 |
 |  AMDUSERPremium
join:2003-05-28
Earth,
kudos:1
1 recommendation | Re: 1 Gbps networks to use? torrents? Streaming legal uncompressed HD movies / shows..
*Doing MS Windows updates.. and not having it take a very long time to download them. | |
|
| |  FFHPremium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 | Re: 1 Gbps networks to use? torrents? said by AMDUSER:*Doing MS Windows updates.. and not having it take a very long time to download them.
MS update downloads are slow, but not because of limits of last mile speeds. It is because MS servers limit speeds to individual clients in order to handle huge demands from many, many users. | |
|
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: 1 Gbps networks to use? torrents? Strange, MS / Apple updates are super fast for me and max out my connection. For me I care more about it not taking forever to install the updates. | |
|
| | | | Truly uncompressed HD video (hi10/1080p30) would require around 1.8Gbps and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between HD compressed at 50Mbps using h264 from raw HD at 2Gbps.
I doubt even Google would want to support that given the very high cost and effectively nonexistent return. | |
|
| | | L2TP/IPsec VPN to home anyone? | |
|
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: 1 Gbps networks to use? torrents? Ya, having a connection with reasonable upstream speeds would make any kind of remote access or uploading anything or sharing files with friends and so forth a reasonable thing instead of being so ridiculously painfully slow. | |
|
| | DeLiverPremium
join:2004-09-01
Cincinnatus, NY Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Yep. And remote desktop, remote security camera viewing, fog backup and file synchronization are just a few that come to mind. | |
|
| | | | I use openvpn, but yeah. Use it all the time. VM running at work to channel personal stuff through my home connection, use it to get around tmobile throttling on my phone, etc. Even have a VM in AWS connected via openvpn back to my home network to test some stuff. I'm on 20/2 cable now. 1Gbps would make this the fastest link by far in most of my connections. | |
|
1 recommendation | servers? the killer app is: home server!
oh sorry, thats banned. | |
|
|  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: servers? you can run home servers you just can run a data center out of your home using 100's of TB of data
you do know that EVERY isp has that working in there residential TOS right
any way
VPN/proxy to your home PC comes to mind
great if your using public wi-fi a ton | |
|
| | | | Re: servers? Google (and most ISPs) doesn't complain if running home server for personal use but they'll complain if running a web server with thousands of concurrent users. Any ISP would and should. That's what biz class service is for. | |
|
| | |
2 recommendations | IP Cable TV Provider The killer application for a 1Gbps pipe would be video on-demand services. Yes, we have VOD now with Netflix, Amazon VOD, etc, but we could increase the resolution to full HD on every stream (or at least the ones with HD sources... it'd be hard to stream The Wizard of Oz in HD). In addition, live TV could be streamed with little to no delay due to buffering. In fact, the best application would be an IP Cable TV provider.
Assume that everyone had a 1Gbps connection to the Internet (run by Hypothetical Inc). Time Warner Cable, Cox, Comcast, and other cable providers could convert their services to run over the Internet. (Many are already doing this to some extent.) With this conversion, the normal map of cable offerings would be irrelevant. Right now, my only choice for cable TV is TWC. In a world of IP TV, however, I could choose from ANY provider without needing the provider to give me any hardware. (A Roku box or equivalent could be all that is required.)
In fact, the big TV providers might even be challenged by smaller competitors who can form since they won't need to run cable lines. And all of the competition would push prices down. You wouldn't be stuck dealing with Cable Company A because they're the only game in town. If they raised priced too much, there would be a dozen more cable companies happy to have your business.
Yes, the content providers would fight it, but since 1Gbps connections would also mean piracy could be instant (find DVD ISO, click download, and it's done before you finish reading this), they would be smart to put out lots of legal alternatives to counter piracy.
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
| | | Re: IP Cable TV Provider Why would it be hard to stream the Wizard of Oz in HD? It was released in HD on Blu-Ray a few years ago. | |
|
|
1 recommendation | You can do this today with most of the providers you mentioned. People already do | |
|
|  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | I think I mentioned this awhile ago. A CoIP idea would definitely be the future instead of the bandaid we have now.
The only problem is the content providers. They're hell-bent to sell you a package of channels (some are absolute crap) at a premium price.
