You know those cool Web 2.0 sites? They may be killing the Internet
I spent time today surfing a couple of very interesting sites. The first was Google Sky, an extremely cool site that lets you peruse planets, cruise constellations and examine x-ray images.
I spent time today surfing a couple of very interesting sites. The first was Google Sky, an extremely cool site that lets you peruse planets, cruise constellations and examine x-ray images.
In addition to the wealth of astronomical goodness, Google Sky is a very slick implementation, with gorgeous colour photos, real-time tracking of the coordinates viewed, and infrared, microwave and historical overlays of each view.
This Web 2.0 package is the kind of thing that 10 years ago people would have paid for on a CD, and gladly.
My second online destination was The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, an amazing archive of the proceedings of London’s famous court. There are more than 197,745 criminal trial stories here, spanning the years 1674 to 1913. The vast majority of the stories detail the trials and tribulations of ordinary people, but there are also the notorious standouts, such as Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen, who murdered his wife in favour of his lover and then fled to Canada; and Oscar Wilde, caught up in libel proceedings in 1895. (Many commentators, including the BBC, have referred to Wilde’s more famous trial for gross indecency, but that case presumably was tried elsewhere, as it is not detailed at the Old Bailey site.)
Web 2.0 is certainly the up-and-coming thing, with Web 3.0 on its heels, but it’s great to see a new, entirely Web 1.0 text-and-photo site that is so interesting and fun to use.
These two Web destinations have me pondering a recent Backbone story which warns that more advanced uses of the Internet (video, IP TV , VoIP, file sharing, Web-based applications, etc.) are simply overloading the Internet. From the article: Illinois-based Nemertes Research Group raised eyebrows last fall when a report it wrote declared the Web could slow to a crawl in two years, clogged by traffic. And that position is echoed by market research group TeleGeography, which noted traffic was up 75 per cent last year while capacity grew only 47 per cent.
And here’s a quote from the same article, from a VP at Cisco: “Online video demand in North America jumped from seven per cent of traffic in 2005 to 18 per cent of traffic this year, and it will grow by a factor of 19 through 2011,” said Olaf Krahmer, Cisco Canada vice-president of service provider operations.
When Cisco notes with concern the rise of Web traffic, it’s maybe time for us to notice too.
Of course, maybe new technology and growing capacity will save us. But it’s also possible that the term "information superhighway" will come back in use as it, just like a physical road, gets bogged down by traffic.
I tend to come down on the side of optimism: I think the big brains who run the Internet will figure all of this out. But in light of this article, maybe I’ll spend more time reading about past crimes and less time gazing into the limitless depths of the universe.
By Peter Wolchak
Backbone magazine
Filed Under: Web/Tech
I find it slightly depressing that a journalist would comment that he "think[s] the big brains who run the Internet will figure all of this out". If you don't know anything about what you're writing about, don't comment on it. End of story. You just sound like an idiot saying that you're sure the thousands of engineers working in the industry will "figure it out". No wonder you're just an online media writer.
(Report comment)
Regarding Rick's comment, I think being nasty and insulting is uncalled for. Peter was expressing an optimistic attitude toward the future, not a technical conclusion. Lighten up.
(Report comment)
The fact of the matter is, no one 'runs' the internet.
Also, what Peter fails to realize in his trite sentence, is thre are no 'big brains' in our world, only a networked assimilation of small brains trying to do the best they can to cover all corners.
An impossibility…
(Report comment)
Wow this thread has gotten further and further from the topic. Here we see a shining example of the "Human Condition". Entertaining to say the least. Keep it up!!!
(Report comment)
It's a sad commentary on our society how people can make the comments they do about a simple article. At least Rick's opinion was just that. Where these other comments come from, I don't know. What has someones sex life got to do with expressing an opinion about an article. I think it is great that all of you bothered to read the article but lighten up. Don't use this as a forum to express your views on other peoples personal lives. I actually believe that some people get some kind of kinky twisted pleasure making the comments they do.
(Report comment)
Surprisingly what wasn't mentioned was traffic shaping by the likes of Rogers, Bell, etc… Imagine if you would that you were able to download television, movies all in HD, stream radio, etc. however your internet service provider or the monopolistic corporation that owns the pipe or bandwidth also offered those services via cable or phone line? Than that same company started restricting that bandwidth, and maybe, just maybe you look at the top of the page and there is one of those corporations logos, and on its page is fear mongering that the the end of the internet is near! The same companies that not too long ago warned about Y2K and bilked fortunes from government and privates sector in fees. Hmmm….
(Report comment)
I have received warnings from my internet provider about exceeding the bandwith usage limits. That was a surprise. It never occurred to me that there was limits. I had to have a talk with my kids about downloading content.
(Report comment)
Greg has the issue summed up. The biggest reason there will be limited bandwidth from our ISP's in North American is because most of the ISP's are also content providers. They have a vested interest in not allowing start up internet based content providers have users with the speed or uncapped usage. (Or reasonable usage.)
There is much more unlighted fiber laid than there is lighted. Also the lighted fiber can get upgraded switches. The backbone of the internet in North American can easily be upgraded to handle magnitudes more traffic.
