Slashdot Mirror
Will Internet TV Crash the Internet?
Stony Stevenson writes "Analyst groups and Cisco have come out saying that the internet is heading for a crash unless it increases its bandwidth capabilities which are being strangled by the increased use of Web TV.
Stan Schatt, research director at ABI said: "Uploading bandwidth is going to have to increase, and the cable providers are going to get killed on bandwidth as HD programming becomes more commonplace." He added that the solution to the problem is to change to digital switching and move to IPTV. "They will be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century," he said.
Cisco weighed into the argument, adding that it had found American video websites currently transmit more data per month than the entire amount of traffic sent over the internet in 2000."
whether they are going to give us what want, and find a way to stay profitable ... or not. In other words, they're going to have to start acting like real businesses.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I don't know but we are going to find out...
They certainly have had time to deploy it.
Well, someone is going to have to pay for the increased bandwidth. Most likely the consumer.
How many times have "experts" predicted the imminent death of the Internet?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
...produced bandwidth to make more room for TV?
a miga/expand/149564
http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbthread.pl/
then let's have multicasting. There you are, another good reason for IPv6. Get to it.
The sales department at Cisco are geniuses.
1) Tell the world the internet will crash unless infrastructure is upgraded.
2) Sell infrastructure.
3) Profit.
Internet providers like Comcast will simply do what they've been doing. They've been throttling bittorrent because of the bandwidth it can take up. They'll simply throttle or block any internet TV that they don't specifically provide since it would be considered competitive to their cable TV offerings.
If you ask me, the whole "problem" is a bunch of balony. ISPs oversubscribe their services, because most people just browse websites, and that's low-bandwidth. Now, they're realising they can't do that, because people are using youtube and bittorrent, and that's about to reach critical mass when people like the BBC legitimize it in a consumer-oriented shrink-wrap. Suddenly, ISPs can't claim that people who actually USE their services are doing something immoral or illegal.
So, what's the problem again? You sold a service extra-cheap, because you didn't think you'd have to provide the full service? Tough. Get real, and sell what we're buying. The prices might go up, sure, but either we'll pay, or we won't care about the new service. Your upstream providers might charge too much for bandwidth, but that'll soon change as ISPs start demanding more.
Choice quotes from this article written at the close of 1995:
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/msure, soft capping has been in place a long time, and despite hundreds of transferred gigs i have never been told to lay off.
but i live in the same geographic area as the poster and notice NO changes to the same old bit torrent behavior i've seen for the past 1.5 years.
i'm leaning toward the "story is fud" conclusion on that allegation. it comes from a single source which fails to link in any mass testimonials or objective data to prove it's claims, claims which btw run counter to what i've experienced testing their hypothetical "hinderance" of bit torrent seeding.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You know? The ones talking about increasing internet speeds over copper? I guess bandwidth utilization actually is ouptpacing the deployment of new(expensive) technology. I guess were all in a crunch! It's back to dial-up for me.
We went from text only web page to ones loaded with graphics and then mp3 then Bitorrent. Each of these are as worrying as the WebTV in their own times.
Well, based on our past experience. It doesn't seem it will be much of a problem.
What a bunch of FUD. Let's all run out and buy more/new routers, switches, circuits so Cisco and the like can see a bump in their stock.
The amount of bandwidth available internally to a Cableco/Telco and what's generally available between the source (some video streamer) and the ingress of the Cableco/Telco are apples and oranges.
I've spoken with a few engineers in the IPTV business... they're al about multicasting and QOS delivery. I'm going to go out on the limb and say... uhhh.... no. Why?
Because that's NOT what internet TV is all about. Sure, for some content think it's great. Like ABC, Fox, whatever - they can do the multicast. But for the rest of the content providers, it's going to be on-demand. And that solution is really quite simple. And it makes money.
Basically you take an Akamai like model and extend it. Deploy caching servers right to the ISP's - on the customer doorstep. Offer subscriptions to the customers and the ISP gets a chunk of the monthly. Customers get instant access to the content from the caching server. Content people get a chunk from the number of views statistically. ISP's only have to move content over their uplink once for all their customers nearby.
