Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   What's Really Running Out

   

   bob, May 1st, 2009 @ 5:19pm

   
   

   The Telcos and Cablecos ability to monetize the Internet, for a flat fee.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2009 @ 5:46pm

   
   

   ...fears of a bandwidth glut? Isnt that a good thing? Doesn't glut mean too much of a thing?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2009 @ 7:28pm

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Nemertes Report

   

   Ted Ritter, May 1st, 2009 @ 7:33pm

   
   

   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

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Addresses Running Out

   

   Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 1st, 2009 @ 10:58pm

   
   

   What's really running out is IPv4 addresses. This is why we need to move to IPv6 soon.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Somebody....

   

   Cixelsid, May 2nd, 2009 @ 5:53am

   
   

   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!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Addresses Running Out

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2009 @ 1:52pm

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Marketing Morons At Work...

   

   Derek Currie, May 3rd, 2009 @ 11:43pm

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: Re: Addresses Running Out

    

    Derek Currie, May 3rd, 2009 @ 11:48pm

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Nicholas Overstreet (profile), May 4th, 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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, May 4th, 2009 @ 10:53am

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Talmyr (profile), May 5th, 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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment