Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Communications IT

IP Traffic To 'Double' Every Two Years 128

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the toil-and-trouble dept.
Stony Stevenson writes "Web traffic volumes will almost double every two years from 2007 to 2012, driven by video and web 2.0 applications, according to a report from Cisco Systems. Cisco's Visual Networking Index (PDF) predicts that visual networking will account for 90 percent of the traffic coursing through the world's IP networks by 2012. The upward trend is not only driven by consumer demand for YouTube clips and IPTV, according to the report, as business use of video conferencing will grow at 35 percent CAGR over the same period." I left the apostrophes around the word "double" in the title because the linked site has them, but for the life of me I can't figure out why.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IP Traffic To 'Double' Every Two Years

Comments Filter:
  • 'double' (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Swizec (978239) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:21AM (#23837821) Homepage
    How do they even define what a double of IP traffic is? Double the amount of packets? Double the amount of connections? Double the amount of IP's used in traversal from one point to another?
    • by kmsigel (306018) *
      I would assume average bytes per unit time.
    • Re:'double' (Score:5, Informative)

      by martyb (196687) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:45AM (#23838197)

      Said the parent post:

      How do they even define what a double of IP traffic is?

      They predicted the amount of traffic in petabytes per month.

      Said the original post:

      I left the apostrophes around the word 'double' in the title because the linked site has them, but for the life of me I can't figure out why.

      TFA contains a link to Cisco's Visual Networking Index (PDF) [cisco.com]

      Look on page 3 of that PDF, where there is "Table 1. Global IP Traffic 2006-2012".

      A quick scan of the values do show a doubling of volume looking 2 years out from any given year... but there are exceptions to that. The comparison of traffic from 2010 to 2012 mostly does not show a doubling, AND, in a couple places, the data comparing 2009 to 2011 does not double, either.

      Lastly, the final row of that table predicts "Total IP traffic (PB per month)":

      • 2006: 4,234
      • 2007: 6,577
      • 2008: 10,747
      • 2009: 16,296
      • 2010: 24,228
      • 2011: 32,983
      • 2012: 43,518

      Twice the volume of 2010, i.e. 24,228 would be 48,456 which is less than 43,518. So, though not quite doubled in one case listed there, to say that it would double every two years would be incorrect. And we'd be all over that if they had claimed it to be. IMHO, to say 'double' is a reasonable way to express this concept.

      • Re:'double' (Score:5, Insightful)

        by postbigbang (761081) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:58AM (#23838427)
        Although I'll not argue the data, it seems a bit self-serving to make a prediction like this. There are argument offsets to this data that might be salient:

        1) video, especially HDTV, is being delivered by cable systems out-of-band of the Internet because of its high data rate. This trend will continue, else cable companies will have to evolve (and rapidly) immensely fast infrastructure that must also match CPE. Unlikely to occur. However, DSL providers are faced with a similar problem. What this means is that HDTV will be switched at the head-end eventually, and not 100% available to CPE. Video on Demand will become the rule of the day, thus offsetting some of the perceived growth in Cisco's numbers

        2) business video conferencing, even in the face of $4 or $8/gal costs, just hasn't taken off. Codecs are available that can do a very good job of offsetting bandwidth needs.

        3) isochronous media is still a bear, but it simply needs priority and priority in the face of network neutrality calls will be difficult without increasing bandwidth and therefore asset costs, which pays/plays into Cisco's hands mightily (are you watching, Wall Street?).

        4) Cellular/mobile growth will climb, but it's more linear in growth and devices that receive entertainment content that uses bandwidth are largely distributed on private, rather than the public Interent. You just can't make a mobile phone in to an HDTV no matter how much you try, and the demand for it isn't there despite the best hopes of the telcos.

        5) regionalization of content distribution is already occuring, and so a distributed infrastructure will 'cellularize' a lot of transfers. Transasction-focused systems aren't well managed through regionalization, but because entertainment systems aren't usually transaction-based, the use case is largely moot.