Best part is you could do it securely for the media providers, and give people a reason to use the service (more shows, better quality, faster delivery). Eventually you offer sell-up items like movies, sporting events, etc. In other words it would be better than cable, cheaper than cable, and far cheaper to operate.
There's all kinds of great stuff you could do here - and you could do it on the cheap and make beaucoup bucks. So, ya know... send me a bag of gold hehehe.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
The summary mentions Web TV choking the internet...didn't that die off a while ago when computers became ubiquitous?
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
In 1994 an otherwise intelligent EE told me that the pending popularity of the internet would bring it to a halt. At the time I figured, meh, this will actually push the build-out of the infrastructure, it's simple economics. Here we go again.
I was flipping bits on an abacus, newb.
I wonder with telco/cable company this "research" firm was paid by. This bit of disinformation helps support their case for why we need to turn the net into an information superhighway dotted with toll booths. However, there are better ways to do things.
Isn't funny, that a country of South Korea does just fine with super fast broadband connections many times faster than ours in both directions? No problems there. Unfortunately, this country's moronic embrace of unfettered capitalism and foolish trust in corporations to deliver essential public services is stopping us from seeing the best approach to delivering an infrastructure that will serve people well.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'
/efytimes/fullnews.asp, line 76
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction (Process ID 238) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction.
<sarcasm> I'd like to give a big thanks to the many people who are tagging this article with "no". Why, just the other day I was thinking to myself "let's go look at all the slashdot articles about 'no'". </sarcasm>
People, if you don't agree with a topic, post. Tagging stuff with "yes" or "no" is idiotic and pointless.
Seeing as tv over the intarwebs will be plagued with DRM and propriatery code, why not have the shitty pointless advertising and tedious channel logo 'establishing shots' cached locally? Hey presto, a 80% reduction in traffic.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I thought that spam will be the death of the Internet
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Will Internet TV Crash the Internet?
Will CEOs with no vision cause the Internet to crash.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That's what we need to deploy more widely. Forget all of these cable and telephone companies, let's further empower the electrical monopolies instead!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
The internet will never be heading for a "crash", all that will happen is broadband customers will have their packets throttled to whatever limit the upstream provider wants. This has already been happening for almost the last ten years. It's convenient for people who want the broadband providers to upgrade their bandwidth to reference this "crash" idea but it is impossible to ever actually happen due to the traffic shaping already in effect at most (if not all large) ISP's today.
wow, there's a shocker. tell me why we are giving these turds coverage again?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
If I were an isp I'd just send a truckload of war3zed pr0n dvds via standard mail to every customer so they stop pr0ning the bandwidth
This is the second article recently where bandwidth shortage has been cited as a threat. Methinks someone scooped up shares of Level 3 Communications well below $5 during Thursday's selloff. It's the ultimate "hope" stock.
If these people really believe what they're saying, I pity them, especially if they are the same ones who said the internet was going to collapse due to other bandwidth or network problems, viruses and worms, or Y2K. Shit happens, but the people with a financial stake and ownership of the problem deal with it, the "analysts" and "experts" just pat themselves on the back even when they're proven wrong.
Here in france, you can get 30meg for 30E.
And it's no crappy bandwith.
Because here there is a real competion between internet providers.
The internet is pretty stable even with people uploading and downlonding (up cap is 1meg).
The probleme is that internet service providers in the US and UK don't want spend money to put in fiber optics...
In Japan, most of the people get a fiber to there home... And they get 100meg both ways (not 100% sure..) and they don't have problemes...
The hole internet is going to collapse is FUD. It's only because service providers don't want to evolve.
Available bandwidth is currently deliberately limited by the major incumbents. This manufactured scarcity drives the price up. There is more than enough dark fiber to meet our needs for decades to come.
The incumbents are about to discover that people will only put up with this for so long before they mandate municipal information infrastructure. Fiber is the bridge to the global economy and building bridges is one of the justifications for government exist. If your state and local governments won't do it, mine will - and your kids will find it that much harder to compete with mine.
