The Bandwidth Crunch BogeymanThink tanks warn the end is nigh...if you meddle with their clients... ( old news - 11:44AM Tuesday Aug 14 2007) tags: legal · business · bandwidth · PoliticsBe it because of greedy p2p users or bird flu, pundits have ceaselessly predicted a bandwidth crunch that never seems to arrive. This time around, despite booming capacity investment, the prognosticators insist that consumer video demand is going to cause broadband brown outs and other congestion issues. The WSJ takes a peek: Still, many say fears of significant strain are overblown. Eve Griliches, telecom analyst at research firm IDC, says five years ago analysts and engineers voiced concerns, but the result was a surge of innovation. "It feels like we are hyping again," she says. "When we did this before, we found intelligent ways to handle problems with bandwidth." Many of these warnings are the work of incumbent-tied think tanks who are trying to establish the premise that network neutrality laws and meddling consumer advocates will stifle investment in infrastructure, leaving us all with crappy connectivity (usually a congested LA highway metaphor is thrown in for good measure). Another report surfaced again this week from the New Millennium Research Council (pdf) highlighting looming capacity issues, then arguing for limited government oversight of broadband providers. The New Millennium Research Council is an arm of Issue Dynamics, a public relations firm that lists AT&T, Verizon and Comcast as its major clients.
Related:- Verizon Continues Proud History Of Denial
- One Last Warning Before America Screws Up Broadband Mapping
- Canada Holds Hearings On ISP Throttling
- Want To Help Uncle Sam Hand Out Broadband Stimulus?
- FCC: Please Define Broadband
- Verizon: We're Not Setting Broadband Definition Bar Low
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
|
 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | P2P should be illegal oh wait, it already is. | |
|  | 
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON | Re: P2P should be illegal No it's not...? | |
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Please post a link to the law making Peer to Peer anything illegal... We'll all wait. | |
| | 
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | so its illegal for me to use the OFFICIAL patcher for WoW?
ORLY | |
| | |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: P2P should be illegal  | |
| | | | |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: P2P should be illegal I'll go away for $50  | |
| | | | 
Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: P2P should be illegal Sounds like the RIAA... | |
| 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | most important line... a public relations firm that lists AT&T, Verizon and Comcast as its major clients.
they obviously aren't looking out for consumers. | |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: most important line... I agree... I think there is / will be some sort of capacity crunch in the long term if ISP's offer more than their capacity at firesale prices.
e.g. 50Mbps/5Mbps for $60/month ?
While I don't expect any initial HUGE issues (i.e. servers will bottleneck/throttle, game servers will not get the response people want due to 'flooding' and capacity - how many 50Mbps connections can a game server or video server hold? What happens to the backbone? )
General surfing (eBay, email, youtube, etc) shouldn't be affected.
There are a few parts to high bandwidth...
The last mile (i.e. cable node, DSLAM/VRAD, etc)
The backbone / network peering
The customer (server) that has to purchase bandwidth at the data center.
I may be able to get 50Mbps to the CO/cable node, but after that, I may be competing for bandwidth over the backbone.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | |
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
| Re: most important line... most if not all game servers are rate limited and even with in that limit rarely hit it games use lots of very small packets
gaming needs low latency not high bandwidth
you could game on 128Kbps if you had good routing
the only thing i seen an issue with that i already see is over sold nodes and DSLAMs but that can be fixed
ATT and other own a lot dark fiber out there so i realy dont see a backbone issue there saying this is
but the last mile will be worst FiOS will be ok
cable as well IF they up the bandwidth to there nodes or add more
but there more backbone bandwidth then the telcos know what to do with | |
| | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: most important line... yet cell data providers atleast some of them list gaming as a violation of the TOS and atleast a session of WoW is less straining then even some surfing tasks.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Again, the sky is falling.... Population Boom (1970's) Never happened...
Global Cooling (1970's) Remember some scientists suggesting we cover the polar ice caps with soot to warm the Earth?
Man made Global Warming(late 90's early 2000's) Aunti Em, it's a twister! Every heard of the sun spot cycle? How about water vapor?
Bandwidth Crunch (Now). Duh, just another load of BS.
Everything these people do is a MANIPULATION. Each and every time, the manipulation is put forth to further their agenda. Think tanks try and make people think the end is nigh for the benefit of their clients. Al Gore wants you to believe the sky is falling to further his ends.
