Is the internet almost full, or is AT&T full of . . .?

At 12:01 am on January 1, 2000 all computers in the world will malfunction at once because years in their internal clocks are represented by 2 digits and can only count to 99. There will be mass chaos, Armageddon, dogs and cats will be living together people!!

That didn't happen? Uhh, really? Boy, is my face red. But wait, don't go away before I tell you about the next great catastrophe.........THE INTERNET IS RUNNING OUT OF SPACE!

Yes, you read that right. Accoring to this article at CNET.com and several other sites, telecommunications giant and provider of notoriously crappy phone service AT&T claims that without a $55 billion investment in US network architecture ($130 billion worldwide), the internet will reach its maximum capacity by 2010. The primary basis for this claim is that the current systems constituting the internet backbone will not be able to keep pace with the rapidly increasing demand for video and user-generated content. According to Jim Cicconi, AT&T's vice president for legislative affairs, 8 hours of YouTube video is currently uploaded every minute. When high definition video becomes the norm (which requires 7-10 times the bandwidth), video will comprise nearly 80% of all network traffic by 2010. Cicconi further states "The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today. In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today." Apparently, data from Cisco Systems seems to concur: "U.S. Internet video sites alone transmit more data per month than was carried over the entire U.S. Internet backbone monthly in 2000." So, taking this at face value it appears that our options are 1) "someone" throws these poor companies a financial bone to help them update their networks, 2) ISPs may be required to tier or prioritize their network traffic to meet the increased demand, thus resulting in a "restructuring" of service fees, or 3) we'll end up surfing the internet like those turtles from the Comcast commercials.

So my friends, you'd better download that video of the monkey sniffing his finger in a hurry!

Apparently such predictions for the internet's demise aren't anything new. In 1995 Robert Metcalfe, an early architect of the Internet, predicted a "catastrophic collapse" of the network in 1996. Well, we all know how that turned out. According to several sources, the claims of the internet running out of space are part of a larger political debate called "net neutrality". Briefly, the debate goes down like this: telecommunications companies claim that the Googles, YouTubes, and other Web 2.0 sites of the world cause alot of traffic, use alot of bandwidth, and should therefore help pay for increased network capacity to make room for the crowding they cause. As Ted Stevens would put it, these sites "clog the tubes of the internets." On the other side of debate, the YouTubes and Googles of the world are basically saying "ahh, no......we're already paying rent, so you can't charge us twice. And besides, losers, the only reason you have any business in the first place is because people are coming to see us, so nyahhhh!" (of course I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea). However, on top of content providers' arguments is the concern that if telecomm companies start to "tier" or prioritize traffic that certain content may be discriminated against (ie, delayed transmission or blocked all together) for political or economic reasons. In other words, the Wild West that we've come to know the internet as could some day become more like.........Branson, MO.

So who's in the right here? To be honest, I'm not really sure. Apparently, Cisco Systems and their competitors are currently investing wads of cash on new hardware to handle the increased bandwidth, which would make one think that there is at least some smoke here. On the other hand, a 2007 report by global communications research firm Telegeography states that the growth of global network capacity has actually exceeded the growth in internet traffic and bandwidth for the last two years. If this is true, it would appear that Jim Cicconi and AT&T are full of (insert expletive here)! So as usual, what you and I are left with is a bunch of mud to dig through to get to the facts.

But, it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented for a bunch of corporate Chicken Littles to overhype a faux catastrophe so they can milk us for more money, would it?

Be careful what you wish for

Look, there isn't anyone who reaps the benefits of our ever evolving information age more than I. As a scientist, there is no better utility than having up to the minute data automatically sent to your inbox (as opposed to when I used to spend days pouring through card catalogs in an effort to dig up a reference in some obscure journal). As an audiophile, any song I want is literally a mouse click away....and usually free if you know where to look (yeah, I'm one of those, I'm sure the RIAA will eventually catch up with me). Social networking sites have reconnected me to old friends who've all but fallen off the face of the earth ......and even some who should probably stay there. And, if I read the right statistics the only industry that experienced a bump after the most recent round of government stimulus checks was online porn (hey, I'm just saying!). So all in all, life's pretty good. But to say that I'm a little concerned about where we could be heading with all of this is an understatement.

