A “NeuroNet” for Virtual Reality and Games?

Check out the International Association of Virtual Reality Technologies, which says it’s building something called a NeuroNet (announced in a press release today), that’s to be “a first generation network created specifically for the transmission of real-time, virtual reality (VR) and gaming data.” There doesn’t yet seem to be much to the organization, which bills itself as a kind of ICANN of virtual worlds, just a well made Web site, a few email addresses, a fax number and a mailing address in Vancouver. They don’t even provide a name of someone who’s heading the initiaitive. They’re holding a conference at the end of September (details to be announced in February) and they’re seeking advisory board members, but other than that, details are slim. The idea is well fleshed out on the site, however, and it’s an interesting one: to create a separate Internet-like network devoted to virtual worlds, virtual reality and gaming. But is this really something we need?

There’s a certain net neutrality argument in favor: This kind of thing might insulate such applications from the depredations of a less democratic Internet. But it would also serve to delink places like Second Life from the Web, which is one of the most exciting aspects of virtual worlds, if you ask me. Porting all these things over to a new network also seems like a highly unlikely prospect; who’s going to be the first to abandon a billion potential users? There are, of course, various alternate Internets being discussed or constructed, but none of these seem likely to gain widespread adoption anytime soon (nor is that the purpose of many). Could a NeuroNet for VWs, VR and games lend many benefits? Could it work? Could the men and women behind the curtain please show themselves?

  • Trackback are closed
  • Comments (5)
  1. It seems to be based on the need for greater data transmission rates required for highly detailed 3D, similar to the Internet2 college/research network.

    I can’t see this working as a public network, because it would have to basically duplicate the existing structure. Nobody’s getting new fiber to their doorstep just because of IAVRT.

    Internet2 exists as a semi-private network to do research requiring high bandwidth, and it’s limited mostly to college campuses. Why do it all over again?

    If they want this to work on a public network, then they need to lobby for the expansion of fiber networks closer to residential areas.

    It seems to me IAVRT is either redundant or naive.

  2. “It seems to me IAVRT is either redundant or naive.”

    Or a scam.

    Here are some details: http://blog.rebang.com/?p=1137

    • cb
    • December 31st, 2006

    This lack of information is indeed disturbing.

    I work in the VR field and never heard of this initiative from any of my sources. I’ll try to contact them to know what they are offering and their roadmap.

  3. Don’t bother “cb”. Check the comments on my blog. This is looking like one small part of a much bigger network of activity… none of it encouraging.

    • Nink
    • January 1st, 2007

    Everyone write them a check to reserve your domain name on the neuronet.. After all really trust a company who registers a domain name by proxy.

    Me I am so ignorant I thought this stuff was controlled by ICANN I feel like such a fool.

Comments are closed.