Time magazine says internet to grind to a crawl 2013.
 

Due to the amount of video that will be straining the network which is in dire need of extreme overhauls to keep up with demand.

Apocalypse is in 2012. No problem. :)

the ISPs would simply have to block video sites and/or video content, it'll be like 1996 all over again, no biggy

Ridiculous.

Clearly a story designed to sell magazines with shocking headlines, but not based on serious journalism... Let's face it, the "Tube" thing is a fad and how many blooper videos can people take? It's already getting redundant.

To assume that Internet video is still going to be the big thing in 5-6 years? Lets just say, I wouldn't suggest getting stock tips from the guy that wrote the article ...

Umm it was not on the cover, hell if you looked at the cover you would assume its a PR campaign guide for Obama. It is a small side blurb in the assorted notes/quotes/facts page they have. So I must defend them there and say it was not to do with selling magazines, unless people really dig into a magazine to find a few sentance statement and then purchase it.

Redundant to you perhaps, but I really don't think you speak for the world.
And pray tell me, if videos are just a fad, what exactly do you think people will be doing in 5 years? Looking at pictures?

The internet is only going to bigger, not smaller. Video will graduate to streaming to television to on demand movies.

With consoles and televisions moving to online play at all times, everything will bog down unless the infrastructure can keep up.

I think it has a lot to do with the big telecom and cable company ISPs. I think they are dragging their feet to cause this so they can shut down net neutrality.

They want to control the b/w on the net, so what better way to do it then to claim they can't keep up with the B/W needs.

Well crockett, Im fairly certain not many of them want to flip the bill and pay for entire network upgrades, hell imagine the costs of running fiber everywhere and then trying to tell them oh ya um everyone gets to use it but you get to pay for it.

Ya I figure internet will go the way of TV and it be more satellite based and then its not really that much of an issue. Then again I am not a super geek and I know I have seen some optimal satellite tests but they seemed like it had to be spot on and clear skies and well perfect conditions, yet then they did transmit more data than I could honestly believe in a blink of an eye.

The market will figure out it's own problems. What they are suggesting is not wrong, it's true, but it's not taking into account that the market will fix and build the things that it needs to be successful. At a peering conference this year I sat through a presentation that had around 150 global network administrators present and they discussed the design flaws of the internet and this exact issue that was 3-5 years out.

Brad

Kevsh you are a moron, if we arent looking at videos for porn what will we be? If not videos something even more bandwidth intensive..And tubes are not a fad, just like social networking wasnt a fad, just like mgps wasnt a fad wake up grandad.

I find it funny that during all these 'predictions' no one can ever seem to mention all the money that the telco defrauded from the government back in the Clinton years.

For those of you who don't know.. Back in the 90's the government gave HUGE amounts of money to the telcos so that they could build a next generation internet with speeds like Japan. Also, to bring broadband to everyone. Even rural.

However, the telco's did not do this. Instead they squandered the money. They may still be receiving it. I am not in telco anymore, so I haven't followed it as closely. But rest assured...

Between the US government's accounting practices, and the telco's greed to push for more money and a tiered system of internet. No one is looking for it.

:disgust

Riiiight.

Even when the government was paying for it.

Never underestimate good ole fashioned corporate America greed.

:disgust

True :1orglaugh:thumbsup

Exact point I was getting at.. They have misused govt funds to do what they now claim they can't afford to do with out charging for a tiered internet. It's total BS and of course they will likely end up getting what they want. Simply because big business runs this country.

I think with the quality of online video programming starting to rise and being able to download and watch dvd's online(amazon,netflix).More and more people are turning to their computer as a their entertainment device instead of the tv. They will have to upgrade their networks, its their cost of doing business.

Yep you are so right.

Yes. I love how government can spend the citizens tax money with some of the worst accounting on the planet. But heaven forbid you miss a dime paying the IRS.

It's a sick fucking joke.

:disgust

That's called fascism my friend.

:Oh crap

I was a little worried there. Thank heavens we have one year leeway.

Right.