If they'd let people go ala-carte and have them pick which channels they want, I'm sure people would be more satisfied. | |
|
| | | | Re: IP Cable TV Provider Agreed. Except that, in addition to the content providers, the other problem we have today is that many of the Internet providers also have cable TV offerings of their own. They don't want to jeopardize their cable TV business with Internet video so they put limits on Internet usage. Since the limits don't affect their cable TV or VOD services, they get a boost there and keep Internet video down.
If we could separate the Internet access companies from the content ownership or TV/VOD provider companies, it would help this situation out tremendously.
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
|  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
 ·Comcast
| except Netflix, Amazon, Google, Hulu+, don't/won't/can't afford to SERVE all those bits at current prices, so that truly a KILLER app
And since none of them, not even Google intend to kill off the content makers (either the old school or new media type) they aren't planning all this to make piracy easier. | |
|
| | | | Re: IP Cable TV Provider Netflix and Amazon would love to serve all of those bits. Amazon might be better positioned to keep their prices stable (since it is pay per episode and not one price gets you everything), but they would love to find themselves in the position of being a major "cable TV" provider.
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
| | | > In addition, live TV could be streamed with little to no delay due to buffering.
I fail to see the importance of "no delay" on non-interactive content when a broadcast-quality h264 encoder only has a 2-3 frames latency.
Also, if the h264 encoding is done from the broadcaster's raw source, it bypasses the 2-3 frames delay at the broadcaster's MPEG2 encoding and the 2-3 frames at the cableco's decoder before feeding it to h264 encoders... so a native h264 stream would be just as fast as the broadcaster's original MPEG2 stream without the extra double conversion quality degradation from (very) lossy MPEG2. | |
|
| | | | Re: IP Cable TV Provider Depending on the speed of your connection, a video file might take a few seconds to half a minute to buffer before playing. Compare this to a traditional cable TV setup where you change to Channel A and it comes up practically instantly. For an IP-TV provider to succeed, they would need near-instant "channel changing" (switching video streams) with no visible buffering. You don't need 1Gbps for this, but you do need faster speeds than many people in America have today. If you could guarantee that everyone in America had a 1Gbps connection to the Internet, IP-TV would suddenly become completely feasible technically. (Content owners' reluctance to put shows online is a different issue, of course.)
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
| | | | | Re: IP Cable TV Provider Access speed is not even half the battle.
If you had 100 million households pulling 20Mbps average during peak hours, that would be 2Pbps worth of traffic to pass around. That's over 400 racks worth of routing equipment using the highest density gear currently available if all that traffic could be neatly aggregated into one single hub. However, in real-world networks, traffic goes through multiple not-so-neatly-aggregated hops split between multiple operators so the total rack count to distribute it would be much higher due to interconnect overheads and inefficiencies.
The other problem is that bandwidth demand is increasing much faster than equipment capacity and efficiency do: 50-60%/year for peak bandwidth demand vs 20-25%/year for equipment scaling. If bandwidth requirements continue to increase faster than equipment improves, the only solution to scale up is brute force: throwing more equipment at the problem which directly increases space, power, cooling and equipment costs. The worst part is that the net bandwidth increase is logarithmically proportional to the amount of equiment - you need about 6X as much hardware to double non-blocking bandwidth through a composite system vs 4X for a monolithic system so it gets really expensive really fast.
It isn't just a coincidence that network operator, hardware vendors, academics, etc. decided to get together to find ways to make networks more efficient and try to prevent this from going out of control. | |
|
| | Availability is a good start Just glad it's starting to become an option. The think tanks out there can think up what to do with it once more of us have it. Surely most don't need it now but I said the same when I had 8Mbps in 1998 when mostly everyone had 56K on AOL. Now I got 120Mbps and still feel like it's not enough (admittedly only maybe once a month I feel like that.... yeah, I laughed at that last part too!  ) | |
|
Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Interconnecting family networks I would love to connect my parents, my relatives, my in-laws, and my network all together securely. | |
|
1 recommendation | Would 1Gbps help YouTube? How can you deliver 2Mbps video over 50Mbps Internet connections | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Clearwire Wireless
1 recommendation | Some ideas 1. 1Gbps for MAN's for accessing data between remote businesses and homes.
2. Speeds the growth of cloud services for all users.
3. Provides backhaul access for wireless networks of all types which demand is consistently growing.
4. Allows the opportunity for the replacement of inefficient methods because of high speed infrastructure. | |
|
|
|
·
·
