Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Foo (http://www.bikeforums.net/foo/)
-   -   Internet Traffic Jams Predicted in Near Future (http://www.bikeforums.net/foo/397109-internet-traffic-jams-predicted-near-future.html)

randya 03-13-08 12:49 AM

Internet Traffic Jams Predicted in Near Future
 
March 13, 2008
Video Road Hogs Stir Fear of Internet Traffic Jam
By STEVE LOHR
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/te...gewanted=print

Caution: Heavy Internet traffic ahead. Delays possible.

For months there has been a rising chorus of alarm about the surging growth in the amount of data flying across the Internet. The threat, according to some industry groups, analysts and researchers, stems mainly from the increasing visual richness of online communications and entertainment — video clips and movies, social networks and multiplayer games.

Moving images, far more than words or sounds, are hefty rivers of digital bits as they traverse the Internet’s pipes and gateways, requiring, in industry parlance, more bandwidth. Last year, by one estimate, the video site YouTube, owned by Google, consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet did in 2000.

In a widely cited report published last November, a research firm projected that user demand for the Internet could outpace network capacity by 2011. The title of a debate scheduled next month at a technology conference in Boston sums up the angst: “The End of the Internet?”

But the Internet traffic surge represents more a looming challenge than an impending catastrophe. Even those most concerned are not predicting a lights-out Internet crash. An individual user, they say, would experience Internet clogging in the form of sluggish download speeds and frustration with data-heavy services that become much less useful or enjoyable.

“The Internet doesn’t collapse, but there would be a growing class of stuff you just can’t do online,” said Johna Till Johnson, president of Nemertes Research, which predicted the bandwidth squeeze by 2011, anticipating that demand will grow by 100 percent or more a year.

Others are less worried — at least in the short term. Andrew M. Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota, estimates that digital traffic on the global network is growing about 50 percent a year, in line with a recent analysis by Cisco Systems, the big network equipment maker.

That sounds like a daunting rate of growth. Yet the technology for handling Internet traffic is advancing at an impressive pace as well. The router computers for relaying data get faster, fiber optic transmission gets better and software for juggling data packets gets smarter.

“The 50 percent growth is high. It’s huge, but it basically corresponds to the improvements that technology is giving us,” said Professor Odlyzko, a former AT&T Labs researcher. Demand is not likely to overwhelm the Internet, he said.

The question of the problem’s severity is more than a technical one, since it will affect the shape and cost of the nation’s policy on broadband infrastructure, a matter that is expected to attract political attention after a new administration takes over in Washington.

While experts debate the immediacy of the challenge, they agree that it points to a larger issue. In the Internet era, they say, high-speed networks are increasingly the economic and scientific petri dishes of innovation, spawning new businesses, markets and jobs. If American investment lags behind, they warn, the nation risks losing competitiveness to countries that are making the move to higher-speed Internet access a priority.

“The long-term issue is where innovation happens,” Professor Odlyzko said. “Where will the next Google, YouTube, eBay or Amazon come from?”

The Internet, though a global network, is in many ways surprisingly local. It is a vast amalgam of smaller networks, all linked together. The worries about digital traffic congestion are not really about the Internet’s main trunk lines, the equivalent of network superhighways. Instead, the problem is close to home — the capacity of neighborhood switches, routers and pipes into a house. The cost of stringing high-speed optical fiber to a home, analysts estimate, can be $1,000 or more.

That is why Internet access speeds vary so much country by country. They depend on local patterns of corporate investment and government subsidy. Frederick J. Baker, a research fellow at Cisco, was attending a professional conference last month in Taiwan where Internet access is more than twice as fast and costs far less than his premium “high speed” service in California.

“When I mention my own service, people here shake their heads in disbelief,” said Mr. Baker, who is a board member of the Internet Society, a nonprofit organization that helps guide Internet standards and policy.

In the United States, the investment required to cope with rising Internet traffic will need to be made at several levels, not just cable and telecommunications carriers. Tim Pozar, an engineer and a co-owner of the Internet services company UnitedLayer in San Francisco, said a number of forces were combining: the surge in bandwidth-hungry video applications on Web sites, the need to handle traffic from more Internet-enabled devices like cellphones, and shortages of electrical power for data centers in places like San Francisco.

