Slashdot Mirror


Vint Cerf Says Fix the Net With More Pipe

CWmike writes "While ISPs may fret about Netflix, Hulu and other streaming media services saturating their bandwidth, Internet forefather Vint Cerf has a simple answer for this potential problem: Increase bandwidth exponentially. With sufficient bandwidth, streaming video services of prerecorded content wouldn't be necessary, said the now-technology evangelist at Google. With sufficient throughput, the entire file of a movie or television show could be downloaded in a fraction of the time that it would take to stream the content. Cerf, speaking at Juniper Network's Nextwork conference, spoke about the company's decision to outfit Kansas City with fiber-optic connections that Google claims will be 100 times faster than today's services. The purpose of the project was 'to demonstrate what happens when you have gigabit speeds available,' Cerf said. 'Some pretty dramatic applications are possible.' One obvious application is greater access to high-definition video, he explained. 'When you are watching video today, streaming is a very common practice. At gigabit speeds, a video file [can be transferred] faster than you can watch it,' he said. 'So rather than [receiving] the bits out in a synchronous way, instead you could download the hour's worth of video in 15 seconds and watch it at your leisure.' He adds: 'It actually puts less stress on the network to have the higher speed of operation.'"

15 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. You heard the man! by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

    Give her more pipe!

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. Makes sense... by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'So rather than [receiving] the bits out in a synchronous way, instead you could download the hour's worth of video in 15 seconds and watch it at your leisure.' He adds: 'It actually puts less stress on the network to have the higher speed of operation.'

    Sure, it naturally would stand to reason that the operations (like streaming video) that currently require 100% utilization on today's network might only require a fraction of that on tomorrow's much faster network. The problem is, tomorrow we won't be happy with the same old video we used to stream, we are going to want a super high-def version with 8 channel stereo sound and in-line twitter commentary plus it will have to update our facebook status every time we pause it to go to the bathroom... And then we will be back to streaming at 100% capacity again, wondering when the next leap in networking will let us do block downloads again.

    Seriously, Vint Cerf? This is the best idea you can muster? This is the same problem/solution cycle the internet has been locked in for its entire existence.

    1. Re:Makes sense... by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not exactly a technically innovative idea, but i like it a whole hell of a lot better than the "solution" most broadband companies seem to be deciding on, which is "more caps and more fees!"

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Makes sense... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      'So rather than [receiving] the bits out in a synchronous way, instead you could download the hour's worth of video in 15 seconds and watch it at your leisure.'

      You mean actually have the file stored on your PC? OH, yeah, that'll go down well with the MAFIAA.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Makes sense... by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you? No, I don't think you do, not with existing video techniques. If block downloads were of a format that used end to end compression instead of stream compression, you could gain additional savings by requiring the user to download the whole file. As it is, prerecorded video streams already buffer enough to fill the MTU on the network, meaning that any ability to transfer it faster will still result in the same net amount of bytes going across the network. Wake me up when we have practical end-to-end compression techniques for video...

    4. Re:Makes sense... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think you've caught the point. It isn't merely that 100% of the network won't be required if we are faster. If the connection is fast enough, the video doesn't have to be streamed through difficult to throttle udp but instead can be transferred as a network friendly tcp transfer. UDP video transfer is a dirty hack implemented because it was the only way to get video of watchable quality through. We are no longer in the days of choppy unwatchable video on the internet and if we move away from dirty hacks like udp streaming I doubt anyone would go back to it.

    5. Re:Makes sense... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh you crazy nerds and your "solutions". It's as though you believe that the internet is a system for transferring data rather than extracting rents...

      Some people...

    6. Re:Makes sense... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would like to moderate you +1 that guy who always gets the blue tiles and railroads in monopoly and makes the final 4 hours of the game miserable :P

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    7. Re:Makes sense... by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is, tomorrow we won't be happy with the same old video we used to stream, we are going to want a super high-def version with 8 channel stereo sound and in-line twitter commentary plus it will have to update our facebook status every time we pause it to go to the bathroom...

      Nobody is making "super high def" content, nor can existing display devices do "super high def."

      This entire argument is based on the fallacy that bandwidth needs will grow forever. Its simply not true. Prior to double-digit megabit connections, there was always media that couldnt be delivered in real-time.. but now there simply isnt any media that cannot be delivered in real-time on 10+ mbit connections, and that includes 3D HD video.

      I realize that in your imaginary world, the bandwidth of content grows exponentially.. but thats just your imagination. The jump from SD to HD was not an exponential growth in the size of content.

      As far as "8 channel stereo sound" .. uh, what? stereo is 2 channel sound. Didnt you know that when you start talking about channels, you negate the whole stereo thing? Also, audio hasnt been an issue for years... even the WORST broadband connections can stream UNCOMPRESSED audio in realtime, and a 15:1 LOSSLESS audio compression is a typical reality.

      As far as twitter and facebook.. you are further proving that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are taking about.

      The only way current high end bandwidth will be insufficient is if there is a new media paradigm.. holographic (real 3D) media and so forth.. that'll be possible in 10 years, or so they have been saying for the last 60 years.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:Makes sense... by airfoobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Believe it or not, he is right on the money (figuratively speaking). What he is suggesting is the correct response to "net neutrality" laws. Myopic and purely profit-driven ISPs won't give their users what the users want, just the absolute minimum to make maximum profit. OTOH, investment in infrastructure makes "net neut" irrelevant, but obviously takes money.

      Moreover, I think you are wrong to say better quality video will fill the pipes because 1080p video is more than we'll need for a while, and I bet in time we'll even get better compression algorithms to bring the filesizes down further. What will push the network is increased internet penetration, but we'll have to deal with that anyway...

  3. Happy Birthday Vint! by mbone · · Score: 3, Informative

    (It's today.)

  4. What about devices w/ insufficient local storage? by WillAdams · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Wii won't be able to hold an entire downloaded movie --- unless one makes putting in a blank 8GB SD card before watching --- I don't think that will go over well, nor do I think the copyright holders will like the idea of a single monolithic file being made available.

    The problem isn't merely a technical one...

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  5. Re:But won't that bandwidth just get eaten up too? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We will not get 2k video, let alone 4k, any time soon. Most people don't even need 1080p. (With my set size and seating position I'm right on the line myself.)

    Bursting the video rather than streaming it leads to less overhead. Clearly it matters how much less. If you can do it with UDP and don't drop many packets then the difference could be substantial. However, AFAICT most video streaming services utilize HTTP so that they can be accelerated by commodity caching systems.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Once 4K cameras become affordable by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    But people will just want to stream 1080p and then 2K

    There isn't much difference here: 2K is 2048x1080, which is less than 7% bigger than standard 1080p.

    and then 4K video

    We can solve that once 4K video cameras become affordable for home use.

    And can somebody explain to me why downloading a video in 1 gigantic burst is better than streaming it at a more steady rate?

    If the entire work is cached locally, fast forward and rewind don't require a round trip to a server, and they don't require transcoding to create a new keyframe at the seek point. Nor will re-watching a video require sending it again.

  7. never happen by JeffSh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    unfortunately there is no way this will happen. There are too many important competing interests which act at the beaurocratic/governance level which are anti-bandwidth.

    MPAA/RIAA don't want people to stream quickly because they fear content being stolen
    CIA/FBI don't want increased bandwidth because they need(or think they need) to be able to monitor and index all communication (TIA)
    ATT/Verizon and other telecoms don't want to because it represents a cost that will interfere with their milking of customers
    Comcast doesn't want it because it will interfere with their control over content

    Everyone just wants to stay status quo or worse. This will never happen.