I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
(working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20
typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet
today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical
households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't
have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet"
generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated
by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents
traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of
Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either.
Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if
they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering?
Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were
tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A
cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to
soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network
management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue
streams attached to them ...
I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
(working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is
supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40%
of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until
it became too late. )
although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20
typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet
today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical
households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't
have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet"
generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated
by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents
traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of
Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either.
Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if
they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering?
Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were
Maybe he has been trading on "the Internet is going to die" since 1981
and his shorts on the Internet are coming due in 2010? I mean this
sounds as much like all the other pump and dump things I have read :).
I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was an element of multi-pronged
lobbying approaches, reminiscent of the 'fiber to the home' tax break
series that hit a handful of years back that got us pretty much nothing.
I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
(working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20
typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet
Maybe if "typical household" is defined as "close relatives of Peter
Lothberg."
I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
(working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20
typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet
today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical
households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't
have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet"
generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated
by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents
traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of
Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either.
40 Gbps? Does anyone think the Internet has fewer than twenty 40 Gbps
links' worth of traffic? I know individual networks that have more
traffic.
Could we get 100 Gbps to the home by 2010? Hell, we're having trouble
getting 100 Gbps to the CORE by 2010 thanx to companies like Sun
forcing 40 Gbps ethernet down the IEEE's throat.
Not that 100 Gbps would be enough anyway to make his statement true.
Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if
they even had a basis at all)?
His answers are so far off, they're not even wrong.
Basis? You don't need a basis for such blatantly and objectively
false information that even the most newbie neophyte laughs their ass
off while reading it.
Good thing C|Net asked "vice president of legislative affairs" about
traffic statistics. Or maybe they didn't ask, but they sure
listened. Perhaps they should ask the Network Architect about the
legislative implications around NN laws. Actually, they would
probably get more useful answers than asking a lawyer about bandwidth.
I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is
supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40%
of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until
it became too late. )
This is not accurate. In 2009 the US is terminating analog (NTSC)
transmission of 'over the air' broadcasts. It has nothing to do with
'high definition' broadcasts. OTA broadcasts will just be done using
ATSC, rather than NTSC. It will continue to provide SD programming.
If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access
network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to
europe?
hello,
my biggest problem in understanding the ip6 / multicast concept is
" if the whole internet were multicast enabled " and there is no
unicast stream would´nt this not
decrease_the_traffic_to_a_reasonable amount ??!!
It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes
everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in
statutory penalties for their unlawful spying.
If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in
such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they
could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards
would be ensconced in Law?
* Whining as in, "so-and-so are terrible lawbreakers and they owe
us".
* Network neutrality (this has been discussed to death here) - unless you
have something poignant to add and you've read in detail what has been
said previously.
* Anything political that does not have operational impact.
* Anything legal that does not have operational impact.
On-topic:
* Operational impact of legal/political/financial external constraints.
I believe you have to take in account from whom and where some
assertions are coming from.
The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one "Internet exists, thanks
to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies".
AFAIK, most of the telecommunication companies and technology
providers that conform the core infrastructure of the net are
public traded companies, including AT&T.
And I concur that even with the dramatic traffic increase due HD media
is hard to believe that "20 typical households will generate more traffic
than the entire Internet today" in three years.
Perhaps he is transpiring what from a legal point of view AT&T thinks
about "Net Neutrality" and his take about public/consortium vs private
traffic policying.
But several of the major players in the net neutrality issue are
beneficiaries of legal monopolies (e.g., just try to go into the
landline voice business in Verizon's territory) and thus regulated for
good reason.
I think once a company accepts a legally enforced monopoly, sometimes
with 100M or more customers, they're not really a private company.
If they want the freedoms of a purely private company then they should
renounce their monopolies.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
I realize others involved on the same side are not legal monopolies,
though even cable TV companies have legally enforced monopolies or
near monopolies on the catv wire plants in many of their customer
regions.
Remove the companies with the legal monopolies from the net neutrality
issue (i.e., demand net neutrality only from the monopoly
beneficiaries) and would this be much of an issue?
Not really.
That's because what you'd be left with is *competition*.
But how can anyone seriously compete with companies who can
cross-subsidize from legally enforced monopolies of 100M customers,
including every single business in their region which is often
delineated in chunks like "all of the northeastern united states" or
thereabouts?
Fair is fair: They shouldn't be able to have it both ways and be able
to cry "legal monopoly!" when someone tries to compete with them and
"private company!" when the monopoly grantors try to reasonably
regulate that monopoly-derived power.
It's an awesome market power they have been granted. We shouldn't let
them use it to control other markets.
