|reply to FFH |
Re: He said, she said
Odlyzko & Nemertes agree on the facts. No, they don't. Says Odlyzko:
The basic, and highly debatable, assumption behind their work, though, is that traffic is growing at 100% per year or more, and will continue to do so for the next half a dozen years. So far there is little evidence of thatHe then goes on to list countless carriers and backbones who show growth is nowhere near 100%...
You're excellent at manufacturing straw men so you can shoot them in a barrel.
DampierPhillip M Dampier
|reply to FFH |
More important is the fact Nemertes findings are like magic sprinkles that anyone can use to justify anything. I waded through the latest, which is just as alarmist as the last one, and the one before that. I am afraid to even go outside now.
Nemertes waves away Odlyzko by claiming that their discrepancy in data with his comes from the 'secret Internet' private backbones. Of course, that data Odlyzko can't get from them is the same data Nemertes cannot get from them either. So we are left with an assertion without raw data.
Equipment makers love Nemertes because they can trumpet the scary findings on their upgrade now brochures. ISPs love Nemertes because they can claim they have to cap and tier customers in order to buy equipment to combat the "exaflood." Proponents of government funding for the Internet love Nemertes because it suggests public funding to subdue the crisis is needed.
Hell, even *I* could love Nemertes because the report says nothing about the need for usage caps and limits -- it instead suggests that insufficient infrastructure spending will cause the Internet to brown out causing loss of innovation, jobs, and all the rest. So I *could* use Nemertes to justify why cable companies have a basic responsibility to stop cutting infrastructure spending and start increasing it, instead of capping people to ration the net.
But the reason I won't is that I have integrity. I realize there is one substantial difference between Nemertes and myself. They are paid and supported by companies that find their research useful and helpful in making whatever case they want. So it helps to create magic sprinkles findings that can be pitched to everyone.
I, on the other hand, am not paid a cent to find anything. I'm just a consumer and customer. I realize the taint that automatically exists when you start finding out who is "contributing" to the organization that creates these findings. Last go around, it was AT&T, who coincidentally was pushing against net neutrality and wanted to get into a commercial backbone build out. Use the exaflood study and illustrate the need. I wonder if Nemertes produced reports skeptical of commercial intent in this area if they would be as well funded. I think not.
I think the fundamental truth I have always witnessed in my years of following all of this is that innovation brings a lot of solutions to problems we fear and panic about today, but aren't that big of a deal tomorrow.
What we don't need here is another effort to super-maximize profits by reducing competition, installing artificial usage limits, and trying to legislate protectionist measures to forestall that competition.