Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies The Internet

Will Netflix Destroy the Internet? 577

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the apocalypse-now-now dept.
nicholasjay writes "Netflix is swallowing America's bandwidth and it probably won't be long before it comes for the rest of the world. That's one of the headlines from Sandvine's Fall 2010 Global Internet Phenomena Report, an exhaustive look at what people around the world are doing with their Internet lines. According to Sandvine, Netflix accounts for 20 percent of downstream Internet traffic during peak home Internet usage hours in North America. That's an amazing share — it beats that of YouTube, iTunes, Hulu, and, perhaps most tellingly, the peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol BitTorrent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Netflix Destroy the Internet?

Comments Filter:
  • by Nevo (690791) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:32AM (#34124772)
    ...my ISP starts punishing me for using the Internet to do legal things that the Internet was designed for?
    • Most ISP's in the US already have a (high) data cap. Whatever you do under that, they will not care. If there were (or are) any ISP's with "unlimited" bandwidth then they will have to change policy also to have some kind of data cap, because they do not get "unlimited" bandwidth from the people they purchase internet connectivity from.

      • by Anubis350 (772791) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:50AM (#34125054)
        Most business class connections and up are true unlimited, based on the connection speed, not on the amount. Verizon doesn't care if I max out my FIOS business class connection 24/7, I'm paying a premium for the connection, and they're providing me the bandwidth I'm paying for. To put it another way, they've allocated that trunk as if it were going to be heavily used, and so aren't over-selling as much as on the consumer connections.
      • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@wor[ ]et ['f.n' in gap]> on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:11AM (#34125364)

        Most ISP's in the US already have a (high) data cap. Whatever you do under that, they will not care. If there were (or are) any ISP's with "unlimited" bandwidth then they will have to change policy also to have some kind of data cap, because they do not get "unlimited" bandwidth from the people they purchase internet connectivity from.

        A classic study would be Canada. When Netflix came to Canada or announced plans to do so, Rogers (cable) immediately LOWERED their measly caps from 60GB to 30GB-ish. Bell (DSL) heavily lobbied the CRTC so DSL connections can be billed by the byte, so that ISPs using Bell's lines are at a huge disadvantage. Shaw (cable) already announced plans to charge overage charges at $2/GB (for "lite" and "high speed" users) or $1/GB (for the faster plans - warp/nitro). You can pay extra for more - $5 for 10GB and the like. Right now it's a trial, but they're planning on rolling it out.

        SO yeah, Netflix's potential for clogging the Internet won't happen. Ditto the "bandwidth crunch".

        Heck, the FCC may make stupid rules, but in Canada without those rules, things are a lot worse. I can't have digital cable without buying and paying monthly fees on the cable provider's box (which only works with that provider - they won't (and don't have to) allow activation of 3rd party boxes). No Firewire video at all. No cablecard (crap, but at least I could use my TiVo). No unencrypted digital cable (if I want high-def for free, I have to stick an antenna up - no rules saying all those channels must be unencrypted QAM), etc.

        • by Guspaz (556486) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:46AM (#34125880)

          Actually, Sandvine's claims for Canada call into question their American data. Sandvine claims that Netflix accounts for 95% of data in Canada during peak hours, and this only a month after launch with a currently very small customer base. If they're going to claim such ridiculous and provably false figures (several independent ISPs have spoken up saying that, while they have noticed an increase, 95% is a load of crock), how can you trust their US data?

    • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:42AM (#34124926)

      Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long? What about your water company? I know in my area both of these apply. Which is why it's cheaper to have water trucked in than it is to use the old garden hose. If I was closer to a fire hydrant I could ask the water company to run a line and hook up a meter as well.

      Or are you just a bit sore that your 500GB limit, which probably equates to 100 netflix movies a month will be used up? If you're watching 100 netflix movies a month I suggest you try using that other service called..

      FRESH AIR.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by LHorstman (572584)
        The FRESH AIR service is over rated. It's polluted by too much reality programming.
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Moryath (553296)

        "500GB Limit."

        I love how retards like you fail to understand how bandwidth works.

