PDA

View Full Version : Speedy Internet may soon be sluggish



Sporkman
November 20th, 2007, 03:31 AM
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071119/NEWS08/711190370/1025


Speedy Internet may soon be sluggish

Videos could cause slowdown in three years

By DAVID LIEBERMAN
USA Today
Published: Monday, 11/19/07

NEW YORK Enjoy your speedy broadband Web access while you can.

The Web will start to seem pokey as early as 2010, as use of interactive and video-intensive services overwhelms local cable, phone and wireless Internet providers, a study by busi-ness technology analysts Nemertes Research found.

"Users will experience a slow, subtle degradation, so it's back to the bad old days of dial-up," said Nemertes President Johna Till Johnson. "The cool stuff that you'll want to do will be such a pain in the rear that you won't do it."

Nemertes says its study is the first to project traffic growth and compare it with plans to increase capacity.

The findings were embraced by the Internet Innovation Alliance, a tech industry and public interest coalition that advocates tax and spending policies that favor investments in Web capacity.

"We're not trying to play Paul Revere and say that the Internet's going to fall," said IIA co-Chairman Larry Irving. "If we make the investments we need, then people will have the Internet experience that they want and deserve."

Nemertes says the bottleneck will be where Internet traffic goes to the home from cable companies' coaxial cable lines and the copper wires that phone companies use for DSL.

Cable and phone companies provide broadband to 60.2 million homes, accounting for about 94 percent of the market, according to Leichtman Research Group.

To avoid a slowdown, these companies, and increasingly, wireless services providers in North America, must invest up to $55 billion, Nemertes says. That's almost 70 percent more than planned.

jimrz
November 20th, 2007, 03:44 AM
more FUD generated by the telco's and cable co's. check out the people who created this study and you will find that they are not as independent as they make themselves out to be. just shills attempting to create "evidence' to be used by the large providers to "prove" that they need even further subsidies ( yes, that means taxpayer money) to cover normal anticipated costs of conducting their already heavily subsidized and protected businesses.

Scruffynerf
November 20th, 2007, 04:10 AM
more FUD generated by the telco's and cable co's. check out the people who created this study and you will find that they are not as independent as they make themselves out to be. just shills attempting to create "evidence' to be used by the large providers to "prove" that they need even further subsidies ( yes, that means taxpayer money) to cover normal anticipated costs of conducting their already heavily subsidized and protected businesses.

+1

The Internet of 1997 could not cope with the usage of the web (Web as a single segment of a whole internet), especially considering sites such as YouTube. Of course the internet of today will not be able to cope with the requriements 10 years hence.

IT infrastructure costs are like taxes - always there, always have to be considered as a budget item.

Heck, there are brownouts TODAY during major events - as a case in point, the morning of 9/11 the internet for a greater part of the USA was significantly slower - not only was everyone trying to upload data, everyone was also monitoring the live news feeds. There wasn't the bandwidth to cope.

What is worrying is that this spurious arguement will most likely be used against Net neutrality, as the Telco's and other related organisations will to either throttle traffic or charge more for premium services - like video or p2p. Alternatively, they may just go for the easy money of targetting Google, Microsoft and other significant players.

Lostincyberspace
November 20th, 2007, 04:12 AM
I don't I think I have to worry fiberoptic connection here up to 50 mbs available. :lol:

BWF89
November 20th, 2007, 04:22 AM
What is worrying is that this spurious arguement will most likely be used against Net neutrality, as the Telco's and other related organisations will to either throttle traffic or charge more for premium services
What's wrong with that? Does someone who writes a small blog really need as much bandwidth as a company like Google who runs the internet's most popular video sharing site? Plus the fact that having an internet connection is a privilege not a right. If I own an ISP I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

Scruffynerf
November 20th, 2007, 04:31 AM
What's wrong with that? Does someone who writes a small blog really need as much bandwidth as a company like Google who runs the internet's most popular video sharing site? Plus the fact that having an internet connection is a privilege not a right. If I own an ISP I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

2 things with this:

1) Whilst internet access certainly was a privilege, it is currently at the stage where it's moving towards (western) society's concept of 'key infrastructure', like the phone network, or roads. Currently you are correct, however I can't help but wonder that it might not be the case in the near to mid future.

1a) Also, keep in mind that Google would be able to buy bandwidth in bulk - so Google would be paying significantly less for their bandwidth allocation than you as a home consumer with an online blog. I would further imagine that Google would also have to recoup costs - either for charging for services or ???

2) If you had an ISP, and were interested in making it profitable, you would have to consider what the market wants, unless you are in a position of monopoly dominance. However, the main issue with net Neutrality isn't so much the ISP's screwing around customer's, it is more with the telco's screwing around the ISP's, who (if independant) have to purchase bandwith/backhaul against the telco's.

