dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
The Exaflood Myth Just Won't Die
Research firm still warning of Internet brownouts in 2010...
by Karl Bode 11:34AM Thursday Apr 30 2009 Tipped by skj See Profile
The term "exaflood," created by the same PR tank that crafted the term "intelligent design," is part of a sophisticated campaign aimed at convincing the press, public and lawmakers that without giving carriers what they want (less regulation, no net neutrality laws, no price controls, huge subsidies and tax credits, less consumer protection), the world will simply run out of bandwidth and we'll all be weeping over our clogged tubes.

Andrew Odlyzko, one of the nation's top experts on global Internet traffic, repeatedly notes that while growth is strong, it doesn't necessitate drastic new pricing model shifts (metered billing), and is entirely manageable with just modest capacity upgrades. According to Odlyzko, the current Internet growth rate of about 50% per year "can be accommodated with essentially the current level of capital investment." If anything, Odlyzko predicts a slow down (something Cogent data confirms).

That doesn't stop carriers from repeatedly suggesting that a bandwidth apocalypse looms. One of the industry's favorite source of capacity scare mongering is Nemertes Research, who, since 2007, has published a series of reports insisting that video demand is going to result in Internet brownouts. Their studies result in wholly unskeptical reports like this one in the UK Times Online. Be afraid:
quote:
Internet users face regular “brownouts” that will freeze their computers as capacity runs out in cyberspace, according to research to be published later this year. . . It will initially lead to computers being disrupted and going offline for several minutes at a time. From 2012, however, PCs and laptops are likely to operate at a much reduced speed, rendering the internet an "unreliable toy".
The Times doesn't bother to look for opposing statistics that counter Nemertes Data (of which there's plenty), nor do they look to previous stellar reports deconstructing the exaflood myth, like this Economist report from last year. Odlyzko himself has stated that much of Nemertes data is sound, but that their conclusions of a looming Internet catastrophe are not supported by facts:
quote:
Nemertes Research has an updated version of their study from last year, and continues to predict a collision between demand and supply, unless dramatic increases in investment are made. 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 that, though.
At this point we suppose the best we can do is just wait until next year, when Nemertes claims the Internet brownouts begin. When carriers (and the very intelligent engineers they employ) manage to scale capacity to meet demand without much fuss, perhaps Nemertes can issue everyone a robust apology for ruining their afternoon tea.

view:
topics flat nest 

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

Okay, PRETEND that I believe. So what's worse?

Okay, PRETEND that I believe (I definitely do not). So what's worse?

1. You can't do the things you want because the Internet is overloaded?

or

2. You can't do the things you want because your ISP prohibits or limits it?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18

1 recommendation

Re: Okay, PRETEND that I believe. So what's worse?

said by funchords:

Okay, PRETEND that I believe (I definitely do not). So what's worse?

1. You can't do the things you want because the Internet is overloaded?

or

2. You can't do the things you want because your ISP prohibits or limits it?
No more terabytes of porn over my Comcast cable* which has a 250GB cap? ONOES!!1

*Inside joke at a certain group of people...
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable
3. You are a slave to the machine, you will be assimilated, you have no chance to survive, make your time

This is so dumb.

"The amount of traffic generated each month by YouTube is now equivalent to the amount of traffic generated across the entire internet in all of 2000."

Really? I thought the internet was stuck in 1997
Even back then, videos online were pretty popular. Granted, you needed to be on a fast connection, but Windows Media and Real streams were definitely out there. Now we have a plethora of arguably worse quality flash based video everywhere - anybody with a computer can post completely pointless videos, and anybody can view them.

Wonder if anyone has bothered to look at something like this...
»navigators.com/stats.html
...We've managed to keep up so far... And at some point, even if IPV6 does take off, and everything has an IP address, is online, and chatting about pointlessness, we'll still have a pretty good chance of being "caught up" enough to handle everything.

In other news, by 2012 we still won't have transporter technology, replicators, or warp drive ...due to our poor clogged interweb tubes I'm sure

Pingmeister

@198.36.95.x
said by funchords:

Okay, PRETEND that I believe (I definitely do not). So what's worse?

1. You can't do the things you want because the Internet is overloaded?

or

2. You can't do the things you want because your ISP prohibits or limits it?
Common sense says that ISPs wouldn't let this happen. They will need sufficient capacity to (at the least) maintain their present customer base, and bring on new subscribers. Would they disappoint their user base to the point of attrition? For me to believe what the carriers are claiming, I would need ignore the history of the internet and how all of the players came to where they are today, and I would need to assume that any ISP that is promising to improve their network is telling a lie.

