Re: ipv4 vs 6 With IP it's a bit different: unlike network capacity, the number of IP addresses is a known quantity. IPv4 gives you, at most, about 4 billion IP addresses. Being that the population of the world is 7 billion, it's just not enough. We could delay the inevitable for a short time by reclaiming IP addresses, using more NAT, etc, but a 32 bit address space really is too small in an age when more and more people and devices are connecting to the internet.
Re: ipv4 vs 6 Obvious? That depends. Unless all of those devices need to accept unsolicited inbound communications, PAT enables 192.168.1.1 to be used by billions of devices. In fact, I'll bet with most routers default setup using the 192.168 class-b, there are already many millions if not billions of devices completely unaware of the address crunch.
I'm certainly pro IPV6 and there are real challenges with IPV4 but I don't think multiplying the world's population by n devices is the best way to convince folks of why IPV6 is important.
Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders
said by N3OGH:That is an oversimplification.
Given the national data backbone is upgradable by switching out the gear at either end of the fiber runs
Changing out even just the interface cards is really, really....REALLY expensive.
Say you are a service provider with 5 or 6 40G links between two cities. Your capacity has filled up because of stuff like over the top video and cloud access that you make no money on - you didn't get new customers and you don't have a new product line to generate revenue - but you still have to upgrade your backbone because you have to provide a consistent level of service so you decide to upgrade the links to a have 100G capacity...so 5 or 6 100G transponders at each end at around $100k and you just spent about $1.2 million!...
But wait, that's not all!...
Those runs are too long to not have ILAs or Regens and you have to upgrade their interfaces too....let's call it an even $5million at this point to make the math simple....and that's just one leg...if you are a backbone provider you probably have dozens of those to upgrade at the same time.
Great business to be in where you have to spend millions just to satisfy the existing revenue you are pulling in and there isn't any new money to pay for it.
I am not suggesting that caps or price increases are something I want as a user but to not recognize that their is a very real economic challenge to overcome here is naive and one sided
Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders You do these things to keep customers and retain the margin you have. Just because an ISP has built a network doesn't mean they can just sit around and print money.
I wish I could convince my employer that since I've completed what I consider enough projects that they now owe me a liftetime salary.
If anyone has a job like this or runs a business like this, please enlighten me.
I was flipping channels the other night and paused on the Weather Channel (mainly because the reporter was someone who I find very attractive). It was a program about a new kind of "sand bag" that uses (I think) the same moisture absorbing stuff that's in feminine hygiene products and diapers. When they get wet, they expand to many times their former size. Hundreds of bags can quickly be deployed without any back-breaking labor. You can either wait for the rising water to expand the bags or take a garden hose and "activate" the bags. I was dumbfounded how simple the idea is and how effective it is to enable folks to easily buy, transport and RAPIDLY deploy flood barriers. Someone is pure genius.
They also showed large tubes much like the ones that corral oil on water except the tubes were filled with water. Instant dam.
These are examples of why we just can't sit on our rears and print money. Things change and it's natural to invest in your business to make sure it keeps pace with what your customers demand. Isn't this business 101?
Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders
said by tmc8080:Before i got my iPhone 4 with grandfathered Verizon unlimited Data i tried using an iPod Touch. The free hotspots were NOT dependable . Some of them required an agreement page to be checked which the iPod touch did not support. Other "hot spots" were simply locked and required a password. For further laughs a Dunkin Donuts had a sign in the window Free WIFI with just below it NO LOITERING !!!! In other cases i could log onto the "free WIFI" however it was so congested it was NOT usable. Needless to say the "free WIFI experiment" i conducted FAILED and it was onto the iPhone for me.
Verizon's wireless is catching up fast. Consumers seem addicted to keeping POSTPAID accounts at any price. Millions of consumers now pay higher rates than wired networks for DATA which essentially is internet & ip newtwork access. In major metro areas.. they really don't have to because there are tons of wireless wifi spots they could use locally-- even for free VOIP over an android/ios tablet... even an unactivated smart phone with wifi capability-- and you have free 911 incase of a real emergency. There are more free hotspots than payphones around.. so if you can rollback your lifestyle to 15 years ago you can have free or dirt cheap data, internet AND voice calling without the cost of 15 years ago.
Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders
said by tmc8080: You forgot another big one. Hollywood with the likes of the MPAA, RIAA, etc. So make that 4.
....These things will have to happen at the state level, since the federal government is only interested in being manipulated by 3 industries: war, banks and oil-- regardless of party..
Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders
said by davidhoffman:I can barely use my "3G" service going 65 mph.