        You're not paying for a certain amount of downloads per month as if you were buying gas. You're paying for a pipe with a certain momentary capacity measurable in a very small time frame, say 100mbit/second.

        When they start advertising "high max data speeds" but then implement a cap that works out to a piddly-crap connection worse than dialup (the standard crapass USA ISP like Comcrap, or Coxsuckers at 150GB limit equals 0.45 Mbi

        • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:18AM (#34125444) Journal

          500? 150? Hate to break the news to ya, but I'm in one of the "test markets" for the "new" caps, and guess what? It is 36Gb for residential and 76Gb for business so you can say goodbye to things like Netflix, because with caps THAT low, good luck watching movies on the net. Oh and if you go over? $1.50 per Gb! Of course these caps don't count for their own services, nor do they count for Windows updates because they are setting up a WSUS server. Now that net neutrality is dead expect expect to join me in suckitude my friends. My ISP is Cox but from what I was told once they roll it out nationally the others WILL fall suit.

          So enjoy while you can my friends, the party is nearly over. With caps that low the ISPs are gonna make out like robber barons, their test data shows the little old ladies and soccer moms won't be affected so there won't be any bitching from that circle, and of course I'm sure the *.A.A will be happy to throw lots of spin and marketing behind them to the tune of "Only thieves use THAT much bandwidth!" complete with charts in PPT showing how many MP3s or some other worthless comparison. Welcome to the future, where if you don't have FIOS (which from what I understand Verizon is quickly slowing or stopping rollouts all over the place) then you get to enjoy pre broadband Internet. Trust me, it does suck.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by powerlord (28156)

            Don't have Netflix so I'm not sure what their bandwidth "cost" per hour is, but on Hulu an average 1 hour show is ~ 150-200MB.

            That 36GB per month (and I'm assuming its GBytes and not Gbits that the limit is measured in), would translate to ~180 hours of Programming barring other uses, which I understand is unrealistic.

            Assuming you only watch 90 hours of programming a month (a ~4.5 weeks a month that translates to 20 hours a week), that still leaves 18GB of "other" traffic (music, web, chat, VoIP (which shou

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            >>>$1.50 per Gb!

            So if you're paying $40 for 36 GB, that's $1.11. Yep they are ripping your off by raising their rates.

      • by mini me (132455)

        Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long?

        Yes. Here in Ontario usage during peak periods is charged at a higher rate than off-peak periods. Not exactly the same method ISPs are using, but the idea is the same: To reduce consumption of an infrastructure that cannot support the demand.

    • by arivanov (12034) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:47AM (#34124994) Homepage

      Never.

      Netflix is not Bittorent and has a well defined source which is a commercial entity. So the ISP knows after who it needs to go. Further to this, as it is not P2P traffic Netflix itself has no choice but to grow its infrastructure if it is to retain its service level. Otherwise it will congest its links to ISPs and kill its own service offering.

      So Netflix will have to start building its network infrastructure and peer with ISPs close to the user across the US and the globe.

      We have already been through this. Before it was Google/Youtube destroying the Internet. Well it did not. Simply Google now has a backbone which can put most tier 1s to shame and peers with anyone anywhere.

      Most importantly, the number of links and peerings will increase so the end result will be GOOD for the Internet as it will become more resilient (Assuming ISPs use local/distributed peering not just for Netflix but for the other peering).

    • ...my ISP starts punishing me for using the Internet to do legal things that the Internet was designed for?

      Don't you know that you're not supposed to use products for what they're supposed to be used for?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Elbart (1233584)
      Guess what Sandvine is selling: http://www.sandvine.com/customers/cable_providers.asp [sandvine.com] "Differentiated Services -- prioritize multimedia applications to ensure a high-quality online experience for subscribers (VoIP, IPTV, gaming)"
    • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:03AM (#34125260)

      I don't know. This could be a GOOD thing. Previously, there seemed to be some stigma attached to high bandwidth users. Anyone who was using a lot of bandwidth was "obviously" doing SOMETHING shady. With the birth of services like this, it's starting to become quite common for regular old users to suck-up lots of bandwidth. I think the ISP's may finally have to pony up some dough and upgrade their infrastructure.

