Jolly_St_Picard said:
Robert Maxwell said:
Jolly_St_Picard said:
Robert Maxwell said:
Whatever happened to the vast amounts of dark fiber that were laid during the Internet bubble, then sat dormant as the Internet didn't explode quite the way everyone expected? I know Google was buying up a bunch of it, but surely there is still quite a bit left untapped.
I'm with J. Allen on this, though. This is a situation very much like Y2K, it's just flying under the radar at the moment. I suspect this problem is helping drive corporate opposition to net neutrality, though. Nobody wants to lay out big sums of money unless they can use their infrastructure to create walled gardens.
Regardless, nobody wants to be caught with their pants down on this one, and I expect we'll just hear every few years that we're "nearing capacity," while it's still always growing.
Y2K was media hype and nothing more.
If you're saying there never was a "Y2K problem," then you're mistaken. There most certainly was--many software companies spent a lot of man-hours patching their software to deal with it, too.
The media did exaggerate its potential effects, though, and I think that's what is happening here. A lack of capacity isn't going to shut down the Internet or anything like that. At worst, people will experience slowdowns if they happen to be routing through a saturated network segment. Implementing QoS and smarter routing algorithms would solve a lot of that problem, anyway.
95% of Y2K was nothing more than media hype. I'm a programmer and know from experience.
Thank you for playing.
I'm also a programmer, and think you are exaggerating the exaggeration.

The media was wrong about what would happen if Y2K wasn't dealt with. They were not wrong about it being a real problem, though. Unfortunately, because the world didn't go to hell when the clock rolled over to January 1, 2000, people are under the impression that Y2K wasn't a real problem.