Will The Web Crumble Under The Weight Of Greater Demand? We Think Not
by
on November 22, 2007,
Every once in a while – and ever more frequently nowadays – there are those who scream of impending doom for the very existence of the Internet. And they’re not all frizzy-haired crackpots. Some are rather sane groups of individuals, who analyze the status of the Web fairly closely.
And, yes, they see current trends of Internet use as spelling doom quite clearly. Some vociferously claim to foresee a time at which the Web will collapse under the stress of excessive use of bandwidth, and that the demand for more and more bits to do with media is what’ll do in many of the largest and most crucial networks, effectively throwing global business into tragic disarray.
Of course, speaking for myself alone, I find such presumptions very much flawed, as they require that network operators fail to attend to their respective “tubes” and upgrade and expand as technological advancement demands they do. Which is highly unlikely to happen. Such operators are in the business of supplying Internet service to ever-larger customer bases, and if they see no need to appropriately tend to their many millions of connections, they’ve arguably lost their sense of rationality.
As a report highlighted in the BBC this week attests, billions of dollars ($137bn this very moment) need to be spent to prepare the world on the whole for a future of broadband with fewer and fewer bandwidth limits (in other words, greater and greater transfer speeds), but clearly such lessons are quite logical. ISPs have always striven to adopt new technologies for the sake of remaining relevant and competitive, and to cease carrying along at current trends would be to the detriment of the ISPs. And do correct me if I’m mistaken, but ISPs do enjoy their relevance, as it allows them to grow their profits.
So, presumably, they will continue to upgrade their networks as is demanded of them. (Otherwise new entities will come to replace them - and gladly so, I imagine.) And upgrades tend to bring with them good things. Like the ability for businesses and consumers to pipe more stuff through the world’s fiber lines. More stuff with less strain.
All in all, everything sounds like it’ll be okay, right? Right. If everyone does their job, and goes along with this sociological phenomenon we call “progress”, the things that work today will work tomorrow, and the following week, and the following, year, etc, etc.
No need to worry, then. No need to stuff your screen with as much IPTV and high-definition audio and still imagery and miscellaneous data as you can. You’ll surely be able to do so well into the future.
(That is unless Asimov’s tales do in fact come to physical fruition and our technological marvels turn against us. In which case, forget everything I just said and find a nice large stone to burrow beneath.)
Want to offer up your predictions about the future health of the Internet? Feel free to do so in the comments below. We’re always glad to hear from our readers.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
aa
Alan Kodzasov
Shallow
Bob
CopyrightLawSucks 
kinghajj 
Michael Fidler 
Very interesting Post. I stumbled here just now. I think despite any changes that may come about or issues that arise; the internet, in some form or another, will always be.
Our society depends on too many conveniences brought about by the internet. I personally cannot imagine a day without it. Which is somewhat sad, but it’s how many of us conduct our business.
I agree, and it’s also worth pointing out that the doomsayers said the same things about radio and television. “Eventually the radio waves will fill up the world and we won’t have room for more programs!!” Riiight.
Doomsayers may well arrive at terrible conclusions (not POOR, mind you, but gloomy), and they might look at the nitty gritty of the grand puzzle and truly see a suspicious number of pieces missing or misappropriated or whathaveyou, some perhaps even worthy of serious attention.
But sometimes only simple logic is necessary to see more obvious truths. Logic that I hope I’ve adequately represented in the original piece above.
Thanks to readers “Website Design” and “UJ” for the supporting comments. Hope to see more feedback from more folks out there.
And, of course, opposing thoughts are indeed welcome as well!
growing up in a rural part of the state and moving to a even more rural part (a town where there is literally one piece of fiber supplying about 60 miles worth of small towns). how do I know it was just one fiber - it got cut earlier this year and phones were down for 2 days….
There is a lot that needs to be done as far as internet backbones… but there is still a lot to be done on the receiving side of things - as well as compression on the server side. Its a 2 way street.
Matt,
Yes, the rural spaces of the US are very unfortunately devoid of solid Internet infrastructure. The ISPs argue that the investment/potential revenue figures would only give them losses, too many losses to warrant the installation of more fiber channels.
But I doubt that those losses would register far into the future. Fiber is very cheap nowadays - hence the distribution of FTTH, or Fiber To The Home, in some parts of the US (including the Metro NYC area) - and there’s really no reason to keep rural regions “out of the loop” anymore. Maybe 5-10 years ago, massive expansion into rural parts of the US wasn’t practical, but today it’s almost entirely feasible to proceed with such deliveries.
Doomsayers may well arrive at terrible conclusions