PDA

View Full Version : Internet Speed has to increase with a factor of 1000 the next fitheen years ! ;)


Skybuck Flying
November 20th 07, 10:37 AM
Hello,

To satisfy my Piracy Addication of Computer Games the internet speed to my
house has to increase with a factor of 1000 the next fitheen years :)

Fitheen years ago in 1992 I used to play ms-dos games these were usually a
few megabytes.

Now 15 years later those same games are a few gigabytes a factor of 1000
bigger !

If this trend continues then I and the rest of the world will need an
internet connection to the house of at least a factor of 1000 faster than
todays internet.

Today I have:

500 KByte/Sec down.
100 KByte/Sec Up.

In fitheen years time this will need to be:
500 MByte/Sec Down.
100 MByte/Sec Up.

A breath taking and shocking speed for todays internet ! ;)

Bye,
Skybuck.

November 20th 07, 01:03 PM
On 20-Nov-2007, "Skybuck Flying" > wrote:

> In fitheen years time this will need to be:
> 500 MByte/Sec Down.
> 100 MByte/Sec Up.

Should be achievable. Todays backbone speeds
are 20 or more Gb/sec, and fibre connections should
be able to deliver 500 Mbyte/Sec to the user.
Internet delivery of TV is going to need it.

November 20th 07, 06:33 PM
On Nov 20, 6:03 am, wrote:
> (...) and fibre connections should
> be able to deliver 500 Mbyte/Sec to the user.
> Internet delivery of TV is going to need it.


Why? Nobody is pushing full HD (1080P) at more than about 40Mb/s (and
most broadcasts are at half that). Whatever the justification for
last mile speeds of that magnitude might be, I doubt it will be that
people need 100 simultaneous 1080P streams.

tony h
November 20th 07, 09:21 PM
> wrote in message
...
> On Nov 20, 6:03 am, wrote:
>> (...) and fibre connections should
>> be able to deliver 500 Mbyte/Sec to the user.
>> Internet delivery of TV is going to need it.
>
>
> Why? Nobody is pushing full HD (1080P) at more than about 40Mb/s (and
> most broadcasts are at half that). Whatever the justification for
> last mile speeds of that magnitude might be, I doubt it will be that
> people need 100 simultaneous 1080P streams.

your missing OP's point, in order to steal games at a reasonable speed his
connection must improve at the same rate as developers add data, though dvd
lasted about 10 years so far, so it's fair to guess that the new technolgies
like blu ray will last about the same (consumers not too happy at throwing
kit away too soon), and with the disks having about 5 times the capacity of
dvd (single layer) the connection would only need to increase by 5x to
enable skybuck to continue his theft at the same rate.

November 20th 07, 10:46 PM
On 20-Nov-2007, "tony h" > wrote:

> > Why? Nobody is pushing full HD (1080P) at more than about 40Mb/s (and
> > most broadcasts are at half that). Whatever the justification for
> > last mile speeds of that magnitude might be, I doubt it will be that
> > people need 100 simultaneous 1080P streams.

Multi occupancy flat and residential premises, and multi room
TV, may well need a large number of simultaneous connections
unless they are all happy watching the same program.

November 21st 07, 12:11 AM
On Nov 20, 3:46 pm, wrote:
> On 20-Nov-2007, "tony h" > wrote:
>
> > > Why? Nobody is pushing full HD (1080P) at more than about 40Mb/s (and
> > > most broadcasts are at half that). Whatever the justification for
> > > last mile speeds of that magnitude might be, I doubt it will be that
> > > people need 100 simultaneous 1080P streams.
>
> Multi occupancy flat and residential premises, and multi room
> TV, may well need a large number of simultaneous connections
> unless they are all happy watching the same program.


Sure, but that's not what's meant by last mile. In the case of a
multi-unit building, you either wire each unit separately (common for
small buildings), or (usually better for large buildings), you run a
faster connection to a switch in the basement and split out individual
connections from there. But in either case, you usually don't end up
sharing a single connection too much more heavily than you would with
individual residences.

Now you might in the future, especially if the data rates get as high
as has be posited, but it makes little sense to serve both an
individual residence and a 50 unit building off equivalent single 5Gb
circuits - one will either be significant over served, or the other
underserved. At least until the point it technology advances to the
point where there's no practical (aka economic) reason to install a
circuit slower than 5Gb - although at that point one would expect
still faster speeds to be common.

Othmar Wigger
November 23rd 07, 08:07 AM
Isn't it fairly obvious which way the technology goes? - What is used
in data centers today will be in the offices a few years later, and in
our homes another few years after that.

Gigabyte Ethernet on copper wire has already well penetrated into
office use and is arriving now at homes. Optical fibre is being put
into the ground all over the world. It is approaching the last mile at
least in metropolitan areas.