Fiber is not made of some rare mineral. It is processed sand.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
BitTorrent and eMule could prioritize downloading from people on their ISP's subnet or from people with a low ping/traceroute or the same city.
Live TV could solve its problem with multicasting.
Google/YouTube, I don't know how they can solve problems their model creates.
If indeed the internet is heading for a crash, it won't be IPTV's fault.
If you want to blame someone, blame the backbone providers who can't (or more likely WON'T) find a way to get the cost of bandwidth into the single digits per meg per month for any reasonable bulk amount. They'll cite all sorts of reasons involving "five nines" availability and blah blah blah, but I would gladly accept 2 or 3 nines availability and be triple homed if I could get decent bandwidth for $9/Mbps/month (consider, even though 2 nines allows for 90 hours a year downtime, the odds of 3 fully seperate circuits all being down at the same time are small). They simply don't want to do that because they like charging way more for a service that mostly runs by itself once set up properly. It is, after all the way IP is designed to operate.
It's a perfect example of a market failure.
Were that a possability, ISPs wouldn't have to oversell by more than 10 to 1 to be profitable and so WOULD have the necessary bandwidth to handle IPTV with no worries at all. They would also have a LOT less incentive to cause bandwidth using applications to fail in a plausibly deniable way all the time.
In a well-known fairy tale a boy enjoyed the attention he got when he cried out there's a wolf in the village! - but after a while, people stopped listening to him, and when there was really a wolf, no-one believed him, and the wolf stole his shoes and socks and his ipod and ran off with them into the forest.
:-), how about it?
The problem with people saying such-and-such will mean the certain end of so-and-so is that, like the boy in the story, they weaken our credulity. What is really meant here is that, if the growth of video downloading continues at the same rate, and no other changes happen, the current system will bog down. And maybe that's true.
I remember a huge thread on Usenet lasting months and months, or so it seemed, Imminent death of the network predicted, and that was in the early 1980s.
Yes, video delivery is something to take seriously. The distinction between downloading a movie for later viewing (I would probably want it to be error-free) and watching streaming video (compression is OK, and I'd want the network to drop packets if I got behind, which is part of what IPv6 quality of service is about) might be part of the solution here. Of course, as people get larger desktop screens with higher resolution, the demand even for static images is increasing. 640x480 doesn't cut it for most people today. And most computer users have stereo sound. Or play games in which network latency is significant. Violent games in which you pretend to be a wolf! And videoconferencing, TV-on-demand (as per original article, e.g. joost), and maybe soon 3d holographic pornography is coming.
The music and video industry would do well to spend a fraction of their current legal bills on researching more efficient delivery. Maybe encouraging deployment of IPv6 multicast, for example, so a single stream can go to thousands of users. Or paid subscription p2p networks. Or cascading servers. For that matter, probably we-who-write-the-standards could help by defining cache protocols that can interoperate with advertising, and can reliably send back access logs, maybe anonymized. Video CEOs, I know you read slashdot
But, shouting "wolves stole my socks" or "the sky is falling" won't help. Although if either of those things does happen, make sure to put the video up on youtube, OK?
Live barefoot!
free engravings/woodcuts
Uhm people... internet TV is already here. People watch series using BitTorrent regularly, and even entire movies (Sicko for example). It may not usually be called internet TV, but it is. It is here, now, this is no sci-fi anymore. And the internet still works. Perhaps the article is not the sci-fi of the "distopian future" kind but of the "alternate reality" kind?
Multi-casting is a concept that's been around for over a decade. Instead of streaming the same exact data to customers scattered all over, you send a single stream to multiple major "distribution" points, and from those you then stream to the individual customer. However, you need to "schedule" the broadcasts. True on-demand is the big problem, so what you need to do is tier several "broadcasts" to timeslots, (like every 15 minutes). This way you can use the multi-cast technique rather than have a single different stream for each and every customer. Pausing and playback can be handled via file data caching.
