Study Warns of Internet Brownouts By 2010 318
Bergkamp10 writes "Consumer and corporate use of the Internet could overload the current capacity and lead to brown-outs in two years unless backbone providers invest billions of dollars in new infrastructure, according to a new study. A flood of new video and other Web content could overwhelm the Net by 2010 unless backbone providers invest up to US $137 billion in new capacity, more than double what service providers plan to invest, according to the study by Nemertes Research Group. In North America alone, backbone investments of $42 billion to $55 billion will be needed in the next three to five years to keep up with demand, Nemertes said. Quoting from the study: 'Our findings indicate that although core fiber 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.' Internet users will create 161 exabytes of new data this year."
TCP/IP protocols? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just throttle the biggest content--Oh, wait. (Score:3, Interesting)
Three things to consider (Score:2, Interesting)
2. For Net users beyond the Americas and Europe, going to IPv6 would solve this problem - and installing throttle content managers to bridge the gap.
3. Just because you can link all devices to the Net, doesn't mean you have to.
Re:yay free market (Score:5, Interesting)
Add on to that the lowering cost of long-range high-speed ethernet and I'm confident that there won't be a problem nearly as fast as people want to make it seem.
What is really needed here, however, is a wider adoption of multicast and local cache technology. That is going to be very costly to do.
What about improving the way the internet works (Score:3, Interesting)
From an article in discover magazine: [discovermagazine.com]
John Doyle is worried about the Internet. In the next few years, millions more people will gain access to it, and existing users will place ever higher demands on our digital infrastructure, driven by applications like online movie services and Internet telephony. Doyle predicts that this skyrocketing traffic could cause the Internet to slow to a disastrous crawl, an endless digital gridlock stifling our economies. But Doyle, a professor of control and dynamic systems, electrical engineering, and bioengineering at Caltech, also believes the Internet can be saved. He and his colleagues have created a theory that has revealed some simple yet powerful ways to accelerate the flow of information. Vastly accelerate the flow: Doyle and his colleagues can now blast the entire text of all the books in the library of Congress across the United States in 15 minutes.
I haven't actually read the whole article in a while but from what it seems, this guy has a pretty good solution to this whole problem that I don't see discussed a lot.
Re:TCP/IP protocols? (Score:3, Interesting)
Been hearing this since 1996 (Score:5, Interesting)
As a general practice, I ignore any news story that relies upon "could", "may", "might" or "possibly" in its central premise. It always means that another lazy journalist is being willingly spoonfed a story by a PR flack.
Didn't we give the telcos money for this? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the telcos fault, screw them.
There is actually a surplus of capacity (Score:3, Interesting)
Backbone fiber: the fiber cables contain 768 non-dispersion shifted cable. This, and the last mile, is the big and expensive part of the network. Each of these fibers can, with end equipment upgrade, carry at least 10Gb * 135 colors = 1.35Tb, so the cable carries 1Eb/s.
Now, an x264 encoded HD video is 50mb/s, so this cable will carry 20 million HD channels.
(So one cable covers northern california. There are at least three)
A 40GB edge router can support about 1k users, and costs $10k. Thats $100/user. Estimate the same cost
My house is already connected with fiber(GB Ethernet choked down to a few Mb/s) , and you can probably (soon) get 50Mb/s over DSL, so the last mile cost is at least incremental, and probably similar to the above estimate of $4, so the urban part of us should get it for $8 + ISP profit and administrative cost.
So $10/month for 50Mb/s should be the cost to support this upgrade.
Re:yay free market (Score:5, Interesting)
The doom and gloom Internet bandwidth projections I've read assume that many of us start sharing videos and watch on-demand HD, not cached locally with our service providers, but downloaded at random. That's a bunch of crock. Our ISPs will be quite happy to cache this data locally, easing the burden on the backbone. All we need is a few simple strategies to help enable it. I'm doing my part [sourceforge.net]. We geeks will overcome.
Bogus estimate of amount of Video creation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Internet users will create 161 exabytes of new data this year, and this exaflood is a positive development for Internet users and businesses, IIA says. An exabyte is 1 quintillion bytes or about 1.1 billion gigabytes. One exabyte is the equivalent of about 50,000 years of DVD quality video.
So, 70.5E9 Hours of video? So, 1 billion people each created 70.5 hours of video worth of data? That's pretty impressive, to the extent that I question the 161 Exabyte figure for internet users. If they include scientific data collection, I'd buy that number, but that doesn't effect our internet; have their own internet, internet 2. Anyone else have a way to explain the data creation figure they quote?
Re:yay free market (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't believe it,... They're lying to you (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are they 'warning' of impending bandwidth crisis? It's pretty simple.