        Doubling is therefore a projection based on a lot of assumptions, mostly favoring the maker of the study.
        • Assuming that there is a looming bandwidth shortage; It seems to me that a very large portion of internet traffic is being generated to route around the law. So, if you want lots of free bandwidth that you don't need to pay for, it looks like it would be pretty cheap to fix the laws.
        • by nurb432 (527695)

          2) business video conferencing, even in the face of $4 or $8/gal costs, just hasn't taken off. Codecs are available that can do a very good job of offsetting bandwidth needs.
          Its slowly gaining in use. Just like 'work at home' or 'alternative work schedules'. Its just taking time for business to get in the swing of the new way of thinking, but it is happening, slowly.
      • Re:'double' (Score:5, Funny)

        by Kingrames (858416) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @10:05AM (#23838537)
        "would be 48,456 which is less than 43,518. "

        want to help me with my math homework?
      • Re:'double' (Score:4, Funny)

        by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @10:06AM (#23838547) Homepage Journal

        They predicted the amount of traffic in petabytes per month.
        I'm confused. Could you express that in the more commonly accepted unit of measurement: Libraries of Congress? Thanks...
      • by Hatta (162192)
        How do you measure total bits transferred across a network though? If you just sit at a router on the backbone, you only get what goes through that router. You'd totally miss traffic that occurs within a providers network for instance.
      • by .tom. (25103)

        Twice the volume of 2010, i.e. 24,228 would be 48,456 which is less than 43,518. So, though not quite doubled in one case listed there, to say that it would double every two years would be incorrect. And we'd be all over that if they had claimed it to be. IMHO, to say 'double' is a reasonable way to express this concept.

        Well, using terms such as "approximately" or "roughly" is certainly more applicable than quotes, which are akward when used to indicated uncertainty in a quantity.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by poopdeville (841677)
        Twice the volume of 2010, i.e. 24,228 would be 48,456 which is less than 43,518. So, though not quite doubled in one case listed there, to say that it would double every two years would be incorrect. And we'd be all over that if they had claimed it to be. IMHO, to say 'double' is a reasonable way to express this concept.

        Twice the volume of 2010 is 4020...

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        These numbers track pretty well with the growth seen at a major US ISP's mail server traffic over the last five years. We went from 100MBit sustained to 1GBit sustained in a little over three years, and that's with an anti-spam solution that directly turned away 70% of remote connection requests. I can't imagine what it would have been like had we allowed those connections.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by murraj2 (987249)
        Double ain't what it used to be, that's why I've moved on to BigDecimal.
      • by bockelboy (824282)
        Ha, that's waaay too low. Here's the international traffic for one project I work on, CMS:

        http://t2.unl.edu/phedex/xml/quantity_cumulative?link=dest&span=86400&starttime=time.time()-30*86400 [unl.edu]

        Total is 3.7PB over the last month. I doubt that one science experiment accounts for 40% of global IP traffic in Cisco's estimates.
    • Double the amount of intellectual property involved.
    • by MrNaz (730548) *
      Cisco: IP traffic volumes are measured in "dollars spent on Cisco gear".

      So, to paraphrase the article title: Amount of money spent on Cisco products to 'Double' every two years.
    • by makapuf (412290)
      Double Cisco(tm) router purchases per year.
  • Duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by kmsigel (306018) * on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:21AM (#23837831)
    I really thought traffic would level off, and maybe even drop over the next several years. The Internet is a fad. I would never tell it that, but it won't last.
    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:38AM (#23838103)
      I'm still holding onto my AOL stock. Dial-up private networks are coming back! YOU'LL SEE!

      I'll show all you doubters, and then Janine will take me back.

      • by mgblst (80109)
        Well, technology is cyclical, after all. I have a box full of pagers just waiting for the right time to peak...again.
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      I know you are being funny but the truth is that it will level off at some time. It will not take to many years of doubling before the amount reaches good enough. Most voice is moving to using IP as a transport, video is rapidly moving that way. Data has now moved almost exclusively to TCP/IP "anyone else remember IPX?".

      I about ten years ago I told some friends that in the near future we will no longer have a phone line and cable TV but instead a data port. Eventually we will have enough band width.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It will not take to many years of doubling before the amount reaches good enough.