100mbps (both up and down!) starting at $39.95/mo
Apparently not everywhere.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
In case there is a crash every other day, I'd just call the Interwebs and ask the guys to reboot or reinstall it from the original floppy disks.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
I seem to recall all this gnashing of teeth about all this wasted "dark fiber" that was laid as 2000 approached and the bubble was growing without bound, that went unused after the dot-com bust. Surely there's already tons of bandwidth lying around out there unused still? Or has that all been used up, quietly, without anyone saying anything about it? I find that difficult to believe.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
It seems to me that we get the "The internet is on the verge of impending collapse" every other year, and so far the ISP's have managed to keep up with demand.
Now, if we could just get rid of all that spam, we'd have enough bandwidth to last the rest of the decade...
one internet for all the dozy brain-dead video/movie/mtv crap and another internet for people who do not need a daily/hourly/minutely dose of video garbage to get along?
Mmm- mm-mmm MAXX
MAXX Hed Ed Ed
MMmm mm
MAX Headroom.
That link would be a bit more interesting if he wasn't trying to use a consumer, non-business line to do business work. If he was getting contacted by comcast for simply downloading alot of movies from a download service, or youtubing alot or something like that, then yeah, that story would irk me. But from his post, he clearly states he is doing work from his house. It almost makes me mad because he could slowing down my bandwidth by doing work on the same shared connection I'm on.
According to ONN the Internet already crashed.
If it crashes, just reboot it.
Despite this, the FCC says America has the highest broadband deployment rate in the world and President Bush has set a goal of having broadband available to every U.S. home by the end of this year. What have these guys been smoking? Nothing, actually, they simply redefined "broadband" as any Internet service with a download speed of 200 kilobits per second or better. That's less than one percent the target speed set in 1994 that we were supposed to have achieved by 2000 under regulations that still remain in place. This sounds like the telcos' modus operandi to a T. Recall a few years ago, when the FCC eliminated some surcharges, and they continued charging them to customers (as "cost recovery fees") until so many people got angry that the Federal government slapped them down? This is just the same thing, writ even larger.
Although I'm sure there are most corrupt agencies somewhere in the government, I can't think of one that's more bald-facedly corrupt than the FCC. Until we can the whole business and replace it with an organization -- and people -- who have as their mandate the best interests of the citizens of the United States, rather than the telecommunications companies, we're never going to have a first-class communications infrastructure. And the longer we keep the current bunch of bent industry shills and political operatives in place, the worse of a backwater the U.S. will become.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
What will we do? Buy more Cisco routers!
then came other 'threats': napster, gnutella, warez, Online radio, DIVX movies, bittorrent,
Read my lips: Internet can take it
As long as there is demand for more bandwidth, there is a cable guy happily selling it.
Cisco's wish to have their customers buying more transmission hardware
is comparable with Apple's wish for consumers buying more iPhones.
The cost of the Internet is in the routers, not the fiber.
The porn industry will keep the internet from crashing.
Build your own networks. The time of inefficient routing based on beancounter philosophies should finally be gone.
It's a pitty when we complain about network speeds yet a packet to your neighbour is likely to travel though another city.
Set up wireless routers creating meshed networks, and route your network based on common sense and not on what contracts you have with other companies. Build large chunks of networks and then internetwork them via longer radio-links, VPN-tunnels or even dark-fiber.
Just think of it, there's 56 MBit WLAN out there which can reach about 20 MBit realistically. You have 3 channels in the b/g-Band and even more in the a one.
"Using multicast you can send the same channel to multiple customers (IPTV) but that is broadcast, not pay-per-view."
Why can't multi-cast be pay-per-view? You download a key you pay for ahead of time and then decrypt what is streamed to everyone. Moreover you could download a broadcast and then pay later for a key to decrypt it. You could even have the cost for live events go down by how long the delay between the download and buying the key.
Granted there will be piracy, but for live sporting events this would probably work very well as the pirates wouldn't be able to get the pirated material decrypted quick enough to post, nor post the crack and software for intercepting the broadcast in real-time quickly enough (though some computer savvy users may manage some of the latter).