Someone much more profound than I coined the phrase "knowledge is power". I'd argue that one could easily subsitute the word "information" for "power" in that statement. Now, if you read that and nodded your head, the next logical question would have to be "well then, who holds that power?" While we're in such awe of all the cool things this constantly evolving technological revolution brings us on a daily basis, how often do we stop to think about what the possible consequences may be? I mean, its hard to consider something so ominous while we're laughing at that monkey sniffing his finger?

I've been thinking about this subject alot over the past few years, but some recent events actually pushed me over the edge to write about it here. First, there was the simple fact that until now, I didn't know how to create and maintain a blog. Historically I've had to write on bathroom walls or staple copies of my typewritten essays to telephone poles in Cambridge to spread the good word.....needless to say uptake was kinda slow. Second, there has obviously been a ton of debate about expiring FISA bills, telecommunication lawsuits and such. Its a hard topic to avoid when you realize that not only is your phone company ramming it to you financially, but they're also selling you out to the NSA. Things seemed to be going along just fine....no men in blue banging on my door.....but then I read one of my classmate's posts about email and IM surveillance in China (you can read it yourself here). And suddenly that reminded me of a Rolling Stone article I read a few months ago titled "China's All-Seeing Eye" by Naomi Klein:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye


Klein has written several other pieces (such as her current best-seller "The Shock Doctrine") all with the unifying theme that some kind of grand event "shocks" a society, thus enabling governments to push through wildly unpopular policies. A great example in current events is this whole Wall Street bailout.....the "shock" being our tanking stock market, forclosures, and rising unemployment, and the unpopular policy obviously being our government forking over $700B of our money to collapsing financial institutions (and also slipping us the Liberace by jamming the bill with tax breaks for manufacturers of wooden arrow heads, rum, etc). In essence, "Shock treatment" is a real-life playout of the old adage "desperate times call for desperate measures". In the context of Klein's "Seeing Eye", the Chinese government used the runup to the 2008 Beijjing Olympics as a pretext to unveil a high-tech police state known as Golden Shield to the world. No, Golden Shield isn't that Eddie Murphy movie with the magic knife and the cute little kid with the shaved head. Golden Shield is, well.......why don't I let Klein explain it herself:

"Chinese citizens will be watched around the clock through networked CCTV cameras and remote monitoring of computers. They will be listened to on their phone calls, monitored by digital voice-recognition technologies. Their Internet access will be aggressively limited through the country's notorious system of online controls known as the 'Great Firewall.' Their movements will be tracked through national ID cards with scannable computer chips and photos that are instantly uploaded to police databases and linked to their holder's personal data. This is the most important element of all: linking all these tools together in a massive, searchable database of names, photos, residency information, work history and biometric data. When Golden Shield is finished, there will be a photo in those databases for every person in China: 1.3 billion faces."

The Golden Shield technology has been in development for years (obviously), and city-wide applications have been tested in over 660 Chinese "safe cities". The most remarkable of these being the city of Shenzhen, which didn't even exist 30 years ago, but is now home to over 12 million people living under the constant surveillance described above......and apparently, half the $#!+ we buy these days is made there, but I digress. A major landmark in the development of Golden Shield safe cities was in the leadup to the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, when the Chinese government mandated that all internet cafes, restaurants, and "entertainment" venues install video cameras with direct feeds to police stations. But these aren't just normal video feeds, they are being integrated with advanced facial-recognition software to identify "dissidents" within seconds, and deploy law enforcement within seconds. Incidentally, this facial recognition software isn't being used to zero in on some mischevious kid lighting a flaming bag on someone's doorstep.....its being used to scan anyone and everyone that walks within view.

"But Bill, that's Communist China, what's that have to do with the price of gas here?" Well, I could go into alot here about how the development of this technology has been funded and is being watched, and it would probably make your head spin like Linda Blair's. And, it may possibly offend your political sensitivities. But alas, my fingers are getting cramped and you've been very patient reading this. I do suggest you read Klein's article, Trevor Swanberg's blogpost, and just keep the future of these technologic advancements in the back of your head the next time you send an email, enjoy a Katie Morgan video online (no, I'm not going to post a link to her here), volunteer personal information, or provide links to all of your friends and associates on some website because it happens to be popular at the moment. While so many of us eagerly ask for more of what the information revolution has to offer, we should be cafeful.......because we might just get what we ask for.