Once More, With Feeling: The Internet Isn't At Risk Of Running Out Of Bandwidth
from the no-exaflood dept
For years, we've been hearing telco execs, telco lobbyists and politicians screaming over the coming death of the internet due to an "exaflood" of bandwidth, as things like internet video and bittorrent totally overwhelmed the internet infrastructure. There was little proof that this was actually an issue, and plenty of evidence suggesting that ordinary infrastructure upgrades would more than handle all expected growth. And, in the last few months we've been seeing more and more public reports supporting this position. In August alone we saw two separate reports noting that internet growth was actually slowing rather than increasing at an alarming rate.And now there's a third such report, looking at internet backbone traffic and noting that there's little to worry about:
For the second consecutive year, the rate of underlying international Internet capacity deployment outpaced global Internet traffic growth, leading to lower utilization levels on many Internet backbones. Between 2007 and 2008, average traffic utilization levels decreased from 31 percent to 29 percent while peak utilization fell from 44 percent to 43 percent.Yet, if you listen to telco lobbyists, execs and politicians, they'd have you believe that over the past couple of years, the growth of BitTorrent and internet video was flooding the networks. Hopefully, with so many reports pointing out the opposite, politicians will finally start pushing back the next time a lobbyist or exec starts claiming that the internet is at risk of running out of bandwidth.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bandwidth, bandwidth crunch, exaflood, studies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They'll begin selling tiered cap models as a "premium" for being with them. The end result: more customers come in due to lower cost internet service plans that are capped at very small levels, while "premium" caps will sell for much more than what can currently be had on the "unlimited" service model.
It's a dickheaded thing to do, but it's really no different from telco's feeding customer's crap arguments like "texting uses excessive bandwidth and overloads our infrastructure, thus we need to charge extra for the service". Bull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians not parroting lobbyists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming OLED's are miraculous, tiny, and the screen is the only thing in your vision, of course.
Hopefully we can coax more bandwidth out of fiber optics.
I'm just speculating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt that they are free to make logical decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
X Gigabytes of bandwidth, 39.95/mo. Family plans with more bandwidth, 99.95/mo. or whatever. Want movies, add a few more dollars a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did u read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: did u read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
about:internets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sounds to me like both are rising. Infrastructure is rising faster than traffic, so the utilization is slowing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An investment driven straw man.
A report on the core of the network tells you about the core of the network. You can not reach any conclusions on other parts/layers of the network. There is insufficient data to do so.
Here is a straw man arguing that it is feasible that there is a problem, just not in the core.
Enormous amounts of money were invested in core fibre networks and submarine networks the late 90's and early 00's. There was so much oversupply in core infrastructure that demand is really only just starting to catch up. Even after all of the chapter 11 restructuring, outright bankruptcies and industry consolidation earlier this decade the networks have continued to invest in core infrastructure.
I used to work for a (non US) Telco building that core infrastructure.
So another report measuring the utilisation of the core of the internet is concluding that there is no congestion in the core. Hardly a revelation.
The question though, is to what level did the combatants invest in the last mile, the local access and regional networks connecting the consumer to the core of the network? Did it come anywhere close to the billions that Enron, etc. frittered away?
I suspect not.
The conclusion: comcast et.al. are facing problems (or potential problems) in their broadband access networks through a lack of investment there. The same problems are not evident in the core because of early over investment and sufficient on going investments.
OK. Knock me down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An investment driven straw man.
But, the complaints about an "exaflood" aren't about the end points of the network, they're about the core.
And, as plenty of others have shown, if the core network is there, you can upgrade that last mile to be able to handle much more traffic.
That's the point. Those basic upgrades will do more than enough to handle the traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An investment driven straw man.
Maybe I've read different papers:
I've been basing my responses to your posts on the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps
Nah, unlikely, that'd be customer driven, and it's quite clear that ISP's couldn't care less about their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An investment driven straw man.
"The conclusion: comcast et.al. are facing problems (or potential problems) in their broadband access networks through a lack of investment there. The same problems are not evident in the core because of early over investment and sufficient on going investments."
You get no argument from me. I would have said this has been noted here many times before. It is a last mile problem. Look at it from the providers perspective. They have a problem, there is not enough bandwidth in the last mile (read their equipment/cable) to provide each user with all the bandwidth they want. The users see a bottleneck. From most users/congress critters understanding the internet is one homogeneous thing. So the providers have a choice, they can spend money to improve their system, and make less profit, or they can use the average individuals assumptions against them, claim insufficient bandwidth (not really saying where), cap users ("what else can we do, the internet is full"), and cry at the government for relief.
They are after all a for profit company, not a public utility. They have to make a profit, at the consumers expense. Caps are more profitable than providing the hardware to give the consumer what they were told the buying. Statistics are a wonderful thing. "Your bandwidth is unlimited, as long as you only ask for the statistically average amount of bandwidth we expect you use."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you guys speak up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politician push back lobbyists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looming crisis
Thank-you for your understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sound like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]