Slashdot Mirror
Does the Internet Need a Major Capacity Upgrade?
wiggles writes "According to the Chicago Tribune, the recent surge of video sites such as Youtube and Google video are pushing the limits of the Internet's bandwidth, or soon will be. Pieter Poll, chief technology officer at Qwest Communications, says that traffic volumes are growing faster than computing power, meaning that engineers can no longer count on newer, faster computers to keep ahead of their capacity demands. Further, a recent report from Deloitte Consulting raised the possibility that 2007 would see Internet demand exceed capacity. Admittedly, this seems a bit sensationalist, but are we headed for a massive slowdown of the whole internet?"
As the article has a quote about it, here's specifically WHY I am against "Net Neutrality" -- the ISP has no control over throttling particular sites or protocols that can have major negative effects on their overall user experience. I've already noticed some network slowdowns, but in the past 60 days I dumped broadband and rely primarily on my EDGE connection from T-Mobile (200kbps). Latency isn't too shabby. When I use my T1 at the office though, I have noticed some slowdowns.
The solution isn't just more bandwidth. We're not talking about more users accessing the same sites, we're talking about more users accessing more sites -- significantly more. The "long tail" of the web is exploding in access; all the blogs, vlogs, MP3 downloads and videos are across a huge incongruent group of sites. The solution is to nix net-neutrality legislation and allow the consumer and the producer to come to terms on need versus price.
At home, I'd be more than happy for a Port80/Port110 prioritized connection, with other ports reduced in speed or performance. Sure, videos come over Port80, but the vast majority of cable users in my neighborhood are downloading torrentz and other similar protocols. I don't see a reason why everyone should pay the same price for different service. Sure, the telecom industry is scared of Net Neutrality because they WANT to ban Skype and VoIP, but that is why the FCC needs to back off on over-regulating the opportunity for competitors to enter the market. There is a huge opportunity for more wireless providers and more people bringing FTTH or other options.
I know, I know, you were promised 160 Mbps and you want every last speck of it. Those ads will change, I think, as more people do get connected. I'd be happy with lower latency than higher data-rates, and I think this article forgets that it is latency that is just as important (if not more so) than just pure bandwidth speed.
The Internet doesn't really have "bandwidth" limitations, because all it takes is more ISPs and more backbones to come into being. If the pro-Net Neutrality parties have their way, though, we may see significant restrictions in investment on both those fronts. The companies who invested in offering new limbs on the internet took great risks -- and some made great rewards. We want to keep that risk/reward ratio uncluttered by excess regulation legislation so others can offer us more options for who we can connect to.
I'm sure if YouTube/Google had it their way, they'd get special consideration for providing more bandwidth -- State-paid consideration maybe? I sure hope not.
When things slow down, it will give new competitors reason for entering the market. 20% more backbone speed interconnecting some Level 2 ISPs and things will be fine, until the next slowdown brings another run of entrants into the game, or gives the old companies reason to expand their network. Envision 2010: "Is your latency too low? Comcast Ultra offers you 50ms or less ping times across the board, guaranteed!" It may sound fishy, but who would have thought 10 years ago that we'd hear about Mbps on basic cable ads?
The last paragraph is the most insightful part of the article:
Any service degradation will be spotty and transient, predicted (John) Ryan (of Level 3), who said that underinvestment by some operators may "drive quality traffic to quality networks."
EXACTLY.
Sidenote: That damned GoogleBot sometimes hits my sites 5000 times a day -- maybe Google is doing a little more to aggravate the problem than they want to admit? Thankfully I use server-side compression and caching, so things aren't hammered too bad by the bot, but there have been times when things on my end were running slow and I had 100 "Guests" all registered at Google's IPs.
Yes!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Qwest is one of the companies speaking out against net neutrality. The CEO even went as far as to call it "really silly." Could it be that the CTO's comments are politically motivated?
I, for one, think so.
The internet will continue to grow in capacity and as it has new products will come out to fill the void.
My biggest issues with youtube are at work in our main office. We have a large application hosted in data center. It is a major hub for internet connectivity for the region. Given that we are so close to some big vendors we can get lots of bandwith for relatively low prices. If my employees where sitting in that facility they could surf youtube.com all day.
