Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Will Internet TV Crash the Internet?

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the or-just-jack-the-rates dept.

267

Stony Stevenson writes "Analyst groups and Cisco have come out saying that the internet is heading for a crash unless it increases its bandwidth capabilities which are being strangled by the increased use of Web TV. Stan Schatt, research director at ABI said: "Uploading bandwidth is going to have to increase, and the cable providers are going to get killed on bandwidth as HD programming becomes more commonplace." He added that the solution to the problem is to change to digital switching and move to IPTV. "They will be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century," he said. Cisco weighed into the argument, adding that it had found American video websites currently transmit more data per month than the entire amount of traffic sent over the internet in 2000."

cancel ×

267 comments

Well, the ISPs are going to have to decide ... (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285443)

whether they are going to give us what want, and find a way to stay profitable ... or not. In other words, they're going to have to start acting like real businesses.

It's not rocket science (5, Interesting)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285517)

whether they are going to give us what want, and find a way to stay profitable ... or not.


If you ask me, the whole "problem" is a bunch of balony. ISPs oversubscribe their services, because most people just browse websites, and that's low-bandwidth. Now, they're realising they can't do that, because people are using youtube and bittorrent, and that's about to reach critical mass when people like the BBC legitimize it in a consumer-oriented shrink-wrap. Suddenly, ISPs can't claim that people who actually USE their services are doing something immoral or illegal.

So, what's the problem again? You sold a service extra-cheap, because you didn't think you'd have to provide the full service? Tough. Get real, and sell what we're buying. The prices might go up, sure, but either we'll pay, or we won't care about the new service. Your upstream providers might charge too much for bandwidth, but that'll soon change as ISPs start demanding more.

Re:It's not rocket science (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285571)

Yes, they sold us a service based upon consumer expectations at the time ... worked great for a while too. Then (as always happens) our appetite for capacity increased, they didn't predict it (or, if they did, failed to act on that prediction) and now they're scrambling to keep the bandwidth hogs in their place. The problem is that, as you say, everyone is on the verge of becoming a bandwidth hog. If nothing else, things are about to get interesting.

Re:It's not rocket science (2, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285691)

Notice also that they didn't sell *us* the service. They sold their excited investors the business plan to sell exponential growth, based on badly researched growth of their businesses and excited sales plans.

We saw this all about 7 years before the first dotbomb, with web businesses. We're seeing it now with new online video businesses. The people who learned their lessons last time are selling their acumen this time around, selling the datacenter space and storage acumen to people willing to pay on credit for massive expansion that is never going to happen. These people are snickering as they carefully insist on cash up front.

Re:It's not rocket science (4, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286189)

they didn't predict it (or, if they did, failed to act on that prediction)
They did predict it, and did act on the prediction, else youtube would not be able to move as much data in a month as the whole internet did in a year in 2000. They under predicted the growth curve though.
-nB

Re:It's not rocket science (3, Interesting)

Tango42 (662363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286619)

There's no big difference between failing to predict growth and under-predicting it when that growth is (near) exponential. Your prediction is out by a factor of 20% in the first year, and by the fifth year, you are out by (according to the back of my envelope) 150%.

Re:It's not rocket science (5, Informative)

Shishak (12540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285673)

I would gladly sell you what you are buying.

Lets see, 24mbps (ADSL2+) @ $30/mbps = $720/month. Are you willing to pay that much money or would you like me to overcommit 100:1 and get the price down to $7.20 ?

$30/meg is decent bandwidth, you can approach $10/meg for crap bandwidth but you do get what you pay for.

To put it another way, $30,000 for a GigE connection per month, but you need 2 of them because you have to be redundant, so $60,000 for 1 Gigabit of redundant bandwidth. A HDTV signal eats up 7mbps so you can support 142 of them on a GigE connection, $422 per channel. Using multicast you can send the same channel to multiple customers (IPTV) but that is broadcast, not pay-per-view. You wouldn't be able to watch on-demand or fast-forward the signal. You could pause/rewind it if you had a hard drive in your set top box. That isn't what consumers want. As a provider selling triple-play services you need to dedicate at least 7mbps per end user in your edge/aggregation network. You will also need massive hard drive caches in your POP to cache as much content as close to your subscribers as possible. Set top boxes with big drives so you can pre-load content using multicast/broadcast techniques (i.e. pre-load the new hit movie on all set boxes and make them available on the release date) The cable infrastructure isn't built to handle this type of content delivery. DSL is but DSL distance limitations make getting 7mbps to customers hard (10kft limit). FTTH is the obvious answer but that is insanley expensive

The days of broadcast television are dying. Things like AppleTV & YouTube are going to kill it. Soon independant television producers will be able to produce/distribute the show directly to the consumer, no need to sell the show to ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX. You'll be able to subscribe to the shows and download them. All of that is unicast traffic and it will destroy internet bandwidth ratios.

Apple & iTunes is the way to go, once they start distributing content around the Internet (ala Akamai) they will have the parts needed to replace the broadcasters.

Re:It's not rocket science (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285821)

I would gladly sell you what you are buying.

