Reported Death Of The Internet Greatly Exaggerated

from the won't-stop-the-lobbyists-from-using-it-though dept

Remember a few months back when there was a Deloitte & Touche report that was misread by some folks against network neutrality rules to mean that the push to keep net neutrality was going to kill the internet? At the time, we pointed to a few famous earlier predictions of the internet's demise (including one by ethernet inventor Bob Metcalfe) that never came true. In that case, Bob Metcalfe was willing to (literally) eat his incorrect prediction. We're wondering if the latest crop of doomsayers will do the same when the internet continues to hold up. As we noted at the time, despite the dire claims of the report (and some telco shills) that no investment would be made if network neutrality couldn't be broken, there was healthy investment in adding capacity to networks.

The latest, as pointed out by Broadband Reports is even more damning. Someone decided to do a little digging further into the Deloitte & Touche report, and while D&T wouldn't provide any more details about their predictions, the reporter went straight to the folks who manage the systems D&T predicted would run into trouble -- and those people flat out denied that they're going to run into any capacity problems any time soon. Basically, capacity keeps growing and even though usage is growing faster than capacity right now, there's plenty of room to spare, and plenty of time to increase capacity should things look like they're getting tight. So, basically, the reports of the internet's impending destruction due to things like YouTube or net neutrality supporters has been greatly exaggerated.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 2:52am

    Re: The Internet is Not Dead


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

  2. identicon
    tard, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 2:59am

    I remember many years ago a statement written by someone that the internet would fall at its knees due to voip. that was clearly wrong, im pretty sure this is.

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

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 5:46am

    Re: The Internet is Not Dead

    You are clearly not of a healthy mental state. Please do try to stay away from good meaning blogs.

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

  4. identicon
    Overcast, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 6:52am

    The really funny thing is - some companies actually trust D&T, lol

    No, anything but net neutrality will kill the internet. Once it's a corporate/government propaganda machine, I'm sure I'll loose interest in it.

    Just like anything else, it's fun and cool until the 'powers that be' take it over.

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

  5. identicon
    Marl Zuckerbegr, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 7:16am

    Re: The Internet is Not Dead

    Of course I am not in a healthy mental state.

    That is why I have hit the lottery like Larry Rage and Sergei Brin.

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

  6. identicon
    Tin Ear, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 7:45am

    Running at Capacity?

    I believe that if and when the internet begins to reach the operating capacity of the infrastructure there will be a major push to take the people who write Spam off the line.

    I haven't seen any recent figures, but the amount of spam that is being transmitted on a minute to minute basis is staggering! If bona fide transactions are being slowed down or restricted because of capacity issues, you can bet that people will start screaming louder about spam using up the available bandwidth.

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

  7. identicon
    seaowl, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 10:28am

    That is why the infrastructure needs to be updated-where is the incentive for that?

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

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 11:42am

    Re: Running at Capacity?

    The amount of traffic that spam creates is patheticly miniscule compared to the traffic that youtoob/porn/p2p creates.

    It only seems like alot of traffic because its always getting in your face.

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

  9. identicon
    RandomThoughts, Apr 9th, 2007 @ 2:21pm

    The backbone is fine as it is right now, but there are bottleneck issues. Issues like getting metro traffic to the backbone, bottleneck issues at the last mile.

    Of course the Internet of today can't handle the traffic of tomorrow. Didn't we learn anything during the dot com days? Why build the network of tomorrow when consumers are not ready and willing to pay for it?

    Upgrading the network isn't cheap, you don't do it before the market is ready for it.

    Most consumers have switched from dial-up to DSL, they are not ready to move up to higher speeds. Why would anyone build the network until they are ready for that jump?

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

  10. identicon
    seaowl, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 9:30am

    I for one am ready for higher speeds. My DSL is currently running at 1246 down and 326 up, pretty sorry for what I have to pay. The last mile is the problem for many people because they don't even have access. The Internet will soon (if it isn't already) be more important than a telephone. What we need is a National Policy like most countires that ensures high speed access for all.

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

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Hide this ad »
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Hide this ad »
Recent Stories
Hide this ad »


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.