We're running out of internets!!

[brandon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518405,00.html

[silverhawks]

AT&T: Internet to hit full capacity by 2010 (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html)


U.S. telecommunications giant AT&T has claimed that, without investment, the Internet's current network architecture will reach the limits of its capacity by 2010.

Speaking at a Westminster eForum on Web 2.0 this week in London, Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned that the current systems that constitute the Internet will not be able to cope with the increasing amounts of video and user-generated content being uploaded.

"The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today," he said. "In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today."

Cicconi, who was speaking at the event as part of a wider series of meetings with U.K. government officials, said that at least $55 billion worth of investment was needed in new infrastructure in the next three years in the U.S. alone, with the figure rising to $130 billion to improve the network worldwide. "We are going to be butting up against the physical capacity of the Internet by 2010," he said.

He claimed that the "unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic" would increase 50-fold by 2015 and that AT&T is investing $19 billion to maintain its network and upgrade its backbone network.

Cicconi added that more demand for high-definition video will put an increasing strain on the Internet infrastructure. "Eight hours of video is loaded onto YouTube every minute. Everything will become HD very soon, and HD is 7 to 10 times more bandwidth-hungry than typical video today. Video will be 80 percent of all traffic by 2010, up from 30 percent today," he said.

The AT&T executive pointed out that the Internet exists, thanks to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies. "There is nothing magic or ethereal about the Internet--it is no more ethereal than the highway system. It is not created by an act of God, but upgraded and maintained by private investors," he said.

Although Cicconi's speech did not explicitly refer to the term "Net neutrality," some audience members tackled him on the issue in a question-and-answer session, asking whether the subtext of his speech was really around prioritizing some kinds of traffic. Cicconi responded by saying he believed government intervention in the Internet was fundamentally wrong.

"I think people agree why the Internet is successful. My personal view is that government has widely chosen to...keep a light touch and let innovators develop it," he said. "The reason I resist using the term 'Net neutrality' is that I don't think government intervention is the right way to do this kind of thing. I don't think government can anticipate these kinds of technical problems. Right now, I think Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem."

Net neutrality refers to an ongoing campaign calling for governments to legislate to prevent Internet service providers from charging content providers for prioritization of their traffic. The debate is more heated in the United States than in the United Kingdom because there is less competition between ISPs in the States.

Content creators argue that Net neutrality should be legislated in order to protect consumers and keep all Internet traffic equal. Network operators and service providers argue that the Internet is already unequal, and certain types of traffic--VoIP, for example--require prioritization by default.

"However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of 'neutrality' would do just that, with respect to the Internet," the U.S. Department of Justice said in a statement last year.

The BBC has come under fire from service providers such as Tiscali, which claim that its iPlayer online-TV service is becoming a major drain on network bandwidth.

In a recent posting on his BBC blog, Ashley Highfield, the corporation's director of future media and technology, defended the iPlayer: "I would not suggest that ISPs start to try and charge content providers. They are already charging their customers for broadband to receive any content they want."

[silverhawks]

And just a couple of links of research browsing later....BINGO.


another scare tactic like global warming to get the governments of the world to pour a ton of dough into research for a replacement to the current internet.

scare the people... politicans think the scared masses will support spending on these issues.

Universities and tech companies that will conduct this research will smile.


But the government can save the internet by taxation and regulation - might as well throw in some type of fairness in blogging doctrine as well since we know it is all those evil conservatives eating up the bandwidth trying to discredit the Obama administration.


Could it be that the best way to squash net neutrality and to provide those big ol' Telecoms with greater moneymaking opportunities is to scare the ever-living crap out of everyone about the alleged consequences of net neutrality?

Remember Y2K anyone?

Honestly, what hairbrained solution are they going to come up with? Mandate that everyone has to use the same, government-approved font?

Surely if the government is wondering how to fix the Internet, they should go ask Al Gore seeing as he invented the thing in the first place? He probably still has the original instruction manual lying about.

Coming Soon From a Fearmonger Near You: NET FLU.

And besides, didn't a chunk of the Obama stimulus already go towards improving net infrastructure?

http://www.evendon.net/PublicService/cgi-bin/HandOff-1_0.cgi?RecoveryBill1+RecoverJSDivB+0274

http://www.evendon.net/PublicService/cgi-bin/HandOff-1_0.cgi?RecoveryBill1+RecoverJSDivB+0275

[Golding]

Oh no. Quick, someone make more.

[nate895]

Increase the bandwith then.

[Agent CSL]

Not a chance the internet would simply run out of bandwidth. There are MILLIONS of servers going unused, this includes any home computer capable of providing it's own processing power. And the capability to create more efficient bandwidth tapes exists.

So, it's a scare tactic. We'll run out of coal energy before we run out of bandwidth.

[brandon]

btw, I don't agree with the OP, I just thought it was funny. I actually specialized in telecommunications engineering in school. Don't worry, their is plenty of internets to go around. :D

[CUnknown]

I agree that it's probably a scare tactic.

But, I'd like to ask if you all would have supported the original government spending that was required to do the research & development for computers and the internet originally. Private companies are maintaining our net infrastructure now, as well they should be. But don't forget the original and necessary role of government in getting this whole thing off the ground in the first place.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, I agree. But extremism just for the sake of extremism is a vice, imo. We need a balanced system, with government and private capital being in balance. Right now, there is too much government involvement in the economy, waay too much, I agree. But there is a valid role for government in the economy, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[nate895]

I agree that it's probably a scare tactic.

But, I'd like to ask if you all would have supported the original government spending that was required to do the research & development for computers and the internet originally. Private companies are maintaining our net infrastructure now, as well they should be. But don't forget the original and necessary role of government in getting this whole thing off the ground in the first place.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, I agree. But extremism just for the sake of extremism is a vice, imo. We need a balanced system, with government and private capital being in balance. Right now, there is too much government involvement in the economy, waay too much, I agree. But there is a valid role for government in the economy, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Who is to say that without government, there would be no internet. As soon as computers got to dominate business, there would have been an obvious desire to increase efficiency by connecting them all, not to mention the cheap advertisement it provides.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree that it's probably a scare tactic.

But, I'd like to ask if you all would have supported the original government spending that was required to do the research & development for computers and the internet originally. Private companies are maintaining our net infrastructure now, as well they should be. But don't forget the original and necessary role of government in getting this whole thing off the ground in the first place.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, I agree. But extremism just for the sake of extremism is a vice, imo. We need a balanced system, with government and private capital being in balance. Right now, there is too much government involvement in the economy, waay too much, I agree. But there is a valid role for government in the economy, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Not likely. The government designed network ("Arpanet", I believe it was) was far inferior to what the private sector did with it. Multimedia would have been long delayed if left to the State. The webbernet would've come along in its own time, as the need for communication was already growing rapidly with expanding cities(another private sector phenomenon). :D:cool::)

[ChaosControl]

I download a lot of movies and episodes, I BROKE THE INTERNET!!!

[heavenlyboy34]

I download a lot of movies and episodes, I BROKE THE INTERNET!!!

:eek: DAMN YOU!! :mad::p The FBI will be there to arrest you shortly! :cool:;)

[Dr.3D]

The use of fiber optic cables is just getting started. I don't fear limited bandwidth. All that will happen is internet service providers will install more fiber optic cable to handle the load. It's called free enterprise.