Letter To Iran
Oh, great, i was going to download a manual from adaptec's site, seems it's not working atm,. so i surf over to slashdot, first thing i read is "Will internet TV Crash the internet?"... well ppl have been watching tv over the net for quite some time now, worked fine until now, great job kids!! :)
Is that thing still around?
If you keep putting too many things into the tubes, the pressure inside will rise and eventually the tubes will explode. I don't know who got into their head that this meant the Internet will "crash" because mostly the tubes are stationary and it is the emails and videos that line up and flow inside of them. Moving things crash. Duh.
... and now Video Killed the Internet too??
i o_Star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Killed_The_Rad
1. Scare people that internet is going down (OMG! OMG!) 2. Sell software & hardware 3. Profit!
Why is it that I hear about ISPs in Japan, Korea, and Europe offering bandwidths up to 100Mb/s for prices under $30/month and in the USA we're still stuck in 1999 pricing and speed-wise? Could it possibly be that the PHBs at the various ISP corporations are deliberately screwing us to avoid actually building out their backbone networks properly?? Just asking...
It was claimed that spam would do it, as well as the sudden growth of the alt.binaries.* usenet newsgroups. I'm guessing that the massive increase in bandwidth useage due to the "junk" newsgroups that became the alt.* hierarchy were also blamed for the impending demise.
Although they seem to be relatively neutral in most of their pubs, ABI appears to be throwing the industry a bone, with "an ASA investigation into adverts for its unlimited broadband service that as of 31 March 2007 only 1.09 percent of customers exceeded the fair usage policy limitation for its service," and saying it with a straight face.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Wait everyone, a company that sells networking equipment is telling us that the Internet will BLOW UP if we don't buy more networking equipment! Also, everyone should buy bottled water because tap water is made out of poison.
but it can be fixed for a time, with making video and audio streams from websites illeagel. or all isp's block all ports except port 80. lol
Hrm, apparently it's that time of the month for the "Will X be the death of Y?!?!" article.
A team at Cisco decided to build a big router. This was all the engineers wet dream, and management didn't really think it was any need for anything this big. But since this was in the middle of the .com boom, the team got the green light. Engineering called it the "Big Fucking Router" or BFR, and marketing called it "Big Fast Router".
The 12000 or the GSR was introduced in 1996(?) it was wildly successful, and generated 1 billion dollars in sales the first year, and went up from there.
As a result, when the engineers introduced their next wet dream, the HFR or "Huge Fucking Router", the argument was "We can build it faster and bigger than anyone will need, and by the time it is introduced it will hit the market window perfect, and with great success"
The HFR, or CRS-1 is a 100Tbps router. (500 developers for 4 years or $500M).
Only problem: the boom is over, and few are buying.
Solution: Create doomsday scenario that only the HFR can cure.
Just some multiplication: A Youtube stream is 100kbps, so the HFR can handle a billion of these. That is more than there are internet users in the world.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
"Read my lips: Internet can take it"
The internet's not going to take it, anymore. It's got the right to choose and, there's no way it'll lose it! This is its life, this is its song!If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Granted, there are ways around this, but they tend to be too technical for the average YouTube viewer to understand, and/or too complicated for them to bother with, and are subject to constant attempts by the content providers to defeat them.
"How many of your neighbors are going to pony up an extra $50/month just because their TV comes over fiber instead of cable?"
Well, I have Fiber to my house in suburban washington, and despite what you're claiming, fiber costs are exactly equal to cable for IP access, but with significantly higher bandwidth, and TV is $20/month cheaper.
So not to be a jerk, but the reality blows your made-up numbers out of the water. The demand is there for more bandwidth, it's cheaper, somebody has to front the capital costs. You can make a decent argument that this should be public infrastructure, but the problem with that is that this would give the kooks in society a claim that the internet should be censored (for the children, or whatever other cause they give as an excuse).
The question is how we get all those rural areas hooked up to fiber.
I predict that all that will happen is that most people will see enough "Buffering, please wait..." messages to give it up as a bad job. At that point we'll all heave a sigh of relief and say "it was a stupid idea anyway" - which it is.
