Interesting graphs and charts department

[tw]

Where broadband is not available.

[Undertoad]

Same reason justified 2400 and 1.4K baud modems. Nobody needed DSL (1400K and 3000K) in 1990 because advance technology 2.4K modems were fast enough.

Nobody said that. Literally nobody.

~

We're in a different place, now from when merely boosting speeds would lead to different ways to use that speed. Right now we're in an innovation gap because, other than streaming bigger and more high resolution video, nobody can figure out any interesting productive way to use all the bandwidth people have right now.

Can you think of something? I ike how you picked the year of the founding of the Cellar. In 1990 we had all sorts of things we wanted to transmit over the networks we had, but couldn't because there just wasn't that kind of capability. We sat in garages with our BBSes with hard drives full of text files and low-resolution porn, our Usenet full of conversations like this one, and we tried vainly to figure out ways to share it all. We used up every bit of bandwidth we had and demanded modem upgrades every year.

Now we're right at the point where we can stream an entire Hollywood movie at resolutions not even available to us until 10 years ago. Full video resolution will be the only thing to push the envelope in the future. Can you think of anything else you need more bandwidth to do? Not right now! It's fine to just say "Oh we need that speed for next generation applications we haven't thought of yet." But really, at every time in the past, we were actually angry that our bandwidth requirements weren't met.

Lower latency will be the future. That is what will allow us to make music together, perform remote surgery, and do battle on realistic play battlefields. We have enough lanes, now we need a faster speed limit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In this area with Comcast and Verizon we're in good shape if you can afford it. But I know several people across the country that need more, they can't stream movies that don't stutter. And poor Nirvana, not being able to download damn near anything.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nobody said that. Literally nobody.

I heard this stuff often from business school types.

When the video disc was introduced, I saw a device of tremondous potential. It could hold all words from a dictionary. The same response. Why would anyone need that? None of the engineers I worked with could understand a purpose for a 'read only' device other than movies. Same myopia then as I see now. Business school types routtinely stifle innovation because because nobody can cite a useful product using that technology.

Same myopia occurred with the laser. Nobody could think of a useful purpose for coherent light. Why was expensive light more useful than existing incoherent light? That response was universal.

Same occurred with liquid crystals demonstrated in RCA in the early 1960s. RCA eventually killed the group in Raritan NJ that was developing LCDs. Because nobody could propose a product. LCD was another example of innovaton that only wasted money.

Nobody could see purpose in a microprocessor. Intel published a maybe 100 item list of potential applications including traffic lights. It was universally scoffed at since relays did that job just fine. Ironically, even Intel never proposed a microprocessor as a computer. In 100 so listed purposals, even Intel never once mentioned a computer. Provide the solution. Then problems are quickly identified and solved.

Why does Bell Labs all but no longer exist? Because AT&T (and then Lucent) decided research on ideas without a purpose must be eliminated. Therefore one of America's greatest source of innovation was destroyed. By troglodytes who know nobody needs it because a product cannot be defined.

I specifically remember management in JC Penny's processing center state that nobody needed more than 64K modems. These easily transfered data from magnetic tapes to other JC Penny data centers throughout the nation just fine on four wire 64K modems in the 1970s. That was more than fast enough. Troglodytes are widepread.

We are expected to learn from history. Google is installing faster internet because so many in Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner have this silly idea that 20 Mb is fast enough for everyone. Using myopic reasoning, a purpose for 100 Mb does not exist. Same business school types refused to restore wired (copper or fiber) services in highly urban areas in Mantalokin NJ and Fire Island NY.

These duopolies refuse to up broadband speeds using same reasons used to stifle DSL. They don't want to increase backbone speeds unless someone else pays for it (the reason for destroying net neutrality). And they do not want to service more rural areas or even some parts of the most urban state such as Mantalokin NJ. Like GM, they only want to make profits - screw better products. This same reasoning even destroyed the Bell Labs.

BTW, how many today know what the Bell Laboratories were? I am surprised that a majority do not.

[tw]

In Where broadband is not available, curiously Mississippi is almost fully covered while adjacent Alabama has wide 'blackout' areas. Delaware has great coverage while adjacent Maryland east coast has little.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

In this area with Comcast and Verizon we're in good shape if you can afford it. But I know several people across the country that need more, they can't stream movies that don't stutter. And poor Nirvana, not being able to download damn near anything.

Being able to steam an entire hour and a half of 5Mb/s when they have 20Mb/s service is sometimes an issue, because the providers are not buying enough bandwidth at the other end of the pipe.* Meanwhile, South Korea and Hong Kong with their mighty 100Mb/s bragging rights, will have the exact same problem.

Let me soothe your furrowed brows! Anyone who can see the southern sky without any trees in the way can get broadband: the little dishes will do satellite internet. You can get enough bandwidth but lousy latency; so you can stream Netflix, but browsing the Cellar will be a pain in the ass. In fact Dish just offered 6 months of free Netflix with a hookup! They are trying to make this point.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/news...rs-1201190288/


*a longer consideration of this is reserved for the next post.

[Undertoad]

*

Broadband providers are trying to get Netfllix to pay for more bandwidth at their end of the pipe. Comcast has convinced Netflix to pay. Other providers such as Dish are making it a marketing question.

But shortly after this issue became serious - last summer, roughly - someone came out with "Popcorn Time", an app that streams Hollywood movies using peer-to-peer networking. No longer would you have to rely on both your end and the Netflix end of the pipe being large enough - basically, your stream comes from 1000 different points on the network, and if one of them is clogged or blocked, it just uses the other 999. And you pay nothing.