Disclaimer: I'm in Australia, so I'm not familiar with the American ISP's business practices - eg: Verizon or Comcast. I'm not too sure if they are a telco in their own right, or just major ISP's.

p_quarles
November 20th, 2007, 04:32 AM
Net neutrality wouldn't give everyone equal bandwidth -- you'd still have to pay for that. It would just prevent ISPs from shaping traffic to favor certain sites or protocols. In other words, net neutrality would ensure that the packet sent to request the blog would continue to be treated the same as the packet requesting Google Video.

p_quarles
November 20th, 2007, 04:34 AM
Disclaimer: I'm in Australia, so I'm not familiar with the American ISP's business practices - eg: Verizon or Comcast. I'm not too sure if they are a telco in their own right, or just major ISP's.
Verizon is a telephone company, and Comcast is a cable provider. The major non-telco ISPs here are Earthlink and AOL.

inversekinetix
November 20th, 2007, 05:15 AM
I don't I think I have to worry fiberoptic connection here up to 50 mbs available. :lol:

right on. its so coool.

p_quarles
November 20th, 2007, 05:44 AM
right on. its so coool.
First, I agree this "prediction" of slow internets is dubious, and I'm envious of anyone who has a fiber optic connection.

But: if this did happen, having a fast connection wouldn't help you that much. That's just the connection speed between your router and your ISP. If traffic were to actually put a strain on the entire network itself, you would definitely see a slowdown no matter how fast your connection speed is.

Crashmaxx
November 20th, 2007, 06:17 AM
What's wrong with that? Does someone who writes a small blog really need as much bandwidth as a company like Google who runs the internet's most popular video sharing site? Plus the fact that having an internet connection is a privilege not a right. If I own an ISP I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

Except that is not what is happening here. Not at all. Google buys a ton of bandwidth for their servers and pays its ISP for it. A small blog will pay for the small amount of bandwidth he uses to his ISP. No one is saying they should pay the same for very different amounts of bandwidth.

What net neutrality is about, is the fact that if I pay for bandwidth, I want to be able to get full speed for everything. What they want to do is slow down me trying to view a blog so someone else can see a vid. Google will pay my ISP for premium access, but everyone that isn't a huge company that pays this premium will be slowed to a crawl.

The way I see it, if the deal is that I am paying for unlimited 10Mb/s, then that should be 10Mb/s of whatever traffic I want. And the max should be 10Mb/s per every sec I pay. So about 2592000 sec in a month so a max of about 26Tb a month. This is what they advertise and claim to provide. Anything otherwise needs to be explicitly stated up front.


Its very unfair in the US because many areas only have the cable company or the telephone company providing broadband, at best both. So you really have little to no choice. Pretty much it is a move to give the ISP's services a big bump and squash anyone not willing to pay a premium for basically ad space in the form of speed. Making the internet much more like TV where you need to pay if you want to play.

The other side of this, is the fact that what ISP's sell they often don't have. Clearly, Comcast can't give everyone 10Mb/s all the time. Their network isn't that powerful. But they know that most people will only use 10% of that so they went ahead and oversold, a lot. Now people are using their bandwidth with torrents and P2P and they want to block that so the network doesn't get bogged down. We will soon see whether the courts say they can do this.

In the end, the consumer at least deserves fair pricing and the ability to buy more bandwidth and perhaps even more of certain types of traffic. But charging a premium to companies and giving us no choice, is just totally wrong. It makes the whole internet skewed massively towards the big money old school content providers and snuff all that makes the web great.

inversekinetix
November 20th, 2007, 06:54 AM
First, I agree this "prediction" of slow internets is dubious, and I'm envious of anyone who has a fiber optic connection.

But: if this did happen, having a fast connection wouldn't help you that much. That's just the connection speed between your router and your ISP. If traffic were to actually put a strain on the entire network itself, you would definitely see a slowdown no matter how fast your connection speed is.


Then get fibre as soon as poss, when you can get downstream speeds of 60MB/s you can probably download half the interwebs before the whole things starts slowing down.

Better still get onto you governments to force telcos to overhaul their networks, most of them are even ready for IPv6, they'll run out of IP addresses before the whole thing starts slowing down.

Atomic Dog
November 20th, 2007, 08:03 AM
Complete FUD. I heard this same crap a few years ago.,,"in two years streaming video will bla bla bla"

It's kinda like when I was told that we had 30 years of fossil fuell left 32 years ago. Gotta look for the motivation behind the supposed facts.