I was just at a customer site last week (a city government). They had a DS3 and were going to get a second one. I asked him why on earth he was getting a DS3 which is OLD telco technology. I went up to his demarc point and showed him that Qwest had a fiber cable coming into their facility that provided 100mb to the net, that they then fed into a Fujitsu FL4100, then passed it off to a DS3 mux and passed off to the customer as a copper coax connection. They had a wall filled with equipment JUST TO SLOW DOWN THE CONNECTION to a DS3 speed. Oh, and the City was paying for the electricity for all the telco equipment.
I told him to call up Qwest and tell them to come get their crap out of his server room, take the fiber and plug it directly into his switch. And he was only going to pay $2000 a month for the 100mb connection to the internet or else good luck ever getting a permit to dig up another sidewalk in this town.
It worked. He didn't even have to resort to the threats. Qwest knows that they NEED TO CREATE A PROBLEM IN ORDER TO CHARGE FOR THE SOLUTION. In 100% of the cases I've dealt with telco's, I've told them what the speed and feed was that I wanted, and what I was going to pay for it. Never have I had an issue. Now, I do live in the Twin Cities Metro Area, where there is plenty of bandwidth to go around, and I'm not demanding that they give me priority QoS all the way to their tier 1 core backbone, but this game they're playing is ridiculous.
Another customer was paying $12,000 per month to get a 200mb connection to the net. I got on the horn with Qwest and told them to give us a gig connection for $10,000 per month or they can come get their gear because we weren't going to pay for the electricity for them any more. They gave us a gig connection.
It costs $100 to provision a 10mb connection port. Heck fiber optic modules are CHEAP. Want to know how much it costs to reconfigure that link for 100mb? Same Price. It is also the same price to bring it up to a gig connection.
They will bring in equipment for the sake of bringing in equipment, they will spend tens of thousands of dollars in gear just to slow your connection down, just so they can charge to speed it up.
Don't fall for it.
Re:yay free market (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:yay free market (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you confusing the correct prediction of peak domestic oil production vs. peak world oil production? (Of course, the latter comes later).
In either case, we won't have long to see how well the prediction scales world-wide.
You can read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil [wikipedia.org]
I am not aware of other (presumably false) predictions of when peak oil will occur other than the Hubert Peak Theory, which seems pretty well grounded.
The real debate seems to be whether we're at the peak now, or will be in another 10-20 years, and whether the effects will be catastrophic or underwhelming.
Of course, peak oil has zero to do with the topic at hand
Re:yay free market (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure losing competitiveness in the US market would hurt, but if they still sell relatively well in Australia, Asia, the EU, as well as to the domestic market, they won't hurt anywhere near as much as the US will. Those Taiwanese multi-billion dollar cutting-edge fabs are a mighty tempting prize. Control over that would give them control over a huge portion of semiconductor production critical to Western nations (and the US military). The only thing that comes close in capacity is South Korea and Japan, and one of those has a northern neighbour that could become much more belligerent with very little prodding.
Control of Taiwan will give China an immediate seat with the "big boys" in the technology game and when they think the time is right, they'll take it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:yay free market (Score:3, Interesting)
If you mean how many more time will people predict it - many many more. If you mean how many peaks will there actually be - just one.
A mathematician whose name escapes me at this point demonstrated decades ago that humans will use up a finite resource on a curve not unlike a bell curve. Of course, countless people want to be able to say they correctly predicted when the peak happenned, though reality is that we probably won't be sure the peak was in fact the peak till five or ten years after it happens. (and also in addition to those who want the ego boost of being right, you have those who regularily predict that peak oil has been reached in order to spread fear and push their agendas)
An issue of Scientific American from the early 90s applied the curve mentioned above to convential oil production and (if I recall correctly) predicted a peak around 2012. But it is worth noting that since then oil sands have gone from being an interesting bit of R&D to being an industry worth tens of billions of dollars; so even if SA was correct, consumers may not feel the pinch on that date because from a consumer's standpoint it doesn't really matter what process was needed to get the oil to you. (it mattered in the early 90s when it cost more to produce a barrel of oil from bitumen than the price of oil, but now that problem is long gone)
Re:yay free market (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, call me idealistic, but then we light up the fiber ourselves; start some sort of co-op, I dunno. Span the US with fiber and Wi-Max. Google has to be planning something with all the fiber they own.
If something like that were to happen, and a 'second internet' spring up independent of the current infrastructure and grow reasonably, then one incumbent will start playing along. After that, they'd start falling like dominoes.
Of course, I'm being ridiculously optimistic about the chances for success of such a project, not to mention the willingness of a group of people to let go of their own money to do it. There's a high initial cost and it would take a long-term commitment to see real results.