“We’re running out of horsepower to accommodate the demand,” said Mr. Pozar, whose company’s data centers support Web sites for customers ranging from museums to social networks. “And upgrades needed in data centers are going to be a lot more expensive than in the past, now that all the excess capacity left over after the dot-com bubble burst has been gobbled up.” The pace of future demand is the big uncertainty surrounding the Internet traffic challenge, and how fast people will adopt emerging technologies is notoriously difficult to foresee.

In the aftermath of the bursting of the technology bubble in 2000, there was a glut of capacity — so-called dark fiber, strung around the world and then left dormant. Now demand is catching up with that supply. In its prediction of more than 100 percent annual growth, Nemertes, a telecommunications research firm, assumes brisk use of new innovations like high-end videoconferencing, known as telepresence, which corporations are beginning to embrace as an alternative to costly, time-consuming travel.

If this technology becomes a consumer product in the next few years, as some analysts predict, Internet traffic could spike even more sharply.

Slick video chats are something that William Bentley, a 13-year-old New Yorker, would like to see. He is fairly representative of the next generation of digital consumer: He has made and posted his own YouTube videos, subscribes to YouTube channels, enjoys multiplayer games like World of Warcraft and Unreal Tournament, and downloads music and videos.

Asked what he would want next from the Internet, he replied, “It would be nice to have everybody always right there — just click and you could see them clearly and talk to them.”

That sort of service is certainly going to require more bandwidth and more investment, with higher costs across the spectrum of the Internet ecosystem that includes cable and telecommunications carriers, Internet companies, media Web sites and even consumers. AT&T, for one, said last week that it would spend $1 billion this year — double its 2006 expenditures — to expand its overseas infrastructure.

But even if investment lags behind, there will be no Internet blackout. Indeed, the Internet has survived predictions of collapse in the past, most notably by Robert M. Metcalfe, a networking pioneer and entrepreneur, who in a 1995 magazine column warned of a “catastrophic collapse” of the Internet in 1996. There were service problems, but nothing like Mr. Metcalfe predicted, and on stage at a conference in 1997 he ate his words.

“The Internet has proven to be wonderfully resilient,” said Mr. Metcalfe, who is now a venture capitalist. “But the Internet is vulnerable today. It’s not that it will collapse, but that opportunities will be lost.”

v1k1ng1001 03-13-08 01:03 AM

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/..._internets.jpg

UmneyDurak 03-13-08 01:03 AM

Just scare tactics by telecommunication companies to get the Gov't to flip the bill for improving/replacing obsolete equipment. :rolleyes:

v1k1ng1001 03-13-08 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmneyDurak (Post 6334215)
Just scare tactics by telecommunication companies to get the Gov't to flip the bill for improving/replacing obsolete equipment. :rolleyes:

Yeah, they're not concerned about innovation but about being able to offer bundled services that undercut existing local services.

Zinn-X 03-13-08 02:06 AM

For whatever it's worth, people have been saying this for years. Basically, this has been a huge impending crisis since when broadband first started being offered. Over 10 years later, the sky still hasn't fallen. Companies will invest the bare minimum in their infrastructure to keep things working. There's no point in having a lot of extra theoretical bandwidth available going unused (unused bandwidth still costs money).

The country's infrastructure has and always will grow with peoples usage of it, and as much fun as it is to beat up jerk-off companies like Comcast and AT&T, it's in all of their ultimate interests to keep the tubes from getting clogged. Example: people need more electricity than they did 50 years ago, and instead of letting everyone's power go out, someone actually built more power plants. We're not in the USSR here--it behooves a capitalist economy to meet (but not exceed) the demands of its consumers.

No need to bust out the tin-foil hats quite yet. :p

BTW, I didn't read the article because I'm so over this. Thusly, please feel free to beat up on me if some "new **** has come to light," as the great Jeffrey Lebowski would put it. Although I doubt that.

mlts22 03-13-08 03:08 AM

What would help this issue would having utility companies offer broadband over power lines. A third source for Internet access can't hurt.

StrangeWill 03-13-08 04:45 AM

What do you think lag is during high-traffic hours?