        Yeah because a real-time 3D virtual world interface run over our data pipes won't ever emerge or become standard; Or virtual machines usable from any terminal that move location in the grid; Or any other of a hundred things my little lizard brain can't conceive of yet.

        How can people continuously make the statement that at point x we'll have enough that we'll stop expanding our data/memory/network capacity? How many times do we
        • by LWATCDR (28044)
          That all depends on what you think "to many years" of doubling" means. I was thinking maybe 20 or so.
          If you doubled the amount of IP traffic every year for 32 years you would end up with over four billion times the traffice we have now. At 33 years it would be around eight billion....
          Yes every technology reaches a state of maturity in at least area of performance.
          Ships today are not significantly faster than ships from the 1950s. There are just more of them that can approach the top speeds of the best of th
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by UnknowingFool (672806)
      You forgot the part where you tell us to get off your lawn. *shakes fist*
      • by KGIII (973947)
        Why would the Internet do that? The internet is a warm, welcoming, fuzzy place. *nods*
    • Well, you see the internet tubes [boingboing.net] start to leak after a while so traffic should start to level off due to that.
    • by lawaetf1 (613291)
      Remember when Worldcom went poo-poo and someone was like "wow, they route 45% of the internet traffic or whatever" and then someone else was like "man, I wish I was the guy who had the prompt 'Do you want to turn off the Internet? yes/no' because I'd totally click yes."
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Remember, in Slashdot World, IP means both things and are used interchangably from headline to headline
  • Self serving? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stokessd (89903) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:24AM (#23837883) Homepage
    Hmmm, a huge supplier of networking gear is saying that network will continue to grow...This article is making me want to buy a lot of networking gear to get ahead of the impending doubling. I wonder if that's the intent? Nah, couldn't be.

    Sheldon
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Hmmm, a huge supplier of networking gear is saying that network will continue to grow.."

      I can definitely believe it, over the past year my ISP has been implementing very restrictive banwidth caps.
      • by Bandman (86149)
        But extending that to it's logical conclusion, wouldn't that trend make it less likely for the article to be correct? I mean, if everyone's ISP implements bandwidth caps....
    • by mgblst (80109)
      So you are saying that they are lying, and that it won't double?

      Or that it will double, but they should not be the ones to tell us this?

      It is not like they are picking the number out of the air, they have some good basis for this guess. Just because they benefit from it, doesn't make it less true, more worthy of some independent fact-cbecking, yes, but not less true.
      • by Hyppy (74366)
        It makes the predictions near useless for anyone until independently fact-checked.
    • Yeah, it reminds of those commercials down here in Florida where the purveyors of hurricane-proofing products tell you that the hurricane season is predicted to be more active than normal. Those guys are always full of ....

      HEY! The winds really picked up outside! What's with all the wate....*&(*&()&*)&))&)&

      (*&E
      NO CARRIER
  • by o1d5ch001 (648087) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:25AM (#23837893) Journal

    No news here... yes, Internet traffic doubles over a relatively short period of time..

    The biggest challenge going forward is how we are possibly going to power all of this traffic. Electrical power costs are going to be raising 10-20% a year for the next little while. What we need to engineer is using the bandwidth more efficiently.

    I never thought I would say this, but Television still beats the Internet for delivering video content. As for video conferencing, it is cheaper to video conference than to fly, but again, the telephone conference call over POTS still delivers ALOT of bandwidth very efficiently. Not that I am a fan of the Telcos, I am a fan of the POTS, its a very mature infrastructure that delivers very high value.

