Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Thu 30th Apr 2009 23:53 UTC
Humor According to research that's supposed to be published later this year, growing demand for Internet use will soon outstrip the stamina of the infrastructure supporting it, and the Internet will cease to be reliable by 2012. Complete anarchy will ensue, and the world will essentially end along with the Internet we created for it. Perhaps this is what the Mayan prophecies meant?
Order by: Score:
Alarministic...
by big_gie on Fri 1st May 2009 00:10 UTC
big_gie
Member since:
2006-01-04

Interesting ideas. Two weeks ago, my internet connection was sporadically going down. At first I was sad, then I got angry because I could not do my work (access svn server, reading papers, etc). It was a pain.

But then I kind of "got used" to it... Instead of working from home, I went to my office. I spent some time reading a book I wanted to read for long. Is that a bad thing? Is everybody dies, the internet collapsing? I don't think so. People want more and more bandwidth. But if one day it saturates, then a balance will rise between users tired of this unreliability and others who depends more on it.

Even though we add 36k modems, we still did a lot of things with the internet. I'm pretty sure it wont collapse ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Alarministic...
by Liquidator on Fri 1st May 2009 09:35 UTC in reply to "Alarministic..."
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Of course...As people see the Internet doesn't work anymore, they will stop using it, and it will work again ;)

Seriously, it's only a matter of ISPs limiting bandwidth so that all users can access the Internet while they upgrade their infrastructure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Doomsday_prediction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar
http://survive2012.com/

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Alarministic...
by xk2600 on Fri 1st May 2009 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Alarministic..."
xk2600 Member since:
2008-04-14

It's Human TCP Windowing.

1. Login to internet.
2. Too many people online, so internet is slow.
3. Logout of internet.
4. Internet speeds up because I'm not using it.

Multiply that by billions of users, and usage should load balance nicely. ;)

Reply Score: 1

by 6c1452 on Fri 1st May 2009 00:13 UTC
6c1452
Member since:
2007-08-29

Boy, it sure is a good thing that it's possible to upgrade infrastructure.

Reply Score: 10

IPv4?
by nickelbackro on Fri 1st May 2009 00:14 UTC
nickelbackro
Member since:
2009-04-12

I agree the article was poorly written but what the original author may have been referring to is the current problem with the IPv4 infrastructure and the inherent flaw in it of a maximum of 4 Billion unique IPs.

The trouble is that most devices are built on IPv4 and not the newer IPv6 standard which when fully implemented would exponentially increase the number of IPs available. In fact the number would change from the current maximum of 4 billion to 3.4×10^38 leaving the internet room to grow once again.

Reply Score: 5

Crummy ISP
by weildish on Fri 1st May 2009 00:17 UTC
weildish
Member since:
2008-12-06

I have service with Qwest, and I've hated it ever since we got it. Not only do I have to restart the modem every couple of days-- not even sure why-- it just "clogs," you could say-- but the Internet also goes out for days on end whenever there's enough precipitation to get water flowing through the gutters in the street. Qwest denies that it has anything to do with the rain, but seeing as how it only happens when it rains... I think I know better. ;)

I never thought that the first sort of outages I get (the "clogging" sensation) could be due to my ISP's local infrastructure having a lot of strain until now... though a guy just a few streets down from me has the same service, and he loves it. I think I'm just getting the brunt of everything from Qwest-- I doubt that local or widespread bandwidth have anything to do with it.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Crummy ISP
by 6c1452 on Fri 1st May 2009 00:25 UTC in reply to "Crummy ISP"
6c1452 Member since:
2007-08-29

I had a similar problem years ago -- internet disconnected constantly when it rained. Turned out to be a corroded wire and the water would short the connection.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Crummy ISP
by sbenitezb on Fri 1st May 2009 03:44 UTC in reply to "Crummy ISP"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Check your modem. It probably has an internal web server listening in one of the private IP addresses, like : 10.0.0.1, 10.0.1.1, 192.168.1.1 or something like this. Google for the model and check the line status, errors, etc. It could point you to a problem with the physical line. Also, some modems have a buffer for errors, and when the buffer is full the modem needs a hard reset.

Edit: could be too many connections going trough it if you have a very busy bittorrent client and the modem works also as router.

Edit2: some ISPs push upgrades to their modems through the line. Could also be a bug a newer firmware. I had to download a firmware upgrade to my Scientific Atlanta modem to fix a problem with bittorrent.

