Remember the golden age of air travel? You could stroll into an airport right before your flight, effortlessly purchase a ticket, and enjoy luxurious treatment onboard. Today, it’s a different story. We endure long lines and cramped seats, a far cry from the preferential treatment of the past. Sadly, this shift from luxury to cattle car is coming soon to the internet.

You might be skeptical. After all, the internet has felt limitless for over a decade. We can access anything, anytime, and download endless amounts of data. Internet providers even boast about ever-increasing speeds. How can this be compared to the deterioration of air travel?

The airline industry’s deregulation, while initially offering affordable flights, ultimately led to its downfall. Cheap air travel became so pervasive that people chose flying over driving, taking trains, or sailing. Fast forward a few decades, and we’re grappling with overcrowded planes and congested runways. Demand caught up with supply, and the essential infrastructure, like airport hubs, requires significant investment and time to expand. Additionally, rising fuel costs have squeezed profits, resulting in fewer planes available to meet the increasing demand for affordable travel.

But what does this have to do with the virtual realm of the internet? It’s not as virtual as it seems. The internet relies on physical infrastructure like fiber optic cables, routers, telephone lines, and cable drops. These physical components have limitations, and the internet is nearing its breaking point. The main culprit? Video.

While managing internet traffic was initially easy with a steady influx of new users adopting dial-up and then broadband, video streaming and downloads changed everything. Unlike casual browsing and email, which have intermittent traffic bursts, video demands a constant, massive data flow, putting significant strain on the system.

While congestion is less severe at the internet’s core thanks to infrastructure upgrades, the edges are struggling. Cable companies face challenges as their internet and TV services share the same lines, limiting bandwidth for multiple users. While telecommunication companies have individual lines for each customer, both face the expensive task of upgrading their backbone infrastructure to accommodate heavy video usage by a few while ensuring everyone else has adequate service.

One solution could be identifying and slowing down or blocking bandwidth-heavy traffic, like BitTorrent downloads. However, this contradicts the principle of net neutrality, which advocates for equal treatment of all internet traffic. Violating this principle could result in public scrutiny and regulatory backlash.

If all data must be treated equally but the network is overloaded, the remaining options are costly infrastructure upgrades or limiting user bandwidth. Since unlimited bandwidth isn’t as fiercely protected as net neutrality, it’s more palatable to have a few unhappy users with capped data than thousands struggling to browse the web.

Time Warner Cable and Comcast are experimenting with this approach, testing monthly bandwidth limits in select markets and charging extra for exceeding them, similar to cellular data plans. The goal is to prevent a few heavy users from impacting everyone else’s experience.

While imposing data limits is common for web hosting services catering to professional users, the general public’s reaction to such limitations is uncertain. While the impact might be minimal now, the situation could change drastically when streaming high-quality videos and movies becomes the norm.

Although internet providers are exploring solutions like partnering with content delivery networks for localized hosting and expanding fiber optic networks, the reality is that bandwidth limitations are a pressing issue. Technological advancements, especially in internet-based video, might be hindered until network capacity improves.

In the short term, managing demand through additional costs for exceeding average usage appears to be the solution. The success of this approach hinges on finding a balance between setting reasonable limits and ensuring affordable access to in-demand services. While some users might appreciate faster downloads, others could face limitations, potentially leading to a digital divide where only the affluent enjoy seamless access to high-bandwidth services.