THE amount of data travelling across the internet is growing so fast that the network could become overloaded and grind to a virtual standstill, experts have warned.
Online video is the biggest drain on the capacity of copper wires originally intended to carry only voice calls.
But demand for YouTube, the BBC's iPlayer and other data-hungry internet TV services is surging. Last year it was claimed that YouTube consumed as much bandwidth in a year as the entire internet took up in 2000.
The worst-case scenario is not so much a crash as a global gridlock in which email, social networks and internet sites slow to a crawl.
Capacity
Research has shown US internet traffic is increasing at more than 50 per cent a year, with capacity expanding at only about 40 per cent a year.
Internet service providers have been criticised for striving so hard to undercut each other on price that they are failing to invest in the infrastructure necessary to keep up with demand.
Although BT is spending £10bn on one of its biggest upgrades, turning its old networks into a `21st-century network' to launch at the end of this month, it will not address the issue of the `last mile' copper into the home.
Replacing this with high-speed fibre optics would cost an estimated £20bn.
BT spokesman Mike Bartlett said: "There will not be a fibre-to-the-home network in the next 20 years. It would take many years, cost billions of pounds, involve digging up all the roads and we don't know if people really want it."
Tweet
Internet 'could grind to halt'
April 07, 2008

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
marc (07/04/2008 at 12:00)
*buffering 12%*
Rob (Manchester Against Road Tolls), Denton (07/04/2008 at 12:36)
Ex Bus Driver 118 118, Manchester (07/04/2008 at 18:26)
alvinlwh (07/04/2008 at 19:09)
marc (07/04/2008 at 19:12)
i'm using Virgin at the minute and they're top notch. i suggest you both give them a try. they just upgraded me to 10meg for nothing!
also, if you're unhappy with any aspect of their service they bend over backwards to make you happy.
i sound like a bloody Virgin rep now!
:)
Tonya786, Saddleworth (07/04/2008 at 20:38)
mumto1, manchester (07/04/2008 at 21:22)
marc (08/04/2008 at 09:27)
The Bobelesque, MANCHESTER (08/04/2008 at 09:42)
I'd add "and Tonya's comments on them"
Morning marc. not much on again?
marc (08/04/2008 at 09:46)
polkyb (08/04/2008 at 10:45)
Aside from the "last mile" as mentioned, the entire internet is already a fibre network. It has multiple redundancy and very few weak points.
If Youtube is using a lot of bandwidth, then I'm sure they are paying for it, as I do for my connection.
Like all connections, the price you pay is based mainly on your upload speed, not download and with most peoples upload speed being <500Kbps, I can't see the internet in this country falling over anytime soon.
The thing with the internet is that when a fibre reaches capacity, they just use another one... I believe there are still many "dark fibres" between the UK and US which can be employed should the traffic get a bit busier... And then we can introduce a congestion charge ;-)
Jimc (08/04/2008 at 11:04)
Some what like the MEN discussion forum does so often.
Black Flag (08/04/2008 at 11:15)
Congestion pricing of sorts is starting to be introduced in the US. Some providers have started to switch to a model where you have metered uploads and downloads, so you pay for the amount of bandwidth you actually use.
marc (08/04/2008 at 11:30)
polkyb (08/04/2008 at 11:41)
Yes, it's the same as the service you get over here on your restricted services. You get 2Gb free and then pay a premium on anything over that limit... Like most taxes, this is "great" British invention :-(
The Bobelesque, MANCHESTER (08/04/2008 at 11:46)
Black Flag (08/04/2008 at 11:51)
The BBC iPlayer has started bringing things to a head. The uptake of streaming tv has put a huge demand on bandwidth and ISPs have no way of recouping the costs from customers on "unlimited" download packages.
I throughly expect to see broadband charging to go the same way as phone charging, where you get billed for use, with use at peak times costing more.
