 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | - I hope its not coming, I just bought a sling box  | |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | What about Video? Once video hits, is the available bandwidth going to be enough? | |
|
 | gh4456
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-07
Beverly Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: What about Video? I think the limitations of fiber is the routers/switches they connect too. Hell, just on BBR a week ago, there was the ability to multiplex 160 channels (colors) on a single strand of fiber and download 26tb/s!!!! - Think of what can be done to turn existing facilities into HUGE PIPES. | |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Broadband Yes it will, still a lot of dark fiber. The major ISP's have planned for this and will act accordingly. Not to mention the new types of fiber coming out now(FAST SHIT, dont make me get a link). The report on fiber was on BBR a couple weeks ago. The only real broadband problem in this country, is the last mile (from the CO to your house). Once that is all fixed, the rest will fall in line. | |
|
| 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Broadband Agreed. The Cringely article linked to in the main item clearly indicates he's talking about last-mile, local ISP issues, not backbone. The main article link, to "CIO Insight", deals primarily with corporate users.
While I agree with much of the "CIO Insight" which trashes the Deloitte (out-of-)Touche Tohmatsu white paper, I can't agree with their approach that "prioritizing traffic" will be the easy answer for all latency and jitter problems in the residential arena. Additionally, were I to seek out an expert on ISP capacity issues, I'm not sure I'd use one from Earthlink as representative of the entire sector.
Is "CIO Insight"'s support for "prioritization" of traffic just another shot against Net Neutrality?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: Broadband The funny thing is....I did not even read the article until after I wrote my statement. Looks like we think alike. | |
|
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | Why not Earthlink? I've seen Qwest execs say fundamentally the same thing while admitting p2p use isn't as huge of a crisis as many NOC operators let on.quote:
But even that "last mile" to homes looks reasonably healthy to the people in charge of it. "I don't see anything specific in the way of capacity problems today, and my job is to manage capacity and growth in our network," says Greg Collins, director of network and data center engineering for Earthlink Inc., the third-largest Internet service provider in the U.S.
It also admits, if you note the Cerf reference, that the edges are where congestion will occur.
quote:
And capacity at the core of the Internet continues to increase, says Google Inc. vice president Vint Cerf, a key figure in the development of the Internet. "There is available fiber and more wavelengths per fiber, so I do not see this as a serious threat," he says. It is true that traffic growth is faster than capacity growth—average traffic across the net increased 75 percent last year, while capacity grew 47 percent, according to TeleGeography—so the long-term trend needs to be addressed. But, says Cerf, a near-term capacity problem "will be at the access edges to the net, and not in the core." In other words, the traffic jams would be more likely at the points where people connect to the Internet via their service providers, rather than at the core of the net itself.
And obviously the last mile solution isn't a cryptic one, it's getting fiber closer to the customer, blended with prioritization for providers who aren't in a financial position to do so.
It's a fairly reasonable treatise on capacity I thought, and doesn't seem to be taking a position on neutrality one way or the other. | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Broadband Why not Earthlink? Because I don't view them as a facilities-based provider, and I never think resellers/rebundlers/repackagers have as good a clue as to capacity availability as the facility owners. Qwest may well say the same thing, but Qwest remains essentially the runt of the Baby Bells with service quality and availability problems to match. Were I "CIO Insight" seeking ISP comment, I'd probably seek out a major Bell AND a major cable provider.
I said I agreed with most of the "CIO Insight" piece and I agree that it points to edge concerns. I personally don't much like prioritization as it essentially admits the existence of under-capacity--I'd rather see the capacity upped. (I don't like carpool lanes, either.)
And my question about a possible shot at Net Neutrality was a serious question--I wasn't sure if it was a roundabout slap at NN or not. You appear not to think so, Karl, and I respect your read. I also appreciate you highlighting the article in the first place, as it does offer a much-needed counterpoint to the DTT piece.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL |  Great solution
| |
|
antiphishing
Phishing Scam Terminator
Premium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
1 edit | The Bandwidth Apocalypse 'Now' Is Not Coming
Cyber-Space Apocalypse 'Now' |
The horror... the horror...
Specializing in "takes downs" of phishing and advance fee scams
Send your Phishing/Advance fee scams to: phish@antihotmail.com
»/profile/1021645
| |
|
| Jamuka
join:2005-06-06 | Re: The Bandwidth Apocalypse 'Now' Is Not Coming Now that is the best reply I've seen yet! | |
|
| |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: The Bandwidth Apocalypse 'Now' Is Not Coming Everyone wants to hear nonsense. Cant think about reality when you stuck in fantasy. | |
|
| |
| 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | Best...post....EVER..... | |
|
CLEVELTECH
join:2006-12-21
02107
| CRUNCH DATA Eventually all ISPs are going to come to a crunch or limit. That's to be expected. The issue id what technologies are going to be implemented to control the number of users on a network and and to balance the network for everyone to use without it being degraded. | |
|
| 
hcvst
@co.za | Re: CRUNCH DATA Why is that (to be) expected - what is the limit? | |
|
| |
hcvst
@co.za
| Re: CRUNCH DATA I am sitting on my balcony in Johannesburg, South Africa, enjoying a beer, looking forward to a long weekend and using for the first time since I moved down here for a project in June 2006 internet from home. I bought some 3G network card today and went fairly straight to dslreports. The home page took ages to load. I cannot be asked to try and run the speed reports. Bandwidth is fairly costly too (good point, let me disconnect).