Thing is that you can always up the bandwidth and it's done, and it isn't nearly as hard as adding a lane to the freeway. ;)

j0nshaw 03-13-08 04:54 AM

This article is quite real, though possibly not best timed. It is true that the internet will become and is becoming more congested moment by moment, but whether or not we will beginning feeling the impact of this immediately is a whole different story, in my opinion.

Ah...Moore's Law. Recall--it states that the number of transistors that can be put on a circuitboard doubles every 18-24 months. This would mean that we'd see increased data streaming speed, etc.

However, at the same time, the amount of data that is made available via WWW, etc, is said to be doubling every 12 months or so. If this is the case, I wonder when it'll create a bottleneck--causing this internet traffic that we're reading about.

Interesting find, OP. Thought I'd contribute just a bit.
-j0n

hos13 03-13-08 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 6334446)
What do you think lag is during high-traffic hours?

Thing is that you can always up the bandwidth and it's done, and it isn't nearly as hard as adding a lane to the freeway. ;)

Correct

hos13 03-13-08 08:15 AM

In the last ten years we have gone from 56k to GigE to the home. Next ten years who knows but I don't see it slowing down.

webist 03-13-08 04:53 PM

Oh, it will slow down. The reason won't be a technology reason though. It will be said that's the case as rates go up, but capacity and infrastucture won't be the real reason.

markhr 03-13-08 05:19 PM

Surely sdsl will take over from adsl? Also, as more countries change to fibre to home, bandwidths will increase to cover the extra load.

KrisPistofferson 03-13-08 05:33 PM

All the people who self-righteously brag on the 'net about not having a television will have to find yet another square box to veg-out in front of. Invest in microwave ovens.

Maelstrom 03-13-08 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markhr (Post 6338419)
Surely sdsl will take over from adsl? Also, as more countries change to fibre to home, bandwidths will increase to cover the extra load.

possibly, but in reality, the upload doesn't have to match, its a waste of space. VERY VERY few people hit their max on upload unless they host vids etc. I run a ds3 providing for a very large building. I have hit the 43 meg download, the upload has topped out at 5 megs. And this is with some of the heaviest users in the world. (obviously these guys weren't hosting)

sdsl looks great on paper, and if the pricing were equal it would be a cinch, but as long as it is higher priced very few people will see a benefit.

http://sdsl.ca/bandwidth.html

You also have speed issues, I can live with 640k upload when I am getting my 6 megs download, limited to 3megs up and down....meh ;)

Like I said, its not for everyone, I don't host, broadcast or intend to use swingbox. Adsl is better for the my uses :)

Now there is a small argument for voip. But as voip quality increases (which almost always coincides with compression improving) large upload speeds aren't needed. So the argument is moot and outdated. In the same example above, I had 700 concurrent users connected, lets say half were using voip. I could get the states but I bet collectively they didn't even hit 2 megs upload total at any given time.

v1k1ng1001 03-13-08 10:49 PM

maybe we should be worrying less about our pr0n downloads and more about what the hell we're going to do about peak oil

donnamb 03-13-08 10:52 PM

That would be too practical.

x136 03-13-08 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by v1k1ng1001 (Post 6340011)
maybe we should be worrying less about our pr0n downloads yada yada

Pfft, you first.

markhr 03-14-08 02:16 AM

Maelstrom - fair point. Just throwing that out there. My technical interweb knowledge is fairly limited.......cough, non-existant, cough.

Maelstrom 03-14-08 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markhr (Post 6340512)
Maelstrom - fair point. Just throwing that out there. My technical interweb knowledge is fairly limited.......cough, non-existant, cough.

Sorry I figured with you throwing it out there you were a tech, some of my friends are proponents of sdsl, personally I don't see the point for 99.5% of the interdweebs out there :) I was just stating my case hahaha

markhr 03-14-08 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maelstrom (Post 6341750)
Sorry I figured with you throwing it out there you were a tech, some of my friends are proponents of sdsl, personally I don't see the point for 99.5% of the interdweebs out there :) I was just stating my case hahaha

No problem - technical for me is swearing at the computer just before I reinstall vista......again.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:59 AM.