AT&T: Internet to hit full capacity by 2010

[Cybergypsy]

U.S. telecommunications giant AT&T has claimed that, without investment, the Internet's current network architecture will reach the limits of its capacity by 2010.

Speaking at a Westminster eForum on Web 2.0 this week in London, Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned that the current systems that constitute the Internet will not be able to cope with the increasing amounts of video and user-generated content being uploaded.

"The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today," he said. "In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today."

Cicconi, who was speaking at the event as part of a wider series of meetings with U.K. government officials, said that at least $55 billion worth of investment was needed in new infrastructure in the next three years in the U.S. alone, with the figure rising to $130 billion to improve the network worldwide. "We are going to be butting up against the physical capacity of the Internet by 2010," he said.

He claimed that the "unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic" would increase 50-fold by 2015 and that AT&T is investing $19 billion to maintain its network and upgrade its backbone network.

Cicconi added that more demand for high-definition video will put an increasing strain on the Internet infrastructure. "Eight hours of video is loaded onto YouTube every minute. Everything will become HD very soon, and HD is 7 to 10 times more bandwidth-hungry than typical video today. Video will be 80 percent of all traffic by 2010, up from 30 percent today," he said.

The AT&T executive pointed out that the Internet exists, thanks to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies. "There is nothing magic or ethereal about the Internet--it is no more ethereal than the highway system. It is not created by an act of God, but upgraded and maintained by private investors," he said.

Although Cicconi's speech did not explicitly refer to the term "Net neutrality," some audience members tackled him on the issue in a question-and-answer session, asking whether the subtext of his speech was really around prioritizing some kinds of traffic. Cicconi responded by saying he believed government intervention in the Internet was fundamentally wrong.

"I think people agree why the Internet is successful. My personal view is that government has widely chosen to...keep a light touch and let innovators develop it," he said. "The reason I resist using the term 'Net neutrality' is that I don't think government intervention is the right way to do this kind of thing. I don't think government can anticipate these kinds of technical problems. Right now, I think Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem."

Net neutrality refers to an ongoing campaign calling for governments to legislate to prevent Internet service providers from charging content providers for prioritization of their traffic. The debate is more heated in the United States than in the United Kingdom because there is less competition between ISPs in the States.

Content creators argue that Net neutrality should be legislated in order to protect consumers and keep all Internet traffic equal. Network operators and service providers argue that the Internet is already unequal, and certain types of traffic--VoIP, for example--require prioritization by default.

"However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of 'neutrality' would do just that, with respect to the Internet," the U.S. Department of Justice said in a statement last year.

The BBC has come under fire from service providers such as Tiscali, which claim that its iPlayer online-TV service is becoming a major drain on network bandwidth.

In a recent posting on his BBC blog, Ashley Highfield, the corporation's director of future media and technology, defended the iPlayer: "I would not suggest that ISPs start to try and charge content providers. They are already charging their customers for broadband to receive any content they want."

[Lenas]

I wouldn't listen to much that AT&T has to say. They've got one of the biggest monopolies in the world in the works. America lags so hard behind some communities internet wise that it isn't even funny. Japan and South Korea pulling 100mb/s because they've got much better infrastructure, etc.

AT&T is spewing bullshit.

[Cybergypsy]

just think of it....if it did happen....

[redpepSi]

eh - screw it. i could use a break from the 'net.

[JeShUa]

I honestly dont see the use of HD for the average joe. Sure it would be nicer, but everyone watches youtube from their pc/notebook. I guess it would be different if people were to all browse youtube from their ps3/networked somehow large TV. IDK... but I'm assuming from this apple has some thing to do with this.

[Litlelev]

Originally Posted by Cybergypsy

just think of it....if it did happen....

there was just a south park episodes about this lol. what if ................. THERE WAS NO MORE INTERNET LEFT! DUH DUH DUH

[galaxygrey13]

I think they just want people to invest in their company in order to make a bigger profit not because they need the money to save the internet.

[pockings]

I'd probably go back to a 9.6 modem if that happens . I'm sure some of you are not even old enough to have seen a 9.6 modem .

[JeShUa]

14.4k Looked like an answering machine.

LOL pic.


Modem 110 baud 0.1 kbit/s
Modem 300 (300 baud) (Bell 103 or V.21) 0.3 kbit/s
Modem 1200 (600 baud) (Bell 212A or V.22) 1.2 kbit/s
Modem 2400 (600 baud) (V.22bis) 2.4 kbit/s
Modem 2400 (1200 baud) (V.26bis) 2.4 kbit/s
Modem 4800 (1600 baud) (V.27ter) 4.8 kbit/s
Modem 9600 (2400 baud) (V.32) 9.6 kbit/s
Modem 14.4 (2400 baud) (V.32bis) 14.4 kbit/s
Modem 28.8 (3200 baud) (V.34) 28.8 kbit/s
Modem 33.6 (3429 baud) (V.34) 33.8 kbit/s
Modem 56k (8000/3429 baud) (V.90) 56.0/33.6 kbit/s
Modem 56k (8000/8000 baud) (V.92) 56.0/48.0 kbit/s
Bonding Modem (two 56k modems)) (V.92) 112.0/96.0 kbit/s [5]
Hardware compression (variable) (V.90/V.42bis) 56.0-220.0 kbit/s
Hardware compression (variable) (V.92/V.44) 56.0-320.0 kbit/s
Server-side web compression (variable) (Netscape ISP) 100.0-1000.0 kbit/s

[volvo9]

Originally Posted by pockings

I'd probably go back to a 9.6 modem if that happens . I'm sure some of you are not even old enough to have seen a 9.6 modem .

Oh, I'm admitting to being a huge dork as a kid by saying this...

When I was probrably about 13 or 14 I remember taking a 486 computer that my dad gave me, reloading windows and trying to dial into my ISP on a 96000 modem. Didn't finish connecting till I used a 14.4.

Remember Cyrix? My first computer that I built was a Cyrix MII 233 at the same age as above.

[skiddy]

AT&T is full of shit, and if this is a legitimate problem, they and other big telecommunication companies are the ones responsible and should fix it.

The FCC put big telco in charge of shaping the American fiber infrastructure back in 1992, and Americans have been paying extra fees and taxes on their phone bills to allocate money for the cost. The problem is, every time we saw these big phone mergers the money would disappear and who knows where it ended up... we're talking billions and billions of $$$. I can't remember the number, but by 2006-2007 some 60 million Americans or so were supposed to have 45mbps/45mbps connections at reasonable prices. We have so much shitty copper strung out through our homes that it's not even close.

On top of that AT&T u-verse doesn't even run fiber to homes, only the nodes. If you have their service you will be capped at 24mbps split between TV and internet. Mean while, some Asian and European countries get 100mbps up/down for like $40/mo. I wonder why there's a little poo in their pants?

[JeShUa]

Originally Posted by volvo9

Oh, I'm admitting to being a huge dork as a kid by saying this...

When I was probrably about 13 or 14 I remember taking a 486 computer that my dad gave me, reloading windows and trying to dial into my ISP on a 96000 modem. Didn't finish connecting till I used a 14.4.

Remember Cyrix? My first computer that I built was a Cyrix MII 233 at the same age as above.

I had a 486. It had a 600mb HD. When we gave it to my buddy he installed AOL and had like 200 extra MB.