I think you don't need to wait 15 years until your building will be
connected to the Internet provider with an optical fiber, whereas the
individual subscribers will tap into that with copper wires, very
probably carrying the TCP/IP protocol at 1 to 10 Gbps.

Speed is then only a question of how much bandwith you are willing to
pay for. The physical capacity of an optical fibre is enormous. Your
provider will be happy to sell you the bandwith you need.

Chris S.
November 23rd 07, 06:14 PM
My current FiOS Speeds:
Last Result:
Download Speed: 15509 kbps (1938.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 1880 kbps (235 KB/sec transfer rate)

Chris


"Othmar Wigger" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't it fairly obvious which way the technology goes? - What is used
> in data centers today will be in the offices a few years later, and in
> our homes another few years after that.
>
> Gigabyte Ethernet on copper wire has already well penetrated into
> office use and is arriving now at homes. Optical fibre is being put
> into the ground all over the world. It is approaching the last mile at
> least in metropolitan areas.
>
> I think you don't need to wait 15 years until your building will be
> connected to the Internet provider with an optical fiber, whereas the
> individual subscribers will tap into that with copper wires, very
> probably carrying the TCP/IP protocol at 1 to 10 Gbps.
>
> Speed is then only a question of how much bandwith you are willing to
> pay for. The physical capacity of an optical fibre is enormous. Your
> provider will be happy to sell you the bandwith you need.

Jethro
November 23rd 07, 08:27 PM
Chris S. wrote:
> My current FiOS Speeds:
> Last Result:
> Download Speed: 15509 kbps (1938.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
> Upload Speed: 1880 kbps (235 KB/sec transfer rate)
>
> Chris
>
<snip>

And yet with all this awesome speed the ISP's keep throttling BitTorrent
traffic and put restrictions on how much you can download.
Sure you can download fast.. it just means you will reach your cap in
less time.

--
Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Jethro
Reply Email: jethro86 (at) gmail (dot) com

tony h
November 23rd 07, 09:02 PM
"Jethro" > wrote in message
...
> Chris S. wrote:
>> My current FiOS Speeds:
>> Last Result:
>> Download Speed: 15509 kbps (1938.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
>> Upload Speed: 1880 kbps (235 KB/sec transfer rate)
>>
>> Chris
>>
> <snip>
>
> And yet with all this awesome speed the ISP's keep throttling BitTorrent
> traffic and put restrictions on how much you can download.
> Sure you can download fast.. it just means you will reach your cap in less
> time.


maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?

John Adams[_2_]
November 25th 07, 12:37 PM
wrote:

> Internet delivery of TV is going to need it.
>

One of the people who helped invent the internet (ArpNet) says the
current infrastructure of the internet is not good enough for such
things as TV over the internet. And my ISP won't even allow me to
download that much data per month anyway. Hell, sometimes I get pauses
just playing ****ty low res videos at youtube etc. so how do they figure
the internet is good enough for streaming TV? They should put down the
crack pipes and get back to reality.

John Adams[_2_]
November 25th 07, 12:43 PM
tony h wrote:

> maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?
>
>
Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
jokers living a pipe dream.

Phil Weldon
November 25th 07, 02:59 PM
'John Adams' wrote:
| Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
| switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
| choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
| live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
| people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
| movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
| and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
| jokers living a pipe dream.
_____

Perhaps you confuse a Usenet download cap before throttling with a total
bandwidth delivery?

Phil Weldon

"John Adams" > wrote in message
. ..
| tony h wrote:
|
| > maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?
| >
| >
| Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
| switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
| choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
| live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
| people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
| movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
| and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
| jokers living a pipe dream.

Patrick Vervoorn
November 25th 07, 03:59 PM
In article >,
John Adams > wrote:
>tony h wrote:
>
>> maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?
>
>Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
>switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
>choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
>live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
>people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
>movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
>and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
>jokers living a pipe dream.

You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
allowed to download.

So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.

Regards,

Patrick.

Phil Weldon
November 25th 07, 06:27 PM
'Patrick Vervoorn' wrote:
| You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
| overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
| allowed to download.
|
| So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
| with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
| do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.
_____

The so-called cap must not be common 'over here' either. It certainly does
not exist for any large ISPs. Not to mention that several Internet
businesses deliver for-pay movies via the Internet.

Phil Weldon

"Patrick Vervoorn" > wrote in
message . ..
| In article >,
| John Adams > wrote:
| >tony h wrote:
| >
| >> maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?
| >
| >Pretty much all high speed ISP's have a cap. And how do propose we
| >switch ISP's when our only choices are ADSL or cable? Each area has a
| >choice of one or the other and not a multitude to choose from. Where I
| >live ADSL cap is 30gb per month and cable is 80gb per month. All you
| >people who think the internet is good enough for streaming TV and HD
| >movies are out of touch with reality. Build a newer and better internet
| >and then I might take you seriously. Until then you are a bunch of
| >jokers living a pipe dream.
|
| You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
| overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
| allowed to download.
|
| So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
| with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
| do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.
|
| Regards,
|
| Patrick.