Whoever thinks that letting mom put Hi-Def Internet TV on in the kitchen while she's feeding the kids instead of plugging in a $50 USB digital TV receiver please raise your hand.
Anybody...anybody?
{...sound of crickets...}
Can the BBC honestly serve up enough real time HiDef data streams for the whole world (or even just the UK)? With DRM and everything? They're going to need a honking big server for that (I don't think they even exist).
No sig today...
Dot-com boom
Cisco: This Interwebnet is big! You need our routers to handle the traffic!
Big institutions & telecoms: LOL, OK!!
ca. 2002
Cisco: The routers we sold you before aren't powerful enough for web 2.0, and soon everybody will be doing everything over the Intertubes. You need Router XP for all that traffic. Oh, and stay tuned for Router Vista edition.
Big institutions & telecoms: LOL, OK!
Today
Cisco: Video big! Big videos! Router XP is puny for video; you need big frames and more memory! Come get Router Vista!
Big institutions & telecoms: LOL, OK!
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
And yet they let OJ on MN1.com's IPTV show for four days in a row for a hour each of the days..... Guess that any one can have an IPTV show now days.
Whenever I see an established company throwing out an advertising/PR campaign around no real particular change, I always wonder how much financial trouble the company is in that warrants putting forth such effort to try to drive up sales right now.
Just my 2 cents, but....
I think the real question here is whether or not the telecommunications companies faulty/misleading/corrupt/criminal/idiotic business practices are catching up to them. We all are well aware that one has to pay for the bandwidth they use, so, as logic follows the companies which sell us that bandwidth should have the reasonable capabilities to deliver on that purchased bandwidth. (which by extension is also why the whole "we need to charge the major internet services (Google, youtube, ect) more money because they use more bandwidth, is a bunch of crap) The problem is that for years the telecom companies have been massively overselling their bandwidth and hording as much of the profits as they could while skimping out on building their infrastructure to match demand. Its an similar to building a weak bridge to up your profit margin and then crying "poor me" when more than a few people use it and it collapses. From what I hear even when the feds gave them billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bolster their infrastructures they ran it through some destined to fail projects and pocketed the profits. I'm not one for involving the feds in anything when it can be avoided but there needs to be some regulation/punishment structure in place to prevent this abuse. Something that would cut into their precious profit margins, like fines for not delivering their posted bandwidth limits and severe fines for downtime (90-95% of the time, to give them a reasonable amount of leeway for bandwidth spikes/hardware upgrades/). The other option, which is preferable but more difficult, introduce real competition into the market while at the same time wiping out early termination fees. Basically the best way I can describe it is magically allowing a bandwidth customer to choose from a wide array of providers without some local monopoly interfering in any way.
Do you guys remember back in the early 90's when bandwidth started to climb? I kept seeing jobs for Cisco. First a "silicon architect", then a little more for integrators, then A WORLD OF JOBS from floor-sweeper to product spokesmen. And the net got a little faster.
:>
See, since the government has very little control over the net, it's able to grow and expand where it needs to. When the spike comes, bet-your-bottom-dollar there'll be brownouts. But sure as a hundred worlds, when the smoke clears the bandwidth will be found. That's the beauty of capitalism.
No worries. Just opportunities. A couple of bad-traffic days, but so what? More jobs, more workers, more net!
Why do people seem to assume the worst of something that has been growing faster every month since about 1990, anyway. And while the bandwidth is clogged, the demand will slow, but it's not life support, guys!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Every time telcos (and lately cablecos) want more money and less regulation for their Internet cartel, they whine that bandwidth demand will destroy the Internet. Lately they want to doublecharge popular websites (like Google) to carry their traffic, even when they are not the website's actual ISP. They really want to censor political and other comms that could threaten their power or money control, like AT&T just did to Pearl Jam. So they lie about needing to prioritize their favorite packets (therefore deprioritize or drop the packets they dislike). Rather than just adding more bandwidth, which is what we pay for, which would give them more product to sell (if at a lower price per bps), and which would solve all their routing problems better than more computation on switching ever could.
