[UFO Chicago] might be a bit late to tonight's meeting

[Nate Riffe]

Richard Lynch said this (probably recently):
> On Thu, February 8, 2007 6:30 am, Brian Sobolak wrote:
> > One of the things I was interested in talking about was this article
> > from O'Reilly about the supposed "Coming Internet Traffic Jam". I find
> > this highly suspicious coming from a pub like Forbes, but can anyone
> > speak to its validity?  Is it network neutraility FUD or is there some
> > truth behind it.
> >
> > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/02/the_coming_inte.html>
> 
> Probably both truth and network neutrality FUD.
> 
> We are chewing up bandwidth faster than we can create it -- And the
> video/audio services rolling out will tip that over into a "crisis" --
> where some of the business who cannot deliver their promised
> bandwidth, will find themselves in deep doo-doo.

I don't believe we're chewing it up faster than we *can* create it,
although I completely agree that we're chewing it up faster than we
*are* creating it.  The exact same thing happened in 1996 when the
NSFNet-era Internet was flooded with hundreds of thousands of new
dial-up users.  It was an old Internet being used for new things.
There was very nearly a crisis then, too, but it never became a
political issue because average people and almost all politicians
still needed the word "Internet" defined every time it was used on the
evening news.
 
> The anti-neutrality crowd are simply taking the problem and holding up
> their oh-so-shiny "solution" as if it were "the answer"... NOT!

Absolutely, the solution to today's capacity problem is the same as
the solution to last decade's capacity problem.... more capacity.

-- 
--< ((\))< >----< inkblot at movealong.org >----< http://www.movealong.org/ >--
pub  1024D/05A058E0 2002-03-07 Nate Riffe (06-Mar-2002) <inkblot at movealong.org>
     Key fingerprint = 0DAC F5CB D182 3165 D757  C466 CD42 12A8 05A0 58E0