A study from Nemertes Research Group suggests the increasing use of video services such as YouTube could see the internet reach breaking point in just three years’ time. The research firm says the flood of new video content could overwhelm the web by 2010 unless backbone providers invest up to $137bn in new capacity, more than double what service providers plan to invest, according to the study. In North America alone, backbone investments of $42bn to $55bn will be needed in the next three to five years to keep up with demand, Nemertes said.
The study is the first to "apply Moore’s Law (or something very like it) to the pace of application innovation on the Net,” the study says. “Our findings indicate that although core fibre and switching/routing resources will scale nicely to support virtually any conceivable user demand, Internet access infrastructure, specifically in North America, will likely cease to be adequate for supporting demand within the next three to five years."
View: Full Story @ PC Advisor
The study is the first to "apply Moore’s Law (or something very like it) to the pace of application innovation on the Net,” the study says. “Our findings indicate that although core fibre and switching/routing resources will scale nicely to support virtually any conceivable user demand, Internet access infrastructure, specifically in North America, will likely cease to be adequate for supporting demand within the next three to five years."
View: Full Story @ PC Advisor
someone fill me in please
The internet per-ce wouldn't crash but the infostructure it relies on wasn't made with this in mind and hence you hear about traffic shaping etc so that the ISPs don't have to invest money to fix the problem. It just seems that this isn't enough to stop the net reaching critical mass. :s
The internet per-ce wouldn't crash but the infostructure it relies on wasn't made with this in mind and hence you hear about traffic shaping etc so that the ISPs don't have to invest money to fix the problem. It just seems that this isn't enough to stop the net reaching critical mass. :s
they ARE investing money to fix the problem, too bad they are picking the wrong and the harmful way.
In the end it will only backfire.. big time
Last edited by nonick on 22 Nov 2007 - 15:37
The quoted problem is bandwidth, but that has kept expanding as necessary as demands increase. It's not like you have lots of businesses that can just as well say "take it or leave it" about the web, because there are huge financial interests in it running well. Surely a fraction of that economy will eventually trickle down to router and infrastructure upgrades, research in new technology, and so on.
Yes, with the *current* infrastructure, we may get problems soon enough, but the fallacy is that it's far from static...
I doubt it is ever going to reach the point "kill" the internet.
Give me a break.
Give me a break.
Gimme £5million and I'll fix the problem.
A few pounds of C4 on the YouTube servers and backups should do the trick nicely...
isps will be forced to upgrade there networks
WHICH IS A GOOD THING!!
then we can have speed like they do in japan
isps will be forced to upgrade there networks
WHICH IS A GOOD THING!!
then we can have speed like they do in japan
And how do you expect them to upgrade their network/infrastructure??? Oh yeah!! Lets charge everyone outrageous fees so we can pay for it.
isps will be forced to upgrade there networks
WHICH IS A GOOD THING!!
then we can have speed like they do in japan
And how do you expect them to upgrade their network/infrastructure??? Oh yeah!! Lets charge everyone outrageous fees so we can pay for it.
lol lol lol
they have more than enough money to upgrade with the amount they charge there thousands of customers
except they would loose money to do this, and thats just not acceptable
capitalism at its best
Last edited by X'tyfe on 22 Nov 2007 - 18:01
John Dvorak makes The Inquirer look like a reputable news source.
'Nuff said really.
John Dvorak makes The Inquirer look like a reputable news source.
'Nuff said really.
What? The Inq is a reputable news source, just take what they say with a grain of salt and discard the obvious bias.
Simple solution. Tax the companies that recklessly flood the internet with high bandwidth material (at least 90% of which is lets be honest complete crap). Especially the ones like YouTube that have no respect for anyone or any government.
Let's face it with the billions that Google make from the internet perhaps they should be taxed properly on it.
Secondary benefit would be that R&D into compression technologies would be pushed harder.
But who am I kidding. Google pay taxes? Mad me.
Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of what is needed?
It'll be like the y2k bug all over again.. except this time with youtube!
and of course we all remember how catastrophic the y2k bug was!!
The end is near !!
I wonder about something though. If Internet2 is supposed to be so much faster, wouldn't Internet2 kill things approximately as quickly as sites like YouTube? And what about AJAX? AJAX chatrooms require a minimum of two requests - one to send messages and the other to receive messages. Add to that database queries to store messages, and such things could kill the current Internet just as quickly, if not more quickly.
more like dragging there feet
I hope the internet really does just die. It would be amazing.
Either we'd get a shiny new one or our world would resemble a post apacolyptic fantasy. Either way I'll be fine with it.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.