The issue is ISP's that do not want or need to compete for the final mile. It may be a little too socialist but Canada should consider not allowing bandwidth providers to be content providers. Force some competition. Capitalism does not alway mean there is competition.
(Report comment)
I completely agree with Scott when he identifies the issue of bandwidth providers also being content providers. Let's take that concept one step down the theoretical road; Imagine a bandwidth provider telling you that because the net has become 'crowded', your access to every available website has now become 'restricted' to only those sites your provider 'allows'. However, for a 50% price increase, you can once again enjoy 'full' access. I can easily see the whole 'crowded' issue just becoming a cash cow for bandwidth providers, Watch out. It won't be the first time corporate greed has wrecked a good thing.
(Report comment)
Anyone care to simply hit the report abuse link that is right next to each comment. Specifically for Jon and 'wadekphillips'?
At least, hopefully, it'll get the comments of those punks off the forum.
It seems you need Outlook up and running in order to do it, and mine doesn't work.
(Report comment)
I think these problems just create opportunities, figure out who will be there to resolve the issues and that will be a great investment opportunity. For starters check out Riverbed, Internap, and Allot Communications…
(Report comment)
I think its an interesting topic, however, we pay the full price of the internet usage. I believe there is no "exceeding bandwidth" sort of a thing in reality. Its the service providers job to keep up with the demand. Im sure the ISP's are not run by some idiots..these people know their job well and know what is to come in the future. As the demand increases, im sure technology will find a solution to it. About "overloading the internet", i cant understand that because internet is not a truck or car. Again, the ISPs know how much traffic there is and they charge every user for a minimum level of service that they promise.
(Report comment)
It's the North American consumer mentality. I'm not knocking people for it as I'm guilty myself. We feel entitled to have unlimited access to something because we can pay for it.
Just like oil and food. Who cares if we're causing global warming or starvation, we can afford it and are entitled to use it as we wish. Somebody will figure out how to save the earth and feed people so we don't have to worry too much about it.
One last thing, Raz, you can overload the infrastructure of the internet. The web is not all a digital thing in the ether, eventually it comes to down to hardware. Imagine trying to drain the hoover dam with a garden hose as opposed to a breaking down the dam. The garden hose is our current infrastructure, breaking the dam is what we need to do.
(Report comment)
This article is point-less. The Cisco statement quoted was made as a case for more business for Cisco — not a "note with concern". So the author takes a positive statement, spins it negatively and then says at the end that he's optimistic someone will figure it out? I don't get it.
(Report comment)
Actually, I live in Canada.. and that is pretty much what has just happened to us. Rogers, the only cable provider in the toronto area has said that because of overusage they will be charging people a premium fee ontop of their already fairly pricey standard fee. Anyone who uses over 60gb's per month will be charged an extra $2 per gig(roughly).
The sad thing is that they make this out as being reasonable, cause only "pirates" could use more then that per month. I am not a "pirate" but I have downloaded over 40gb of games this month, that I BOUGHT, as well as about 10gb of movies, again paid for, and throw in actually using the new… and you easily can top out the 60gb limit.
We are living in the age of digital destribution.. and YES it does take up bandwidth. I just have to wonder, if other internet providers aren't gonna look at what Rogers is doing, and try to follow suit.
(Report comment)
Must be nice to live in T.O. with the allowed 60GB. I live in Southren Alberta and the only high speed is wireless. I pay $45 a month for 5 GB of usage. It's barely enough for emailing pics to family let alone downloading movies and music, even from pay sites. If I go over my 5 GB's i get charged 10/gb. You guys don't know what it mean to have limited use.
(Report comment)
RC the amount of bandwidth used by every Rogers customer running full on downloading a CBC program is equivalent to the tip of a pin compared to the CN Tower, there is more than enough bandwidth, Rogers and all the others will be faced with regulation as in the U.S., am all for protecting the great white north and its content however with the telephone corporations of old(Stentor National Telco Network, AGT, SaskTel, etc…) there will be more American companies coming up eventually… right now with the ridiculously high costs of telephone and internet rates and regulations it keeps the U.S. and foreign companies out of Canada, however we pay a premium for this what we call up here,"Canadian Cultural Content Protection" and what our friends to the south call,"Protectionism!" Least we still have the Canada Arm!
(Report comment)
wow
seriously, anybody who thinks that the internet will completely VANISH is very very stupid, sorry to say.. When this happens, it will because humans will be extinct, wich is much more probable considering the was we live..
(Report comment)
It would be a blessing if it the internet, as we know it, disappeared–most of you are just too nerdy to realize life was better before it was hijacked by the net.
(Report comment)
Sorry author but the way you are purporting this, just isn't the way the internet works. The most advanced, data-rich website(s) don't even make a dent in the amount of traffic generated by BitTorrent alone.
Regardless, bandwidth, while finite, is far from what ISPs and other companies claim. This is just a trick to make you think that your ISP is justified in telling you that your limit is 100GB per month. The fact that society as a whole is not outraged and burning down the cell phone companies for changing such ABSURD data rates proves that they simply are uninformed as to how things work and how little data use actually costs. Those are the same kind of people that read articles like this and believe it. Perhaps the same kind who write articles like this…
(Report comment)