It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Internet TV (youtube) en route to crash the Internet?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
According to this article, the Internet is en route to a major halt because of the bandwidth that Internet TV is using:


itnews.com.au..
The internet is heading for a crash unless it increases its bandwidth capabilities, according to an analyst report.

Stan Schatt, research director at ABI, told Ars Technica: "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."

Schatt 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 found that American video websites currently transmit more data per month than the entire amount of traffic sent over the internet in 2000.


More data being transferred per month than the entier amount of internet traffic in 200? ...that sounds like a heck of a lot of bandwidth being used, and I'm sure it can't be just the likes of youtube that is consuming it. What's everyone else's take on this?

[edit on 19/8/2007 by nickh]

[edit on 19/8/2007 by nickh]




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Is this not why we regulate bandwidth? Youtube pays for there bandwidth so, If they are using too much then they are still paying....

I'm thinking that this would be a good opportunity to 'shut down' the internet(can they do that?!?) and say something like "We can't support all this bandwidth and people using the internet for whatever they want. We need to supply the content our selfs and not really on the people" Making the internet controlled like the media.

I have heard of 'them' trying to make the internet controlled but... Thinking about it, it's impossible(IMO)


apc

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Service providers don't anticipate full-time usage across all nodes. A simplified example is say you have a 10Mbit cablemodem. Your cablemodem, and all your neighbor's cablemodems connect to a switch in a box on a pole somewhere. That switch then has a 10Mbit connection back to the cable center. That means there is 10Mbit being shared among you and your neighbors. That's not usually a problem as not everyone is using their cablemodem at the same time, so you don't notice the sharing.

As usage increases, the shares of bandwidth decrease. If every single person in your neighborhood with a cablemodem tries to access the Internet at the same time, they'll all be fighting over available bandwidth.

An issue at this level is no longer common now that most cable networks have gone digital. But scale it up a hundred fold, and that is what the providers themselves are dealing with.

It should be a simple matter of laying more fiber and adding capacity, but expect prices to increase to cover the cost.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by apc]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

It should be a simple matter of laying more fiber and adding capacity, but expect prices to increase to cover the cost.


BS. If prices increase it's because they decided to gouge us some more. We(Us N. Americans) continually get shafted by our ISPs. The profit margin per connection is just obscene as they only buy a fraction of the bandwidth they claim to be reselling to you. They can afford it, they just want to get the taxpayers to foot the majority of the bill and still retail 100% ownership of the lines because "we built it so it's ours".


apc

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Eh maybe after the upgrades are done (as a side note it would probably be a good idea to lay all new runs dedicated to Internet2).

When I was in the ISP business the profit margin was definitely not huge. We were a dial-up, long distance, and wireless provider. My city-wide WiFi could not be made profitable because overhead costs were too high (f-you cellphone companies and your rooftop saturation). We had to keep increasing dial-up prices because of increasing data leases. Once broadband became available it was the beginning of the end.

The majority of the service bill is to pay tech support employees (and the satellite charges to connect to them...), and other overhead costs.

But now things are getting fun. Cable monopolies are offering home phone service, and home phone (DSL) monopolies are offering TV. Profit margins have gotten smaller as competition increases.

Whichever side has to start with the upgrades will be hurt by it. I expect cable providers to be hit the worst, at least wherever AT&T has a POP. AT&T, Ma Bell, uses mostly their own backbones. Cable providers rely on backbone providers like Cogent or Qwest which will be experiencing their own bandwidth crunches and is where the real profits are made. Backbones will definitely increase their prices, which would be gouging.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by apc]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
ALL HAIL INTERNET 2 AND GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS!!!!!!!!!

This has been talked to death, even Alex Jones talked about this years ago..

But then again he is just a CT freak.. seems to me he has more stock in things coming about that mist people in government.

Look up East Coast Kids post... The internet is dead or something.. Read that.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Speaking of..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Post of mine in 04..

And ECK's post around the same time as mine..

www.abovepolitics.com...

God that search sucks for ATS..

[edit on 8/19/2007 by ThichHeaded]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join