Re:yay free market (Score:3, Interesting)
Spot on. I'm a geezer myself (51), and I remember in the 1970's working for a company that did tax returns for farmers (and former farmers) in Canada. I must have done returns for over 100 widows whose husbands had sold their farms, moved into town, and died shortly thereafter. These women were left to live on the capital generated by their farm's sale, which was usually invested in government bonds. Now, in 1970, in London, Ontario, you might have been able to eke out a living on $4,000 a year along with your Canada Pension, but by 1979, after a decade of government-induced inflation, these women were, to all intents and purposes, destitute.
What made it truly heartbreaking was the fact that they treated me, a commercial salesman, as an honoured guest. They would make dinner - steak for me, chicken for them. They would show me pictures of their children and grandchildren, and tell me stories about their families. They possessed a quiet dignity that would not acknowledge their diminished station, and I had no heart to break their illusions. At the end of dinner, I would thank them, sincerely, for their hospitality, and tell them that they were truly "ladies", in all the best senses of that word. I had no higher compliment to bestow. Some were Stoic; some allowed a flicker of happiness; some smiled outright. Inwardly, I wept for all of them.
Inflation quietly destroys lives. I'm only a Canadian, so I have no influence, but the only person running for US president who seems to understand this is Ron Paul. To my American friends: please support him, so that your parents and grandparents will not suffer these indignities.
That is where that sub comes in (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that story from a while back, with a chinese diesel-electric sub surfacing right besides a US carrier? A clear signal by the chinese that the US is a lot more vulnerable then previously thought. It was believed that with its carriers the US could project its military power pretty much anywhere, with little fear of counter-attack. (There is a flaw in this, but I will get to that)
IF China were to flex its military muscles it would want to pull a SUCCESFULL Pearl Harbour. That is, it wouldn't want to knock out the US or get dragged into a long war with the US, it would want to knock down US military capacity quickly, so it can move freely and then from a new position of strength try for peace. The idea of an ALLOUT US/China war is silly, neither side wants that and neither side has the capacity to fight such a war right now. China can't invade the US and the US can't invade China.
With this submarine, China showed the US that its military power on the oceans is not as absolute as it might think. I have no idea how much of this move was due to sloppy training and the taskforce in question being on peace duty, but in theory, if the chinese had wanted it, they could have knocked out the US carriers fleets and drastically reduced the US capabilities to interfere in Chinese operations.
This is more then just a signal to the US, it also tells countries like South-Korea, Japan, Taiwan that its US ally is not nearly as invincible as previously thought. The question these countries have to ask now is, if we offend China too much, can we count on the US to be able to protect us in time before the Chinese have overrun us? With the carriers destroyed, does the US have the capacity to stop an invasion?
Don't underestimate just how much of US military strategy in that area of the world is based on the carriers.
Offcourse, the question now becomes,why did the sub surface. It didn't have too. If China wanted to actually start a war, it would hardly want to give away the fact that it has subs this capable.
No, this was all just a loud bark. China really has no interest in invading China, just like it hasn't clamped down too much on Hong Kong (became part of China recently but is still allowed a lot of freedom compared to mainland China). It just also doesn't want to appear weak. Basically the message was,"today I let you life, tomorrow who knows". A threath, to stop Taiwan from becoming too independent, South-Korea from becoming too cocky and Japan from thinking it can become a military power again. And last but not least, to stop people in China from thinking China is weak. They seen what happened to the Soviet Union. They don't want it too happen to them.
The entire idea that China wants to invade Taiwan is flawed. It would gain nothing but a lot of trouble for it. BUT that does not mean China wants to appear weak. In a way that is part of the reason for the Iraq/Afghan war the US is in. What else could it do? Had the US not invaded it would have been a huge sign of weakness. For all the bad press the US has gotten, the message is still clear, piss them off and you will pay the price.
But you are right, the chinese don't seem to want a war, what would they gain with it? But part of not wanting a war is making sure the rest of the world knows that they are going to get an ass kicking if they start a war with you.
That is what most people forget, if you want peace, make sure the other guy knows that war is not an option because they would loose.
Re:yay free market (Score:3, Interesting)
The real issue is we like our hydro carbons in easy to transport containers and oil is going up in price, but there is still a lot of oil out there in tar sands etc. Now we could manufacture oil, all it takes is energy CO2 and H20 but that seems like a bad idea. So we talk about hydrogen, or ethanol etc but right now oil is still cheep so it's up in the air.
In many ways we are drunk on oil and it's going to our heads, so some things will probably change. I walked to work today, other people telecommute, some took trains etc, but the millions who drive 30+ miles might need to find another life style. Some change could be good from an energy stand point I could walk 2 blocks to the mall, but it's easer to just go to amazon.com. That's right from an energy standpoint home delivery is cheep.
Think of it like this trains can transport one ton of stuff 400 miles on a gallon of fuel, but we still send truckers all over the country because it's fast and cheep. But at some point other methods could be the new fast and cheep.
PS: Corn to ethanol is a bad idea just like corn to fructose is a bad idea.