I'm sure I'll catch holy hell from the Church of Inconvenient Truth for these comments, but fuckem, I don't' care...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| |
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: Again, the sky is falling.... al gore? i think you mean the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is that climate change is real and due to humans.
all the FUD around it is put out mostly by paid "scientists" by Exxon and Toyota. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Again, the sky is falling.... said by morbo  :al gore? i think you mean the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is that climate change is real and due to humans. all the FUD around it is put out mostly by paid "scientists" by Exxon and Toyota. Check again. Al Gore makes money with all this FUD he puts out.
»www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic···ID=54528
 | |
| | | | | | | | | 
Paladin
Sage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL
·New Wave Communica..
| Re: Again, the sky is falling.... Is an ad hominem attack supposed to be a way to repute?
I personally believe that Limbaugh is wrong, but the facts are so great that you don't have to resort on ad hominem attacks. Start by showing off pictures of the glaciers compared to 30 years ago if you want to start. | |
| | | | | | | | |
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| There's a difference between scientific consensus and fear of retribution/ostriciation.
The theory of man made global warming has become nothing short of a religion at this point. Those that dare disagree with it are to be treated as heretics to be burned at the stake for their blasphemy.
Any time I bring up the idea that global warming may be a natural phenomenon, and not man made, you would think I took a crucifix, a star of david, and a red crescent, and smeared them with human excrement people get so upset.
Sorry, but I have to question the motives and credentials of "scientists" that draw what they call absolute scientific conclusions from a set of data only 100 some odd years old.
Let's see, the earth's been in existence for about 4.5 BILLION years. Now, you're telling me that scientists can, with oh, about a hundred or so years of data tell me that without a shadow of a doubt, that human beings are responsible for the approx .8 degree Celsius change in surface temperature?
If I remember correctly, my college statistics professor would have called that an insufficient data set, and any conclusions drawn upon it would have been deemed "statistically insignificant".
Then again, scientists are never wrong..
»www.thestar.com/News/article/246027
Or are they
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: Again, the sky is falling.... said by N3OGH :The theory of man made global warming has become nothing short of a religion at this point. For it to be a religion, there would have to be zero factual basis for its support and it would have to be accepted ENTIRELY on faith. However, because a majority of evidence supports it, it is a valid scientific theory..
If I remember correctly, my college statistics professor would have called that an insufficient data set, and any conclusions drawn upon it would have been deemed "statistically insignificant". "Statistically insignificant" conclusions/results are not "deemed" so by any virtue of the sample. Statistical insignificance is a result of the difference between two samples results being purely by chance (p > .05 typically).
Sample problems can affect significance, however, significance is determine by calculating various tests (t, Z, regression tests, etc.).
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | |
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Again, the sky is falling.... "For it to be a religion, there would have to be zero factual basis for its support and it would have to be accepted ENTIRELY on faith." However, because a majority of evidence supports it, it is a valid scientific theory.."
Point well taken, let's call it religous-esque. It seems like people reserve the right to disagree on issues, with the exception of this one. The emotional response I get from people when I say I might be skeptical is nothing short of amazing.
"However, because a majority of evidence supports it, it is a valid scientific theory.."
Exactly, and it's just that a THEORY. I'm not saying it's correct or incorrect. I'm not saying it's an invalid theory. I'm just saying that I'm not as of yet, convinced.
There have been plenty of valid scientific theories that have been shot down in flames over the past 100 years after continuing research. I'm not saying this particular theory is valid, or invalid. I'm just saying I need some more data than I'm presented.
Now, I'm not saying that reducing the use of fossil fuels and reducing pollutants in the air is not a laudable goal. Everyone benefits from cleaner air, and more energy Independence, but I can't think of a scientific theory that has been so entwined with politics and evoked such a visceral reaction from people.
I do believe that more study is needed, and that in the interim, we do everyone a favor by reducing the pollutants we put into the air.
IMHO, the best thing global warming believers could do is encourage all skeptics to come forward, without fear of peer retribution, and pit each other peer to peer.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that is the state of the scientific community when it comes to the theory of global warming. Any scientist that comes forward with the idea that global warming is not man made is labeled a shill of big oil or big tobacco.
This is not an environment that promotes the scientific method, IMHO. Do you think so?
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: Again, the sky is falling.... said by N3OGH :"However, because a majority of evidence supports it, it is a valid scientific theory.." Exactly, and it's just that a THEORY. When you say that "it's just that a THEORY", you are commiting a common error that a lot of non-scientific people commit. Theory in scientific parlance has a VASTLY different definition than it does in common usage.
Ordinary usage: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Science usage: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
(source: »www.answers.com/theory?cat=health )
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | |
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Again, the sky is falling.... Could you answer my question, though? Is the current environment concerning the issue not an environment that promotes the scientific method, or is it?
