This story
appeared on Network World at
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/113007bradner.html
Internet
overload: painting tomorrow something like today
By Scott Bradner
Network World ,
11/30/2007
It seems like
only yesterday that the press was talking about an Internet collapse, but it
actually was more than a decade ago and happened because the press thought Bob
Metcalfe was predicting the Internet was going to overload and collapse.
This time it
happened because Nemertes Research, my fellow columnist Johna Till Johnson's
company, put out a report that generated a lot of misleading headlines,
including the one in Network World . Other headlines were the China Daily's ÒInternet
outages may occur by 2010 as capacity stallsÓ; iTwire's ÒInternet to go down in
2010?"; the Times of India's ÒSuperhighway traffic jam could clog InternetÓ;
and InternetRetailing.net's ÒE-commerce could slow to a halt by 2010."
That would be scary stuff if the report actually said anything like that.
The Nemertes
report itself is titled ÒThe Internet singularity, delayed: Why limits in
Internet capacity will stifle innovation on the WebÓ and can be found on the
Nemertes site. (Annoyingly, they want you to create an account to download the
report; I'm going to be real pissed if I start getting spam from them now.) The
report is quite well done, but still I do have some real problems with it, even
though Nemertes says some of the best people I know who are thinking about
these issues gave them advice, including Noel Chiappa, kc claffy and Andrew
Odlyzko.
The report does
not pull a Metcalfe and predict an Internet collapse. It does, however, say
that the Internet broadband-access networks will not keep up with future demand
and, thus, users will be slowed. It does not mention that many broadband
Internet subscribers are seeing slowdowns today because of the low speed and
oversubscribing of current access networks.
My second-biggest
problem with the report is that it fails to take into account the wide
differences in Internet-access speed and cost across the world. The average
download speed in the United States is less than 2Mpbs compared with more than
60Mbps in Japan. The report fails to point out that the United StatesÕ
definition of broadband is one of the slowest and most expensive to be found in
the major industrialized countries in terms of dollars per Mbps -- more than
ten times as expensive as in Japan and even more expensive than in Portugal. It
calls for spending a lot more money on access infrastructure over the next few
years, but does not hint at how it might be paid for. Already U.S. broadband
Internet service is too expensive for a lot of people, and the Nemertes report
does not factor that into its projected growth in users and demand.
My biggest
problem with the report, however, is that its authors seem to think that the
only possible Internet-access future comes from the traditional
telecommunications carriers. It ignores (or at least I could not find any
mention of these) non-carrier solutions, such as muni or neighborhood Wi-Fi,
and mentions GoogleÕs potential entry into the wireless-access business only in
passing.
Another report,
the "Broadband Reality Check II," notes that Òthe U.S. broadband
market is dominated by regional duopolies and little competitionÓ with one
cable and one telephone provider in each region. As long as that remains the
case -- and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission seems to want to be sure
that it does -- we will continue to get slow and expensive Internet service,
and the more likely it will be that the Nemertes report's predictions of
continued clogged access networks will be true.
Disclaimer:
HarvardÕs shield is all about truth, but the university has not expressed an
opinion on the level of truth in the Nemertes Research report, so IÕm on my own
above.
All contents
copyright 1995-2008 Network World, Inc. http://www.networkworld.com