      Of course, if they'd had a bit of sense, they'd have realized a simple truth that applies to almost any computer usage, be it processing power, bandwidth, or anything else: today's power users use what tommorow's regular users are. Rather than trying to persecute your heavy users, use them as a metric to gauge what you need to roll out.

      • by kent_eh (543303) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:41AM (#34125808)

        I don't know. This could be a GOOD thing. Previously, there seemed to be some stigma attached to high bandwidth users. Anyone who was using a lot of bandwidth was "obviously" doing SOMETHING shady. With the birth of services like this, it's starting to become quite common for regular old users to suck-up lots of bandwidth. I think the ISP's may finally have to pony up some dough and upgrade their infrastructure.

        Of course, if they'd had a bit of sense,

        Thing is, the ISPs are still pissed off that you are buying a legitimate service from someone other than themselves. So they aren't going to do anything that would make it easier for you to give your money to anyone who isn't them.
        You are still "obviously" doing something very wrong in their eyes.

        There is no way the ISPs (especially cablecos and telcos) will change their position on this and be customer friendly unless they are forced with a pretty big stick
        And after the recent US election, I can't see that happening in the near future. Consumer protection laws seem to be pretty much the opposite of the Tea Party philosophy. Or GOP, for that matter (speaking as a non-american looking in)

      • by Jason Levine (196982) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @12:11PM (#34126258)

        the ISP's may finally have to pony up some dough and upgrade their infrastructure.

        ha ha ha ha ha.... wait, were you serious?

        Most ISPs are also content providers. Especially the cable companies. They don't like services like Netflix because it reduces demand for cable TV offerings. What they will really do is impose caps with overages or speed slowdowns. In the latter case, you can watch Netflix online, but after one or two movies, suddenly the video keeps buffering for a long time making it useless. In the former case, you watch a dozen movies during the month and then get a huge bill from your ISP because you're a "bandwidth hog." And if you don't like it? Tough, since you probably don't have many (if any) ISP choices where you live.

        On one hand, ISPs have the option to pay to upgrade their networks which might bring them more revenue in the future or may help erode another of their money makers. On the other hand, ISPs could restrict your use of that "eroding service" and/or turn it into a money maker for them. Which choice do *you* think the ISP will make?

  • by Nimey (114278) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:32AM (#34124780) Homepage Journal

    destroy Slashdot?

    It's well on the way - /. just isn't as relevant as it was years back.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      And yet it gets tons of page views. The bottom line is that the parent company has chosen to go more after dollars than making a niche group happy. Take from that what you will.

  • by adamgolding (871654) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:33AM (#34124790)

    Yes. Clearly Netflix will 'destroy the internet'.

    • by jandrese (485)
      First it went for Blockbuster, and I didn't complain because Blockbuster sucked ass. But now, with their chops still bloody, they turn their heads towards the internet? Can the entire collapse of civilization be far behind? Why, Netflix, Why?!?
    • Except in certain markets, where apparently, the Internet will destroy Netflix.

  • "won't be long before it comes for the rest of the world"

    I'm moving outside the US next year and I really would love not to have to jump through hoops to keep using Netflix.

    • by Imagix (695350)
      Canada has Netflix now... but the lineup of shows is restricted, probably due to distribution agreements.
  • Bandwidth? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joehonkie (665142) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:35AM (#34124800) Homepage
    Well, that bandwidth is what I pay my ISP for...
    • Re:Bandwidth? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hedwards (940851) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:48AM (#34125006)
      Indeed. I think it's more accurate to say that deregulation and a lack of oversight are killing the internet. The companies aren't making the upgrades necessary to keep up with demand and are instead trying to charge more for less. The cost of DSL service here hasn't gone up, but the speed and bandwidth haven't either. With amortization schedules and the cost of bandwidth being what they are, you wouldn't expect that.