I'm not looking to call you out, I'm just asking.
IMHO, people who are sound in their beliefs invite skepticism, as it gives them the opportunity to disprove the skeptics. I don't believe we have that here.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: Again, the sky is falling.... said by N3OGH :Could you answer my question, though? Is the current environment concerning the issue not an environment that promotes the scientific method, or is it? I thought you were posing a rhetorical question there...
In all honesty, there are a lot of scientists that will criticize any research that contradicts what is deemed to be the current body of accepted climate change science. In fact, I was watching a documentary on the emerging science of global dimming and how it was dismissed initially by the climate science community despite its integral part in climate change.
However, part of the problem with a lot of the criticism that is lobbied against climate change research is that it is mostly from outside of the scientific community. And oddly enough, the loudest critics of climate change science are typically those who are most ignorant of science or the body of climate change science. They have never picked up a scientific research paper or a book on the issue that is scientifically sound.
As for the critics within the scientific community, part of the problem is that much of the science is bought and paid for by interests that, even if climate change has the extreme effects predicted by some, have a vested interest in supressing it. They come up with the most wild ideas that are most certainly incorrect - for example a group once said that a warm Siberia would be great even though it means that the continental ice sheets will melt and New Orleans, Holland, NYC and south Florida would be under water.
Of the scientific criticism that are out there that are sound science, most seem to be kept quiet. And yes, it doesn't make for a good environment for research. Despite this, however, people are going to continue doing work.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | numberz
join:2007-04-26
| Damn, man, Manmade Global Warming(tm) is real! Every idiot knows that. As a matter of fact, we're polluting the atmosphere with so many green house gasses that they're actually leaking out of our atmosphere and finding their way to Venus, Mars, and Jupiter and they're causing the exact same percentage of temperature change there too!
And all of us who know Manmade Global Warming(tm) is real should all help reduce greenhouse gasses and pollutants by not breathing. After all, we humans use up vital oxygen and produce the dangerous substance called Carbon Dioxide, which has recently been classified by the Supreme Court as a pollutant.
And if you don't agree with us you must be a neo-con or a tool of one of those evil corporations. You know, the ones that provide goods, services, and jobs. They should all be shut down for good. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Scientists can't even tell me what the weather is going to be later today.
They fully admit they don't even understand how clouds work.
Then they come along and say that the world is going to end because the temperature slightly changed (like it's done throughout history) and, of course, it's the industrialized complex's fault.
There are plenty of scientists that say it's baloney as well. The scientists that do agree, can't even agree on what they're agreeing on. Either NYC will be underwater next year, or it will be mildly more pleasant in London. | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Re: Again, the sky is falling.... Right, so let's throw the whole concept out and call it junk because science can't explain 100% of everything...
That means we throw out gravity too since it does not work near or in black holes according to the current theory... Relativity too because of those pesky black holes. Let's throw out all sorts of science. All of meteorology goes because it does predict 100% of the time. Chemistry goes because we don't know how everything works there. Physics, definitely gone. Neuroscience and neurology, absolutely gone.
Seriously, because climate science does fully understand everything does not vacate the theory.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Again, the sky is falling.... Did I say throw out the whole concept?
I just said we/everyone don't know one way or the other.
My argument wasn't that "because climate science does fully understand everything does not vacate the theory", it is that they know so little about how our climate works, that their conclusions need to be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm all for a cleaner environment. Should we dismantle the global economy and go back to 30yr average life spans while living in caves? Well, that's obviously (hopefully) a rhetorical question... | |
| | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Re: Again, the sky is falling.... said by Ahrenl :I just said we/everyone don't know one way or the other. I think the graph shows otherwise. It shows a clear relationship between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature.
There is definitely something going on... It just seems that everyone is arguing how we are getting to a position that is likely detrimental instead of considering the fact that things may get bad and how to fix it.
Natural CO2 levels apparently are cyclical, however, the addition of man-made C02 to a fairly stable system has the ability to push it beyond what it can handle naturally.
It is like dumping biodegradable trash into a compost heap... There is a certain point at which the compost degrades at a stable rate - it will degrade at the same rate as you add it. If, however, you start dumping more and more on the heap, the compost heap will just grow larger and larger because you have exceeded the rate at which it decays.
The same is true with CO2. There is a certain amount that the planet can handle before you start having a surplus of it and high levels of CO2 (and methane) have been shown in labs to cause heat to be retained.
My argument wasn't that "because climate science does fully understand everything does not vacate the theory", it is that they know so little about how our climate works, that their conclusions need to be taken with a grain of salt. I misundersood you then...
