Slashdot Mirror
ARPANet Co-Founder Predicts An Internet Crisis
The Insultant writes "Dr. Larry Roberts, co-founder of the ARPANET and inventor of packet switching, predicts the Internet is headed for a major crisis in an article published on the Internet Evolution web site today. Internet traffic is now growing much more quickly than the rate at which router cost is decreasing, Roberts says. At current growth levels, the cost of deploying Internet capacity to handle new services like social networking, gaming, video, VOIP, and digital entertainment will double every three years, he predicts, creating an economic crisis. Of course, Roberts has an agenda. He's now CEO of Anagran Inc., which makes a technology called flow-based routing that, Roberts claims, will solve all of the world's routing problems in one go."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Man with Solution says the is a Problem.
Yeah, not buyin it. A similar thing happened with electricity, when everyone bought TVs everyone bought computers etc. suddenly of course power usage sky rocketed, and lots of people said, well this is going to be the rate of growth now. Of course, with that, as it is with this, everyone go their TVs and then the demand levelled out, with this, everyone will start downloading videos, and the bandwith usage will level out. Yes, soon we'll need some new routers, but the problem isn't permanent, and it isn't something that we should trust a salesman to deal with.
Robert Metcalfe predicted this in 1995. He literally ate his words (a printed InfoWorld article mixed with liquid in a blender) in front of an audience in 1997.
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Create a problem. Solve that problem. Uniquely own that solution in the market. Make everyone need what you have to offer.
Of course, the first step is that these guys need to really convince everyone that the internet is about to implode and that the companies who need the enormous bandwidth and services simply can't or won't make the hardware investment that is necessary.
The real threat to the internet are the legislators and lobbyists who want to nerf the internet so that the only use for it is the commercial enterprises and everything should be nerfed down to a Disney-fied toddler's level. That's an actual legitimate threat.
However, maybe he should peddle the "piracy and torrents are killing the internet and I can save you!" angle. Might work.
Someone submits a slashvertisement, acknowledges it in the summary, and it still gets put on the front page. Brilliant! Also, routing will be just fine. F-U-D.
What happened to all that talk of "dark fiber"? /.) wanting to fiddle with packets instead of simply routing them?
And how much of the routing problems stem from backbone ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, etc.; see recent
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
When the ice caps melt, the tubes will get clogged with dead polar bears.
See "On Distributed Communications", published in 1964.
This would make more sense if step 3 was actually a mystery. I thought step 3 was obvious: "Convince influential idiots with money that your product is the greatest and most urgently needed thing since free porn."
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
So, how does one get inoculated with your special seed?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Zonk you fucking moron. You already posted this earlier this month right here. Different website, but same guy and same company, of course. Same message, same bullshit!
You have officially crossed into the JonKatz zone. Not only do you post duplicates, but you post slanted slashvertisment duplicates! Your articles are worthless.
It's too bad all I can do is ignore you, but it's about time I finally did. I recommend everyone else do the same, so we can finally hit home that bullshit editors will not be tolerated.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
You and your knowledge of "economics" can go! We're predicting disaster here!
People have been predicting that we'd run out of item X by time Y for hundreds of years. The reason we don't is because (as you said) when supply dwindles, there is incentive to find news supplies and substitutes.
During WWII, it was thought that we'd completely run out of rubber, and this would kill our war effort, due to lack of tires, hoses, gaskets, etc. Along comes synthetic rubber, and magically we don't run out. These days most rubber is synthetic.
This stuff happens all the time. When oil becomes expensive enough, alternative fuel use will become so desirable that an efficient solution will present itself. Hell, that's why we switched to cars in the first place, because our previous transportation (horses) produced untold...uhh..."pollution". A little Co2 seemed like heaven compared to mountains of horse crap, and it didn't take long before cars needed less maintenance than horses.
There was a time, however, when the car was a choice only the rich could afford, one less reliable and less efficient than a good horse. Economics rarely gets the solution ahead of the problem, which is why it's an uphill battle to force people to switch to alternatives when the alternatives aren't as efficient as what they're already using.
The biggest issue right now is that the government is mucking with the damn problem by subsidizing industries to artificially make petroleum/cars seem more efficient than they actually are. For a bunch of "free market economists" they sure love to give away money to un-free the market. They're also dropping the ball by shouldering the pollution costs created by the fossil fuel industry, instead of passing it back to the industry in the form of taxes and fees. Take away the subsidies and fairly apply the costs to the industry that created them, and you'd see a much broader adoption of alternatives as the prices rose to reflect the "real" costs.
China is a good example of this right now...They're polluting like mad, and passing the costs of that on to their citizens so that they can be super-competitive in the global market against people who have to actually pay some of those costs. It's going to catch up with them in a big way...It's like their propping up our currency. The more the dollar deflates, the more money China dumps down the drain trying to keep the dollar high, at the same time trying to keep their own money as depressed as possible.
As the dollar deflates past a certain point, American goods will become "cheaper" and Chinese goods more expensive, leading to a local manufacturing resurgence, yadda yadda, whereas when the Chinese lose hold of their own money, they're going to have this explosion of costs internally, as well as having to watch their goods become much less competitive globally.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.