      Well, you wouldn't expect that if there was any competition and the ISPs actually cared what the consumers wanted. Worse, I live in a major city, it's doubtless much worse outside of major cities.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by John Hasler (414242)

        I think it's more accurate to say that deregulation and a lack of oversight are killing the internet.

        Yeah. If the regulators had had their way we'd all have ISDN by now.

  • The internet exists to be used.

    If people use more bandwidth, then providers will adjust prices, install new capacity, and then it will be fine.

    I'm more concerned about IP addresses (which is not much) than I am about capacity issues.

    If bandwidth cost to netflix increases, then they will slow down bandwidth (so maybe it takes 60 seconds to start a movie instead of 10 seconds). Or maybe they offer a lower bandwidth option.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      That's really not what you want. The cost of bandwidth at the wholesaler level has been going down for years, it's the ISPs that don't pay for enough of it to cover the need that are the problem.

      Yes, they can institute caps and raise rates, but all that does is stifle innovation. We wouldn't have youtube at all, if the ISPs had been handling things like this during the Clinton administration. The last time that speeds around here increased by anything significant was in the late 90s. I'm still stuck with
    • install new capacity

      Did you just say that ISP's will upgrade?

      How long have you been using the internet?

    • by demonbug (309515)

      If bandwidth cost to netflix increases, then they will slow down bandwidth (so maybe it takes 60 seconds to start a movie instead of 10 seconds). Or maybe they offer a lower bandwidth option.

      Don't even suggest it, or they'll be all over that in an instant. I recently jumped ship from Blockbuster (stayed with them for a long time because we lived just down the street from a store, and our plan allowed unlimited free trade-ins) largely because of the streaming service, but have found that the picture quality is barely adequate as it is. They need to offer higher quality in general, not lower quality options. Cut it down any more and I'll be going... well, I'm not sure what alternative there is,

  • OK, and? (Score:5, Informative)

    by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimble&hotmail,com> on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:37AM (#34124844)
    Two things:

    First, they've known this was coming for ages. P2P have been around well over a decade and everybody knew people were downloading movies and TV shows and watching them on their computer. It's just hitting bigtime mainstream now and Netflix was the first commercial entity which did it right.

    Second, the 'Will Porn/Youtube/Torrents/P2P/Netflix/etc Destroy The Internet?" articles have been around for ages. The providers adapt, the technology adapts.

  • by mrflash818 (226638) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:38AM (#34124852) Homepage Journal

    ... and that is 20% of the internet's bandwidth no longer available to email spammers, too.

    win-win

  • by unity100 (970058)
    destroy ? arent we fucking PAYING for the bandwidth we are using ? so, in short, arent we using MORE of the product the isps are delivering, and they are making more money ?

    if they are not INVESTING that money to provide MORE products, therefore supplying the demand, that means they are going totally contrary to the logic of 'free market'.

    and excuse me, but that is not us consumers' problem. its their stupidity.
    • As a collective "we", yes we're paying for it.
      But you're not "unity100 of Borg".

      At some point, some of us are going to realize "we" as individuals are paying for the bandwidth usage of others. You look at your ISP bill and realize half of what you're paying (say, $360/year - whatever it is, it's a lot of money out of your pocket) is going to fund someone else's movie marathons. Or maybe it's you enjoying the subsidized streaming video, and I'm deciding to have a chat with my ISP about why I'm shelling out $

    • by hedwards (940851)
      You must be new here. The ISPs sell more bandwidth than what they have, similar to how airlines sell more seats than their plane has. Unlike Airlines which provide perks for being bumped, ISPs respond by giving you less and citing the fact that they only promised to provide up to a certain speed.
    • destroy ? arent we fucking PAYING for the bandwidth we are using ? so, in short, arent we using MORE of the product the isps are delivering, and they are making more money ?

      unless you live in bizarro world your ISP doesn't make more $ if you download more. you pay a flat fee. of course they'd rather you download less because that means they need less infrastructure to support you, it's cheaper for them, and their profits are higher.

      ISPs depend on the fact that most people consume much, much less than they could. if everyone streamed netflix (or whatever) 12 hours a day, your rates would go up as they'd need to add capacity to handle that.