Black Flag (08/04/2008 at 12:02)
Ignoring the fact that anybody using broadband already has to pay for it, the bandwidth cost of downloading music and films would be the same irrespective of whether it was done legally or illegal. However, as P2P clients can be configured to run at times when bandwidth use would be lower and therefore presumably cheaper, while most mainstream download services currently can't, the cost of illegal downloading would increase by less than the cost of legal downloading.
The Bobelesque, MANCHESTER (08/04/2008 at 12:32)
"Ignoring the fact that anybody using broadband already has to pay for it"
I don't think I ever suggested otherwise.
"the bandwidth cost of downloading music and films would be the same irrespective of whether it was done legally or illegal"
Obviously, but that wasn't my point. My objection was people taking up unfair levels of system capacity whilst engaging in illegal activities.
"as P2P clients can be configured to run at times when bandwidth use would be lower and therefore presumably cheaper, while most mainstream download services currently can't"
Time for a change then, to stop pirates.
I know you pride yourself on logical, rational argument but you haven't scored a success this time. You have illogically and irrationally taken apart my post and answered points which you have invented for yourself. Need a lie down?
polkyb (08/04/2008 at 12:48)
From what I can see there are NO "unlimited" packages out there anymore.
There are packages from the likes of Demon, Eclipse and O2 but all have a FUP (Fair Usage Policy) attached. In the case of Demon, this is set to 40Gb for home users and 60Gb for the Home Office user. When you reach this limit, your bandwidth is throttled back to 128K until the rolling 30-day total is less than the maximum allowed.
The only true unlimited connections, as far as I know at the moment, start at £200 pm with SDSL (2Mbps in/out) and upwards in bandwidth to fibre.
I'm not sure about NTL/Virgin, but I would guess that they have similar restrictions.
Black Flag (08/04/2008 at 13:25)
So, Bobelesque, I said "anybody using broadband already has to pay for it" to which you replied "I don't think I ever suggested otherwise."
I think you'll find you did when you said: "It would mean that they folk who spend all day (illegally) downloading music and films would have to pay for at least the facility"
Please Bobelesque, at least make it a challenge.
The Bobelesque, MANCHESTER (08/04/2008 at 13:45)
I subscribe to Sky+ (£18/month). I recently requested broadband from them too. I selected the FREE 8 meg package. It was free because I don't pay anymore than I as paying before. That means it's free. Free.
It is great for my intended use but no good for downloading, which obviously requires more capacity.
Therefore, charging by volume of capacity would be fairer. My limited use is free - people who want to download and take up capacity should pay.
QED
You should read more carefully and think more about other people's opinions.
So, Black Flag, at least make it a challenge :-)
Black Flag (08/04/2008 at 14:04)
If it is genuinely free, rather than just being called that when it is in fact part of a package, you will be able to cancel your other services with Sky and continue to receive your free broadband. Give it a try and see how far you get.
Perhaps I should phone Sky and say that I have no intention of taking any of their other services, but I'm going to have my free broadband!
And, if we go back to the previous point, I said "anybody using broadband already has to pay for it" to which you replied "I don't think I ever suggested otherwise," which is what you are doing right now, as you are claiming that you pay nothing for your broadband because it is supposedly free.
I think it's time for you to stop digging Bobelesque.
alvinlwh (08/04/2008 at 14:17)
The Bobelesque, MANCHESTER (08/04/2008 at 14:44)
Your first point is fatuous huff n puff. The free broadband is clealry conditional upon me taking their Sky+ service. You would be churlish to pretend that you had never come across something that was genuinely free but reliant on paying for something else. On the basis that other people do not use the broadband but still pay the same fee, then it is what any normal person (who wasn't trying to be clever) would describe as FREE.
As regards your second point, it just reads as if you are peeved because I have just demonstrated that you were wrong.
I merely said "I don't think I ever suggested otherwise," That was not agreeing or disagreeing - I was pointing out that my comment was neutral.
I think it's time to put down the shovel too Black Flag. I now see precisely what your 'incisive logic' really is - it's pedantry of the most unpleasant type.