4 ms·

Well, to be fair, the technology and broadband speed promote out each other. If broadband would not have been available to some people, Netflix would've never s

Well, to be fair, the technology and broadband speed promote out each other. If broadband would not have been available to some people, Netflix would've never started streaming. Similarly, once we get low-latency 10 GBit networking, new services will pop up that require these bandwidths. Which is to say that we should really start and get them _good_ speeds now, not something that is somewhat acceptable now.

PaulHoule 5y ago
From an infrastructure standpoint the difference between fiber and everything else is that fiber is permanent. That is, if you run fiber optic along the power lines that will be good to support crazy high-speeds for the next 50+ years -- with relatively small investments in the future to improve the transceivers at the ends. If you build fixed wireless the one thing that's certain is that the hardware will be obsolete in 5-10 years and have to be "ripped and replaced".
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Not seeing a huge difference. The hardware lighting up the fiber will go through the same obsolescence curve, and the airwaves are even more permanent than that fiber will be.
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    It's a big difference because electrical signals have to work so much harder to deal with the low bandwidth and signal/noise ratios available to them. This is why the schedule for PCIe and similar electrical buses has lurched back and forth, as at times progress seemed impossible and then somebody got patents that made the next breakthrough possible (at high price.) Note for instance that optical PHYs run at 400 GBit/sec but 10 GBit/sec is aspirational for the home. Thus any optic fiber service you might get is two orders of magnitude away from the best possible. Contrast that to LTE, 5G, etc. which are right at the limit.
sigstoat 5y ago
> Similarly, once we get low-latency 10 GBit networking, new services will pop up that require these bandwidths. like what? this is brought up, but i'm not aware of anything waiting in the wings. is there anything in use these days on large campuses (corporate, or academic) where the bandwidth does exist, that doesn't make sense on the broader internet? with most folks using wifi for everything at home, how are they even going to deliver 10Gbps to a device?
- dylan604 5y ago
  First thing to pop into mind: High detailed maps for games. Also, the devs won't have to think about compressing things or leaving things our because of size concerns.
notJim 5y ago
I have gigabit now, and barely need it. It’s nice to have for the occasional large download, but otherwise it’s unnecessary. Even the latest ultra hd Blu-ray spec tops out at 128mb/s, and Netflix won’t give you more than 25. Can’t imagine what 10 gig would give you.
- zzt123 5y ago
  Volumetric 8k with tactility?
  - notJim 5y ago
    Hasty Googling gives a bitrate of 85 Mbps for 8k video streaming with HEVC. Presumably if a physical media comes out, it would be closer to 400 Mbps if it was a similar compression ratio as 4k. I'm not sure what the bitrate of volumetric data would be, but I would guess less than or equal to the video stream. So your gigabit connection would be getting close to saturation if you can find someone to stream you 8k volumetric video at the same bitrate as physical-disk media. At streaming rates, you'd be nowhere near saturating a gigabit link.
    - zzt123 5y ago
      Human touch is extremely sensitive. I imagine that for sufficiently complex objects, bandwidth requirements may be onerous if aiming for the touch equivalent of 8k Dell Ultrasharp visual fidelity.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Faster game installs via Steam?
majormajor 5y ago
We had the netflix prototypes even in the dialup area, with things like RealVideo. Nobody had failed to anticipate it before broadband access increased. There really isn't ANYTHING I do with my current connection that wasn't predicted or prototyped in the 90s or earlier. So I'm skeptical of the claim that new uses will appear once we're all at 10GBit.
- dylan604 5y ago
  How I miss buffering... As crappy as RealPlayer became, it was impressive what it was shoving down POTS twisted pairs.

PaulHoule 5y ago

From an infrastructure standpoint the difference between fiber and everything else is that fiber is permanent. That is, if you run fiber optic along the power lines that will be good to support crazy high-speeds for the next 50+ years -- with relatively small investments in the future to improve the transceivers at the ends. If you build fixed wireless the one thing that's certain is that the hardware will be obsolete in 5-10 years and have to be "ripped and replaced".

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
Not seeing a huge difference. The hardware lighting up the fiber will go through the same obsolescence curve, and the airwaves are even more permanent than that fiber will be.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  It's a big difference because electrical signals have to work so much harder to deal with the low bandwidth and signal/noise ratios available to them. This is why the schedule for PCIe and similar electrical buses has lurched back and forth, as at times progress seemed impossible and then somebody got patents that made the next breakthrough possible (at high price.) Note for instance that optical PHYs run at 400 GBit/sec but 10 GBit/sec is aspirational for the home. Thus any optic fiber service you might get is two orders of magnitude away from the best possible. Contrast that to LTE, 5G, etc. which are right at the limit.

sigstoat 5y ago

> Similarly, once we get low-latency 10 GBit networking, new services will pop up that require these bandwidths. like what? this is brought up, but i'm not aware of anything waiting in the wings. is there anything in use these days on large campuses (corporate, or academic) where the bandwidth does exist, that doesn't make sense on the broader internet? with most folks using wifi for everything at home, how are they even going to deliver 10Gbps to a device?

dylan604 5y ago
First thing to pop into mind: High detailed maps for games. Also, the devs won't have to think about compressing things or leaving things our because of size concerns.

notJim 5y ago

I have gigabit now, and barely need it. It’s nice to have for the occasional large download, but otherwise it’s unnecessary. Even the latest ultra hd Blu-ray spec tops out at 128mb/s, and Netflix won’t give you more than 25. Can’t imagine what 10 gig would give you.

zzt123 5y ago
Volumetric 8k with tactility?
- notJim 5y ago
  Hasty Googling gives a bitrate of 85 Mbps for 8k video streaming with HEVC. Presumably if a physical media comes out, it would be closer to 400 Mbps if it was a similar compression ratio as 4k. I'm not sure what the bitrate of volumetric data would be, but I would guess less than or equal to the video stream. So your gigabit connection would be getting close to saturation if you can find someone to stream you 8k volumetric video at the same bitrate as physical-disk media. At streaming rates, you'd be nowhere near saturating a gigabit link.
  - zzt123 5y ago
    Human touch is extremely sensitive. I imagine that for sufficiently complex objects, bandwidth requirements may be onerous if aiming for the touch equivalent of 8k Dell Ultrasharp visual fidelity.
LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Faster game installs via Steam?

majormajor 5y ago

We had the netflix prototypes even in the dialup area, with things like RealVideo. Nobody had failed to anticipate it before broadband access increased. There really isn't ANYTHING I do with my current connection that wasn't predicted or prototyped in the 90s or earlier. So I'm skeptical of the claim that new uses will appear once we're all at 10GBit.

dylan604 5y ago
How I miss buffering... As crappy as RealPlayer became, it was impressive what it was shoving down POTS twisted pairs.