Just like the head of the FCC is trying to make it so that more of the giant media companies can own even MORE stations and now newspapers in the same market.

There is nothing I enjoy more than tornado sirens are going off, I click on the radio just to hear some automatron playing tunes like everything is dandy.

I used to work in radio, one market over, after college. In that town, 95% of their stations were preprogrammed automatrons. The dj's came in and recorded their bits in an hour, and then took off. Computers ran the rest.

You 'may' have one intern, or engineer around to watch things. But most of the time, they were not listening, or paying attention. Nor could go on the air in emergencies.

Million and billion dollar communication companies ran by (at the time) $5 an hour board ops. :disgust

The more media one company controls, the more you get the sorry state of the music industry were independents outside of the payola can't get air play, or on MTV.

The more you get of Time Warner controlling internet (AOL), magazines, publishing, cable networks, film companies, and lord knows what else.

That is a lot of power for one company to wield.

For example, if there was some risk to humans from a company, like say GE. But they control all the avenues to get the message out. Do you honestly think that it will come to light, or be buried?

Now think if you are say a politician, or other big wig who's friends with people in control. You want to smear you opponent. You want to bury some story. The power and greed possibilities are enormous.

Now you get the picture.

:disgust

*WARNING* This post contains facts and not just conjecture!

The concept of a major impediment in internet growth is actually a concern among network engineers at large ISP's, and is widely discussed at events like NANOG and RIPE. It is quite probable that there will be some very difficult problems to work through in the next few years.

Here's the problem.

During the time the Internet first started being used popularly, it was mostly small circuits at ISP's (T1's and T3s) feeding into slightly larger circuits at Tier1 (or larger Tier2) ISPs - T3's and OC3's, maybe an OC12 here or there on the larger ISP's. There was plenty of money available for research, and OC48's became available, and eventually OC192. At the same time, Ethernet rose from being a very primative and generally unusable standard from an ISP perspective (10-Half) to 10-Full, 100-Full, Gig-E, and then 10GE. There was plenty of money available for this research. during the .com boom. For a variety of reasons, 10GE is far cheaper to produce and use than OC192 (Both of which carry approximately 10GBPS). 10GE was widely available for about 3 years now. In the past, networks were mostly SONET circuits (OC-x), but now, mostly 10GE and GE, due to cost.

The Ethernet group, for a variety of reasons, which includes: bad predictive forecasting, infighting, and lack of funding, has yet to make a standard of faster than 10G in that timeframe. You now have a situation where large hosting companies, and large eyeball networks (eg cableco's) connect to Tier 1 networks with 10GE, and then those Tier1 networks have their backbone then run over 10GE networks - the same size circuit as they are selling to customers.

Tier1's have handled the growing problem by upgrading backbone links from 1*10GE to 2*10GE to 4*10GE, and in some cases 8*10GE. Unfortunately, Depending on the router manufacturer, the limit is generally either 4*10GE or 8*10GE for any one link, and they are already running those "hot". Further, if a router has a maximum of 32 10GE ports, and you have 8 ports to one router, and 8 ports to another router (for redundancy), that now only leaves you with 16 ports left to sell from there, an unfortunate situation.

The Ethernet group has been arguing if the way forward should be 40GE or 100GE, and in the meantime, no research on how either can be delivered has been done. They have now finally decided that BOTH 40GE and 100GE will be standardized, and research is now starting. Large Tier1 networks, and even some large Eyeball and Content networks already need "something faster than 10ge" --- TODAY.

If growth continues as it has, and the 40/100GE projects take as long as expected, well, lets just put it this way, we'll have problems on the internet that we never had before, and it'll be interesting to see what the effects are, and if it's possible to come up with temporary solutions.

Apologies for posting facts instead of just guessing or hypothesizing or making stuff up.

Very interesting.. these companies would be great to invest in:2 cents:

Apologies for posting facts instead of just guessing or hypothesizing or making stuff up.[/QUOTE]
I mean how dare you,:mad: this is GFY after all:Oh crap