[Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html 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 ... -- darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis <darkuncle@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
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 :).
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 ... -- darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
-- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
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)
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: 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. David _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
On 18-Apr-08, at 1:45 PM, David Coulson wrote:
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)
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: 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.
Bet you a beer it won't happen. :) Just like the mandated HD broadcasts in top markets by 1997 or else they lose license. cheers, --dr _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Dragos Ruiu wrote:
Bet you a beer it won't happen. :) I will let you know next February when my rabbit ears stop working :)
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis <darkuncle@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
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. )
I'm part of the 60%... since I'm on satellite I believe I don't need to switch... in fact it would cost me more to get service in HD now if I did switch. I suspect there are a lot of me's out there. -- Jeff Shultz _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
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. Given trivial tech milestones like these: http://www.thelocal.se/7869/20070712/ (2007) http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=82315 (2005) I call bullshit. Besides, by 2010 we'll be staring down a global economy collapse and people will be too busy trying to find food to get online and download movies. - billn On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Francis wrote:
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
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 ...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
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." Either that, or he meant 30 instead of 3. Regards Marshall
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 ... -- darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
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. C|Net-- I'd say the same about at&t, but .... -- TTFN, patrick
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 ... -- darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to europe?
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Francis [mailto:darkuncle@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:15 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
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 ... -- darkuncle@{gmail.com,darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
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 ??!! regards marc - Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- John F. Kennedy, 35th US president Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :marc@kgraff.net blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com/matrix _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <darkuncle@gmail.com> wrote:
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. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
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. My .02 _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Not to defend AT&T or the statement regarding capacity, but... On Apr 20, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one "Internet exists, thanks to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies".
I suspect this was referencing the difference between "public" as in governmentally owned/operated (e.g., most of the highway system in the US) vs. "private" that is non-governmentally owned/operated. The Internet of today does indeed exist because of private efforts. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
On April 21, 2008 at 09:44 drc@virtualized.org (David Conrad) wrote:
I suspect this was referencing the difference between "public" as in governmentally owned/operated (e.g., most of the highway system in the US) vs. "private" that is non-governmentally owned/operated. The Internet of today does indeed exist because of private efforts.
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. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
participants (14)
-
Barry Shein -
Bill Nash -
David Conrad -
David Coulson -
Dragos Ruiu -
Jeff Shultz -
Jorge Amodio -
Marc Manthey -
Marshall Eubanks -
Mike Lieman -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Scott Francis -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Williams, Marc