Lets see, 24mbps (ADSL2+) @ $30/mbps = $720/month. Are you willing to pay that much money or would you like me to overcommit 100:1 and get the price down to $7.20 ?
Most people are happy with the service they're currently paying for. What the ISPs need to start doing is accurately describing their services. If your network only has the capacity for users to download 30GB/month, then start advertising it as a 30GB/month service, not an unlimited one.

Re:It's not rocket science (2, Insightful)

Shishak (12540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285885)

Most consumer grade ISP services are sold as 'up to X mbps'. There is no guarantee in availability. read the fine print it is all classified as 'best effort'. You may have read it as '6mbps all day every day' but that isn't what the fine print says. You agreed to the fine print when you signed up for service so you really can't complain. You can speak loudly with your wallet, buy services from the few remaining independant ISPs and get better service, lower over commit rates and keep the big guys honest.

Re:It's not rocket science (4, Insightful)

azrider (918631) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286029)

Most consumer grade ISP services are sold as 'up to X mbps'. There is no guarantee in availability. read the fine print it is all classified as 'best effort'.

The Army Reserve used to advertise:

You will serve one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer

Then, it became:

Most will serve one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer

Then, it became:

Many will serve one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer

Then, the statement disappeared entirely

Cable is making the same sort of statement with "*cough* Up to X mbps *cough*" - the fine print doesn't say "Most will only get sustained speeds of Y mbps where Y is significantly less than X

Re:It's not rocket science (1)

uolamer (957159) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286055)

yes i will '24mbps (ADSL2+) @ $30/mbps = $720/month.' if that includes the local loop.

Re:It's not rocket science (2, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286205)

Doing a quick look around at the local market...

http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/products.asp?typ eid=35&kt=323&gclid=COyx-ev4gY4CFQ0eEgoddkfJOw [broadbandchoices.co.uk]

£24.00/month, even at today's rates, is still only $48.00/month, and with a little research you can probably do much better than that. That's a far cry from the $720 you're looking to charge. Oh right, the US has artificially killed the high-speed broadband market. All hail the FCC and the Bush administration...and America's entry into the technological backwater.

Re:It's not rocket science (3, Insightful)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286233)

The days of broadcast television are dying. Things like AppleTV & YouTube are going to kill it.

The same way internet radio and mp3 kills radio stations? Or wait, I still listen to convetional radio stations at work 5 days a week ~10 hours per day (including traffic and lunch). It's not that easy. Basic stuff like news, weather forecast and hot stuff just coming in just aren't covered on youtube. Youtube may kill "america's funniest home videos" or whatever that show is called. No loss.

Re:It's not rocket science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286271)

$30/meg is decent bandwidth, you can approach $10/meg for crap bandwidth but you do get what you pay for.
Okay, I'll bite: 1 mbps makes 10 gigabytes per day, 300GB per month. Why are the caps typically 1/10 of that?

Re:It's not rocket science (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286425)

I've had 10MBit cable at $70/month for more than 2 years (unlimited transfer), but a few days ago I got a letter saying that a 100GB/month limit (up/down combined) was going to be applied to everyone's connection and charging $1.50/GB extra.

If internet TV or other high bandwidth medias take off, I have a feeling more ISPs are going to start doing the same, which will kill it real fast.

Try that math again with these figures (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286607)

100mbps (both up and down!) starting at $39.95/mo [homenetnw.com]

$30/meg is decent bandwidth, you can approach $10/meg for crap bandwidth but you do get what you pay for.

Apparently not everywhere.

Re:It's not rocket science (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286695)

A HDTV signal eats up 7mbps so you can support 142 of them on a GigE connection, $422 per channel.


???? An HDTV signal eats up 20.4mbps Say, roughly 50 on a GigE.

Re:Well, the ISPs are going to have to decide ... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285815)

Unless its the cable companies you are speaking of, which have a virtual monopoly in their area. Monopolies dont have to act like 'real businesses'.

Bandwidth is not a limited resource (4, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286317)

Available bandwidth is currently deliberately limited by the major incumbents. This manufactured scarcity drives the price up. There is more than enough dark fiber to meet our needs for decades to come.

The incumbents are about to discover that people will only put up with this for so long before they mandate municipal information infrastructure. Fiber is the bridge to the global economy and building bridges is one of the justifications for government exist. If your state and local governments won't do it, mine will - and your kids will find it that much harder to compete with mine.

Fiber is not made of some rare mineral. It is processed sand.

Re:Well, the ISPs are going to have to decide ... (1)

narrowhouse (1949) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286531)

This is just another story that is designed to convince people that creating a tiered internet is the only possible solution. Many small ISPs aren't even involved in this discussion. This is all about the owners of big sections of the internet infrastructure looking for a way to justify charging sites not only for the huge amounts of bandwidth they need, as they do now, but also charge for actually using the huge amounts of bandwidth they have purchased.

Tiered internet is like charging someone $50,000 for a car with 500 horsepower and them charging them again each time they go over 35mph. Unfortunately most car companies would probably try that system if they could figure out a way to implement it.

Re:Well, the ISPs are going to have to decide ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286651)

It's more like if, say, cell phone companies were to charge you a fixed rate every month, and then added extra charges for voice calls, data transfer, Web access, text messaging, etc. That would be ridiculous, of course, and nobody in their right mind would buy such a service.