Now at home I can also do it. I pay Comcast a big more for the extra bandwidth and I can download over a meg a second from some sites. Verizon is going to be laying fiber directly to houses and businesses soon.
Get into our offices and it is a different story. We have dual t1s coming in and only 60+ employees, but we are constantly saturated. Combine that with the fact that Cisco Pixes have horrible throttling support and you end up with times when I can't even access basic websites very quickly. The issue here is that T1s and DS3s are freakin expensive compared to a simple cable modem. We have been tempted to get Comcast bussines ( which makes me shiver a bit ) because I can get larger down pipes for general internet surfing. We only host a few services such as email here so it isn't like we need megs of up bandwith.
Throttling would go along way to solve this issue. Youtube could buffer people down quite a bit, you would just have to wait for the movie to buffer a bit. For shared internet connections and ISPs this could allow for better QOS.
Distribution models will help a lot. Youtube should have replicated servers in major market. As more players get in the video game I'm sure they will be setting up shop in several areas. Video doesn't change that much so when one person uploads it can be replicated throught out the network. You can still host the main links from a centralized place, but then stream the video from the closest location as it becomes available. This takes all the traffic from the west coast and keeps it there keeping people from the midwest from saturating the big pipes that connect the regions. Less hops also means less latency which is good for everyone.
People have been saying this same thing for ever. Telecom companies are just afraid of admitting that they can't charge up the ying yang for DS3s anymore. They are also going to have to invest in their networks which there shareholders hate. It is also the local telcoms that irritates me. Although dealing with Sprint is no treat, dealing with SBC/ATT/other momma bells is huge pain.
Networks are distributed by nature, so it just means you can't pipe all the data thru centralized routers. You are going to have to setup an infrastrute that can do very basic routing in a spider web. You can route packets very quickly if you just look at the first octect...and forward along to another router. All 1.xxx.xxx.xxx thru 5.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx can be piped to a router that knows about those routes, and even breaks it down further. If you think about it they don't even need to do that they can just take the packet and load balance to many other devices. I think it'll be a while before we can't route faster...it is not like faster switching rates is completely dead.
If anything video is just forcing the issue of increasing the capacity, which will always need to grow. Eventually we will be streaming high end video content, and this article will be a long forgotten joke.
Raise prices until the underclass can't afford it. Then they'll drop off and stop clogging my intraweb tubes.
"Net Neutrality" is the way to go.
Once you start instituting "tiers" you take away ANY incentives to increase the available bandwidth.
Instead, the "innovation" will go towards extracting the most revenue from the smallest pipes. And "innovation" is in quotes because it won't be real innovation. It will be accounting tricks and tier pricing.
I don't understand why people keep equating T1's to fast internet. Your office has the equivalent of about 50x dialup connections for about 60 people. It doesn't take a veteran sysadmin to understand why that is a problem.
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
This appears to be yet another atroturfing attempt.8 25230/
See Slashdot post: "How Would You Deal With A Global Bandwidth Crisis?" Posted by Zonk on Thursday February 15, @06:19PM
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/1
(please remove the silly extra space slash adds to the url above, just before 25230, it breaks the link)
Clearly we are going to be treated to this bogus bandwidth crises bullshit approximately once a week, probably to collect some supportive comments for the need for more control/cost/etc.
Please don't feed the trolls, or help them lay more Astroturf for Net Neutrality.
There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.
The estimated bandwidth required for television is about 15 Mbps/house, to support a 9 Mbps High-def channel and a few low-def channel at the same time, and the various high-speed ADSL flavors mostly get about 20-50 Mbps depending on distance from your house to the green concentrator box, and there are similar bandwidth constraints to cable TV modem concentrators. The green box has fiber back to the telco office, and a typical telco office handles 10K-100K houses. Fiber-to-the-home systems have more bandwidth from the box to your house, but there's still typically around 25 Mbps per house between the box and the telco.
So if everybody's watching TV at 8pm, and they're all watching different channels, the telco office needs somewhere between 150 gigabits to 1.5 terabits per second. That's *way* more than it's getting today. After all, TV watching has much different statistics than either traditional Internet web+email content or even occasional Youtube watching - it's full bandwidth for a couple hours of primetime.
