Web could collapse. . . .or will it be replaced. . . or is this a pointless discussion?
By Mark Posted on April 7th, 2008 in The Never Ending Story/Other FLB Events | No Comments »
Okay, I wasn’t going to say anything about this earlier, until I found a pair of links that just don’t make any sense to me at all. Both articles in question are from Telegraph’s website, and the “main link” on each article links to the other one.
The first article I found says that a superfast internet may replace the World Wide Web. When I first read it, I was like “woah,” what advance, new breakthrough have they come up with now? Especially when an article says “The invention could signal the end of the dreaded ‘frozen screen’, when computers seize up after being asked to process too much information.”
Wow. That would be great. Then I read the next paragraph.
“The latest spin-off from Cern, the particle physics centre that created the internet, the grid could also provide the power needed to send sophisticated images; allow instant online gaming with hundreds of thousands of players; and offer high-definition video telephony for the price of a local call.” Sounds good to me. So whats the catch? They still haven’t said HOW. But what does Cern and a particle accelarator have to do with commercial internet? So I kept reading.
“The power of the grid will be unlocked this summer with the switching on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a new particle accelerator designed to investigate how the universe began.
The grid will be turned on at the same time to store the information it generates, after scientists at Cern, based near Geneva, realised the internet would not have the capacity to capture such huge volumes of data. ”
And then it hit me. There’s no “new” internet. The folks at Cern simply realized, that like the original internet, and the early waves of DSL, that sometimes you’ve got too much information to push across a system that just can’t handle it. These guys didn’t do anything special.
“The grid has been built with fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data, unlike the internet.”
All they did was build a network out of all-new components. It’s basically a giant LAN, just spread across a few countries, with dedicaed fiber optic lines. The only thing stopping us from doing that this very second is the billions and billions of dollars that it would cost to put in all new routers, servers, and fiber optic lines down every street in every city in the country.
Now, this Cern network so far is only going to give universities access - so that they can have a portal to access the massive amounts of data that the Large Hadron Collider generates while it smasher atoms, parts of atoms, and hopefully not large chunks of itself together. NOT EVERYONE WILL HAVE ACESS to this network.
Now I come to the link right under the byline for this article. And what does it say?
“Web could collapse as video demand soars.”
Uhhh. . . .no duh. We’re CONSTANTLY calling more and more information over the internet.
The second paragraph of this article says :
“Experts warn that unless billions of pounds is spent on upgrading the web’s infrastructure, it could slow down or even collapse. An internet meltdown would have a disastrous impact on the economy.”
Is it just me, or do the authors of these articles need to stop, take a deep breath, and read each others work?
They’re really just saying the same stupid thing.
The internet is a crowded place. The demand for it is starting to exceed what we can supply. We’re running DSL over copper lines designed to carry phone calls, not youtube, IM, and email. Unless we either curb internet use, or greatly expand capacity, we’re up a creek without a paddle. Its no wonder the folks at Cern had to build their own super-fast network : ours stinks! What no one seems to take into account either, however, is that if we ALL got on Cerns network, even it would probably get bogged down. Even out newer technology has its limits. If you give people the chance to dowload more, they will. Its like giving someone washing their car with a bucket filled from the kitchen sink a garden hose. If they’ve got the hose, they’ll use it, even if the bucket worked just fine.
Its like this pair of articles managed to touch upon two issues : What we have is reaching its limits, and we could have something much faster. This pair of articles completely fails, however, to provide any information on anything in between.
The scary thing is that the internet could be close to collapse. Granted, this article is from across the Atlantic, but the internet is a global thing. Even here in the US we face problems. How many articles have you read about bandwidth throttling and capping by Comcast? As we spread DSL to rural areas of the country, the rest of us will take on the burden of added internet traffic.
I guess I want to say that the guy who wrote the first article was moronic in its claims. We’re nowhere near getting a super highspeed replacement for the internet. The example cited is purpose-built for a project thats all ready cost oodles and oodles of money, and they can afford to spend another oodle on heir network. As for the rest of us. . .The cost would be unbelieveable. New servers. New routers. New switches. New fiber optic lines - on every street. Will it happen? Probably. We’ll at least get a lot closer to it. Is it about to happen anytime soon? No way.
This involves installing a program calls Mojo that allows you to download music from someone else who also has this program installed. Limitations: Both computers must have program, and both comps must be on the same LAN. Well….for the second problem, just use Hamachi. All set.
