A lot of the bandwidth taken up by packets on the internet are of dubious value. It would be easy to spend a lifetime arguing about the definition of good content vs. poor content; for the sake of brevity, let's call the poor content 'crap'. We all have a notion of what I mean, and while we may argue individual instances, there exists some content that would be indefensible.
My estimate is that 90% of all content on the internet is crap. That seems like a harsh condemnation, but rather it is wonderful news.
Consider all the media in history: books, magazines, film, radio, and television. These are powerful social forces as evidenced by their endurance--books go back a thousand years, magazines, centuries. But if you go to a bookstore or a magazine store you will find that 90% of the offerings are crap. Television, radio, 90% crap. I submit the reason we know the internet is media and not some new form of creature, is that it follows the 90% crap rule.
This is wonderful news because 10% of the content is useful. This 10% is reason enough to welcome the internet as the most powerful media tool ever available to humans. Books have lasted 1000 years on the strength of their 10%. The internet is in good company.
It has been pointed out that this essay does not answer the question why 90% of the internet is crap. True. I guess it should have been titled Why 90% Of The Internet Being Crap Is Not A Bad Thing. But that's a mouthful.
To maintain accuracy, I will speculate why 90% of the internet is crap: Maybe useful media requires the message creator to display an ability to analyze (to figure out what to say) and synthesize (to figure out how to say it) and only 10% of people can do both.