Tundro Walker
November 20th, 2007, 11:25 PM
The telco's & cable companies (the ones who own and install the lines) like to generate buzz like this so they can later justify "rationing" the service. They want to create a false shortage of supply so the demand seems overwhelming, and they can then package the service in different ways to milk more money out of customers.

The telco's have a 2-fold plan for this, and that part is one of the folds. The other fold is them wanting to segregate out their networks, much like cellphone networks, so they can start charging folks "roaming" fees to access content on different networks, and then go a step further and try to "package" it like cable TV. You pay a little money, you can have access to a lot of lame site areas (akin to public-access TV), but if you want the "premium" sites (porn, commercial sites, etc), you'll need to pay more to access them. And, if they get that step in place, they start jockeying internet companies around, and the telco's themselves will probably start focusing more on content-providing themselves, EG: creating their own "shopping" site that only their folks can use, and try to cut-price on Amazon or such.

There's a huge groundwork they're trying to lay, and it's started with them testing the waters by limiting bandwidth on BitTorrent activity (which they're in a lawsuit over...someone else posted that.)

My problem with this is that the US government (can't speak for any other country, except the one I live in) gave the telco's free access to government land to build out fiber networks, and isn't charging them to continue to use it. This was done to build out the US network, because, much like a highway infrastructure, it's a necessity to stay competitive in commerce and war. Now the telco's want to turn around and bite the hand that fed them, by finding ways to take advantage of people who use their service.

I don't have a problem with someone making money off a service. But when they find ways to make things overly complicated in order to artificially inflate the price at consumer expense, I get a bit peeved.

Tundro Walker
November 20th, 2007, 11:42 PM
The way I see it, if the deal is that I am paying for unlimited 10Mb/s, then that should be 10Mb/s of whatever traffic I want. And the max should be 10Mb/s per every sec I pay. So about 2592000 sec in a month so a max of about 26Tb a month. This is what they advertise and claim to provide. Anything otherwise needs to be explicitly stated up front.

This is a very good point, Crash.

The telco I work for provides "unlimited" long distance calling, but if you read the fine print, it's capped at X amount of minutes per month. If you go over that amount of minutes, then you start paying for the long distance minutes.

Now, the threshhold they use translates into 5 hours of Long Distance per day for 30 days, which most folks wouldn't even reach. But, it's still the principle of the matter...if it's unlimited, it should be unlimited ... not "unlimited" (wink-wink). The Ohio Public Utilities Commission called us out over that, stating we can't use the word "unlimited" with anything sold in their state unless it is indeed unlimited. I totally agree with this.

As a side note, I can't remember which company was trying this, but there was an offer for unlimited "normal" web downloads (like viewing pages), but only 20 hours of movie downloads per month. If you go over 20 hours, you start paying extra. Once again, they're trying to get their foot in the door with traffic-segregation, and charging folks for "premium" services.

They will do things like this slowly and over a long period of time. Because, with the current freedom in place, they can't make drastic changes or else folks will notice and get seriously ticked. But with gradual changes over time, they can erode away the freedom...much like boiling a frog in water...turn up the heat slowly and it won't notice.

BWF89
November 21st, 2007, 12:14 AM
1) Whilst internet access certainly was a privilege, it is currently at the stage where it's moving towards (western) society's concept of 'key infrastructure', like the phone network, or roads. Currently you are correct, however I can't help but wonder that it might not be the case in the near to mid future.
A case for private roads (http://www.mises.org/story/1660)


1a) Also, keep in mind that Google would be able to buy bandwidth in bulk - so Google would be paying significantly less for their bandwidth allocation than you as a home consumer with an online blog. I would further imagine that Google would also have to recoup costs - either for charging for services or ???
What's wrong with charging for services? If people didn't want to pay for Google's services they could either live without them or find another company that offered similar services. Yahoo charges customers to get more inbox space with their email service.

Scruffynerf
November 21st, 2007, 01:18 AM
What's wrong with charging for services? If people didn't want to pay for Google's services they could either live without them or find another company that offered similar services. Yahoo charges customers to get more inbox space with their email service.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with charging for service, I'm merely pointing out that something that's currently being offered for free from one of the worlds most recognizable brands may no longer be so. The hue and cry from the online geek communities about this would be amusing to watch.

Lostincyberspace
November 21st, 2007, 02:16 AM
A case for private roads (http://www.mises.org/story/1660)

What's wrong with charging for services? If people didn't want to pay for Google's services they could either live without them or find another company that offered similar services. Yahoo charges customers to get more inbox space with their email service.

you can pay for more space on google too

n3tfury
November 21st, 2007, 02:20 AM
they're worried about video taking up bandwidth? they must think illegal torrent traffic is a non-issue.