DAMN YOU PORN TUBES!!!!! - Experts Warn Internet Is Running Out of Bandwidth
 

Damn you porn tubes.....damn you!!!!!:BangBang:

:-)

Interesting article, let it die a quick death if it's already been around once.


http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle6169488.ece

I'm working on a solution as we speak...


http://www.eldonspecialties.com/images/TinCanPhone.jpg

Well that sucks.

Damn would be nice if they drove up the prices on BW again :thumbsup

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:thumbsup

nice sig :)

hehe i saw thread title and inside it looked like serious message, so i laughed and i am still, thank you! :1orglaugh

It would be worse than the South Park episode...it will be rationed out...40 seconds a day

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/j...nointernet.jpg

The end is near...

Move to Japan. Simple.

For some reason the article quoted by the OP and the video on Nemertes website doesn't appear to make sense from a business perspective.

Increased demand never limits growth. That would be a retarded position to settle for when running a business. A company that sees that it's reaching the limits of its present infrastructure will not just sit on its laurels and say that they can't deliver to the customer. They either will have to expand or face losing customers to someone who can deliver.

This reeks of an industry advertising campaign for Akamai, Limelight and other content providers masked as loose "research".

Technically they could "say" that we will run out of bandwidth, but that will never happen.

Damn, and I just deleted all my ASCII porn

Unplug Youtube.
Problem fixed.
WG

Some one is going to have to pay for the extra investment. Will it be the kids on Youtube, Youtube or all of us?

Let me explain how business works so you get a better picture.

(A) I go shop for my groceries at Sellitcheap because it's the cheapest place to buy my groceries. The problem is I have to stand in line to get into the shop, the trolleys are busted and the food is always just stacked in boxes and sometimes they run out. When it comes to pay there's a line and it takes hours to do what should take an hour.

So I decided to say fuck it and shop across the road, a bit more expensive but the convenience is worth every penny.

(B) If supplying a customer costs more than they pay you want to get rid of that customer.

The cheap ass fucks who don't want to spend money can leave, the rest of us can pay for a better service.

Im donating a part of the 13k dollar bandwith im using up to charity.
Hope they spread it amongst the poor people without bw.

Im sorry ;)

Well we need more fiber optics....

No need to explain. I have my credentials.

But let me explain how internet technology works as you appear to have fallen victim to the hype, clearly confused by the nonsensical technological rhetoric in that article.

The capacities quoted, combined with the extraneous information they threw in about youTube and other content providers, will no doubt get the average person (and even some 'web savvy' peeps) worried about future internet capacity, but in truth that article is nothing but a loosely worded, but well-planned press release.

My suggestion: Learn a bit more about fiber optics and the true capacity of internet backbones before believing that "the internet will run out of bandwidth". The extra "investment" will be nothing more than lighting up a few additional strands of dark fiber that are already laid out globally. ISP's and content providers need people to believe that prices have to go up to assist "future growth" and quality of service, but in truth they are gouging the public and giving the least amount of bandwidth they can for the highest price they can.

That's my word on that, from an insider's perspective.

who the fuck uses the bbc iplayer, what a shameless plug

So this fiber optic is there for free is it. Then I'm totally wrong.

If it will cost money to install and use can you tell us where that money comes from please. And not extra people getting connected, unless you know how much money that will generate and the cost of going to fiber optics. If all those cables are laid and all the equipment is in place I think the Net would not be slowing down.

There is also the cost of the ISP to handle the extra use to him and out into the the WWW. You sound like one of those people who think it's all a conspiracy by big business to squeeze a few extra dollars from us. When in reality if it were possible for one ISP to offer unlimited, super fast connections at no extra cost they would do so and pick up all the disgruntled customers.

Now you're rambling.

Stop it.

The reality is that many ISP's are not using the full capacity of their services, neither are they passing on this extra bandwidth to regular customers. Why should they do that when the general public is quite content with current bandwidth levels, even with the slowdowns.

They make far more with their corporate clients, who purchase guaranteed bandwidth speeds through fiber optic connectivity.

Save your conspiracy theory accusations for the uninitiated. I'm giving you a professional and factual opinion. I can reliably state that most ISP's gouge their customers in terms of pricing. As a technology consultant I have personally seen it and have actively been a part of it.