And the answer is..... (0, Redundant)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285445)

I don't know but we are going to find out...

Re:And the answer is..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286089)

Sure, crashing the Internet. ISPs will simply throttle high bandwidth digital broadcasts, and take the opportunity to introduce new, more expensive 'Digital TV Compatible' packages.

By digital switching, they mean IP Multicast (3, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285469)

They certainly have had time to deploy it.

Re:By digital switching, they mean IP Multicast (1)

CPT Carl (222361) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285559)

But IP Multicast won't cut it for the current method of watching TV on the Internet "on demmand". Right now, say you want to watch last week's episode of your favorite show. If its multicast out, then anyone who starts the stream after you will have missed the beginning. Kind of a bummer for them. IP Multicast is great to stream shows on a scheduled basis. Then viewers could "tune in" at the appropriate time and catch the show, just like they do with standard TV.

Its possible that someone may devise an way for the "on-demmand" viewing model to work using the efficiency of IP multicast, but right now its not a drop in replacement to magically save bandwidth.

BTW, I am a big believer in using multicast on the Internet...

Re:By digital switching, they mean IP Multicast (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285637)

You can certainly use multicast to pre-cache a good chunk of the Video on Demand out there. Check out, for example, Arootz [arootz.com] , an Israeli company which is planning to do exactly that.

And, of course, channels are certainly not going to go away...

Re:By digital switching, they mean IP Multicast (1)

tji (74570) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285773)

It all depends on how it is packaged. Subscribing to shows, like you can do with podcasts in iTunes, would work very well as multicast. They might re-multicast the show several times, and weight it towards off-hours when utilization is lowest.

A Tivo Season Pass type model also works well for this.

It will obviously not work for 100% of the cases. True on-demand viewing, like browsing through YouTube, won't benefit much from multicast. But, they could cut down a huge percentage of bandwidth usage by using multicast where practical.

Depending on the type of service, users could be encouraged to use the pre-scheduled model by pricing it more attractively. If the multicast season pass was 1/3 the price of instant on-demand, most people would choose the cheaper option.

Re:By digital switching, they mean IP Multicast (3, Informative)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285827)

"IP Multicast is great to stream shows on a scheduled basis."

Once you start using MythTV or other capable PVR application you change your view of 'tuning in'. You simply dont do that anymore, you just mark what you want and treat it as a delayed-scheduled download service. Heck, the next step in that evolution (as storage grows the next order of magnitude) is simply using multiple tuners and pre-recording everything, so you can, in effect, decide what you want to watch post-multicast.

Re:By digital switching, they mean IP Multicast (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285865)

You can use multicast quite effectively for distributing like this, as long as you don't want streaming. Split the file into n chunks, and simultaneously send it to n multicast addresses. Clients join 1 to n of these groups, depending on their bandwidth and download the data in chunks.

As the other poster said, you can also have ISP-run caches in the multicast group, allowing their customers to download from a local node, reducing the strain on the backbone.

Cost will go up.. (1)

astonishedelf (845821) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285471)

Well, someone is going to have to pay for the increased bandwidth. Most likely the consumer.

Re:Cost will go up.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20285787)

Well, someone is going to have to pay for the increased bandwidth. Most likely the consumer.

The cost of bandwidth is next to nothing compared to the cost they expect to charge you for the TV content.

Someone is going to have to pay for the increased amount of TV content. Most likely the consumer.

tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285475)

How many times have "experts" predicted the imminent death of the Internet?

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (5, Insightful)

Oddscurity (1035974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285545)

More times than I care to count. I suspect it's to do with "We've got the solution to this imminent catastrophe, and will sell it to you for 1 billion dollars."

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (4, Insightful)

Mantaman (948891) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285777)

Dont forget the study was done by Cisco .. now what is Cisco's business????

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (4, Insightful)

Oddscurity (1035974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285847)

Exactly my idea. Their gear powers a sizeable chunk of the internet, so of course some people (Pointy-haired Bosses?) will say "That probably shows they know what they're talking about." Problem is, do you know if it's their engineering or marketing guys that are doing the talking? I'll give 'em this, it's a brilliant sales strategy. Now all they have to do is make sure the death of the internet isn't imminent too often, since it failing to die too often is going to get noticed at some point.

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286445)

Exactly. "The internet is going to grow beyond capacity soon. But don't worry we have these 10Gig E switches and routers we can sell you".

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (1)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285583)

How many times have "experts" predicted the imminent death of the Internet?
About 42.

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (3, Funny)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285835)

45. Don't forget the 3 redundant slashdot stories today.

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285619)

Pretty much continuously since 1988, the last time it crashed.

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285699)

How many times have "experts" predicted the imminent death of the Internet?

I wish I had taken a screenshot of last night's Google News default page. Dead Miners, Death Trap on I-35W, Vick is a Dog Killer, Los Angels Man Dies of West Nile, Firefighters die at Ground Zero Fire, Passengers tell of coming close to death, Breastfeeding moms taking codeine could kill their babies, and 1000s of Deaths Expected in Hati from Cat5 Hurricane.