Once again, when they think they can get a toehold, the major players forget this simple fact:

WE ARE IN CHARGE HERE, AND WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT.

The hitch: Popcorn Time is totally illegal. It's piracy. The crazy thing: you benefit from piracy even if you don't use it, because it provides an unstoppable free alternative representing what people want, and the big corporations are forced to compete with it no matter what. If content is expensive, piracy goes up. If content is hard to get, piracy answers that.

Y'know, after a certain point in time, you could always get Hollywood movies illegally on the net - you just couldn't stream them. You could connect to whatever peer-to-peer networks were around, and download your entire Hollywood movie, and then watch it. In the early days it might take a few days to download it. Now, you can download it in minutes.

And as always, piracy provided a superior product, without unskippable previews, and without those FBI warnings saying you aren't supposed to pirate your movies.

This is the real reason why the "Netflix is not fast enough" problem won't be a long-term problem: Hollywood's interests are in providing what people need to NOT go the piracy route. It will take a little time for those interests to express themselves to the providers, but they are all one now and the market disruption is really quite amazing.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

I heard this stuff often from business school types.

When the video disc was introduced, I saw a device of tremondous potential. It could hold all words from a dictionary. The same response. Why would anyone need that? None of the engineers I worked with could understand a purpose for a 'read only' device other than movies.

At the time I was working in document imaging. We had jukeboxes full of video discs, trying to replace entire floors of file cabinets full of documents. With every advance in laser storage there was a new jukebox device ready to take advantage of it. Every engineer was waiting for the next level of write-once, read-many technology and trying to employ it as quickly as possible. And this was at Unisys, one of the least-effective engineering companies at the time. Your argument is invalid.

[Gravdigr]

I'd be happy to be able to afford the quicker speeds we have now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Your argument is invalid.

When speeds increase, latency also diminishes. Backbone speeds must also increase (if data transporters are not permitted to destroy net neutrality). Consumers then spend same money for hardware that is also tens times faster. More myths shattered by how innovation works.

Arguments about latency are bogus. We should remain inferior to enrich the data transporters. That is the American way. Protect some industries so they need not upgrade and innovate. It took a Federal law to force data transporters to stop obstructing and subverting innovation. Then Michael Powel, et al undermined that law to enrich the data transporters. What is Michael Powel doing today? He is a well paid lobbyist for the data transporter industry that insists 20 Mb will always be good enough.

We pay more so that Comcast can buy and build multiple and tallest skyscrapers in Philadelphia, NBC, Universal Studios, Time Warner, theme parks, major league sports teams, etc. They need not provide better service. And need not provide service to so much of the country that still does not have any broadband. Why does UT say this is good? Why is cable TV that once was so profitable at $8 per month (when equipment was so expensive) now cost $50+ (despite inexpensive equipment and 'Death of Disatance')? In a competitive, innovative, and advancing America, 100 Mb would be $20 per month. But that means no duopolies that invent myths to protect their slow internet services.

This need to protect duopolies even got UT to torture his cat.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

I Therefore one of America's greatest source of innovation was destroyed. By troglodytes who know nobody needs it because a product profit cannot be defined.
A friend worked at Bell Labs in NJ, them moved to Bell Labs in Dallas a dozen or so years ago. By the time they bought him out last year, everyone else in his department of about 25 engineers + Boss were long gone. He said the biggest problem other than the one stated above, is they flooded the joint with several layers of middle managers. That strangled innovation, slowed progress, and sucked profits like a Hoover.

Originally Posted by tw

In Where broadband is not available, curiously Mississippi is almost fully covered while adjacent Alabama has wide 'blackout' areas. Delaware has great coverage while adjacent Maryland east coast has little.

It shows areas that are reported on the National Broadband Map as unserved by fixed broadband with advertised speeds of 3 Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream.

Methinks their definition of "Broadband" leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

When speeds increase, latency also diminishes.

Not directly, no. The speed of light has a say in this, as does all the firmware in all the routers between you and wherever you like to connect to.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Methinks their definition of "Broadband" leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.

The term broadband did not exist until Clinton's 1996 Federal Communication Act forced major telecommunciation companies to innovate. Remember, some industries are so corrupt as to think profit (not the product) are more important. This hatred of innovation is even why Microsoft had to sue Qwest to get what we would later call broadband.

I believe the term broadband (as defined by Federal law) was above 1 Mb. A 3 Mb number, that was great back then, is minimal by today's standards. However, major data transporters remained so protected by what changed after 2000 as to even refuse to expand broadband services into the rest of America. This and America's slow internet speeds are directly traceable to extremists (ie Michael Powel) who advocate monopolies or duopolies rather than what made America great - innovation. He knows who butters his bread.

Maxiumizing profits even explains why Michael Powel, now a major lobbyist for the data transporters, is promoting the destruction of net neutrality. They destroyed competition. Now they need net neutrality destroyed so that Google, Netflicks, Microsoft, Apple, etc will pay for upgraded service (ie a faster backbone) while Comcast, et al build more skyscrapers and buy more content providers (ie NBC, Universal Studios and theme parks). And so that smaller data transporter (ie Level 3 Communications) will be at a disadvantage. They even deny we need anything more than 20 Mb. Since that exceeds a Federal definition of broadband. Therefore must be good enough.

Notice how much of American cannot even get 3 Mb.

[Undertoad]

When speeds increase, latency also diminishes.

When I said "Not directly, no," I meant, "This is the sort of statement made by someone who simply doesn't know what they're talking about." Stick to oil changes and CEOs buddy. That's your strong suit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

High speed internet would cost a fortune. If everyone could get 500 or 100 Mb, the NSA budget would skyrocket from $50 billion, through the roof.