Edited 2009-05-01 03:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

gehersh
Member since:
2006-01-03

this surely prevents the explosive grows of address space on a backbone, the growth at the edges is hidden by the private addressing scheme, so at least *that* should not be a factor (and, btw, no one is actually converting to ipv6, no business case, the cost of conversion including training is prohibitively high). as to simple increase of the traffic volume - well, I don't think that's really an issue.

so let's keep ipv4. OK?

Reply Score: 0

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

(and, btw, no one is actually converting to ipv6, no business case, the cost of conversion including training is prohibitively high).


Most ISPs are already ipv6 ready (or sort of) and have tested the backbones. It's a matter of being inside the internet or outside of it when the time comes to make the switch (already schedulled).

as to simple increase of the traffic volume - well, I don't think that's really an issue.


It may or it may not be an issue in the future. Too many variables. The well known spam problem is increasing and as more people connects to the net, more computers are available for bots to take them. Perhaps as the world moves to newer (supposedly safer) versions of Windows the ammount of spam diminishes and compensates for the ammount of garbage people download from youtube and the likes.

so let's keep ipv4. OK?


IPv4 is not going anywhere.

Reply Score: 2

Wait a minute
by Phloptical on Fri 1st May 2009 00:56 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Isn't there supposed to be an "Internet 2.0" or something in the works at some university geek-based think tank? Like being tested by people who can understand machine language and speak in boolean?

I hope the internet implodes. It'll save my $50/month to put to better use doing something else. Like furthering my quest for alcoholism ;)

Edited 2009-05-01 00:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

There are always crises
by JoeBuck on Fri 1st May 2009 00:59 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

In electronic circuit design, for a long time there have been looming walls, meaning that fundamental changes have needed to be made to keep Moore's Law on track. At any given time, you can correctly say that if changes aren't made we'll be hosed in 3-5 years. But a lot of engineers work very hard to come up with solutions, and we keep on shrinking that silicon.

Likewise, if the big network providers make no changes we'll be completely screwed by 2012. But the engineers in those companies can see that coming, too, so the Internet of 2012 will in someways look different from the Internet of 2009, probably just different enough to push the drop-dead date out a few more years.

Reply Score: 2

RE: There are always crises
by markh61 on Fri 1st May 2009 17:54 UTC in reply to "There are always crises"
markh61 Member since:
2009-05-01

It's not the engineers or the engineering I worry about, but the managers and other "suits" that make the decisions based only on dollars an not on what the engineers say.

I used to work for a major telecom equipment provider, and even well before the dot-com bust, it was becoming harder and harder to convince and sell the service providers additional infrastructure as it was seen as cutting into their profit margins. Never mind the higher costs to play catch up, or bad PR due to outages, etc. I can't even imagine what it's like in today's economy and the even more obscene quest for short term gains verses long term growth and stability. All hail the almighty dollar!

I agree with you that the network of 2012 will not be (or had better not be) the same network of 2009. I recall reading (a while ago) that the capacity of the fiber network was capable of doubling ever 9 months over the existing fiber! So by 2012, the network could move 8 times the data just by keeping endpoints updated. The amount of dark fiber available seems to be a well guarded secret, but now seems the time to start lighting it up, in addition of putting in more.

The original report seems to be a poorly written attempt at FUD to enable ISP's enacting band caps and fee increases verses expending capital to improve infrastructure.

Reply Score: 2

Freedom
by John Blink on Fri 1st May 2009 01:05 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

We will finally be free to pursue other interests!!

Until then I will surf the web, and make love not Warcraft,
http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1008jenkins.jpg

:B

Reply Score: 2

Move 2012 to 2020 please
by haydenm on Fri 1st May 2009 02:20 UTC
haydenm
Member since:
2006-10-29

So... the terrorists can win by joining AOL?

I like all these "doomsday" revelations, my only issue with 2012 is it will kick in a good 10 years before my chance to have a mid-life crisis (well, pass it off as one at-least) and I was looking forward to it.

Reply Score: 1

finally....
by lqsh on Fri 1st May 2009 02:20 UTC
lqsh
Member since:
2007-01-01

End of the Internet? End of the world?

Maybe Jebus will finally show up! I'm waiting for you Jebus!

Reply Score: 2

Another Mystery Solved
by noamsml on Fri 1st May 2009 02:45 UTC
noamsml
Member since:
2005-07-09

The author was once the COO of Circuit City. Any wonders as to why they went bankrupt?