Jim Beard
November 26th 07, 03:07 AM
John Adams wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Internet delivery of TV is going to need it.
>>
>
> One of the people who helped invent the internet (ArpNet) says the
> current infrastructure of the internet is not good enough for such
> things as TV over the internet. And my ISP won't even allow me to
> download that much data per month anyway. Hell, sometimes I get pauses
> just playing ****ty low res videos at youtube etc. so how do they figure
> the internet is good enough for streaming TV? They should put down the
> crack pipes and get back to reality.

"Current structure" is not good enough to do it right, but AT&T is
offering tv over the internet in some areas, ADSL-style I think. The
selection of channels is limited (30 or 40 I think rather than 150
or 200) and I do not know if they offer HD tv, but investment cost
and cost to the user are much lower that the fiber alternative
and it is doable now. Being done now.

Fiber will provide the bandwidth. It will require investment to
install it, and the associated equipment to send and control the
traffic. The money will be available (bread and circus has been
a requisite since Roman times, and fiber offers a huge circus),
but there is some hazard regarding how much to spend when for
what. Those that botch the decisions may go bankrupt; those that
get them right get to play another round in the game. Put your money
on the table and spin the wheel...

Verizon is offering tv, internet, and VoIP for roughly $100 a
month. With an average capital investment maybe around $2,000 per
customer to support that (general guesstimate, based on what I have
read in the newspapers), it is financially doable though the
payback will not go into the black for a few years.

Cheers!

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

Jethro
November 26th 07, 03:45 PM
tony h wrote:
> "Jethro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chris S. wrote:
>>> My current FiOS Speeds:
>>> Last Result:
>>> Download Speed: 15509 kbps (1938.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
>>> Upload Speed: 1880 kbps (235 KB/sec transfer rate)
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> And yet with all this awesome speed the ISP's keep throttling BitTorrent
>> traffic and put restrictions on how much you can download.
>> Sure you can download fast.. it just means you will reach your cap in less
>> time.
>
>
> maybe time to change to a decent ISP then?
>
>

Haha.. unfortunately I only have 1 choice. Fixed wireless. Well actually
there are now 2 wireless providers but the other is worse than mine.
Here in the backass of nowhere, choice is not an option. No cable, no DSL.
I am not specifically mentioning my provider as they don't throttle
anything... but I only have 1Mbps and 10Gb per month allowed so I'm only
"throttled" by how much I can download.

--
Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Jethro
Reply Email: jethro86 (at) gmail (dot) com

John Adams[_2_]
November 26th 07, 05:55 PM
Phil Weldon wrote:

>
> Perhaps you confuse a Usenet download cap before throttling with a total
> bandwidth delivery?

No, the caps I listed are for total bandwidth. Oh, and here's an article
that backs up what I say.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11/19/internetcapacity/index.php

John Adams[_2_]
November 26th 07, 05:59 PM
Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

> You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
> overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
> allowed to download.
>
> So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
> with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
> do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick.

I already have the one with the higher cap and there is only one other
to choose from. You sure you don't have a cap? It's not something they
like to advertise but will soon let you know if you go over it. In one
town where I lived there was only one choice for high speed internet and
their cap was a lousy 10GB down and 3GB up.

John Adams[_2_]
November 26th 07, 06:04 PM
Phil Weldon wrote:

> The so-called cap must not be common 'over here' either. It certainly does
> not exist for any large ISPs. Not to mention that several Internet
> businesses deliver for-pay movies via the Internet.

Where is over here exactly? I see you post via Supernews so I expect you
are either in the US or Canada but maybe not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Shaping

Companies With Products Employing Traffic Shaping

* Cisco Systems
* Cogeco Cable
* Crescendo Networks
* F5 Networks
* Juniper Networks
* LogiSense Corporation
* MailChannels
* Nortel Networks
* Procera Networks
* Packeteer
* Radware
* Riverbed Technology
* Sandvine Incorporated
* Tellabs
* TurnTide, now part of Symantec

[edit] Major Internet Service Providers Using Traffic Shaping

* Cable & Wireless Panama
* Rogers Cable
* Bell Sympatico
* Clearwire
* Comcast Cable
* Shaw Cable
* Cogeco Cable
* Insight Communications
* Road Runner (Time Warner Cable)
* Pipex
* TM Net
* PlusNet
* Eclipse Internet
* BT Openworld
* Virgin Media
* Clearwire
* TalkTalk
* Telenet (Belgium)
* AOL UK
* CATVP
* UPC Romania

John Adams[_2_]
November 26th 07, 06:07 PM
Jim Beard wrote:

> "Current structure" is not good enough to do it right, but AT&T is
> offering tv over the internet in some areas, ADSL-style I think. The
> selection of channels is limited (30 or 40 I think rather than 150
> or 200) and I do not know if they offer HD tv, but investment cost
> and cost to the user are much lower that the fiber alternative
> and it is doable now. Being done now.