I'm all for a cleaner environment. Should we dismantle the global economy and go back to 30yr average life spans while living in caves? Well, that's obviously (hopefully) a rhetorical question... Combating the problem of global climate change does not require either of those extremes.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | If you don't believe that Mankind's activities have an effect on the planet, there's not much that can be done for you. | |
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Most "think-tanks" are full of $hit... I love it when so called "think-tanks" are used to back up arguments, despite the fact that most of them are full of $hit. Groups like Cato, AEI, and others I haven't mentioned do such crap research that most people who are educated on how to do proper research can easily find fault in their work.
The most obvious fault is that they always START with the conclusion and work backwards. They have some point they want to make and fit the data to their agenda. You rarely find the inclusion of contradictory data that is relevant.
It is clear that the term "think-tank" should not apply to them... They should be called "bullshit generators."
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| all part of the story the bandwidth "crunch" is part of the central meme the telcos are pushing to allow them to charge everybody more for service.
they are trying like hell to portray bandwidth as a scarce resource that must be carefully managed, controlled and charged for. This also helps their FUD to congress and the FCC about how they shouldn't be hamstrung by "net neutrality" or they won't be able to upgrade to the next stage of the internet. | |
| 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
1 edit | Bogeyman I like the Bogeyman icon, thanks Karl! 
And oh yeah, the world IS coming to an end.
Repent, start life as cavemen, and you shall all be saved! | |
| 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Dear Telcos Read Atlas Shrug
If the Net Neutrality nannies want to slap price controls on your property then fight back by saying good we well leave the net where it no money no more improvements or say were out of the internet business more bandwidth for reliable dedicated connections. If the ISP and content providers are smart, they ditch the internet and negotiate delicate connection form content provider directly to ISP INTRAnet leave the internet to the liberal nut jobs.
Actually the idea if company wants fast they use YOUR private connection. If they want the internet the get internet speed Just make sure your customers sign a TOS agreement stating we will only Guarantee connection to but not guarantee performance if connect to the public internet vs OUR private intranet or wan.
ps 1. the Network is not dumb pipes
2. You only purchase
3. you can not chge 1 or 2 because you do not like it, get a life. | |
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | Maybe maybe not. You children do not remember the gas crises in the 70s. It was manufactured by the gas companies but it was real. The same will happen with broadband. | |
| | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Maybe maybe not. said by batterup :You children do not remember the gas crises in the 70s. It was manufactured by the gas companies but it was real. It wasn't manufactured by the oil companies, but was due to OPEC cutting off supplies of petroleum to Western countries after the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and Arab States. And then the Feds putting price controls in place when prices rose due to reduced supplies.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_c···ationing
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Re: Maybe maybe not. said by TKJunkMail :And then the Feds putting price controls in place when prices rose due to reduced supplies. Much like many want the Feds to put demands and restrictions on broadband providers. That is exactly the point I am making. I don't need a link I lived it.
P.S. the oil companies claimed we were running out of oil BWHAAAAAAAAAAA. | |
| | | | Exothermicus
join:2007-05-24
Denton, TX
| Re: Maybe maybe not. Same as usual. Invest in your infrastructure to maintain Quality of Service or loose your customers to someone who can meet the demand. Keep-up or get out of the way. Bandwidth use by consumers is only going to increase, be in a position to profit as it does, or sit around and wait for government to hold your hand while your competitors get rich.
Same goes for the national highway infrastructure. We consumers have been paying enough state and federal road taxes on fuel, and tires to double the infrastructure every ten years. Just like the money paid to repair the levies in New Orleans, the money has not been spent for what it was intended, and now the government is crying for more money to burn.
Exo | |
| | ShadezeRO
join:2006-04-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | Doubt it I doubt it's going to happen for 2 reasons:
1) There's already plenty of backbone investment in development right now (most major backbones have plenty of Dark Fiber)
2) ATT believes we don't 'need' anything past 6.0Mbps (if that even), and so there is no need to expand beyond 6.0. ATT's logic is beyond us all/other reasoning .
-_-'' | |
| punaman
Punaman
Premium
join:2007-08-06
Keaau, HI
| Bandwidth Crunch / Global Warming Dual Thread Wow, I'm impressed! In spite of a few attempts to pull it down, one of the first relatively intelligent threads I've read that hasn't devolved to name-calling. Interesting how the parallel discussions are going on though. Hey, badmagicnumber, what does your tag about the (NTP) service mean? - just curious. | |
| quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
1 edit | Huh? You mean boogie man? | |
| | | |
|
|
·