Reply Score: 6

Not only mayans
by sbenitezb on Fri 1st May 2009 03:24 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

But also Nostradamus predicted the end of the world by december 2012.

Predictions aside, youtube is the television of today. Maybe ISPs should start caching most used content (videos and large files). That would solve part of the problem. The other part would be that they actually improve their already obsolete technology. How many people here have gigabit connection with their ISP?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not only mayans
by nbensa on Sat 2nd May 2009 19:36 UTC in reply to "Not only mayans"
nbensa Member since:
2005-08-29

gigawhat?

Reply Score: 1

What! No more...
by mrhasbean on Fri 1st May 2009 05:50 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

World of Warcraft!!! Nooooooooooooooo!!!!

Reply Score: 2

If things slow down to 133 Mhz
by JonathanBThompson on Fri 1st May 2009 06:26 UTC
JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

Contrary to the statement (facetious, yes?) your computer won't be reduced to something useless ;)

It wasn't all that long ago that that was actually a rather speedy main CPU, and while we always feel more of a need for speed, well... definitely outside of the desktop/laptop realm, you can do a lot with 133 Mhz, still, because the OS doesn't usually eat so much ;) Heck, 133 Mhz is a decent machine for BeOS still ;)

Yes, when that author stated that computers would slow down... either that's extremely bad writing based on their command of a written/spoken language and how to express stuff, or they're really clueless as to what it really means. Either way, not someone to take too seriously!

Reply Score: 3

weildish Member since:
2008-12-06

I used to have a lappy with a Pentium at 133MHz! I loved it. Then I sold it for $35. I love cash, too. In a sense. I truly hate it. But anyway...

133MHz used to be super fast, but think about trying to run an OS like Windows XP or Ubuntu 8.10 or Fedora 10 or what have you on it (or something even newer)... I doubt that any of them would run very well, and unless we install Windows 95 or its Linux equivalents on the now-133MHz computer, it'll be next to useless.

Reply Score: 1

orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

And go post-physical in 2011 - will this affect me?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Fri 1st May 2009 09:38 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Internet use will soon outstrip the stamina of the infrastructure supporting it, and the Internet will cease to be reliable by 2012. Complete anarchy will ensue, and the world will essentially end


This sounds dangerously like a South Park episode

Reply Score: 6

Ha! Sure...
by TBPrince on Fri 1st May 2009 10:04 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

These kinds of arguments are just functional to make people accept the idea of a limitation / regulation of the Internet, expecially aimed to create two (or more) levels, in contrast to what it's called "network neutrality".

Once people accept the idea that Internet should be limitated (for people's sake, of course), it will be easy to part Internet contents into different kinds of contents. You will have the first-class Internet (accepted and displayed everywhere in the World) and 2nd, 3rd, 4th class contents which will be blocked / filtered at officials will.

There's no doubt that it will then be easier to filter blogs and other "dangerous" contents once they are part of a 2nd, less-important, part of the 'Net.

These kinds of arguments (which now Google accepts when they refused them for oh so long) must be rejected for Democracy's sake.

We have plenty of energy to power the Internet, which we need. If we don't have, let's unplug something else we don't need (banks, weapons and so forth).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ha! Sure...
by xk2600 on Fri 1st May 2009 14:36 UTC in reply to "Ha! Sure..."
xk2600 Member since:
2008-04-14

These kinds of arguments are just functional to make people accept the idea of a limitation / regulation of the Internet, expecially aimed to create two (or more) levels, in contrast to what it's called "network neutrality".


Kudos. I think you're probably right. Sounds like fud to encourage people to accept the notion that bandwidth limiting is the only way. It's an easy and very lazy solution for ISPs to implement. Why put dollars into upgrading our infrastructure when you only have to convince people its in their best interest to set a cap? This would drive price for purchase cost to get uncapped or the cap raised. The ISP spends no extra dollars implementing this, and reaps great rewards. I smell marketing ploy... :/

Edited 2009-05-01 14:40 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Ha! Sure...
by gustl on Fri 1st May 2009 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Ha! Sure..."
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Kudos. I think you're probably right. Sounds like fud to encourage people to accept the notion that bandwidth limiting is the only way. It's an easy and very lazy solution for ISPs to implement. Why put dollars into upgrading our infrastructure when you only have to convince people its in their best interest to set a cap?