Not according to this article. They are spending no where near enough
money to create an internet infrastructure that is good enough.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11/19/internetcapacity/index.php

Study: Internet could run out of capacity in two years

Patrick Vervoorn
November 26th 07, 07:03 PM
In article >,
John Adams > wrote:
>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
>> You are probably talking about the "high speed ISP's" in your region, but
>> overhere, very few to none have a hard cap on the amount of data you're
>> allowed to download.
>>
>> So, if you have one in your neighbourhoud who doesn't have a cap, vote
>> with your wallet and move over to them. If there's one with a higher cap,
>> do the same. Perhaps they will see the light.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Patrick.
>
>I already have the one with the higher cap and there is only one other
>to choose from. You sure you don't have a cap? It's not something they
>like to advertise but will soon let you know if you go over it. In one
>town where I lived there was only one choice for high speed internet and
>their cap was a lousy 10GB down and 3GB up.

Yes, I am very sure I don't have a cap. There is apparently a 'Fair Use
Policy' but I've never seen it being enacted, certainly not for myself,
while I have download multiple tens of Gigabytes of data in a month...

Regards,

Patrick.

Phil Weldon
November 26th 07, 08:31 PM
'John Adams' wrote:
| No, the caps I listed are for total bandwidth. Oh, and here's an article
| that backs up what I say.
|
| http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11/19/internetcapacity/index.php
_____

Well, no, the article does not mention a bandwidth cap at all. Perhaps you
posted the wrong URL?

Phil Weldon

"John Adams" > wrote in message
. ..
| Phil Weldon wrote:
|
| >
| > Perhaps you confuse a Usenet download cap before throttling with a total
| > bandwidth delivery?
|
| No, the caps I listed are for total bandwidth. Oh, and here's an article
| that backs up what I say.
|
| http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11/19/internetcapacity/index.php

Phil Weldon
November 26th 07, 08:45 PM
'John Adams' wrote:

'Definition of' is not the same as 'existence of'. What would be more
useful for your thesis is the URL of the 'bandwidth cap' for internet access
on your ISP. And still that would be only one example.

One counter example is that I sometimes download for hours at 3 Mbit/sec (1
GByte/hr), on occasion for more than 24 hours straight through the ISP
Earthlink for just one application. Many new housing developments in the
USA built with fiber all the way to the residence.

'Over here' as opposed to 'over there'; i.e. the other side of the Atlantic
from 'Patrick Veroom'.

Phil Weldon

"John Adams" > wrote in message
m...
| Phil Weldon wrote:
|
| > The so-called cap must not be common 'over here' either. It certainly
does
| > not exist for any large ISPs. Not to mention that several Internet
| > businesses deliver for-pay movies via the Internet.
|
| Where is over here exactly? I see you post via Supernews so I expect you
| are either in the US or Canada but maybe not.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Shaping
|
| Companies With Products Employing Traffic Shaping
|
| * Cisco Systems
| * Cogeco Cable
| * Crescendo Networks
| * F5 Networks
| * Juniper Networks
| * LogiSense Corporation
| * MailChannels
| * Nortel Networks
| * Procera Networks
| * Packeteer
| * Radware
| * Riverbed Technology
| * Sandvine Incorporated
| * Tellabs
| * TurnTide, now part of Symantec
|
| [edit] Major Internet Service Providers Using Traffic Shaping
|
| * Cable & Wireless Panama
| * Rogers Cable
| * Bell Sympatico
| * Clearwire
| * Comcast Cable
| * Shaw Cable
| * Cogeco Cable
| * Insight Communications
| * Road Runner (Time Warner Cable)
| * Pipex
| * TM Net
| * PlusNet
| * Eclipse Internet
| * BT Openworld
| * Virgin Media
| * Clearwire
| * TalkTalk
| * Telenet (Belgium)
| * AOL UK
| * CATVP
| * UPC Romania

Phil Weldon
November 26th 07, 09:29 PM
'John Adams' wrote:
Chicken Little is still alive and squawking. As of 26NOV07, ATT, just ONE
telecom, with 12,000,000 DSL subscribers, has a market capitalization of
$225,000,000,000 US, a Gross Revenue for the last 12 months of
$104,000,000,000 US, a Gross Profit for the last 12 months of
$36,000,000,000. I think ATT can handle its share of investment to provide
for increased Internet backbone bandwidth as necessary to support their
business plan (see
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=21458 ).

Here is their plan as published three years ago (from the above URL):
"Speed to Market, Revenue and Cost-Savings Opportunities
Project Lightspeed will use both FTTP (fiber to the premises) and FTTN
(fiber to the node) technologies.