When people started putting 19.2Kbps modems on our POTS lines to the PSTN, telcos like Verizon (then still NYNEX) would try to charge us for "data modems" on special "data lines" with "data connectors" (like V.32 serial cables). Because otherwise they'd have to ensure the Central Office clocks were properly synced as master/slave, as required by law. Enough geeks (like me, in NYC's photo district) fought their BS with engineering truth, and they stopped lying. Until 56.6Kbps modems came around, and they tried it again.
They will always try it, except when (someday, maybe) there's real competition rather than the industrywide collusion. And real geeks will always stop them.
--
make install -not war
I have the solution Super Extreme Accelerated Dial-Up aka "SEAD", the internet like you have never seen. Full 56k not 53K you can know experience low latency from 400ms down to 350ms. Call me if interested @ 1 800 pay more
So I was using the internet's the other day and out of no reason the internet's crash, I got a "Windows has recover from a serious error" OMG. This maybe true cuz Ted Stevens says the internet is like a series of tubes OMG.
Well you've put a fairly realistic price on the situation
the problem is bulk bandwidth cost fueled by high profit levels.
Bandwidth as a commodity has to become a lot cheaper
and continue getting cheaper on a logarithmic scale.
Maybe pricing by quality/time could be more realistic than quantity.
This might encourage off-peak usage or bursty downloads instead of
live video to fill holes in demand.
Go well
I thought I was on Slashdot.
I'm utterly amazed that this thread didn't somehow involve porn.
42?
Forget about arguing whether the internet will "crash." Forget the stories about all the "dark fiber" that's out there. When customers have a choice among copper, co-ax, fiber, and power line internet connections the free market will control the price through competition.
Customers and content providers alike will migrate to the choice that works best for their needs. Any ISP who tries to increase revenues through double dipping will be the loser.
Tell the regulators to get out of the way, and watch the best/cheapest/highest bandwidth service result!
Internet TV will cause the Internet to crash, but not for lack of bandwidth, but for lack of critical thought. Text media give you time to think critically if you do have this ability, but video hinders critical thought, especially when the content providers want to spread propaganda instead of informing the public. That's why TV is full of stupidity.
That's what you need and what you don't get. You can get caching services that will cache *some* UDP protocols but not all because the caching system must know what bits being asked *now* are identical to the bits it has already stored. And that requires knowing the protocol and working out a method to add meta-information otherwise missing.
If you don't do that, someone could look at half the movie and all you get is the half movie unless you disable or clear the cache and then you're downloading the whole movie again.
I had to read the summery a couple of times before I realized that they were talking about TV on the web, not WebTV. I was wondering how 500,000 boxes with 56k modems were expected to choke the internet, or for that matter, download high bandwidth multimedia material.
Install caches, dammit.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think the root issue is that at every level of the Internet bandwidth capability isn't growing to expected needs and because of that, and pure greed, it isn't possible for ISPs to offer true unlimited accounts or true broadband speeds comparable to our friends in Japan and similar places.
A lot of this comes down to a couple factors here in the US.
A) The people supplying our networks don't want us to have true broadband. These people provide television, telecommunications, etc and they have a conflict of interests with being a basic network provider.
B) It worked a lot better for our network providers to take huge amounts of tax dollars and never deliver anything. They made lots of money and delivered very little. A perfect example of big government and big business at work.
C) Our network providers and government have been making an effort to take away the right of non-profits, co-ops, and municipalities to offer network services at better speeds and prices. They don't want competition - especially not competition that could bring up questions about why our spent tax dollars didn't deliver anything useful or that would put at risk big business tv and phones.
D) ISPs are stupid and have largely chosen not to provide local versions of popular network apps and web services. They haven't even worked with content providers to provide local caching of content. If 100 customers on your local network a day are downloading pretty much the same content from YouTube then that is an easy place to cut bandwidth usage. Instead of fighting BitTorrent why not host a file sharing site on the local network. Most ISPs don't even provide a standard web cache any more. Doh.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.