This is just YAHTTAD (Yet Another Headline to Talk About Death). It's tiring, it really really is. But remember kids, thankfully the FCC is out there looking out for your best interests and keeping smut off the airwaves.

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20285723)

Not only that, didn't we have this exact same prediction a while back for the Olympics?

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (1)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285743)

With good reason. Netcraft Confirms internet is dead.

Re:tag: imminentdeathofthenetpredicted (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285789)

They'll just buy more bandwidth. Now. If it's ever nationalised it'll crash.

 

Effort already being applied to reduce user ..... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285477)

...produced bandwidth to make more room for TV?

http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbthread.pl/a miga/expand/149564 [dreamhosters.com]

A link to a thread that links to a fuddy /. story? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285561)

sure, soft capping has been in place a long time, and despite hundreds of transferred gigs i have never been told to lay off.

but i live in the same geographic area as the poster and notice NO changes to the same old bit torrent behavior i've seen for the past 1.5 years.

i'm leaning toward the "story is fud" conclusion on that allegation. it comes from a single source which fails to link in any mass testimonials or objective data to prove it's claims, claims which btw run counter to what i've experienced testing their hypothetical "hinderance" of bit torrent seeding.

If unicasts overload the network... (3, Informative)

JackHoffman (1033824) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285489)

then let's have multicasting. There you are, another good reason for IPv6. Get to it.

Buy Cisco stock now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20285497)

The sales department at Cisco are geniuses.

1) Tell the world the internet will crash unless infrastructure is upgraded.
2) Sell infrastructure.
3) Profit.

Re:Buy Cisco stock now! (3, Funny)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285869)

What's the deal with everybody forgetting the ???? step? You know, if you were working as a CEO, your company would be bankrupt by now.

Simple partial solution (4, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285515)

Internet providers like Comcast will simply do what they've been doing. They've been throttling bittorrent because of the bandwidth it can take up. They'll simply throttle or block any internet TV that they don't specifically provide since it would be considered competitive to their cable TV offerings.

Re:Simple partial solution (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285569)

going to tell you the same thing..

have comcast service, tested their allegations last night, notice no real change in bit torrent behavior from the past year and a half.

did lookups on the peers which remained stable, NONE of them were comcast users.. I'd love some corroboration on this but as far as i'm seeing this allegation of cutting off bit torrent seeding to users outside the comcast network is fud.

Re:Simple partial solution (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285785)

I have the feeling it's not so simple as that. I'm on the Comcast 8 meg tier and have also noticed no difference in behavior. But then again, where I live I have lots of broadband options (I didn't plan it that way but there it is.) I doubt Comcast is going to screw with me too much because I could switch to a more congenial provider with a phone call. On the other hand, if you're someplace where Comcast (or any other ISP) is the only game in town, I think it might be a different story. Besides, Comcast is huge and is under no obligation to apply any policies equally across their entire network. You and I could be among the lucky ones (for now.)

Re:Simple partial solution (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285859)

as far as i know my area is one of those 2 pony shows ("the cable provider and the dsl provider").

i honestly think the story, which only came from one source (a torrent site rather than say dslreports where most of the throttling stories originate), stemmed from numerous possibilities.
from greatest likelihood to least:

-problems with a popular client (utorrent?)
-anti-comcast vendetta by the proprietors of the site taking license with an unrelated problem
-astroturfing by comcast's competitors.

I've just never seen problems with seeding on the comcast network, and in fact comcast implemented new protocols a couple years ago which made their modems more stable under BT. All they would ever need to do is roll back that protocol and the modems of bt users would simply fall offline all the time.

Re:Simple partial solution (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285901)

Could be. I'm not arguing either way, and like I said, my own experience has been good regarding large downloads. Occasionally I'll download a TV show if I miss an episode, and the other day I pulled one down at over ten mbits/sec. In Azureus no less.

I've had less luck with Comcast's DNS and mail servers, so I don't use either of them. But that's another issue.

Imminent Demise of the Internet Predicted (5, Informative)

PhoenixHack (1032194) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285537)

Choice quotes from this article written at the close of 1995:

http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/me tcalfe/bm120495.htm [infoworld.com]

Dazzling product literature and advertising require at least ISDN speeds. But the major corporations upon which we are relying to upgrade Internet access past 28.8Kbps are the local telco monopolies, which like our postal service and public schools have become little more than jobs programs. The local telcos will escape demonopolization in 1995 and, while they pursue long distance voice business in 1996, their motivation to lower costs on high-speed Internet access will wither, fatally constipating the Web.

You've read that the Internet was designed to survive thermonuclear war, but it's repeatedly been brought to its knees, its circuits choked, for example, by the reaction to one measly jury verdict in Los Angles. The Internet is intermittently overloaded, and the TCP/IP architecture doesn't deal well with overloads. Furthermore, the Internet's naive flat-rate business model is incapable of financing the new capacity it would need to serve continued growth, if there were any, but there won't be, so no problem.

One of two bad things will happen with video over the Internet during 1996. Either the Internet's attached computers, operating systems, and applications software will fail to deliver video, or they will succeed. If they succeed, the packet-punctuated pre-Asynchronous Transfer Mode Internet will fail to carry it. In either case, without video the Internet will lack the energy needed to sustain its current expansion.