In existing neighborhoods, or "overbuild" situations, SBC plans to use an
FTTN architecture, which on average takes fiber to within 3,000 feet of
homes being served and makes use of advanced compression technologies along
with IP switching to deliver high-quality TV, Internet access and voice
services. FTTN is capable of delivering 20 to 25 megabits downstream,
sufficient to simultaneously deliver four streams of TV programming,
including HDTV and Internet access with robust speeds, and IP voice -all on
a common IP network platform.

FTTP architecture will be used in new housing developments, as well as in
some multi-dwelling units. FTTP extends fiber optics connections from
central offices and remote terminals to customer locations.

While the two architectures support the same services and deliver many of
the same capabilities and benefits, the company expects that FTTN deployment
can be completed in one-fourth the time required for an FTTP overbuild and
with about one-fifth the capital investment.

By the end of 2007, the company expects to reach 17 million households with
FTTN technology and nearly 1 million with FTTP.

Both FTTN and FTTP are expected to create significant revenue opportunities
through new services, and both also are expected to deliver substantial
operating cost savings in installation, maintenance and customer care. FTTN
will deliver approximately 70 percent of the network operational expense
savings available from FTTP."

Fiscal year 2006 data transportation revenues alone were $18,000,000,000 US.

All this is not PROOF the sky is falling, or that end users will LIKE what
ATT provide, but the sky is certainly NOT falling. And I am sure this holds
true for all industrialized countries (see Korean Internet development as
the leading example of broadband penetration.)

It may be EASY to do research on the Internet; just don't stop too soon.

Meanwhile, there are real 'clear and present dangers' to consider.

Phil Weldon





"John Adams" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Beard wrote:
|
| > "Current structure" is not good enough to do it right, but AT&T is
| > offering tv over the internet in some areas, ADSL-style I think. The
| > selection of channels is limited (30 or 40 I think rather than 150
| > or 200) and I do not know if they offer HD tv, but investment cost
| > and cost to the user are much lower that the fiber alternative
| > and it is doable now. Being done now.
|
| Not according to this article. They are spending no where near enough
| money to create an internet infrastructure that is good enough.
|
| http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11/19/internetcapacity/index.php
|
| Study: Internet could run out of capacity in two years

Jim Beard
November 27th 07, 04:06 AM
John Adams wrote:
> Jim Beard wrote:
>
>> "Current structure" is not good enough to do it right, but AT&T is
>> offering tv over the internet in some areas, ADSL-style I think. The
>> selection of channels is limited (30 or 40 I think rather than 150
>> or 200) and I do not know if they offer HD tv, but investment cost
>> and cost to the user are much lower that the fiber alternative
>> and it is doable now. Being done now.
>
> Not according to this article. They are spending no where near enough
> money to create an internet infrastructure that is good enough.
>
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11/19/internetcapacity/index.php
>
> Study: Internet could run out of capacity in two years

Either the study is rubbish or the writer who wrote the article
is an ignoramus.

To quote from the Article:
The study is the first to “apply Moore’s Law (or something very like
it) to the pace of application innovation on the ‘Net,” the study
says. “Our findings indicate that although core fiber and
switching/routing resources will scale nicely to support virtually
any conceivable user demand, Internet access infrastructure,
specifically in North America, will likely cease to be adequate for
supporting demand within the next three to five years.”
END QUOTE

This says core fiber and switching/routing resources will be fine.
The article then goes on to complain about the "backbone" companies
who are not investing enough, but the backbone is exactly what is
stated to scale nicely. This is the "Internet infrastructure" and
it will do fine.

"Internet access infrastructure" is another matter entirely. That
is the critical stuff to connect the endusers to the Internet in
a "highspeed broadband" manner. That takes maybe (a guess) a couple
thousand dollars per customer for fiber, or maybe (a guess) $400 to
$500 a user for ADSL adequate to support limited (30-50 channels) tv.
This is not the "Internet backbone" but the "last mile."

Note that no one is promising to supply everyone in the U.S.
with fiber anytime in the next 5 years. Broadband ADSL will
probably be available in most locations. If 150-200 tv channels
plus internet is minimum for "adequate," yeah, there will be a problem.

Further, Moore's Law deals with the number of transistors on
a piece of silicon, and says that will double roughly every
18 months. Alternatively, add in more complex operating systems,
new features and functions, etc., and you get a doubling of
usuable computer power roughly every 4 years. I have no idea
what "something very like it" translated to for the study and
article, but any rapid-paced exponential growth rate will
(mathematically) lead to unsustainable demand for resources,
at some point in time. Economics always curtails that growth
rate before the planet is torn apart to provide the resources
in short supply. Not to worry about that.

