No, The Internet Isn't Running Out Of Bandwidth

from the stop-worrying-about-it dept

Fri, May 1st 2009 4:08pm — Mike Masnick

Nemertes Research has a history of putting out fear mongering reports about the coming bandwidth flood that will kill the internet. So I pretty much ignored the news that it had come out with another one, which the press is happy to report without any hint of skepticism (or noting that Nemertes is funded by telcos who stand to benefit from fears of a bandwidth glut). However, people keep submitting it, so let's just point out, once again, that stories of a coming "exaflood" of traffic are completely bogus. Actually research from those who have seen the data has shown that there is no problem and the growth rate is actually slowing. This has been widely reported. And yet, Nemertes still insists that we're running out of bandwidth? Don't believe it. Update: Someone from Nemertes stops by in the comments to say that this isn't new research, and that the particular news report "took great liberty with his story." He also says that they agree the internet is not running out of bandwidth, but they are worried about last mile 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, exaflood
Companies: nemertes

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 4:21pm

"the press is happy to report without any hint of skepticism (or noting that Nemertes is funded by telcos"

But ... MSM are the only ones who provide investigative journalism, or so they claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 1 May 2009 @ 5:19pm

What's Really Running Out
The Telcos and Cablecos ability to monetize the Internet, for a flat fee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 5:46pm

...fears of a bandwidth glut? Isnt that a good thing? Doesn't glut mean too much of a thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 7:28pm

Re:
But ... MSM are the only ones who provide investigative journalism, or so they claim.

But they're biased and FOX is the only one to provide fair and balanced news, or so they claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ted Ritter, 1 May 2009 @ 7:33pm

Nemertes Report
Nemertes has not put out a new report. The last report was in November 2008. The reporter for London Times Online took great liberty with his story. I urge readers to see the actual report and FAQ. We are very clear that the core, fiber and metro layers of the Internet will scale to meet all projected demand. The problem is in the last mile where we project potential demand to be growing faster than capacity.

FAQ: http://nemertes.com/internet_infrastructure_study_2009_frequently_asked_questions_faq

Report: http://www.nemertes.com/studies/internet_interrupted_why_architectural_limitations_will_fracture_net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 1 May 2009 @ 10:58pm

Addresses Running Out
What's really running out is IPv4 addresses. This is why we need to move to IPv6 soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cixelsid, 2 May 2009 @ 5:53am

Somebody....
Isn't there someplace where people can report jackass reporters like this guy. You know, Toms also posted a similar article, claiming that the internet will be an "unreliable toy" by 2012.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Internet-Unreliable-Toy-Study,news-3860.html

Somebody, somebody please stop the imbecility! Think of the children!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2009 @ 1:52pm

Re: Addresses Running Out
What's really running out is IPv4 addresses. This is why we need to move to IPv6 soon.

Don't look for IPv6 anytime soon from most ISPs. The problem is, they don't want IPv6. As it is now, they use the limited IPv4 address space to justify charging a premium for static addresses. With IPv6 that excuse will be gone and customers will view getting charged extra for static addresses as gouging. In other words, they would rather keep addresses as an artificial scarcity that they can sell and IPv4 helps them do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Currie (profile), 3 May 2009 @ 11:43pm

Marketing Morons At Work...
As soon as broadband ISPs like Time Warner conveniently used this propaganda as an excuse to jack up bandwidth prices, we got the clue: It's a SCAM.

The original version of the lie I heard a couple years back predicted that the Internet would be locked up as of last month. Oops. Yet another bogus end-of-the-world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Currie (profile), 3 May 2009 @ 11:48pm

Re: Re: Addresses Running Out
IPv6 is alive and well. It's been built into every computer for years. ISPs can take advantage of it any time they like, and many already do. If you get the bogus 'we're short on IP addresses!' line, laugh at them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicholas Overstreet (profile), 4 May 2009 @ 6:13am

IPv6 is not the answer to any imaginary or real IPv4 shortage. The answer is NAT, which is already implemented in nearly every network with internet access.
Also, the sky is falling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2009 @ 10:53am

Re:
Agree with your interpretation. But I think the writer was aiming to mean a glut of use, becuase he also talks about an "exaflood" of traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Talmyr (profile), 5 May 2009 @ 5:30am

So what's an 'exaflood'? (10 to the power of whatever)floods?

NAT is a cobbled-on solution which doesn't solve the problem that IP4 is short of addresses. But there is no market incentive to move to IP6.
[ link to this | view in thread ]