The Internet traffic carrying arguments about pornography on the Internet will during 1996 swamp the actual pornography, so even the most sophisticated Web search engines will too often fail to find any. What quicker road to collapse?
More gems to be found via http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=imminent+demi se+of+the+internet+predicted [google.com] ...

Re:Imminent Demise of the Internet Predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20285721)

oh wow and that was written by Bob Metcalfe. I do suppose that coming up with ethernet and working at PARC needn't correlate with an ability to make accurate predictions though... Actually all of his predictions have fairly reasonable basis, he was just assuming that people would make reasonable choices based on the circumstances. And they obviously didn't.

Re:Imminent Demise of the Internet Predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20285813)

hmmm ok I'll admit I hadn't read the whole thing when I clicked submit, but I think it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek...

Re:Imminent Demise of the Internet Predicted (4, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286025)

Dazzling product literature and advertising require at least ISDN speeds. But the major corporations upon which we are relying to upgrade Internet access past 28.8Kbps are the local telco monopolies, which like our postal service and public schools have become little more than jobs programs.

Damn, it's still just as relevant today!

What about those previous slashdot articles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20285567)

You know? The ones talking about increasing internet speeds over copper? I guess bandwidth utilization actually is ouptpacing the deployment of new(expensive) technology. I guess were all in a crunch! It's back to dial-up for me.

It will pass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20285585)

We went from text only web page to ones loaded with graphics and then mp3 then Bitorrent. Each of these are as worrying as the WebTV in their own times.
Well, based on our past experience. It doesn't seem it will be much of a problem.

FUD (2, Insightful)

+Addict-09+ (239664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285615)

What a bunch of FUD. Let's all run out and buy more/new routers, switches, circuits so Cisco and the like can see a bump in their stock.

The amount of bandwidth available internally to a Cableco/Telco and what's generally available between the source (some video streamer) and the ingress of the Cableco/Telco are apples and oranges.

My alternative... (5, Interesting)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285627)

I've spoken with a few engineers in the IPTV business... they're al about multicasting and QOS delivery. I'm going to go out on the limb and say... uhhh.... no. Why?

Because that's NOT what internet TV is all about. Sure, for some content think it's great. Like ABC, Fox, whatever - they can do the multicast. But for the rest of the content providers, it's going to be on-demand. And that solution is really quite simple. And it makes money.

Basically you take an Akamai like model and extend it. Deploy caching servers right to the ISP's - on the customer doorstep. Offer subscriptions to the customers and the ISP gets a chunk of the monthly. Customers get instant access to the content from the caching server. Content people get a chunk from the number of views statistically. ISP's only have to move content over their uplink once for all their customers nearby.

Best part is you could do it securely for the media providers, and give people a reason to use the service (more shows, better quality, faster delivery). Eventually you offer sell-up items like movies, sporting events, etc. In other words it would be better than cable, cheaper than cable, and far cheaper to operate.

There's all kinds of great stuff you could do here - and you could do it on the cheap and make beaucoup bucks. So, ya know... send me a bag of gold hehehe.

Re:My alternative... (2, Insightful)

Shishak (12540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285741)

Exactly,

  I expect Apple to buy Akamai and use their network to distrubute iTunes TV/Movies to feed AppleTVs. Once that is in place there is no need to ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX. TV Show producers can sell their show to Apple and bypass the middle man. Straight to the consumer/per-click payments

My ISP pushes 200-300mbps (not huge by any means) and the Akamai boxes in my network save about 10% of that (20-30mbps)

Buy Apple & Akamai stock now, they have the tools to flip the broadcasters on their heads.

This is also why it is so importan to keep Net-Neutrality. If Comcast & Verizon have the ability to rate-limit/traffic shape BitTorrent into oblivion they can do the same to VONAGE/iTunes/YouTube/ etc. The network has all the power/control. It has to be kept open, it has to be a 'public resource'

Re:My alternative... (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286377)

Speaking of Akamai, are there any others who do what Akamai does?

Re:My alternative... (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285807)

I'm finding your analysis perceptive. And I'm keeping my eye on the excited new small companies buying their first cool chairs with all the fancy knobs and levers.

Those of us who actually have a hint on how much providing reliable video download services cost to provide are laughing sadly, and selling our services dear to clean up the messes and salvage *something* out of it. I wish I had a nickel for every recruiter who's tried to hire me the last few weeks for these thngs. I'd have.... enough to pay for nice latte on my way to work. And I'm referring them to my younger, less experienced friends, who can use the resume filler contract work.

Re:My alternative... (1)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286043)

Well I cut my teeth on secure server deveopment over low bandwidth, got the tshirt and the patent to prove it, heheh. ;-)

This model they want to deploy is hard to get right. And I don't believe it's the solution for the midterm, especially when you start promising on-demand and HD quality. If you calculate the bandwith for 32 channels, multicast, at 24x7 versus on-demand caching - there's no comparison. Multicast would greatly increase the base bandwidth required to operate an ISP.