And, there will be no "brownouts" (mentioned in the article
as one possibility), simply because brownouts are the result
of inadequate electrical power to meet demand, and transmission
of data via fiber optic cable has nothing to do with electrical
power (save the need for a trivial amount of power to drive the
laser and led emitters used to send the light down the fiber).
Even ADSL over copper will have no meaningful relationship
with "brownouts." Power usage simply is not high enough to
have such an effect.

No cheers.

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

Skybuck Flying
November 27th 07, 06:08 AM
Here is what I think needs to happen and will probably happen:

The speed on the last mile will (need) to double each 1.5 years.

Then after 15 years it will have doubled 10 times.

So that's 2 to the power of 10 which is a factor of 1024 which matches
nicely.

However the internet itself might need much more bandwidth for new users and
new applications/new demand :)

Bye,
Skybuck.

John Adams[_2_]
November 28th 07, 12:09 AM
Phil Weldon wrote:

> Well, no, the article does not mention a bandwidth cap at all. Perhaps you
> posted the wrong URL?

Don't be a dick. You know full well I was talking about the limitation
of the internet infrastructure.

John Adams[_2_]
November 28th 07, 12:14 AM
Phil Weldon wrote:
> 'John Adams' wrote:
>
> 'Definition of' is not the same as 'existence of'. What would be more
> useful for your thesis is the URL of the 'bandwidth cap' for internet access
> on your ISP. And still that would be only one example.
>
> One counter example is that I sometimes download for hours at 3 Mbit/sec (1
> GByte/hr), on occasion for more than 24 hours straight through the ISP
> Earthlink for just one application. Many new housing developments in the
> USA built with fiber all the way to the residence.
>
> 'Over here' as opposed to 'over there'; i.e. the other side of the Atlantic
> from 'Patrick Veroom'.
>
> Phil Weldon

I hate internet ****wits like you that have to twist everything around.
How fast you download has nothing to do with caps, a cap is maximum
bandwidth over aperiod, shaping, which is throttling your connection
is only done on PTP connections currently.

Where is "over there"? I use a 3rd party Usent provider that doesn't
post my IP address so I could be anywhere. Dumbass.

John Adams[_2_]
November 28th 07, 12:16 AM
Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

>
> Yes, I am very sure I don't have a cap. There is apparently a 'Fair Use
> Policy' but I've never seen it being enacted, certainly not for myself,
> while I have download multiple tens of Gigabytes of data in a month...
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick.
>

Yea, and 80GB is multiples of tens too, doh! If you don't have a cap
don't make out like that is the norm because it isn't.

John Adams[_2_]
November 28th 07, 12:18 AM
Phil Weldon blabbered and bored us all:

> All this is not PROOF the sky is falling, or that end users will LIKE what
> ATT provide, but the sky is certainly NOT falling. And I am sure this holds
> true for all industrialized countries (see Korean Internet development as
> the leading example of broadband penetration.)

How's that HD TV over the internet working out for you?

John Adams[_2_]
November 28th 07, 12:21 AM
Jim Beard wrote:

> Either the study is rubbish or the writer who wrote the article
> is an ignoramus.

I suppose you think the person who helped invent the internet is also
full of rubbish? He says the same as that article, sorry can't remember
his name. I think you are spin doctoring because you have a vested
interest in making money from these dim witted internet schemes.

Patrick Vervoorn
November 28th 07, 01:11 AM
In article >,
John Adams > wrote:
>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
>> Yes, I am very sure I don't have a cap. There is apparently a 'Fair Use
>> Policy' but I've never seen it being enacted, certainly not for myself,
>> while I have download multiple tens of Gigabytes of data in a month...
>
>Yea, and 80GB is multiples of tens too, doh! If you don't have a cap
>don't make out like that is the norm because it isn't.

Look, you've shown yourself for what you are in a few postings I read
before I read your response to me. You used some rather immature words,
but I won't stoop to your level.

I don't have cap. Take my word. Or not. I couldn't care less.

And, in case you were wondering (wouldn't surprise me), I'm located in The
Netherlands.

Regards,

Patrick.

John Adams[_2_]
November 28th 07, 06:46 AM
Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

> Look, you've shown yourself for what you are in a few postings I read
> before I read your response to me. You used some rather immature words,
> but I won't stoop to your level.
>
> I don't have cap. Take my word. Or not. I couldn't care less.
>
> And, in case you were wondering (wouldn't surprise me), I'm located in The
> Netherlands.
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick.

You claimed most ISP's don't have a cap. Well, you are wrong.

Patrick Vervoorn
November 28th 07, 11:50 AM
In article >,
John Adams > wrote:
>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
>> Look, you've shown yourself for what you are in a few postings I read
>> before I read your response to me. You used some rather immature words,
>> but I won't stoop to your level.
>>
>> I don't have cap. Take my word. Or not. I couldn't care less.
>>
>> And, in case you were wondering (wouldn't surprise me), I'm located in The
>> Netherlands.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Patrick.
>
>You claimed most ISP's don't have a cap. Well, you are wrong.