  • ..the problem is that ISPs have been selling us the "bandwidth" to do this kind of activity for years. Bandwidth is in quotes because "back in the day" if you actually used the bandwidth you were paying for, they suspended your account as the likely reason for a residential user to draw any serious transfer was piracy.

    Now there are lots of legitimate "every day" uses that draw the massive bandwidth that ISPs have been using as a big magic number when selling service, and the ISPs can't (or can't for long) h

    • ..the problem is that ISPs have been selling us the "bandwidth" to do this kind of activity for years. Bandwidth is in quotes because "back in the day" if you actually used the bandwidth you were paying for, they suspended your account as the likely reason for a residential user to draw any serious transfer was piracy.

      Just so we're clear, what you're doing is blatantly generalizing. I've been on the Internet in some form or the other since about 1990. I've used probably dozens of ISPs and in multiple states, and I have never once had my account shut down or limited due to bandwidth usage. In fact I don't even remember ever hearing about this as a problem!

      Sure if you've got comcast I understand they're doing it. I would not use comcast for this reason. But to claim that the problem is more widespread than it is (or at le

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:40AM (#34124892) Journal
    Remember when the internet bubble burst? People were pumping ooodles of money into fiber optic companies saying, "no matter who wins the internet race the infrastructure companies will be minting money. Remember the shovel makers made money in the gold rush than the prospectors." And when the bubble burst we had thousands and thousands of miles of fiber cables with the unused "dark" fiber strands out numbering the used strands by a huge factor. People were touting numbers as high as 1: 99 lit:dark ratio. So it should be possible to bring them on line and increase the internet bandwidth by orders of magnitude without too much of additional investment. Or so pontificating pundits were prognosticating.
  • We must encourage our ISPs to go out and buy Sandvine's DPI hardware and encourage them to immediately throttle and slow data streaming from Netflix!

    Oh hey, my ISP is offering their own video streaming service...

  • by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:42AM (#34124924) Homepage

    The average person has a 60gb cap in Canada. People have quickly found out that they can blow through 1/2 to 3/4's of their monthly cap in a weekend. I'm sure it'll be more interesting as winter rolls around, we like snow, hockey, and all that. But curling up to watch a movie or 4 when it's -40C and snowing out is much better fun. Especially if there's a 30% chance you're going to spend 3hrs shoveling.

    But sandvine is a blight on the internet. You can happily hear about all the horror stories(look on dslreports.com) that they've inflicted on Canadians, as ISP's use their equipment to throttle just about everything. Bell enjoys using them after the last mile, before switching to outside networks, even when you're on another ISP. So regardless of what happens, you're still being throttled by bell. Rogers like using it to throttle everywhere, that they think the consumption might be too high, or where growth is outpacing their delayed upgrades.

  • by alen (225700) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:46AM (#34124988)

    i have netflix and the streaming selection is pretty bad compared to the DVD selection. the reason is that they haven't struck deals with most content creators yet.

    my cable bill is $130 a month for TV/DVR/Internet/phone and from what i've read approximately $30 of that goes to the content creators. for netflix to offer all the content there is they will probably have to raise their prices as they strike new deals for more content, especially if it will include movies and new TV shows that just played the night before.

    if i wanted to dump cable i'd have to pay more for a la carte internet and more to AT&T to increase my cell phone plan to unlimited minutes. it would kill the entire deal since it makes more sense to just pay $10 a month for a DVR

    and this theory is based on just he financials of striking content deals. netflix will have to pay a lot more in bandwidth costs as the amount of content increases.

    i don't understand the entire streaming fad. it's only around because the cable companies are always a few years behind. with digital/HD cable what you watch on your cable box is essentially streaming except it's a lot more efficient than netflix's TCP/IP over the internet version. the cable companies just need to update their software and service selection

  • It's interesting that Netflix's success which is seen as a possible downfall of the internet is happening at a time where the industry giants are pushing for cloud-based computing where everything would be done remotely from servers with no localized software.
  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:50AM (#34125046)

    Oh noes! They're taking the bandwidth! Except everyone's being paid, and its still cheaper all around per movie than using the mail. The cable companies are being paid for internet access, the entertainment owners are paid for the right to distribute the content, all the equipment is more than being paid for - and everyone is making a profit.

