page on your iPhone, Android, Windows PC, Mac or Linux box because the Internet is GREAT. It has a common set of standards. It does NOT need fixing.
The Internet of Things, however...it needs major work.
"Why not improve the current Internet itself to make it industrial grade?"
This is happening all the time, though. The RFCs published by the IETF seem to be exponentially increasing, and these include security topics. That's part of my questioning what this new initiative is all about. What would be different for an "industrial Internet," having to do with Internet Protocols, that isn't already being done in the numerous IETF working groups?
Not much that I've seen listed as goals, at any rate.
I have been involved in industry organizations in the past that did not have clear direction and they rarely went anywhere. One big flashing red light for me is the desire to "...gain a competitive advantage" through this initiative. Isn't this the kind of thing that we have seen China trying (and generally failing at) in telecom and other domains?
There are problems to be addressed. Security is an issue, as Tom and others have pointed out, but that is not just an industrial issue. It might be viscerally tempting to implement counterattack as he suggests, for example, but given the nature of many attacks that would be a bad idea. If actor A attacks site B through site C, then the counterattack would hit C rather than A. Attribution is a real problem in this space.
The real trick is to implement and of this without breaking compatibility. A secure industrial internet that does not coexist with The Internet would have real limitations in terms of capability. You can do pretty much the same thing with an appropriate air gap.
Great explanation, Rick. Thanks! Only problem is: now my head hurts. Are we moving to an era of tiered Internet service in which some will be faster and more secure than the Internet most people use every day? I'm not sure what that means -- and maybe the consortium doesn't yet, either. EG: Does that involve verifiable log-ons that are not available to you and me?
I can recall a news conference at Intel back in, oh, '95? '96? It was in the start of the Information Superhighway hype, and tales were spun about how a consortium of corporations and the government was going to make the Internet "super." Al Gore was piped in by video. Very impressive. And Gore was later inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame for his efforts. So I bring a bit of baggage to this latest announcement.
Did the earlier effort really make a difference? Did the Internet change business or education or healthcare because of that? Or just because it would have done that anyway? Will the new consortium really make a difference? Or is the Internet of industry and the Internet of things going to happen anyway?
You're not alone. When I read the title, I thought they are trying to recreate a private Internet for the industrial market. What does industrial market mean anyway? As I read the article, I'm lost more. I thought all those problems are being addressed. To dig deeper, I went to the GE white paper. The white paper seems to serve a marketing campaign to me. I guess I definitely need some elaborations and insights.
I am lost here...what is this Industrial Internet about? ...is this a separate physical Internet infrastructure with higher level of security? or a sub-set of exisiting Internet network available to some users? Kris
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.