You're not the best of readers eh? I didn't say anything like that. I said
most ISP's _overhere_ (= in The Netherlands) don't have a cap.

Read it back and learn some modesty.

Regards, Patrick.

Ed Medlin
November 28th 07, 01:23 PM
"John Adams" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jim Beard wrote:
>
>> Either the study is rubbish or the writer who wrote the article
>> is an ignoramus.
>
> I suppose you think the person who helped invent the internet is also full
> of rubbish? He says the same as that article, sorry can't remember his
> name. I think you are spin doctoring because you have a vested interest in
> making money from these dim witted internet schemes.

Must be Al Gore.....:-). There isn't, and never has been what you call 'THE'
internet and no 'one' person helped invent it. There were thousands of
people involved from the US and Europe who managed to loosely put together
several old networks including AARPA and write HTTP so they could address
each other and we have a very loose network that is actually pretty much the
same today that you call the internet. The good thing about it is that there
is a TON of room to improve speed and bandwidth that has not even been
implemented yet. The first network I had in my home was a 60 baud system
that used a model 32 Teletype as a terminal. About 60WPM was about all that
old thing would do and it was pretty much state of the art at that time. If
you consider where we are now, that is a huge improvement.

Ed

Jim Beard
November 29th 07, 03:11 AM
John Adams wrote:
> Jim Beard wrote:
>
>> Either the study is rubbish or the writer who wrote the article
>> is an ignoramus.
>
> I suppose you think the person who helped invent the internet is also
> full of rubbish? He says the same as that article, sorry can't remember
> his name. I think you are spin doctoring because you have a vested
> interest in making money from these dim witted internet schemes.

Since you cannot say who this "person who helped invent the internet"
is, and do not provide an exact literal quote (and nothing less, your
assertions are so far off track that nothing less than cut-and-paste
whould have any credibility, and that only if you provide a citation
so it can be checked), I really cannot say whether he is also full
of rubbish or not.

If you are referring to Al Gore, yes, he too is full of rubbish, but
so far as I know he has not specified what bandwidth will be needed
for the Internet nor whether it will be forthcoming or not.

I have no financial interest in any "intenet schemes" of any type.
And if there is anyone "spin-doctoring" and characterizable as
"dim-witted" in this thread, you can check out the appearance of
same by looking in a mirror.

No cheers.

"plonk"

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

Vernon Schryver
November 29th 07, 04:27 AM
In article <[email protected]>,
Jim Beard > wrote:

>> I suppose you think the person who helped invent the internet is also
>> full of rubbish? He says the same as that article, sorry can't remember
>> his name. I think you are spin doctoring because you have a vested
>> interest in making money from these dim witted internet schemes.
>
>Since you cannot say who this "person who helped invent the internet"
>is, and do not provide an exact literal quote (and nothing less, your

The other person might be thinking about or trolling with
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/1643248
or shilling for
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=499&doc_id=136705

See also the NANOG thread including this paraticular message:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04195.html


remember,

Imminent death of the net predicted. Film at 11:00


Vernon Schryver

johns
November 30th 07, 12:17 AM
I'm at a gigabyte now ?? Intel already had 6 gigabyte
servers about 10 years ago. Problem is you'll sure hit
a bottleneck somewhere .. like 10 megabyte switches.
Still, no way can we "serve" an app to 20 or more users
even at 6 gigabytes. I do network installs, and 4 pcs
will grab 80% of the bandwidth at 1 gigabyte.

johns

John Adams[_2_]
November 30th 07, 06:21 PM
Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

>
> You're not the best of readers eh? I didn't say anything like that. I said
> most ISP's _overhere_ (= in The Netherlands) don't have a cap.
>
> Read it back and learn some modesty.
>
> Regards, Patrick.

How things are in Den Nederlands is irrelevant to most people.

John Adams[_2_]
November 30th 07, 06:23 PM
Ed Medlin wrote:

> Must be Al Gore.....:-). There isn't, and never has been what you call 'THE'
> internet and no 'one' person helped invent it. There were thousands of
> people involved from the US and Europe who managed to loosely put together
> several old networks including AARPA and write HTTP so they could address
> each other and we have a very loose network that is actually pretty much the
> same today that you call the internet. The good thing about it is that there
> is a TON of room to improve speed and bandwidth that has not even been
> implemented yet. The first network I had in my home was a 60 baud system
> that used a model 32 Teletype as a terminal. About 60WPM was about all that
> old thing would do and it was pretty much state of the art at that time. If
> you consider where we are now, that is a huge improvement.
>
> Ed
>
>

I'm talking about someone who helped create ARPNET. And there was no
HTTP back then so STFU trying to make out you are some big shot know-it-all.