    • by umghhh (965931)
      This is probably true - the quality of my average VoIP connection is rather bad as long as it goes through common internet. OTOH if I make calls over so called POTS this goes over IP too but as the network is dedicated for this purpose only is also better maintained and not abused by evil /.ers downloading pr0n.
      Having said that I must admit that this all does not matter if the mass (including customers as well as agents of evil in boards of directors of major companies in the industry) will decide that from
    • by KGIII (973947)
      Yeah. I tend to believe that this report is accurate. Like all reports it is out there for a reason (profit) and this is no surprise either. I do have to wonder, do you think that there will come a time when it isn't doubling any longer? I too am a fan of POTS and the reliability of POTS which lead lead to the above question. At some point, in the past, the rate of telephones in residential areas or businesses was doubling quickly. The rise in cell phone use is something more recent but goes along the same
  • by Twide (1142927) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:25AM (#23837899)
    To combat the increase of traffic why cant businesses/ISP's work more towards multicasting? for at least some part of the webs streaming sources (internet radio.. etc) this would alleviate some of the load surely..
    • To combat the increase of traffic why cant businesses/ISP's work more towards multicasting

      Because there is no viable billing model for multicast IP traffic as of yet. How do you charge for traffic created/amplified by routers? ISP A has to trust that ISP B isn't lying about the amount of traffic actually delivered to end users, becuase ISP A has no visibility once a multicast packet leaves their network and enters that of ISP B.

    • Multicast is great if you have several receivers who want to receive the exact same source, but is quite limited in other contexts. Also, there are a bunch of screwball phomena which occur when translating IP multicast into link-layer multicasts (like, Cisco switches don't forward multicast between each other unless you disable igmp snooping, which turns it all into broadcast, and takes away any possible benefit from it being multicast...)
    • by AbRASiON (589899) *
      Correct me if I'm wrong (and I don't know much about this stuff, so I likely am) but isn't multi-casting an ipv6 thing?
      If so, I'd wait another 5 or 10 years, because ipv6 adoption (like many things humans do) is going to be slow until it's urgent.
  • No Link to PDF (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You missed the link to the PDF you newb. Now I have to click the article to get the PDF. Tool
  • In summary (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Network equipment vendor says "Buy more of our kit!"

  • Dark Fiber (Score:5, Funny)

    by argent (18001) <peter@slashdot.2 ... m ['nga' in gap]> on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:32AM (#23837987) Homepage Journal
    Network Scientists have discovered that the majority of the bandwidth in the Internet is "dark fiber", a mysterious substance that has the same gravitational effects on backhoes as normal fiber, but does not interact with the internet as a whole. Some believe is possible to harness this bandwidth through dark packets, but others fear the growth of pink packets (typically containing porn and spam) will eliminate any potential gains from this little-understood phenomenon. Other scientists, primarily at ISPs, believe that extracting dark money from end users through traffic surcharges is the only way to take advantage of dark fiber.
  • "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
  • Will network infrastructure meet this doubling demand? Or is net traffic going to get stuck due to a series-of-tubes shortage?
  • Air quotes. Someone doesn't believe the hype...
  • I would like to see the increase in packets over tiume correlated to the increase in pr0n sites on a graph.
  • by Angostura (703910) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:38AM (#23838099)
    .... router company tells shareholders.
  • s/video and web 2.0/bittorrent/g
  • In this context, they're a misguided form of emphasis. Thank god the original article didn't have an apostrophe.
    • by hbr (556774)
      Or is it because it will only "nearly double", rather than double outright?

      Or is it because they are quoting just the "double" part of Cisco's report?

      Seems like unwarranted accuracy to me for predicting events 2 years hence. Also seems like an underestimate too.
  • How soon before some technically savvy prankster switches television stations around or fiddles with the V-chip codes?

    Can you imagine hearing

    "Mommy, why did Sesame Street turn off?"

    just because someone flipped the bit and make it TV-M?

    Or worse, some blackmailer replaces the Superbowl with infomercials for the last two minutes.
  • Time range (Score:5, Interesting)

    by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:43AM (#23838163)
    Web traffic volumes will almost double every two years from 2007 to 2012

    But ONLY until Dec 31, 2011 when it will immediately stop doubling.
  • Perhaps this 'doubling' effect is a result of 'downloading' caused by intra-psychic influences beamed into our heads with a certain... shall I say... 'laser'.
  • by pieterh (196118) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @09:49AM (#23838267) Homepage
    This is just the generalization of Moore's Law, caused by the standardized technology curve where costs fall to zero.

    I call this the "half-life rule" of technology, where the half-life is usually about 18 months: the cost of any technology will halve every 18 months. What remains in the end is raw materials, shipping, marketing.

