Think of those adverts that warn about the risk of heart attacks. The ones that show a cut through of a persons veins and arteries transporting blood around the body. Then they show a build up of fat deposits that clog up the veins, stop the flow of blood and are eventually responsible for a heart attack. Well that is what we are doing to the internet, apparently. By 2011 it will have come to a virtual standstill or at best it will be like we are all on 56k modems (again).

Click on to enlarge

At least that’s what another recent study reveals. Yes, there have been a plethora of reports saying this for some time, but its a fact and it needs dealing with. Already search engines are having major difficulties organising all the information out there efficiently, whilst internet providers cannot deliver their promised speeds and new websites will have little to no chance of becoming the new Amazon.com in the future. Video sites and P2P (peer to peer) applications especially are playing havoc with the internet’s infrastructure.

75% of Americans spend at least two and a half hours watching videos on the internet each month, as do about 70% of Europeans. This adds up quickly. Youtube, P2P networks and adult video sites are taking our internet to within a byte of breaking point. So then, shouldn’t we be worrying about this now? Will the internet as we it end by 2011?

Thats too much info information

There are two problems that are likely to lead to this internet meltdown. Firstly, the amount of bandwidth-intensive applications and files being used/circulated shows no sign of slowing down. Secondly the infrastructure behind the the internet is, for the most part, pathetic. For example using copper phone lines for high speed internet is much like using a tooth bush to spring clean your house - It would be the wrong tool to use and whilst it could possibly do the job it would take you two and a half months.

Hundreds of thousands of website are launched every year (with varying degrees of success). Almost every English speaking T.V show of the last 20 years can be found somewhere online, as can just about every song since the 60’s. That is a lot of data and the real problem comes when thousands of people start transferring these files back and forth to each other. These files (each one is on the net in about 7000 times just in different places), and files streamed from sites such as Youtube are simply clogging up the internet.

The internet was never meant to be pushed this far and the infrastructure currently existent is crumbling. It’s decades old in places and, as we know too well from buying a new PC every two years, technology develops very rapidly - the infrastructure and the upgrading of it simply cant keep up with the pace. For example, the copper phone lines I mentioned earlier are still used for internet access in many countries (including parts of US and UK) - these are simply not capable of the demanding speeds needed.

It is the “the last mile” that causes infrastructure problems. That is to say it is fine getting high speed internet to each country/region/town, but getting it into every house is a major problem. It is estimated that about 137 billion dollars (£66bn) would be needed to globally just to upgrade broadband so it could cope with the amount of data being transferred by 2011, whilst the the cost of getting a network of high speed cables to each house would be many, many times more.

Solutions

There are various possible solutions being talked about, including investment by governments or local councils to modernise internet infrastructure and get high speed internet connections linked up to every house in the region (and then every new house built). More likely would be use a “new internet” called The Grid (Read more about The Grid) that is 10 000 times faster than current broadband connections and would easily support all the data around. The problem with that is again getting its super high speed cables to each house.

For me though, it comes down to wireless connections. No wires means no changing that existing infrastructure and relatively little instalation cost. The Grid, for example, used in conjunction with wireless internet broadcasting equipment would mean very cheap very fast internet to all houses (as long as they are in a wireless zone). Each city would have to support a very fast wireless antenna (like the ones used by phone companies) giving access to super fast internet to all residents of the town/city with the right network card in their PC. Council bills could subside this as would be a service, and I think residents would be willing to pay a little for it.