 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | interesting argument here... said by Johna Till Johnson :
Access circuits (both wired and wireless) are bandwidth-constrained -- and excruciatingly expensive to upgrade (ask Verizon how much it has spent on FiOS).
regardless of whether or not she believes the exaflood is real - this is a moot argument and borderline logical fallacy. just because a carrier is spending a lot of money upgrading the *last mile* doesn't mean all upgrades are expensive. additionally, if there is a bandwidth crunch at the last mile, the internet won't suddenly _stop working_ for _everyone_. while there are some capacity issues in the last mile, docsis3, vdsl2, and gpon fiber are attempting to alleviate the issues. at this point, the issue is more of a "backhaul" problem between the individual nodes/vrads and the central office than anything else - most of which are being worked out through re-engineering of the plant layout. its growing pains, but not much more.
for there to truly be a "grinding of the internet to a halt", there would need to be capacity issues at the national backbone level on transit provider networks. this is where most of the research and development has worked for many years. currently, we have 40gb links via optical carrier/sonet, 40gbe standards, and we're rapidly approaching 100gbe over optics. add that with the work done in wdm - both c- and d- varieties - and you are looking at a pretty flexible upgrade for bandwidth. even at today's prices (though nothing too fancy) i've implemented about $500k worth of cisco ons gear (that allows for wdm) between a central site and a dr-facility. once the expenditure is layed out running two pairs of fiber with two lambdas each over 10gbe, any additional lambda can be put on the fiber for about $125k. not bad pricing for an additional 10gbps. factor that in when you look at the bulk purchase by a tier-1 carrier, and its not that bad. sure, its a capex, but its a manageable expenditure.
additionally, the following was pointed out
Tier-one providers now peer for free with each other. Once they have no choice but to charge for bandwidth, free peering will go away.
but the article fails to mention that the reason that tier-1s do this is because there is an equal exchange of bandwidth. as bandwidth rates increase, they will more than likely increase proportionally between the tier-1s. because of this, peering between tier-1s will continue to be free.
the whole exaflood argument is nothing but a scare tactic to bully the uneducated to get riled up about something they have no idea about. it comes down to the side with the best talking points. sad that this is the current form of discourse in america today.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