If my Comcast cable internet were to perform as Nemertes Research would have you believe it will, I wouldn't be paying my bill, and neither will you. For what reason would Comcast allow that to happen?

Nemertes Research needs an enema. They have no idea how the real world works and they should be considered dangerous.
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY

Lazy Media

I wrote the reporter asking why they would dredge up this astroturfing nonsense a full two years after it was debunked as AT&T bought and paid for nonsense.

Fox News is promptly carrying this BS again as well. Time to debunk for them.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

He said, she said

Odlyzko & Nemertes agree on the facts.
quote:
Odlyzko himself has stated that much of Nemertes data is sound
But they disagree on the interpretation. Karl prefers Odlyzko's interpretation because it supports his premise - that companies are greedy and invent problems to rip off customers.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big

1 recommendation

Re: He said, she said

said by FFH5:

Odlyzko & Nemertes agree on the facts.
quote:
Odlyzko himself has stated that much of Nemertes data is sound
But they disagree on the interpretation. Karl prefers Odlyzko's interpretation because it supports his premise - that companies are greedy and invent problems to rip off customers.
Only because companies really ARE greedy and invent problems. It's classic marketing.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
There will be no internet brown-outs
but I think they should buy equ that is more overkill than just modest upgrades (overkill upgrades have a longer life than modest ones do so the ROI is longer and better)

If the tier 1 ISP's would light up all the dark fiber and upgrade existing transivers to OC768(40Gbit) then buy routers that are far beyond what is needed then the internet would be faster and we could totaly laugh at the ExaFlood crap (we can now but the laugh would be even better)

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

Re: He said, she said

said by DarkLogix:

If the tier 1 ISP's would light up all the dark fiber and upgrade existing transivers to OC768(40Gbit) then buy routers that are far beyond what is needed then the internet would be faster and we could totaly laugh at the ExaFlood crap (we can now but the laugh would be even better)
This is a misread of the situation.

1) IP/Internet carriers aren't going OC768 because of the ungodly expense of gear that meets SONET framing/channelization requirements. The push is for 40/100gigabit Ethernet; even though the final standards for 40/100 won't be out until Q2 next year at the earliest, many carriers are building on pre-standard gear simply because of the cost efficiency of it.

2) The backbone carriers won't be a problem for capacity. They already have a pricing schedule based on peak mbps consumption. When people use more bandwidth, the backbone providers make more money.

The problem with the residential broadband market is that the ISPs have engineered themselves into a corner. Normally if you were operating a service where your demand exceeded your annual planline growth budget, you would correct for it by increasing prices to boost revenue to facilitate the additional growth. The problem in the broadband market is that the price increase will tend to drive customers away, specifically your low-use budget-conscious users who provide the balance to keep the high-use customers from toppling the system. As a bonus, any obvious solution to the problem (be it throttling, ejecting the high-use customers as "abusers", or usage-based billing) is an automatic PR nightmare, largely because sites like these have more of an interest in finding ways to point fingers instead of giving an honest investigation into the situation.

Overall, I'm glad I work in private enterprise and this isn't my problem to solve.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: He said, she said

Yes I realize that the problem isn't the backbone if anything its the last mile

I just think that it could be better

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

3 edits
said by espaeth:

The problem with the residential broadband market is that the ISPs have engineered themselves into a corner. Normally if you were operating a service where your demand exceeded your annual planline growth budget, you would correct for it by increasing prices to boost revenue to facilitate the additional growth. The problem in the broadband market is that the price increase will tend to drive customers away, specifically your low-use budget-conscious users who provide the balance to keep the high-use customers from toppling the system.
I used to have an 802.11(b) modem, the DI-614+, in the summer of 2002, it was "a lot for the price" at $150

I upgraded a couple of years later to the DGL-4300, an 802.11(g) modem, considered "expensive" and "twice the price" than other routers at $150.

And again I upgraded to 802.11(n), this time to the $180 DIR-655, again called "expensive" by the reviewers.

My point is, that speeds and capacity keep increasing at about the same price point. There is no sane reason this doesn't directly translate from the last 300 feet to the last mile!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: He said, she said

said by funchords:

I used to have an 802.11(b) modem, the DI-614+, in the summer of 2002, it was "a lot for the price" at $150 ....
The problem is that you're trying to relate manufacturing to deployment/integration, and they are really separate beasts.