There would be a good tool to prevent your scenario. It is called a "free market". I know that neither communists like free markets (they like central guidance), nor capitalist mega-corporations like them (they like monopolies).
So all you have to do is get rid of both communists and capitalistic monopolists and you are fine.

Shouldn't be too hard to pull off in the USA, I guess. Just make sure you start pestering your local representative in Congress about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ha! Sure...
by TBPrince on Sat 2nd May 2009 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ha! Sure..."
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh God... free market... yeah, sure ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Bull
by torbenm on Fri 1st May 2009 10:14 UTC
torbenm
Member since:
2007-04-23

The conclusions are, of course, utter bullshit. So many companies now rely on the Internet that money will be found to upgrade the infrastructure.

People who predict the end of a certain technology usually want to sell you what they want you to believe is a replacement. Maybe these people have invested in technology they think could either replace or be integrated into the net to reduce the problems they predict, and hope that a little fearmongering will increase the chance that someone will buy it.

Reply Score: 2

How
by Andre on Fri 1st May 2009 11:48 UTC
Andre
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see why the internet would die in 2012.
The internet has been stable for many years,
and so it's proven reliable technology.

Yes, the address space might run out someday, and we should start moving to IPv6, still, I don't see how that would kill the internet. Addresses running out would only mean it is no longer possible to add new connections to the internet, but the exsisting internet connections would remainl.

Well ... Here is the song: 'The day the routers died' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0

Reply Score: 1

Location Location Location!
by Brunis on Fri 1st May 2009 13:26 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

It's a good thing working at the office taxes the internet less!

Reply Score: 1

Deja vu?
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 1st May 2009 14:27 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

I knew the story sounded familiar - and a little bit of google'ing turned up this:

"Internet about to collapse, says Finnish scientist

[...]

October 18, 2004"

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2004/10/4318.ars

Of course, in that case, the "end of the Internet as we know it" was supposed to occur in 2006.

Reply Score: 2

Internet Usage
by xk2600 on Fri 1st May 2009 14:29 UTC
xk2600
Member since:
2008-04-14

A year or so ago, I was talking with a couple of infrastructure engineers for Level3 and Verizon, and a majority of thier inter/intracontinental fiber isn't even utilized. I think the numbers were in the lower 30%. Due to newer technologies coming out allowing you to get more data down one fiber (CWDM/DWDM), the need to have all of the fiber lit when only 30% was being paid for was silly. As the need for bandwidth increases and technology falls in price, just like computing preformance and storage, the market will accomodate. I really believe all this is a bunch of guessing by uninformed people. I could be wrong, but at the very least, I'm pretty sure it easier to string up more fiber and charge the end user for it than it is to just admit defeat. Supply and Demand should accomodate.

Reply Score: 3

I understand:
by deb2006 on Fri 1st May 2009 15:45 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

There seem to be no other topics (really???). So let's go for that crap ... Oh, well ...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Fri 1st May 2009 16:32 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

PCs and laptops are likely to operate at a much reduced speed


I'm curious as how to they think that the internet somehow controls the speed of my computer.

Nemertes Research, a respected American think-tank


Respected?

will warn that the web has reached a critical point


"the web"? If you cant even use the correct terminology how respected can you possibly be?

although that did not take into account plans for greater internet access in China and India


and of course this means that China and India will ADD new infrastructure to their respectve countries.

a combination of temporary freezing and computers being reduced to a slow speed.


Again? I'm still curious how that actually works.

Today people know how home computers slow down when the kids get back from school and start playing games, but by 2012 that traffic jam could last all day long


Say what? Way to confuse two entirely different problems, analyst dude.

While some are planning a lightning-fast parallel network called “the grid”


Isn't that the one where Sandra Bullock gets stalked? Or am I confusing it with "living outside the grid" in T3?
Seriously? The Grid?

others are building “caches”, private computer stations where popular entertainments are stored on local PCs rather than sent through the global backbone.


Oh, you mean exactly like how your current browser caches content?

Why do these completely incompetent jackasses get media play time?
Hey TimesOnline, I have a theory that the internet will stop working in 2015 due to Skynet going live. Please feel free to contact me for an interview.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Fri 1st May 2009 16:32 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

PCs and laptops are likely to operate at a much reduced speed


I'm curious as how to they think that the internet somehow controls the speed of my computer.