    Since the cost of the Internet is falling constantly, its per-dollar capacity is doubling every 18 months.

    A corollary: Wikipedia's budget is 60% spent on hardware, and this sum is constant over the years, yet Wikipedia's content doubles every... 18 months or so. Moore's Law working in both directions, so we have more or less infinite expansion at a constant cost.

    Obviously the expansion is not infinite, because costs do not actually fall to zero and at a certain stage marketing, shipping, and usage costs outweigh production and account for 99.999% of the final cost.

    But still, this is hardly news unless people are shocked to learn that technology gets cheaper over time.

    While I'm ranting about people being surprised at the obvious, note that we can predict the cost of technology in the future, quite accurately, by applying the half-life rule to the production costs any given product, subtracting the fixed costs.

    So for example I can predict that cell phones will be disposable (costing under $10) within four years.

    • So for example I can predict that cell phones will be disposable (costing under $10) within four years.
      Check your calendar: http://gizmodo.com/393154/hop+on-1800-10-gsm-cell-phone-is-a-phone-you-wont-mind-losing [gizmodo.com]
      • by pieterh (196118)
        Two things:

        1. the Hop-On 1800 lowers costs by removing basic functionality such as a display. I'm assuming the costs will fall for an equivalent product, i.e. what would be a basic cheap cell phone today.
        2. You cannot actually buy the Hop-On 1800 anywhere, this is still vapourware. Will it be available for $10 any time soon? Remember the EEE PC, promised at $200 and currently at about $350-$600.
    • by dwye (1127395)
      > So for example I can predict that cell phones will
      > be disposable (costing under $10) within four years.

      For a particular subset of cell phone (those over 3 years old) that has been the case for years. Hence the iPhone, a computer with a teeny display and attached cell phone, to try to avoid this fate.
    • by o1d5ch001 (648087)

      I know this is meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek, the cost of the Internet is _not_ falling. It may have been true, but the steeply rising costs of data centers and Internet technologies in general due to rising electrical costs and future shortages will start to be felt and the "cost of the Internet" will rise dramatically when measured in gross dollars spent.

  • Well, because "otherwise", you wouldn't know when to "mark" the "sarcastic" parts, perhaps with "air quotes".

    c.f. "Lay-zer" [op-for.com].

    Related baffled query: When did "lead" become an acceptable substitute for "led"? As in, "She led me down the path of insanity, and I merrily followed."

    --J
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually the apostrophes from TFA are an example of good standard journalistic practice. A news publication should never make a claim in a headline without some indication (the quotes) that it came from a source outside that publication. In this case, a report from Cisco. This is just one of many small textual differences between pubs with good journalistic integrity and those with not so much.
      • by Standfast (36916)
        Thank you, AC, for the correct answer!

        Despite what others have written, it's not sarcasm, and it's certainly not because the headline writer doubted the correctness or consistency of the source being cited.

        What you see are simple quotation marks, used to indicate the exact word or phrase from the news source is being repeated in its citation.

        I'm a bit concerned to find that so few /. readers appear to understand quotation marks when used in this way.

        -David.
  • With 10Gb circuits increasing in popularity and replacing OC48's, we're probably still in good shape, until 2012. Perhaps, by then the Cisco CRS-1 won't seem so overpriced. In the meantime, everyone can buy Juniper :)
  • please tag this with betterstartupgrading =)
  • which is expected to stay the same....

    Non-IP traffic had this to say on the subject:

    "Why does that IP traffic have to be taking up all the bandwdidth all the time.. like it's sooooo important..."

    IP traffic could not be reached for comment at this time...
  • I don't think this is quite right... it's usually about three years between Firefox releases, not two.

  • IP traffic is going to double? I better go out and buy me some more Cisco routers to handle the problem!
  • ...if this is a 'problem'.

    You all need to stop using stupid stuff.

    There, fixed THAT for ya.