Are you familiar with Moore's Law? It's more than applicable to fiber optic connectivity. To simplify the concept for you, it costs them significantly less over time to provide drastically increased capacity, especially with advancements in CWDM and DWDM.

This means that dark fiber (which in every major communications network often sits dormant) continues to increase in capacity EXPONENTIALLY...all while the cost to maintain it is reduced, EXPONENTIALLY.

Listen to common sense from someone who knows they are talking about. This isn't about who's right or wrong. This is about facts.

I think what they want is a two or three tier service, kind of like what ISP's did for VOIP, to keep the low latency for the customers who pay for the added service.

Also the days of mass leeching surely must end at some point. Right now at my ISP I'm given 95gb a month upload/download combined, for $59 a month.

If I go over, it costs me $1.25 per gigabyte. Sounds scary, but they cap the overage fees at $25. A friend of mine downloaded nearly 1.5TB one month, and his bill was $59 + $25, and it said he "saved" something like $1,800 for that period.

Customer pays ISP.

ISP pays backbone provider ISP (if they're not one themselves)

ISP's may pay telco for laying fibre.

That's where the money comes from. It's called a business. ;)

I think that is sooo much BS.

What happened with the system using the internet connection via electricity??

They were testing it in Sandiego last I heard.

Sorry, but I'm too busy fixing Y2K to give a shit about another bullshit analysis

i remember this being said when i was in the 3rd grade or something

"eroticsexxx" is right on this one. Nothing to worry about.
There's lots of dark fiber, capacity sitting idle waiting to be used.
At the same time, as consumers want more and more video we,
the industry, are finding ways to deliver that video with lower overall
bandwidth usage, such as the recent move to CDNs which many
webmasters are part of. Any video or pic on a CDN is one less
thing that has to go across the backbone a thousand times per day.
Also, youtube, and the real users of video, porn, pay for every bit
of bandwidth they use, so that provides the money to build more
infrastructure. You did notice your host bills you for bandwidth, right?
All of those bandwidth bills go to pay for lighting fiber and otherwise
providing for whatever capacity is needed, where it's needed, when
it's needed. Users are also paying more for $65 high speed cable
or DSL instead of the $12 they used to pay for dial up. Again,
they are paying to build more internet infrastructure as needed.

The point about economies of scale is also true. When we put our
first server in our second datacenter, in Houston, that cost us $180
for 3U of space. We're about to switch to a full cabinet, 40U, for $650.
By using more, each 3U server will cost us $50 instead of $180.
Our bandwidth cost is $100/mbps or $3350 for 100mbps - our cost
per mbps goes down 66% by increasing our usage. The more badwidth
we use, the cheaper it is. It's the same on a large scale - it will cost
the backbone providers about the same amount to lay a 10 Gbps
fiber line as it had cost them to lay a 51Mbps line. They get 20 times
the bandwidth for roughly the same cost. Actually, they don't even
need to lay new fiber, they just have to switch out the laser units
on the ends of each fiber network. Last year AT&T put new 40Gbps
interfaces on much their old fiber so it can now carry eight times
as much bandwidth as it previously could.

The real bandwidth chokepoint, most industry experts say, is in
the last mile - trying to make the connection from the ISP to your
house faster, so you can download videos faster.

One of the cool things about fibre (which Raymor touched on above) is that new technologies can wring more bandwidth out of the same piece of glass.

Australia has just announced it's going to build a national fibre-to-the-home network, so I guess we'll be needing some of those laser unit upgrades for our undersea cables in the near future. :)

"While the net itself will ultimately survive, Ritter said that waves of disruption would begin to emerge next year, when computers would jitter and freeze. This would be followed by ?brownouts? ? a combination of temporary freezing and computers being reduced to a slow speed."


My computer will freeze because there is a lack of bandwidth? LOL who wrote this article?

In Canada i'm paying $80 a month for a 50mbit/1mbit up connection with 100gig limit, with overage fees. They plan on introducing a 100mbit connection shortly. If there was such a lack in bandwidth I doubt they would be pumping out these services.

Clearly many of you don't remember the stories of the "glut" of fiber being layed around the globe. The truth is there is capacity that will scale for at least 10 years. And, when that capacity is exhausted, there are vacant conduits waiting to be stuffed with more fiber cable. This story is BS.

Sounds like the consensus here is that it's BS. Glad to hear it.