Re:My alternative... (2, Interesting)

vhold (175219) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286275)

I think the reason why we won't see that is because the ISPs want to take advantage of their unique position, and basically hold a monopoly on ultra fast and cheap content delivery that doesn't go out over the internet.

Comcast already has the most comprehensive on-demand services, and it's quite expensive for the end-user. $6 to watch a HD movie. Why would they open up that door to equal competition? As competitors pop up, they'll always be able to undercut them because they don't have to pay a 3rd party for bandwidth.

Re:My alternative... (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286739)

Interesting. My brother and I have been developing exactly what you're describing in our spare time. I believe no online distribution system can be successful if ISPs aren't aboard: if they don't get their cut, they'll just kill the quality of service.

So we've written a BitTorrent extension that uses cryptographic signatures to provide infalsifiable upload statistics. Those upload statistics can then be used to reward uploaders. ISPs can set up the caching servers you're mentioning, and get paid just like any uploader.
(It is also possible to pay the writers of compatible clients as well, using the same statistics.)

The code is released under the LGPL. Drop me an email if you're interested! (hgs at killbill.org - please mention /. in the subject) ;)

Web TV? (1, Funny)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285633)

The summary mentions Web TV choking the internet...didn't that die off a while ago when computers became ubiquitous?

Re:Web TV? (2, Interesting)

nysus (162232) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285685)

Actually, my Mom still has it. Bought the thing in 1997. Still works!

FUD (1)

dashslotter (1093743) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285639)

In 1994 an otherwise intelligent EE told me that the pending popularity of the internet would bring it to a halt. At the time I figured, meh, this will actually push the build-out of the infrastructure, it's simple economics. Here we go again.

I smell baloney (2, Interesting)

nysus (162232) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285659)

I wonder with telco/cable company this "research" firm was paid by. This bit of disinformation helps support their case for why we need to turn the net into an information superhighway dotted with toll booths. However, there are better ways to do things.

Isn't funny, that a country of South Korea does just fine with super fast broadband connections many times faster than ours in both directions? No problems there. Unfortunately, this country's moronic embrace of unfettered capitalism and foolish trust in corporations to deliver essential public services is stopping us from seeing the best approach to delivering an infrastructure that will serve people well.

Re:I smell baloney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286203)

Isn't funny, that a country of South Korea does just fine with super fast broadband connections many times faster than ours in both directions? No problems there. Unfortunately, this country's moronic embrace of unfettered capitalism and foolish trust in corporations to deliver essential public services is stopping us from seeing the best approach to delivering an infrastructure that will serve people well.
How big is South Korea? What's the population density there?

God, you're dense.

Re:I smell baloney (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286227)

Isn't funny, that a country of South Korea does just fine with super fast broadband connections many times faster than ours in both directions?

How about trying South Korea's infrastructure in a country that has nearly 100 times the landmass, with a population density that completely destroys the cost effectiveness of close-in networking topographies? Right: it doesn't work. And of course, ask people in the most rural areas of South Korea if they're seeing anything like what someone in a beehive-like apartment building in Seoul is seeing. They're not.

foolish trust in corporations to deliver essential public services

Are you saying that fake UFO videos, footage of idiotic junior high school students lip-synching, dogs doing tricks, and pirated re-runs of The Simpsons are an "essential public service?" The bandwidth that's being burned up, here, is being burned up primarily for entertainment. You seem inclined to nationalize/socialize that. You're willing to place control over entertainment infrastructure in the hands of the government so that you can imagine that you'll get it somehow cheaper. I can't imagine what track record, government-wise, you're thinking of that suggests it would cost them LESS to build out and administer fiber to your door than it would for competing businesses to do so... but you're probably in the camp that just hopes that someone who pays more taxes than you do will pick up the tab, because, by making more money than you do, they deserve to pay for your entertainment plumbing, since you're entitled to that Essential Public Service.

Re:I smell baloney (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286409)

How about trying South Korea's infrastructure in a country that has nearly 100 times the landmass, with a population density that completely destroys the cost effectiveness of close-in networking topographies?

New Jersey [wikipedia.org] and South Korea [wikipedia.org] have about the same population density (1,200 vs 1,000 persons per square mile), yet New Jersey's internet sucks.

Of course a better comparison would be to ask why Finland (who has a population density of 40 /sq mi) has better internet than us.

Re:I smell baloney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286741)

As long as people live in clusters, number of people per area is a stupid measure. With that measure, the population density of USA would be the same even if everyone there lived in New York.

Re:I smell baloney (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286419)

Oh and...

Are you saying that fake UFO videos, footage of idiotic junior high school students lip-synching, dogs doing tricks, and pirated re-runs of The Simpsons are an "essential public service?"

Bread and circuses.

Re:I smell baloney (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286509)

If it was all about population densities then there would be many big cities with FTTH but there aren't. There are many big cities in the U.S. and Canada that are highly populated and could easily be upgraded to faster speeds.

Re:I smell baloney (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286365)

That's funny, I tend to blame our problems on rather the opposite.

Why is the US so far behind in internet connectivity? I believe, and a lot of people on Slashdot seem to agree, that it comes from the fact that when you want internet, you can either choose between the phone monopoly, the cable monopoly, or options with severe technical limitations like satellite.