On the other hand, if the video signals are coming in as television-style content that's multicast, an OC48 2.4 Gbps feed could handle something like 200 high-def channels and 300 low-def channels. Internet-style multicast might or might not be able to handle it - as you start getting more people subscribing to content, it's going to hit the wall and choke at some point. On the other hand, if the telco or cable modem company manages it like a cable TV company selling channels, they can make sure everybody's got access to the "500 channels and nothing's on" vast wasteland of American television, and it'll work. It's not net neutrality, it's cable TV, but it works. There are hybrid models possible (e.g. the telco makes sure there's 100 channels of basic cable subscribed to the multicast feeds and the rest is first-come-first-served, with equipment enforcing the number of channels that get carried so it all fits in the telco office's available feed), but it's not clear that the telcos know how to sell that sort of thing. On the other hand, if they do too good a job of emulating the cable TV business, everybody's going to ignore them and use satellite dishes plus Youtube and Bittorrent.
The real trick with net neutrality is going to be getting the telcos to realize that they should sell you the non-TV part of the new bandwidth they're deploying as Internet bandwidth, with a pricing model different from "it's twice as big as your current bandwidth so we'll charge twice as much".
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
When he's concerned about bandwidth demand outstripping computing power, that's not a fiber count problem. That's a router problem. He's saying the routers aren't gaining capacity to route packets as quickly as the number of packets to route is rising.
No amount of extra fiber will help if the routers can't keep up. Setting up more routers in the same interconnect centers will bring either bigger routing tables or higher latencies depending on how they're connected to one another. Setting up more interconnects which are more geographically dispersed and which route more directly between the endpoints will help, but that's a very expensive option. New buildings in new areas with new fiber running to them and new employees to man them simply cannot be made into a small investment.
Mesh networks, P2P content distribution, caching at the local level, multicasting, and some other technical measures can all theoretically help, too. So can spreading out the data centers of the big media providers and routing their traffic more directly that way, but again centralization of data centers saves a lot of money.
If demand is really growing too fast to handle (I have my doubts about the sky actually falling) one of the best ways to assure that bandwidth demands are met is to slow the increase in demand. The quickest and easiest way to slow increase in demand for something is to raise its price. That's an ugly thought for all of us on the broadband price war gravy train, but it's basic economics. Let's hope for a technological solution (or a group of them) instead, if it's really a problem and not just hype to hit our wallets in the first place.
But because of the bandwidth situation most SA ISPs have invested in massive cascaded caching infrastructure all over the country and at the so-called logical borders where the links exit to the US, Europe and far East. I continually monitor HTTP headers to check the cached status and easily 70% of the regular content I surf comes from one of the local caches.
Even websites within South Africa are reverse-cached, i.e. the ISPs put caches in at the foreign landing points to speed up access (and lower return bandwidth costs) to foreign surfers.
I sometimes think that the rest of the world has forgotten about caching due to the apparent abundance of bandwidth available in those countries. Maybe we'll see a return of caching polularity?
--deckert
Even if you limit yourself to replicating the distribution points with a protocol such as SRM or NORM (NACK-oriented Reliable Multicast), you eliminate huge chunks of totally unnecessary Internet traffic. However, there is no reason to limit yourself like that. The latency involved over long-distance Internet connections must exceed the interval time between requests for high-demand video content, so by simply waiting a little and collecting a batch of requests, you can transmit to the whole lot in a single go. No need for a PtP connection to each.
Then there is the fact that video is not the only information that eats bandwidth for breakfast. Static content - PDFs and other large documents - also devour any surplus capacity. So all an ISP needs to do is run a copy of Squid on each incoming line. How hard is that? It takes - what - all of 10 minutes to configure securely and fire up. You then forget about it.
There are people who would argue that it would impact banner ad revenue. Well, banner ad revenue is typically per-click, not per-view, so that is really a weak argument. Then there is the problem of copyright, as the cache is keeping a copy of text, images, etc. Well, so is your browser. Until a major website sues a Firefox user for copyright infringement for leaving their local cache enabled, it would seem that this is more paranoia than practical. As writers have noted for many centuries, we need fear nothing but fear itself. It is our fear of these solutions that are creating our existing problems. It seems the height of stupidity to create real problems for the sole purpose of avoiding problems that might be entirely fictional. "Better the devil you know" is a weak excuse when the devil you know is unacceptable.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If the net needs anything it needs Quality of Service routing at the customer access point.