Yet the lack of speed made me read the news entry on the front page while I waited for the navigation to load. Bandwidth apocalypse sounded catchy. So I click and wait and read on and understand nothing. What are they talking about? I study the headline, follow a few painfully slow links and still understand nothing.
What is the context of this debate? Is there a technical|logical|temporary|potential|... limit to bandwidth? What is the political aspect?
If anyone can be bothered to answer these questions briefly I would really like to read it.
hc@bandweite.de (a bit more spam won't hurt)
Thanks. (Now let me reconnect... and copy this to the clipboard first M^A M^C) | |
|
| | |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: CRUNCH DATA I suggest hitting the article link on top...wait for that to load...while you do that you can read the article text. After you complete the read, you will understand the topic better and be able to read our posts and understand what they mean. | |
|
| | | |
hcvst
@co.za
| Re: CRUNCH DATA Are you referring to the article starting with "Predictions of the Internet's imminent demise have been around almost as long as public interest in the net itself." Hmm, don't know whether it is worth the 40sec wait. Sounds almost wrong.
But I liked the brief style. Thanks,
hc@bandweite.de | |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Just add more tubes! | |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL
| Just an opinion (undocumented) There is plenty of bandwidth- the mega corps just want to max profits on as little as possible. They want as few customers as possible with high dollar services. If they went after the masses (Light up all the fiber) with low dollar services and entice them to upgrade over time, every one would win! | |
|
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Re: Just an opinion (undocumented) The reality is, you can build this kind of network with low paying services. Just not going to happen in a, first of all the ISPs offer more than they can actually deliver consistantly. The rates they sell (marketing)you on are the best possible, while still trying to be fair to other customers (your neighbors). With that said, "I think we will never have a problem with the bandwidth available in the GREAT USA, but instead have problems with PRICE." We need "COMPETITION" (like I have said MANY times before), some good kick ass competition. That will be the issue, for example, say Time Warner decides to limit use (cap). There needs to be another ISP that can have there "own network" that competes with the incumbents. Having your own network is key to competing with the cable co's and Telco. On a personal note, I would like to see some of the backbone operators (like level3) get into the residential ISP business. Even tho I dont blame them for staying FAR away. | |
|
| |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: Just an opinion (undocumented) BIG TYPO
CANT* | |
|
| |
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| lost concept Is it a lost concept that it is not a bandwidth crunch, but a cost problem.. ie the bandwidth people are demanding cost too much to make a clear 5-10x monthly fee on the price charged versus what isps pay for the bandwidth each month (a closely guarded secret) ?
Once you get up in the 10+megabits down, 5+ megabits up, we're talking about hundreds of gigabytes per month per subscriber, so can that be delivered for $29.95-59.95 (unlimited, all you can eat)? Well, the best the incumbents can come up with is calling the apocalypse a bandwidth crunch... more a cost crunch because lack of competition and investment in tier-1 - tier-3 providers. | |
|
| lipripper
join:2005-04-15
San Carlos, CA
| Re: lost concept
IBM (NYSE: IBM) Latest News about IBM researchers are touting a new, tiny optical transceiver chipset that can move data at speeds up to 160 GB per second, which is eight times faster than previous optical components.
The new chipset generates fast data transfer rates because it uses light pulses to move data instead of sending electrons over wires. If the infrastructure is in place to do it, the new technology can enable one to download a typical feature-length high definition film in a single second, according to IBM.
For most consumers, however, this new chipset is only a glimpse of the future. The first use of this technology will most likely show up in business computing solutions well before consumers get a chance to move movies at the speed of light. | |
|
| |
hcvst
@co.za | Re: lost concept What? | |
|
bob_c
join:2003-07-15
Boynton Beach, FL
| bandwidth Isn't half of the traffic spam? So half of what is going thru the tube is going at no charge already. That's number one.
Number two, every corporate network that uses video to any extent is installing optimizers that prioritize packets.
Number three. When the F**k did annbody EVER believe ANYTHING from those ass kissers at CIO? I swear it must be a Ziff Davis pub (just a guess because it isn't worth anybody's time to even look)
I won't read it and it's free!
--
Quod me nutrit me destruit | |
|
Conk2k9
join:2005-04-15
Riverside, CA
| The more bandwidth the better  , it would allow more people to view more content and allow stuff to be downloaded 100x faster hopefully  | |
|
|
|
|
The Bandwidth Apocalypse Is Not Coming
·
·