Try using WiFi at 80mph on an Interstate Highway, 60 mph on your local parkway, or even 40 mph on city streets. You cannot do it yet. That is one reason we pay extra for cellular data plans, so we can really get information on the go.
Ask me about my sites:
bay area jobs Dogs for adoption coupons NBA: »nbaintelligence.com
Siri is causing capacity problem on wireless networks »www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/···ory.html
It is all the iPhone 4S's fault and that talkative SIRI biatch.
Paul Farhi covers media for The Post.
Siris dirty little secret is that shes a bandwidth guzzler, the digital equivalent of a 10-miles-per-gallon Hummer H1.
To make your wish her command, Siri floods your cell network with a stream of data; her responses require a similarly large flow in return. A study published this month by Arieso, an Atlanta firm that specializes in mobile networks, found that the Siri-equipped iPhone 4S uses twice as much data as does the plain old iPhone 4 and nearly three times as much as does the iPhone 3G. The new phone requires far more data than most other advanced smartphones, which are pretty data-intensive themselves, The Post has reported.
Arieso says that the Siri-equipped iPhone 4S appears to unleash data consumption behaviors that have no precedent.
Cell and data networks are like any common resource; they have limits. And once they hit their limit, regardless of which group is using its share and then some, theres no more to go around.
This means that Siris data-hogging ways are a problem for more than just those willing to foot the bill. As networks become congested, everyones service deteriorates. Private desire becomes a public issue. Calls are dropped or never completed; Internet access slows.
no matter how many cell towers we throw up, sooner or later well bump up against the rigid limits of the electromagnetic spectrum, the invisible frequencies over which all electronic communications move. And building new capacity isnt cheap. Everyone not just the first-class passengers ends up paying for it. So prepare for higher cellphone bills.
And in the meantime? Prepare to sit and wait. That call to Grandma might not get through until the congestion clears.
The governments top airwaves cop, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, has long warned about a looming spectrum crunch. If the United States cant free up more bandwidth for mobile uses, more people than just cellphone users would be inconvenienced, he warns. The lack of new capacity, he says, would threaten U.S. jobs in the telecom industry and stifle technical progress.
The only way to free up some now is to reshuffle the lineup, moving older users (say, over-the-air TV and radio stations and government agencies) to another part of the band in favor of the up-and-coming hot shots. Of course, that kind of change is disruptive. A massive political battle looms, pitting the haves against the want-mores.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Re: Siri is causing capacity problem on wireless networks
Yeah, especially if the company with the initial exclusive contract to offer such a device has a long track record of putting acquisitions, executive compensation, and lobbying ahead of actually investing in the network.
Good thing only one person owns a iPhone. Imagine what would happen if millions had one and used it at the same time.
Spectrum crunch: not a problem today, but eventually There's a fixed amount of wireless spectrum available, and there's a theoretical maximum amount of data that can be pushed through it. That's a laws-of-physics type limitation, no new wireless technology will ever relieve us of that limitation. Is this a problem today, or even in the immediate future? No, there's a very long way to go before we hit there, and we can pump multiple gigabits of bandwidth over the air before we hit that limit. One day, however, we WILL hit that limitation. Cell sizes can shrink, spreading the load, although there are trade-offs there too. One day, in a few decades, we're going to run out of spectrum, and the aggregate wireless transit capacity at that point will be all we'll ever have.
So, the "looming wireless apocalypse" isn't a lie, it just isn't going to happen any time soon. But it'll really suck when it does, way down the road. Personally, I think that demand will eventually subside, making it less of a problem. After all, there are only so many things you can do with bandwidth. Video is driving usage ever higher and higher, but there comes a point where your video content exceeds human ability to perceive it (as in, your eyes can't resolve higher resolutions), and the ever increasing video bitrates taper off. We reached this point long ago for audio; you can transmit perceptually lossless 24-bit audio over a 3G connection without any issues, but nobody really bothers with that even on 24-bit capable hardware because it just doesn't make all that big of a difference.
I'd actually argue that, at the point where you can (or need to) stream perceptually lossless high-framerate 4K 3D video and surround sound audio, we'll have hit that point. Because at that point, you could just stream the entire interface to your device, and there would be no need for any higher amount of bandwidth to your device. That's probably somewhere on the order of one or two hundred megabits per second. Several orders of magnitude beyond current average usage (you might hit 20 megs on your LTE phone, but with a 2GB cap, your average ain't gonna be that high).
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
Spectrum is finite Its no myth. You can't change the laws of physics.
Just exactly how many HD-video-streaming connections do the enlightened folks here think a cell site can handle in a 12 Mhz block?
Video and torrentz and gaming have no natural limit on consumption, where voice traffic can be contained with 8-16kbps.
We've seen what happens when no limits are placed on usage.