NO, I am _NOT_ talking about a non-neutral net. I think net neutrality is mandatory.
What I am talking about is an end to TCP Retransmits in our lifetime. (Ok, that is overstating it a little 8-).
At my home I put together a QOS gateway that throttled my _outgoing_ packets to the speed of my cable modem _and_ made sure that if it had to drop something it would _not_ drop outgoing "mostly ACK" packets. (e.g. outgoing TCP packets with little or no data payload get best delivery.)
This action lowered my incomming packet count and got my effective download speed to closely approach the bandwidth tier I am paying for. This was a 3x to 4x improvement in throughput. This, when combined with the lower packet count, implies that previously I was wasting 2 out of every 3 packets due to unnecessary "recovery" (read useless retransmits).
That cost must, then, have been paid at every step along every trip etc.
Then I turned on HTTP Pipelining on all the (forefox) browsers in my house (etc).
I suspect that if we could do something about the waste ratio, and generally speed up each transaction by squelching the noise and getting better effective throughput, "the intertubes" would be a lot clearer and the capacity wouldn't fall apart so readily.
[aside]
If we could (pie in the sky) get the porn and ewe-tube traffic onto the mbone with smart caching near the client so that each person didn't have to get each part "the whole way" from the provider even though everybody else is watching the same top-ten clips of the day, we could make more progress. This falls apart because it messes up the charging model for porn and advertising, and ewe-tube gawkers couldn't possibly stand waiting 2 to 6 seconds to join a synchronized swarm...
[/aside]
This is very like the whole thing where a guy with half-flat tires is standing around complaining about his gas mileage.
Collision detect style arbitration falls apart when you saturate the link, and cable providers screwed themselves with the way most cable modems fail to buffer outgoing traffic. Penny wise and Pound foolish of them to make the default devices so cheap. Iterate as necessary for businesses and ISPs with their underpowered gateway machines terminating their PPOE (etc).
As for the part where that failure to schedule packets at the most basic level will be turned into "demonstrable evidence" for the "need" non-neutral networks... That will be the "WMDs" of the net neutrality war.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Having worked in the ISP market for the past 7 years I have seen the access portion of Internet access go through multiple fazes. From a single T1, to 4T1's, a 10Mbps feed, 100Mbps and now Gigabit and even multiple Gigabit connections to multiple peers.
For a standard ISP it's a given. Your bandwidth needs double, if not triple once every 2 years, 3 if you're lucky. New technologies come up at a regular pace, it's a part of the industry. Whether it's graphical websites, streaming audio, peer to peer networks, or streaming video, new technology creating more demands for bandwidth requires you to upgrade your network access over time.
Having said this, working for a company with over 10,000 highspeed and dialup internet subscribers, I have found some interesting trends. It's not the Youtube's, VoIP, Peer2Peer &etc eating up our resources... It's spyware infected machines, spam attacks and hacked servers that eats up the bandwidth. When I take a look at my network utilization and see a spike I don't say to myself "Oh no! There must be a hot new movie on YouTube that everyone is watching." Far from that! I say to myself "Stink! What spyware program is it this time." or "is my web server under attack again?"
In addition, as access rates increase I've noticed that performance issues is less affected by the speed of the provider network I'm connected to and more by the remote sites access speeds. You'd be surprised by the puny amount of bandwidth the majority of websites on the internet run on. High Bandwidth sites running on fractional T1's, it's just crazy! Entire computer networks run on the cheapest network equipment known to man.
Has anyone taken a good look at the WorldComm's, Level3 and Bell networks of the world? They are already at 10Gbps with MPLS are their core, and multi-gig connections to their customers. The internet backbone looks better than it ever has! There are far more problems with the endpoints of the internet than the backbone, and it's about time that people took more responsibility in making sure that their network elements are properly backed by the appropriate amount of bandwidth and secured from basic security threats than complaining about their backbone providers.
Quandary in the Making
The internet is essentially one giant stadium, and computers are the toilets in this stadium. When all the toilets go flush! at the same time, the sewage pipes inside the stadium walls cant handle it, and so they burst.