YouTube could kill internet by 2010
Posted by Steven Parker on 22 November 2007 - 11:15 · 36 comments & 21588 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by ThaCrip on 22 Nov 2007 - 11:37
- is this actually real? ...i just dont get how the internet could crash. (maybe youtube or something but the internet itself i find that fairly hard to believe)
someone fill me in please
-
#1.1 Posted by Spookie on 22 Nov 2007 - 12:01
- Quote - (ThaCrip said @ #1)is this actually real? ...i just dont get how the internet could crash. (maybe youtube or something but the internet itself i find that fairly hard to believe)]
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 -
#1.2 Posted by nonick on 22 Nov 2007 - 14:25
- Quote - (Spookie said @ #1.1)Quote - (ThaCrip said @ #1)is this actually real? ...i just dont get how the internet could crash. (maybe youtube or something but the internet itself i find that fairly hard to believe)]
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
-
#2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 22 Nov 2007 - 11:41
- It won't kill the internet... ISPs will just start limiting users more than ever.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by +nezermundy on 22 Nov 2007 - 12:06
- We already know you can kill the internet by typing Google into Google, (For those that watched the IT Crowd).
-
#4 Posted by OblivionStalker on 22 Nov 2007 - 12:26
- LOL.
-
#5 Posted by Jugalator on 22 Nov 2007 - 12:31
- Nah, this is just the annual fearmongering that Internet may crash in [current year] + 3 years. :-p
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...
-
#6 Posted by justlooking on 22 Nov 2007 - 12:57
- Many isp's already limit monthly bandwidth and more will if they have a shortage. That's just common sense, and bad luck if your isp is one of them.
-
#7 Posted by Yeggstry on 22 Nov 2007 - 13:13
- Another instance of an extremely poor title to an article. Youtube is not the sole reason for the potential of this happening, there are plenty of other website/ applications that suck up as much if not more bandwidth.
-
#8 Posted by Julius Caro on 22 Nov 2007 - 13:39
- Providers will either "upgrade" accordingly, or youtube will simply "slow down". The more youtube users, the more clients to the companies that have to upgrade the things.
I doubt it is ever going to reach the point "kill" the internet.
-
#10 Posted by dev on 22 Nov 2007 - 14:02
- and the gaming industry is going to collapse in 3 years as the computers of today won't be able to run the top games in 3 years, well duh!
-
#11 Posted by kazuyette on 22 Nov 2007 - 14:07
- ZOMG ZOMG teh Interweb is gonna crash !!! Don't they have nothing better to do than posting useless research as this one ? geez ...
-
#12 Posted by Atreus on 22 Nov 2007 - 14:11
- There is an easy and cheap solution for youtube "problem". All we need is some caching closer to the user.... Cache the most demanded videos and probably you cut down half the need for bandwidth.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by ThePitt on 22 Nov 2007 - 15:04
- oh no!. If you ppl dont invest 132Billions!!!! The internet as we know will DIE!.
Give me a break. -
#13.1 Posted by FloatingFatMan on 22 Nov 2007 - 15:33
- Quote - (ThePitt said @ #13)oh no!. If you ppl dont invest 132Billions!!!! The internet as we know will DIE!.
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...
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by X'tyfe on 22 Nov 2007 - 16:16
- i call bull****
isps will be forced to upgrade there networks
WHICH IS A GOOD THING!!
then we can have speed like they do in japan -
#15.1 Posted by shockz on 22 Nov 2007 - 17:53
- Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #15)i call bull****
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. -
#15.2 Posted by X'tyfe on 22 Nov 2007 - 17:55
- Quote - (shockz said @ #15.1)Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #15)i call bull****
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
-
(2 replies)
#16 Posted by gollux on 22 Nov 2007 - 16:27
- The internet has been about to crash, suffer massive outages, or simply go away since its inception. Just ask John Dvorak over on PC Magazine. I wish I had a buck for every time I've heard this since the early 90's. I'll believe it when I see it.
-
#16.1 Posted by Athernar on 22 Nov 2007 - 19:47
- Quote - (gollux said @ #16)The internet has been about to crash, suffer massive outages, or simply go away since its inception. Just ask John Dvorak over on PC Magazine. I wish I had a buck for every time I've heard this since the early 90's. I'll believe it when I see it.
John Dvorak makes The Inquirer look like a reputable news source.
'Nuff said really. -
#16.2 Posted by Atreus on 22 Nov 2007 - 21:08
- Quote - (Athernar said @ #16.1)Quote - (gollux said @ #16)The internet has been about to crash, suffer massive outages, or simply go away since its inception. Just ask John Dvorak over on PC Magazine. I wish I had a buck for every time I've heard this since the early 90's. I'll believe it when I see it.
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.
-
#17 Posted by Shadrack on 22 Nov 2007 - 17:38
- The Internet won't "crash" from excess usage at least not in this capitalist regulated economy. As bandwidth gets more and more scares, the price for bandwidth will go up. Supply and demand, people!
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by JEden on 22 Nov 2007 - 17:52
- Obviously one way or another funding will be obtained for the uncontrolled bandwidth expansion but that will probably be the US, UK etc governments supporting it.
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.
Dave-
#19 Posted by Ron21 on 22 Nov 2007 - 21:24
- Do you guys realize in 3 years we will be hit with the y2.01k bug!
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 !!
-
#20 Posted by rpgfan on 22 Nov 2007 - 22:42
- Technically it wouldn't be the end of the Internet so much as the end of the Web. After all, the definition of an internet is a network made up of more than a single computer. The Internet is simply a bunch of computers connected by a network connection. The Web on the other hand is made up of more than that. That is probably why the term "interweb" or "Interweb" was created - to collectively refer to both, helping to prevent confusion.
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.
-
#21 Posted by Enigma776 on 22 Nov 2007 - 22:50
- IF they removed the 5 million ad servers from the internet i think we will all have a much better time.
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by SimplyPotatoes on 23 Nov 2007 - 00:54
- Improvements which should have happened already. Providers have been crawling for fifteen years.
-
#25 Posted by Helba on 23 Nov 2007 - 08:49
- That's amazing.
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.
-
#26 Posted by DodgeViper on 23 Nov 2007 - 19:39
- Most ISPs already have the infrastructure in place. Virgin Media for example are the only company to have fibre optic to the street, getting to peoples houses shouldn't be too expensive and just imagine the speeds, no wonder they're already planning on getting 50Mb out next year, because the network has no problems offering that speed and it most definetly will in the 48-50Mb range not half of what they advertise. Lets hope they get rid of the stupid traffic management crap going on at the moment.
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."