    The fact that it's using 20% of the bandwidth isn't alarming either - a movie is a lot of web pages/email/etc., but everyone involved can afford to keep the equipment running, and do a little infrastructure expansion to get more customers needs met, all to make more profit.

    This isn't the end either - the moment some form of mass entertainment can be created that legitimately requires more bandwidth, and a service provider can successfully provide that bandwidth to unseat the other service providers, then they will do that, and will likely use several times more bits per second - and by then it will be even cheaper relative to the gasoline used for mail service.

    The real alarm is that this process is making other forms of entertainment less relatively appealing to the masses. The cable companies don't like playing the role of bulk service providers in a realm they prefer to be premium content providers in - and thanks to monopoly powers, they're considering providing a non-neutral-net internet service in the name of "saving bandwidth" to fight Netflix's little game.

    Ryan Fenton

  • by twoallbeefpatties (615632) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:56AM (#34125156)
    Excuse my trolling for karma here, but there's a good comment below that article that's worth noting (which I only remembered because I saw this article when it was first posted a while ago).

    Farhad, Allow me to make one clarification on the Sandvine report cited. While the growth of Netflix has certainly been dramatic, it does not (yet) account for 90% of Internet traffic on any of the networks included in our study. Rather, As you noted correctly, we did see Netflix accounting for approximately 20% of downstream traffic in North America.

    The confusion on the 90% stat probably resulted from a misreading of one of the graphs featured in our “Spotlight On: Netflix” on page 15 of our Fall Global Internet Phenomena report. The graph was accompanied with the caption “An average day for Netflix on this network, peaking at 9:30pm” This particular graph (taken from a single network in Canada) shows Netflix traffic throughout the day as a relative percentage of the peak amount of Netflix traffic. In this case, the peak was reached at 9:30pm, so the curve at that point has a value of 100%. The rest of the curve shows how Netflix traffic varies: so we see that at midnight the level of Netflix is approximately 42% of what it was at 9:30pm. In hindsight, I think we probably could have explained this better in our report.

    Our Network Analytics product produces these “Time of Day” graphs so that network operators can understand how subscriber usage of various applications, services, or categories of application vary throughout a typical day. Thanks again for the interesting article.

    Sincerely, Tom Donnelly, EVP Marketing, Sandvine
  • I know I'm always streaming Kipper at my house. The dog with the slipper, that's Kipper.
  • by noidentity (188756) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @10:59AM (#34125204)
    Yes, using the Internet for transporting data between machines will destroy it. We must avoid using the Internet in order to save it so that it will be there for future generations to not use!
  • by Dr_Barnowl (709838) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:14AM (#34125390)

    My ISP makes a point of saying it - "Streaming movies and TV shows". Right there in it's spiel. All the networks are rigged to favour it - our Last Mile is asynchronous, giving us more downstream than upstream, because they want us to be good little consumers and download content, not upload it.

    And now people are making scared noises because it finally worked and people started doing it? And not just scared noises, deploying technical measures to counteract it? My ISP will throttle your connection if you download more than 750MB during "peak" hours ; exactly the time you'd want to be watching a movie. Good luck with that if the stream bandwidth exceeds your new bandwidth limit, which is very likely if it's an HD stream.

    While I'm glad they are taking measures to prevent my connection grinding to a halt, I'm rather disappointed that they aren't upgrading their Last Mile enough to support it - especially as they make such a fuss about being "fibre optic" (to the cabinet, not the home, shame).

  • by Mikey48 (1798918) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @11:20AM (#34125470)

    Your intrepid reported, reporting from 1910...

    Many people are reporting the growing difficulty of navigating their horses and buggies through the town streets due to the growing presence of noisy and fast moving motor cars made by Henry Ford. Predictions are that because of this obnoxious growth in motor cards that our highways will become completely unusable within 10 years!

The only problem with being a man of leisure is that you can never stop and take a rest.

Working...