How much do you think they needed to modify the production lines to manufacture different routers every year? They're still paying people roughly the same wages (with meager annual increases), they still have the same packaging costs and raw material costs, the only thing that makes a new device more expensive if that you are covering the R&D costs. It's not like 1.5TB drives cost more in terms of labor and materials than 250GB drives -- the price difference is to pay for the folks that figured out how to arrange the platter material and write methods to hit those densities.

Networks are a little more complicated in that you can't consider simple point solutions. The design and integration needs to look at the whole system, or you build yourself into problems like having two 4-lane highways try to merge into a single 2-lane highway.

The digital broadcast transition is another example of this. From a manufacturing standpoint we had this thing solved years ago -- the broadcasters have been pumping digital signals for the better part of this decade, and we've had hardware out on the market capable of receiving that signal for just as long. The logistics of deployment are the sticking point - you need everyone on the same page with compatible hardware or the system doesn't work the way it should.

In your AP example, you also have to be careful about what technologies you pick. You could have gone from 802.11b to 802.11a to get to 54mbps, but if you had made that move you would have stranded yourself from any backwards compatibility with 802.11b hardware due to the different frequency space. Not every upgrade path is a clear winner.

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

1 recommendation

said by espaeth:

Normally if you were operating a service where your demand exceeded your annual planline growth budget, you would correct for it by increasing prices to boost revenue to facilitate the additional growth.

The problem in the broadband market is that the price increase will tend to drive customers away, specifically your low-use budget-conscious users who provide the balance to keep the high-use customers from toppling the system.
Think so? If you're a utility with the same issue there are no price increases without the PSC/PUC approving those plans and that's after significant scrutiny. Does the PSC/PUC have to approve cable broadband price increases? Not that I'm aware of. They have the freedom to do it without nearly as many restrictions as a utility aside from some anemic local franchise boards that are often too uneducated to make reasonable decisions. It may drive customers away, but if they're customers like in many parts of the country, there aren't any reasonable alternatives. They swallow the increase and move on. If a utility can't make their case to the PSC, they cut costs internally to compensate since they don't have the ability to just hike rates on a whim. Haven't seen much evidence that ISPs are doing that aside from outsourcing tech support to India.

said by espaeth:

As a bonus, any obvious solution to the problem (be it throttling, ejecting the high-use customers as "abusers", or usage-based billing) is an automatic PR nightmare, largely because sites like these have more of an interest in finding ways to point fingers instead of giving an honest investigation into the situation.
I don't recall many cases on DSLReports where there have been major uproars (aside from a few individuals who got booted and threw a fit--which is not representative of the collective DSLReports audience) over customers getting booted for severe abuse of bandwidth. The uproar is over booting customers without telling them what amount of bandwidth will get them booted. Comcast got reamed for it early on but they've made some pretty good strides toward balancing equitable internet use with customer expectations.

Further, many members here have stated they don't have serious concerns about throttling perpetually high-bandwidth users during peak periods to keep things equitable for all their customers. But throttling implemented improperly results in useless tech upgrades. What good is DOCSIS 3.0 if your ISP throttles you to 2Mb/s all the time?

This is about people who know many ISPs are shoveling sh!t when it comes to bandwidth, upgrades, and costs and ISP execs are getting upset because it's threatening their bloated salaries and stock options and pissing off their investors. They're apparently forgetting what their customer base provides them.

It's also been said in many threads on many occasions that something more reasonable on caps would be better accepted. TWC's proposal was ridiculous and many people here and in the general public know that.

I think "sites like these" would provide a more honest investigation if the industry would share their firm numbers proving that the problem the claim exists actually does. Of course they always cite trade secrets or competetive advantage for sitting on that information. Only an idiot is going to blindly accept what a profit-motivated company tells them without evidence to back it up. Paid think tanks and firms who produce "research" to support whatever their client specifies ain't gonna do it.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
said by FFH5:

Odlyzko & Nemertes agree on the facts.
quote:
Odlyzko himself has stated that much of Nemertes data is sound
But they disagree on the interpretation. Karl prefers Odlyzko's interpretation because it supports his premise - that companies are greedy and invent problems to rip off customers.
No, it's because Odlyzko's argument is the one based upon fact and past usage. The 1990 to 2007 compound annual internet growth rate is 85% ... and in places like Hong Kong which has a higher per-capita usage level, traffic is drastically slowing -- not increasing.

