The Internet sky really is falling | Hacker News Reader

The Internet sky really is falling

networkworld.com

21 pointsurlwolf30 comments

I found this article, rather vague..

How is it that computer networks will override moore's law? Either networking is inherently too costly on CPU/Hardware Or someone miscalculated that with a rise in computer power the networking infrastructure also rises in power..

Also using Youtube as an example for "clogged tubes" is silly, Youtube is clogging their own tubes (Ours too but only because we're not keeping up in rolling out new networks) Think of delivery via means like Bittorrent (no that doesn't instantly mean piracy) But rather as a protocol for distribution and even streaming media..More efficent so it makes the youtube costs much smaller and the overall load more distributed.

There is a maximum amount of traffic that could flow on the internet currently, but theoretically we will one day have a limit to our consumption above 1080p we might only ever need 2k and so that will be video, text is too small to worry about and music will only change in quality to a few gigs per album, So what more could we transfer?

Murder the spammers.

Like, literally find them in their homes and dead them.

I think spam is still a technology problem more than a person problem, Spam can be beaten. Things like piracy can't.

EG, There are only so many ways to display spam to someone, And if we aren't seeing it it's going to stop.

But there will always be a way to share information, and it's the end user that cares they don't mind how they get it so it wont be stopped.

Spam still exists because there are enough people who, upon receiving it, generate profit by buying spamvertised products.

Piracy still exists because people want things for free and copying digital content is a lot easier than stealing a physical product.

Both of these things share two key aspects:

1) The technology in charge of suppressing them cannot suppress them 100% (yet).

2) They appeal to basic nature in a large pool of humans.

Yet everyone seems to focus so much on the first aspect...

So you're suggesting deading the people that respond to spam email?

That would also works for me.

Ah, another "we must be at the end of the future now" post.

So what more could we transfer?

Multiple video streams for a start, for enhanced 3D or choose-your-own-viewpoint or choose-your-own-ending.

I agree, But how many Video streams would we need to stream at once for it to overrun moore's law is what i don't get, Sure it's a heck of a big job, but it's not a falling sky as such.

3D enhanced video sounds great! but all these technologies really won't be loading more than 3-6 streams of data at once, which we can keep up with easily.

It's just that choking bandwith doesn't cause any loss of customers until the competition offers better..at least that's how it is here

(NZ)

But i get it, there are huge files, But i still think we can keep up.

It's only routing tables that they claimed are growing at a rate outstripping Moore's Law, as I read it.

If this was true, we should be seeing bandwidth becoming more expensive. At least here in Sweden, the opposite seems to be true: prices seem to continue to fall.

And for the idea that we will someday hit a "capacity ceiling" to be true, price elasticity for bandwidth (and IP numbers) must be very, very low. I don't know of any evidence that we are ready to pay humongous amounts for tomorrows 3D, 2160p, video streams.

In North America, bandwidth is becoming more expensive in the form of overage charges for exceeding your bandwidth cap. My ISP charges a ridiculous $2 per GB for anything past 90GB.

How much is your monthly charge though? I mentioned mine just above..

It's about $70 for 10mbit down, 1mbit up. They also throttle bittorrent to about 10% of that.

What are the caps/speeds like there on average? VS price..

I come from a world where "10Gig!" is a "extreme plan" and the largest cap is 80gig, Which costs 130NZD or 607.092087 Swedish kronor (So says my converter)

I pay 150SEK, or $20, a month for 100MBit/s (and the fixed cost for fixed telephone). No cap (as far as I'm aware).

That honestly blows my mind, My connection is 10MBit/s down and 2MBit/s up. And that about the best i can get..

I think i should move :P

I have a feeling that this kind of pricing has more to do with lack of competition than with lack of capacity...

That said, Sweden is quite ok. At least during summer.

Does anyone have more info on YouTube "discontinuing video delivery to certain geographies due to lack of access capacity"? From what I understand this was more of a "we can't monetize 3rd world traffic" problem.

You're right, he pulled that into the article to support his very weak argument.

She

I don't agree with the "lack of access capacity" being a blocker for Internet growth/development. This problem can be solved easily by more investment from the cable/Telecom companies.

Really? As if that hasn't already happened? http://www.newnetworks.com/tellthetruthverizon.htm

Some ISPs have done very well in staying ahead of the demand curve. Others, such as BT and Virgin Media here in the UK, are not investing in areas of their network where demand has already outstripped supply.

I remember seeing this same alarmism in 1995. And 1997. And 1999. And...and...and. Tired of it.

Oh please don't call the successor technology "LISP".

Maybe they should call it "ARC" instead ;)

I often wonder if the Beeb could implement a location aware torrent based streaming app for iPlayer... I think they could drastically cut their costs if they just let their data exist on license payers personal networks, and it would make a hell of an experiment on optimising data flow.

Torrent streaming is very efficient for the server costs, However you have to stop trying to lock everything down somewhere because though it's a nice thought it only annoys the legit users.

In the end there is no way to stop someone just "dubbing" the video manually if there are a million software blocks in place, If you can see it you can steal it, Is the way media goes.

All the anti-piracy protections hurt more consumers who pay than the pirates who won't be worried by it once they have it.

However more to the point, Torrenting would be a wonderful alternative especially if it was made aware to the users that by leaving it streaming they'd HELP the BBC, It'd make for great content distribution.

http://trial.p2p-next.org/moreinfo/moreinfo.html

thanks for the link, it seems interesting!

One of the problems with this solution is that the content itself must become "location aware" as it wouldn't be fair to stream BBC content to the rest of the world when it's only being paid for by UK license payers. I see this as one of the founding principals of BBC iPlayer:- they have had the technology and the content to distribute BBC media worldwide for a good few years, but to do so fairly and maintain the illusion of order (because as you say "If you can see it you can steal it") the BBC have needed a rather robust piece of software to keep an eye on things. I hope they reach a point where they will turn off the "7 day listings" for license payers and have all the content available for download and sharing via an "in house" iPlayer Torrent.... guess it's not beyond the realms of possibility... and just think, we could finally have Later with Jools Holland on tap! That alone is enough to make it a worthwhile endeavour, when you factor in David Attenborough.... it's almost utopian ;)

'cable companies are implementing "usage caps" to keep users from, er, consuming "too much" bandwidth'

used as proof that we're running out of capacity...

Perhaps the broadband providers are 'capping bandwidth' because the research these guys did seems to give them some added legitimacy to do so?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com