Why do we have phone and cable monopolies? Because the government didn't trust in unfettered capitalism and instead granted those monopolies because they had this funny idea that it would improve services. And now we're stuck with them, because they're entrenched. Your solution is to replace this government-supported monopoly with a true government monopoly and hope that things will get better? Save me from the help of people like you! Instead, root them out, force them to open their lines, and bring in competition, and we will see vast improvements.

Here's a great example of how government screws with the system. Where I live, my broadband choices are Verizon DSL or Comcast cable. I went with Comcast because in the end it's cheaper and faster. Now, literally across the street, their choices are Verizon DSL, Cox cable, and Verizon FiOS. FiOS is about 30% cheaper and twice as fast as my Comcast service. Oddly enough, the Cox service is also cheaper and faster than my Comcast service... hmm, I wonder why.... But I can't get either of those. Why? Because the street I live on marks the border between my city and the neighboring city. My city gave Comcast a monopoly on TV services and still will not let FiOS in. As a result, no real competition and I'm paying more for less.

Now, the situation across the street is just stronger competition between the cable monopoly and the phone monopoly, but at least it's a start, and it's already giving those people much better, cheaper service than what I am able to obtain. Imagine what would happen if the government jumpstarted some capitalistic competition in the sector and we were able to enjoy real competition.

If you want to see what can happen there, look at France. The government forced open access to telephone lines and as a result there are a whole bunch of competing broadband ISPs and it is common to see speeds of 25Mbit and up, all the way up to 100Mbit in larger cities, all for less than what I'm paying for Comcast's craptastic 6Mbit service.

And you want to take away the minimal competition we have now and turn it into a true monopoly?

Already crashed... (4, Funny)

omgamibig (977963) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285711)

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction (Process ID 238) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction.

/efytimes/fullnews.asp, line 76

A big thanks to the taggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20285747)

<sarcasm> I'd like to give a big thanks to the many people who are tagging this article with "no". Why, just the other day I was thinking to myself "let's go look at all the slashdot articles about 'no'". </sarcasm>

People, if you don't agree with a topic, post. Tagging stuff with "yes" or "no" is idiotic and pointless.

easy to delay (2, Interesting)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285767)

Seeing as tv over the intarwebs will be plagued with DRM and propriatery code, why not have the shitty pointless advertising and tedious channel logo 'establishing shots' cached locally? Hey presto, a 80% reduction in traffic.

A better question would be ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285801)

Will Internet TV Crash the Internet?

Will CEOs with no vision cause the Internet to crash.

Broadband Over Powerlines... (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285905)

That's what we need to deploy more widely. Forget all of these cable and telephone companies, let's further empower the electrical monopolies instead!

not likely (4, Insightful)

NynexNinja (379583) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285917)

The internet will never be heading for a "crash", all that will happen is broadband customers will have their packets throttled to whatever limit the upstream provider wants. This has already been happening for almost the last ten years. It's convenient for people who want the broadband providers to upgrade their bandwidth to reference this "crash" idea but it is impossible to ever actually happen due to the traffic shaping already in effect at most (if not all large) ISP's today.

cisco predicts problem if no one buys their gear (1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285977)

wow, there's a shocker. tell me why we are giving these turds coverage again?

What to do (1, Funny)

John Vai (150587) | more than 6 years ago | (#20285999)

If I were an isp I'd just send a truckload of war3zed pr0n dvds via standard mail to every customer so they stop pr0ning the bandwidth

Do the editors hold shares of LVLT? (2, Insightful)

Fastball (91927) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286087)

This is the second article [slashdot.org] recently where bandwidth shortage has been cited as a threat. Methinks someone scooped up shares of Level 3 Communications [yahoo.com] well below $5 during Thursday's selloff. It's the ultimate "hope" stock.

Gloom and Doom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286131)

If these people really believe what they're saying, I pity them, especially if they are the same ones who said the internet was going to collapse due to other bandwidth or network problems, viruses and worms, or Y2K. Shit happens, but the people with a financial stake and ownership of the problem deal with it, the "analysts" and "experts" just pat themselves on the back even when they're proven wrong.

The internet was going to collapse 11 years ago! (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286255)

I thought the internet was going to collapse 11 years ago?

Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet's continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet, which only just recently got this section here in InfoWorld, will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse. Here's why there soon will be only World Wide Web ghost pages
Predicting the Internet's catastrophic colapse [infoworld.com]

The internet is alive (5, Insightful)

NewtonCorp (1105967) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286287)

Here in france, you can get 30meg for 30E.
And it's no crappy bandwith.
Because here there is a real competion between internet providers.
The internet is pretty stable even with people uploading and downlonding (up cap is 1meg).

The probleme is that internet service providers in the US and UK don't want spend money to put in fiber optics...

In Japan, most of the people get a fiber to there home... And they get 100meg both ways (not 100% sure..) and they don't have problemes...

The hole internet is going to collapse is FUD. It's only because service providers don't want to evolve.