  • 35% growth in video conferencing annually? Maybe, but the technology still has leaps and bounds to go. After attending a recent all-day meeting via video conferencing, I realized that:
    1. You still can't make out expressions that well.
    2. The software that is supposed to auto-focus the camera on people doesn't work very well at all, focusing on quiet side bar conversations all too often.
    3. People were staring at their computers and blackberrys the entire time because very few people were actually in the sam
  • as business use of video conferencing will grow at 35 per cent CAGR over the same period.

    I take it this'll account for a major percentage of bandwidth being used up, I don't think that's fair to us little guys who only use our internet for VOIP, not fancy video conferencing. There are far more residential customers than there are businesses. Why should my internet by affected by these guys wanting video communication? Especially when the poor ISP's networks aren't built to handle it. It's not fair. They s

  • for the life of me (Score:3, Informative)

    by Speare (84249) on Wednesday June 18, 2008 @11:13AM (#23839567) Homepage Journal

    I left the apostrophes around the word 'double' in the title because the linked site has them, but for the life of me I can't figure out why.

    This is a very common headlining technique in non-USA journalism. The Australian news service is not drawing the conclusion that traffic will double. The news service is quoting a report from Cisco. As such, the headline can be ready as "IP Traffic Said to Double Every Two Years." The use of quotes instead of the omitted words is a space-saving technique, much like using a comma instead of the word and in "CmdrTaco Confused, Disoriented by Quotes."

    This isn't flamebait, but perhaps it is a flame. For the life of me, I can't see how an editor of a news-aggregating service can serve in that capacity for a decade and not pick up on these kinds of things. Even if you wish to disavow being a journalist or an editor, you might perhaps learn a thing or two from them.

    • by argent (18001)
      I can't see how an editor of a news-aggregating service

      First parsed as "news-aggravating service". Seems about right.

      In the US, it is far more common to see people use quote's, in an attempt to 'incorrectly' emphasize words. Its 'nearly' as common, as people who think two comma's, are better than one, or who think apostrophe's can just be shoved in, 'anywhere'.
  • ...says that the amount of data coming out of an optical fiber is doubling every nine months. So every time traffic doubles, capacity pentuples.

    Granted, there's still the last-mile problem, deploying the technology, etc. But I wouldn't predict the collapse of the internet any time soon.
  • "OMG TRAFFIC WILL DOUBLE EVERY TWO YEARS!"
    -Cisco

    They're SO not trying to cause a stir and get people in the mindset of upgrading network infrastructure at least every two years. ...
  • Seems Cisco didn't get this memo:

    http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/02/going-medieval-time-warner-begins-metered-bandwidth-testing/#comments/ [techcrunch.com]

    AT&T and Comcast have both indicated that they will soon start metering bandwidth as well.

    Who's going to win? Cisco or Time Warner? Bandwidth won't be doubling if the ISP providers start limiting users to 40GB/month and charging $1/GB overage. All the companies like Youtube and Netflix providing streaming video will see traffic drop to Nil if Mom & Dad ha

  • How many times does the average user rewatch a favorite clip in youtube instead of F***ING DOWNLOADING IT TO HIS COMPUTER? Can anyone explain to me why in their minds they don't let users save their favorite clips to their harddrives? They ALREADY DOWNLOAD THEM everytime they play!
    • Advertising. You go to youtube, and you see their ads. Plus the get the hits to show off to everyone and jack up advertising prices. If they allow downloads, you don't hit the site, you don't see the ads, and youtube loses money. They might be able to tack on ads to the downloaded movies (ie, bottom bar, like the score in sporting stuff), but I would guess there are legal and techinical hurdles.

      But you are right, just download TFV and be done with it. Youtube and on demand video (over the internet) we
  • As people start getting hit with bills due to the soon to come 'pay per use' internet plans.
  • It wasn't that long ago that a "Large Corporation" with an interest in seeing the Internet grow was stating that Internet traffic was doubling every year. Providers ran out and bought up all the gear they could get their hands on. Hardware suppliers ramped up to meet demand. Fiber was pumped into the ground by the truckload.

    But traffic was only increasing by 50%/year. The equipment sat idle. Shops closed up and dumped the hardware they bought with VC money on the market at firesale prices. Hardware ve

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.

Working...