Nemertes Research, a respected American think-tank


Respected?

will warn that the web has reached a critical point


"the web"? If you cant even use the correct terminology how respected can you possibly be?

although that did not take into account plans for greater internet access in China and India


and of course this means that China and India will ADD new infrastructure to their respectve countries.

a combination of temporary freezing and computers being reduced to a slow speed.


Again? I'm still curious how that actually works.

Today people know how home computers slow down when the kids get back from school and start playing games, but by 2012 that traffic jam could last all day long


Say what? Way to confuse two entirely different problems, analyst dude.

While some are planning a lightning-fast parallel network called “the grid”


Isn't that the one where Sandra Bullock gets stalked? Or am I confusing it with "living outside the grid" in T3?
Seriously? The Grid?

others are building “caches”, private computer stations where popular entertainments are stored on local PCs rather than sent through the global backbone.


Oh, you mean exactly like how your current browser caches content?

Why do these completely incompetent jackasses get media play time?
Hey TimesOnline, I have a theory that the internet will stop working in 2015 due to Skynet going live. Please feel free to contact me for an interview.

Reply Score: 2

heh
by Ressev on Fri 1st May 2009 17:12 UTC
Ressev
Member since:
2005-07-18

Yeah, I read that article yesterday. Very, very amusing. While bandwidth is a concern (lag anyone?)it does not strike me as something that is in the best interest of the Tel-com industry to not stay on top of. Of course, you could jump at the conclusion of their bandwidth caps as being an excuse not to expand under the increasing load just so they can keep more profits.

I am worried very little about an internet brownout.

What I DO worry about, however, is solar activity in the next few years overloading our power grid and essentially disrupting power for months to years depending on the location. THAT, in my mind is a more pressing matter than someone's half-knowledge about internet bandwidth.

I wonder which yahoos are going to pick the article up, hoping people with any real knowledge on the subject fail to read it or get heard protesting it, and use it as an excuse for whatever price increase or Internet regulation they are parading.

Reply Score: 1

Won't happen
by werfu on Fri 1st May 2009 18:19 UTC
werfu
Member since:
2005-09-15

This wont happen. As soon as IPv4 gets depleted, ISP will start to rush for IPv6. IPv6 is way better implemented than v4 and transport layer should cope better with the bandwith. Most of backbones today run on something else than IPv4 because it's simply unable to cope with the such high demand. All of this is the fault of TCP ;)

By the time Internet2 should be out too. And I expect fiber to spread wider. Also, the current ISP interconnexion scheme may change. Currently most ISP are running in a reversed-tree like infrastructure. There is a need for more interconnect between ISPs. The initial Internet design was meant to be a graph, not a tree. The more interconnect there will be, the more the network will be efficient (just like a brain).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Won't happen
by zombie process on Mon 4th May 2009 23:51 UTC in reply to "Won't happen"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

WTF are you talking about?

Reply Score: 2

I have heard this before.
by theTSF on Fri 1st May 2009 19:46 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

I expect 1212 the Internet will run just as good if not better then ever. As if there are any problems new more ingenious solutions will come up to solve the problem.

The Internet was expected to crash and burn by 2002 because of all the increase in Video and Audio. Because we had very large files WAV and AVI files that were uncompressed and very large size. However they find a way to compress such data so it isn't a big issue.

Before that the idea of sending pictures, where we have bmp files as standard was considered to kill the internet until the GIF and JPEG files once again were able to send more data in less space.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I have heard this before.
by haydenm on Sat 2nd May 2009 17:18 UTC in reply to "I have heard this before."
haydenm Member since:
2006-10-29

In 2012 the network providers will be too busy dealing with armageddon.

The big issue I see at the end of the world is we'll never receive that "latest lolcat" email. I which case, I wouldn't bother getting out of bed.

Reply Score: 1

Internet2
by milatchi on Sat 2nd May 2009 19:54 UTC
milatchi
Member since:
2005-08-29

Good thing they thought about this in the mid-nineties and made Internet2.
Ah [dusts hands off], problem solved!

/me will just move on up to Internet2

Reply Score: 1

Amazing
by zombie process on Mon 4th May 2009 23:54 UTC
zombie process
Member since:
2005-07-08

I'm *amazed* there is serious discussion surrounding this here, but then I guess this is OSNews, not NANOG. IPv4 depletion = serious. Internets depletion = load of horse turds.

Reply Score: 2