Re:The internet is alive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286763)

I wish I could get that, in the UK, about the best deal is £14.99(22) that is'unlimited bandwidth' at a 2 meg download speed (with Throttling). This is because I live in a fairly rural area, so there is no cable, and have to rely on adsl coming down ancient, poorly maintained phonelines. In France, when I go and visit some friends there, they have something similar to what you describe, and they live an area roughly comparable to mine in the UK.

That will be solved once peer-matching improves (4, Insightful)

karji (114631) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286335)

BitTorrent and eMule could prioritize downloading from people on their ISP's subnet or from people with a low ping/traceroute or the same city.

Live TV could solve its problem with multicasting.

Google/YouTube, I don't know how they can solve problems their model creates.

The real problem (1, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286341)

If indeed the internet is heading for a crash, it won't be IPTV's fault.

If you want to blame someone, blame the backbone providers who can't (or more likely WON'T) find a way to get the cost of bandwidth into the single digits per meg per month for any reasonable bulk amount. They'll cite all sorts of reasons involving "five nines" availability and blah blah blah, but I would gladly accept 2 or 3 nines availability and be triple homed if I could get decent bandwidth for $9/Mbps/month (consider, even though 2 nines allows for 90 hours a year downtime, the odds of 3 fully seperate circuits all being down at the same time are small). They simply don't want to do that because they like charging way more for a service that mostly runs by itself once set up properly. It is, after all the way IP is designed to operate.

It's a perfect example of a market failure.

Were that a possability, ISPs wouldn't have to oversell by more than 10 to 1 to be profitable and so WOULD have the necessary bandwidth to handle IPTV with no worries at all. They would also have a LOT less incentive to cause bandwidth using applications to fail in a plausibly deniable way all the time.

The sky isn't falling (4, Insightful)

Ankh (19084) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286379)

In a well-known fairy tale a boy enjoyed the attention he got when he cried out there's a wolf in the village! - but after a while, people stopped listening to him, and when there was really a wolf, no-one believed him, and the wolf stole his shoes and socks and his ipod and ran off with them into the forest.

The problem with people saying such-and-such will mean the certain end of so-and-so is that, like the boy in the story, they weaken our credulity. What is really meant here is that, if the growth of video downloading continues at the same rate, and no other changes happen, the current system will bog down. And maybe that's true.

I remember a huge thread on Usenet lasting months and months, or so it seemed, Imminent death of the network predicted, and that was in the early 1980s.

Yes, video delivery is something to take seriously. The distinction between downloading a movie for later viewing (I would probably want it to be error-free) and watching streaming video (compression is OK, and I'd want the network to drop packets if I got behind, which is part of what IPv6 quality of service is about) might be part of the solution here. Of course, as people get larger desktop screens with higher resolution, the demand even for static images is increasing. 640x480 doesn't cut it for most people today. And most computer users have stereo sound. Or play games in which network latency is significant. Violent games in which you pretend to be a wolf! And videoconferencing, TV-on-demand (as per original article, e.g. joost), and maybe soon 3d holographic pornography is coming.

The music and video industry would do well to spend a fraction of their current legal bills on researching more efficient delivery. Maybe encouraging deployment of IPv6 multicast, for example, so a single stream can go to thousands of users. Or paid subscription p2p networks. Or cascading servers. For that matter, probably we-who-write-the-standards could help by defining cache protocols that can interoperate with advertising, and can reliably send back access logs, maybe anonymized. Video CEOs, I know you read slashdot :-), how about it?

But, shouting "wolves stole my socks" or "the sky is falling" won't help. Although if either of those things does happen, make sure to put the video up on youtube, OK?

Internet TV is already here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286497)

Uhm people... internet TV is already here. People watch series using BitTorrent regularly, and even entire movies (Sicko for example). It may not usually be called internet TV, but it is. It is here, now, this is no sci-fi anymore. And the internet still works. Perhaps the article is not the sci-fi of the "distopian future" kind but of the "alternate reality" kind?

The solution is multi-casting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20286597)

Multi-casting is a concept that's been around for over a decade. Instead of streaming the same exact data to customers scattered all over, you send a single stream to multiple major "distribution" points, and from those you then stream to the individual customer. However, you need to "schedule" the broadcasts. True on-demand is the big problem, so what you need to do is tier several "broadcasts" to timeslots, (like every 15 minutes). This way you can use the multi-cast technique rather than have a single different stream for each and every customer. Pausing and playback can be handled via file data caching.

Just reboot it (1)

Cannelloni (969195) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286659)

In case there is a crash every other day, I'd just call the Interwebs and ask the guys to reboot or reinstall it from the original floppy disks.

What happened to all that "Dark Fiber"? (2)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286669)

I seem to recall all this gnashing of teeth about all this wasted "dark fiber" that was laid as 2000 approached and the bubble was growing without bound, that went unused after the dot-com bust. Surely there's already tons of bandwidth lying around out there unused still? Or has that all been used up, quietly, without anyone saying anything about it? I find that difficult to believe.

No surprise...no problem (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 6 years ago | (#20286685)

It seems to me that we get the "The internet is on the verge of impending collapse" every other year, and so far the ISP's have managed to keep up with demand.
Now, if we could just get rid of all that spam, we'd have enough bandwidth to last the rest of the decade...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...