John Adams[_2_]
November 30th 07, 06:27 PM
Well, whatever you ****s might think about me matters not because you
are still out to lunch if you think we are going to give up our cable
and satellite TV connections in exchange for HDTV over the internet. Get
a grip on reality.

Phil Weldon
November 30th 07, 07:49 PM
'John Adams' wrote:
| Well, whatever you ****s might think about me matters not because you
| are still out to lunch if you think we are going to give up our cable
| and satellite TV connections in exchange for HDTV over the internet. Get
| a grip on reality.
_____

Is there ANY newsgroup you get along in? It seems that at the least
disagreements with your pronouncements send you into an acting out frenzy.
Across a range of newsgroups. Personal attacks, chauvinism, and constantly
shifting terms of discuss seem to be a constant in your Usenet behavior.

Phil Weldon

"John Adams" > wrote in message
. ..
| Well, whatever you ****s might think about me matters not because you
| are still out to lunch if you think we are going to give up our cable
| and satellite TV connections in exchange for HDTV over the internet. Get
| a grip on reality.

Mr.E Solved!
November 30th 07, 11:31 PM
Phil Weldon wrote:

> 'John Adams' wrote:
> | Well, whatever you ****s might think about me matters not because you
> | are still out to lunch if you think we are going to give up our cable
> | and satellite TV connections in exchange for HDTV over the internet. Get
> | a grip on reality.
> _____
>
> Is there ANY newsgroup you get along in? It seems that at the least
> disagreements with your pronouncements send you into an acting out frenzy.
> Across a range of newsgroups. Personal attacks, chauvinism, and constantly
> shifting terms of discuss seem to be a constant in your Usenet behavior.
>
> Phil Weldon

Wow, if Phil Weldon is calling you out, you're history. He's taken his
lumps and is still with us, bye bye John Adams.

Patrick Vervoorn
December 1st 07, 02:21 PM
In article >,
John Adams > wrote:
>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
>>
>> You're not the best of readers eh? I didn't say anything like that. I said
>> most ISP's _overhere_ (= in The Netherlands) don't have a cap.
>>
>> Read it back and learn some modesty.
>>
>> Regards, Patrick.
>
>How things are in Den Nederlands is irrelevant to most people.

What a pathetic way to dodge out of this.

Regards,

Patrick.

Jim Beard
December 1st 07, 04:25 PM
johns wrote:
> I'm at a gigabyte now ?? Intel already had 6 gigabyte
> servers about 10 years ago. Problem is you'll sure hit
> a bottleneck somewhere .. like 10 megabyte switches.
> Still, no way can we "serve" an app to 20 or more users
> even at 6 gigabytes. I do network installs, and 4 pcs
> will grab 80% of the bandwidth at 1 gigabyte.

Chortle, chortle, chortle.

You get what you pay for, and know how to configure properly.
Networks do exist that work quite nicely with hundreds
and thousands of pcs pulling apps from a small number of
applicatons servers.

Yes, there will be a bottleneck somewhere, at some level.
A machine that has only 10-100 Mb/s ethernet is not going
to communicate at gigabit speeds, but so what? If it is
needed, faster (and more expensive) equipment is available.

Will everything be available to everyone at today's cost
for current levels of service? That may take a while,
and the price may go up a bit, but somehow the market
will sort out what people are really interested in
(enough to pay for!) and the problem will reduce to
managable levels.

Cheers!

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

John Adams[_2_]
December 2nd 07, 05:57 AM
Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

> What a pathetic way to dodge out of this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick.

How am I dodging anything? When you come up with a plausible reason why
you think things like HDTV over an internet connection are viable and
better than my current cable connection then post your reasons.

John Adams[_2_]
December 2nd 07, 05:58 AM
Phil Weldon wrote:

> Is there ANY newsgroup you get along in? It seems that at the least
> disagreements with your pronouncements send you into an acting out frenzy.
> Across a range of newsgroups. Personal attacks, chauvinism, and constantly
> shifting terms of discuss seem to be a constant in your Usenet behavior.
>
> Phil Weldon

More irrelevance. Move along tosser.

John Adams[_2_]
December 2nd 07, 05:59 AM
Mr.E Solved! wrote:

> Wow, if Phil Weldon is calling you out, you're history. He's taken his
> lumps and is still with us, bye bye John Adams.

I've been here since 1993 and ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

Phil Weldon
December 2nd 07, 07:53 PM
'John Adams' wrote:
| I've been here since 1993 and ain't going anywhere anytime soon.
_____

Fourteen, eh? That explains the acting out bit.

Phil Weldon

"John Adams" > wrote in message
. ..
| Mr.E Solved! wrote:
|
| > Wow, if Phil Weldon is calling you out, you're history. He's taken his
| > lumps and is still with us, bye bye John Adams.
|
| I've been here since 1993 and ain't going anywhere anytime soon.