Just look up the ESnet traffic stats or any of the Odlyzko's MINTS presentations.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

3 recommendations

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 that
He 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.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: He said, she said

I just quoted what YOU wrote in the news item.

TKJunkMail
Premium
join:2005-12-09

1 recommendation

Re: He said, she said

So you didn't actually read any of the articles? Straw man down! Straw man down!

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
Apparently you need to read better.
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
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.

AlexNYC

join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO

Internet growth = Cell Phone growth

Internet growth is kind of like cell phone growth, eventually the potential "new" customers will be a relatively small number, because everyone already has a cell phone and a broadband connection. Capacity will continue to increase due to more and more multimedia on the Internet needing more and more speed, but that's about it. By the way there will always be some people who do not need/want either cell phones or broadband. Me thinks the apocalypse will be canceled.

jaytb

@rpi.edu

Hey carriers:

Instead of spending money on lobbyists and thinktanks like this, why don't you *gasp* spend money on network upgrades? That way you won't have an exaflood and your customers will be happy. Oh god what a thought that was. I think my brain will explode from it!
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: Hey carriers:

They should do this. I hope the ISPs loose and we get costumer protection, a decent level of regulation(no ISPs all getting together in area and agreeing to all get low caps) and I hope net neutrality stay for ever.

MalibuMaxx
Premium
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN

hmm

I happen to be sitting on a flooded network here at work. Its no picknik. But seeing most ISP's will if not already have upgraded their OC connections and what not I do not see this occuring. If internet continues to grow without the upgrading then this could occur but I believe most isp's would just upgrade their backbones etc...

Hpower
Roflmao

join:2000-06-08
Glendale, CA

@ picture

I just love that picture of the guy holding both of his hands up "IT'S OK GUYS! WE'LL BE ALRIGHT!" lol
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually.

Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House

Sourcewatch and the letter Hmmm.

The Sourcewatch link, pointed to by the PR tank link above is interesting. I can't say I'm a fan of the thinktank, but the reporting of it seems agenda-ized.

First is this:
said by SourceWatch :

Founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman, a former Reagan administration official
Chapman was director of the Census Bureau and a diplomat. Not exactly part of Reagan's inner circle.

I thought this was an odd comment:
said by SourceWatch :

the Discovery Institute engages in a variety of projects including: technology ... foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of "Cascadia."
Cascadia? How is Cascadia relevant in a way that all the other stuff they mentioned is? That sounds like something someone was dying to mention, but couldn't figure out how.

Another targeted comment was:
said by SourceWatch :

Although D.I. describes itself as based on the apologetics of C.S. Lewis, there is little to no basis for this claim. ... [Lewis] was not an evangelical Christian.
Well, neither is Bruce Chapman. He's Roman Catholic; a faith that has been long and heavily targeted by Evangelistic Christians.
But the term Evangelical Christian wasn't widely in use when C.S.Lewis was establishing his faith. It was unlikely that Lewis would have applied the term to himself; no matter his alignment.

The article writer and I assume SourceWatch have put forth an article, designed to nurture anti-Christian, anti-Conservative sentiments. It makes it a bit difficult to respect SourceWatch's accusations of Discovery Institute being biased and agenda driven.

NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY

Re: Sourcewatch and the letter Hmmm.

I think the issue with Sourcewatch is more about identifying the principles behind the front groups and allow the reader to decide whether or not such a person(s) is really qualified and knowledgeable in a subject area. I think it's also a group project, which may explain some of the fragmentation in their material.

For me, some of the most suspicious indicators are the group's funding sources (always follow the money), and secondly their secretive involvement in their initiatives. I don't care about the religious motivations behind this, just the cynical "intelligent design" of the astroturfing campaign driving it. These things are always sold to the public as some sort of spontaneous public movement, never that there is a pressure group(s) behind it driving the agenda. And as we've seen, that could be about religion or the Internet. The methods are often the same.

Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House

Re: Sourcewatch and the letter Hmmm.

said by Dampier:

...Sourcewatch is more about identifying the principles behind the front groups and allow the reader to decide whether or not such a person(s) is really qualified and knowledgeable in a subject area...
Then I would expect to see a proportional number of Leftist Front Organizations exposed on their site. After randomly spot checking their front group list, I couldn't find a Single Leftist Front Group. There is no counterpoint.

There is a solitary, external blog; referenced to on the front page, that illustrates some of the Media-Obama-DNC Ménage à trois, but that was it.

If there is any evidence SourceWatch isn't wholly an anti-Conservative, anti-Corporate, anti-Christian web entity, I'd be curious to see it.

NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.
tritter

join:2009-04-30
Fairfax, VA

Nemertes Source

The Times Online article puts a sensationalist spin on Nemertes research and took great liberty with my quotes. I urge people to read the report and the FAQ. We model Internet supply and demand because service providers won't share their actual demand and capacity plans. As you'll read, our research is funded by our clients: Vendors, service providers and fortune 500 enterprise.

FAQ

Nemertes Internet Infrastructure Report

Ted Ritter
Nemertes Research
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY

2 recommendations

Re: Nemertes Source

I read the FAQ and it's a classic case of conflict of interest. Your study would not have been done without the financing of vendors, service providers, and other corporate clients. You also appear to have a revenue stream from licensing the results of the study to interested clients, who I assure you wouldn't bother unless they had a vested interest in the findings.

Additionally, since we all know the results are made public, and media availabilities are prominently mentioned on the website, a paying client has the bonus of a seemingly independent third party who will be available to discuss the findings and results. That keeps their hands clean, but not so clean when they license the report findings and mention them prominently when delving into public policy, public relations, and marketing strategies.

It's also unsurprising that Nemertes stays out of public policy recommendations, because that is exactly what clients want. They'll provide their own spin as they see fit, just as happened in 2007 and will no doubt happen again.

It's all very neat and tidy, and immediately draws suspicion as soon as that time honored strategy of following the money begins.

I'd also say sensationalism and spin follows your report on this matter wherever you go. It drew the exact same panic headlines in 2007, was dredged up again by a few marketing people to justify broadband usage caps in 2008, and now largely the exact same coverage is appearing now, coincidentally in the same month broadband issues and capacity has been headline news since Time Warner used your theories to justify their Internet rationing effort.

If you want to do reports for clients who subscribe to your service, then send them the results and don't make them public. Let the clients make the report public, because they are effectively paying for it. It prevents the accusation you are astroturfing on their behalf by insulating their involvement in the effort.

Otherwise, a list of all supporting clients by name, in addition to whether they have been licensed to use the material, absolutely must be added to the bottom of your findings, or they are rightfully dismissed out of hand as bought and paid for.

Alternatively, if you are doing this in the public interest, do not accept funding from those with a vested interest in the findings, and do not license their use by anyone. Let people read them on your site, in full and in context, not after some marketing group has massaged the relevant points for their latest strategy.
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Doe anyone here really think exaflood is real?

I do not, and the things the ISPs want((less regulation, no net neutrality laws, no price controls, huge subsidies and tax credits, less consumer protection) will skrew us costumers. Maybe we should send a letter/e-mail every day to our senators/congressmen telling them not to let the ISPs skrew us.

roymustang
Premium
join:2002-01-12
Cincinnati, OH

Re: Doe anyone here really think exaflood is real?

I don't think anyone here believes it is real. I think some pretend they do because they are connected to companies that would obscenely profit if the sheep could be convinced it is real.
rdmiller

join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

Sluggish

My internet connection (FiOS) was incredibly sluggish this morning. Do you think it was because Microsoft just made Windows 7 RC available to MSDNers? Maybe there is an exaflood after all!

perki

join:2008-12-01
Santa Maria, CA

DAMN

Thank God I Have Comcast
andre2

join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA

supply and demand

It will never happen because bandwidth demand is highly elastic. If the net started to slow down, people would either spend less time online, or more likely, just slow down the increase in their bandwidth use (say, by continuing to watch standard-res video instead of hi-def).
Desdinova
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD

Seems To Me...

...that the argument from the ISPs is one of two:

1.) "The Exaflood is coming because we refuse to build out our networks to handle the bandwidth we know is coming."

or

2.) "The Exaflood is coming because we will create it by voluntarily overselling our networks until they break."

Both of these seem to be self-inflicted injuries that are blamed on the end user: "See!? If you dirty rotten customers hadn't tried and used the product we sold you, none of this would have happened!! It's all YOUR fault!!"

Actually, they're both pretty much the SAME argument, just differently phrased. Go figure.