3 ms·

The killer gigabit app? It’s not what you think

19 points by danyork 12y ago

paulbaumgart 12y ago
So telepresence, basically?
stevencorona 12y ago
I just moved to San Francisco and got Webpass (about 800mbps symmetrical). It has wildly changed my perceptions about how I use the internet. For example, instead of buying a $1000 Raided NAS, I just use arq to push my backups straight to S3. It's fast enough (~70MB/s to AWS NorCal Region). Uploading a 2GB video to YouTube? That'll take 45 seconds. It has really changed the fundamental way I use the internet.
- XorNot 12y ago
  This. I would use cloud backups extensively...but when it'll take 6 months to actually upload all the data I'd want to, then that goes out the window. If I had gigabit ethernet, the keeping files local practically no longer makes sense - my internet is faster then my disk storage. I can work almost entirely with cloud-based files and only keep a small amount of locally cached things. What's worse is people are also just completely ignorant about how new technologies work. In the recent NBN debate in Australia, there was no end of "the future is wireless! Femto-cells on every power pole!" With absolutely no consideration (or willingess to acknowledge) that any idea like that would absolutely require gigabit fiber backhaul (of much higher capacity then the wi-fi bandwidth if you want to use wavefront shaping techniques).
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    I'd say the exact opposite: If I had gigabit internet, then keeping files outside my own premises pactically no longer makes sense. The only reason I do that at all is because my DSL is the bottleneck when I need to share something. If I had a gigabit connection, why should I bother with the unreliability and surveillance of "cloud services"?
    - NateDad 12y ago
      I guarantee cloud services are more reliable than your home server. Also, if your house burns down, you're boned.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
        Well, yeah, of course you want to have offline offsite backups, but cloud services obviously don't help you with that, so I obviously was talking about online data. And no, cloud services certainly are not more reliable, and even if they were, using them would be the wrong solution. When assessing reliability, you have to consider the whole system and the impact of various failure modes you have to expect, not just simple technical availability, as you presumably are doing (and even on that front it seems to me like "the cloud" isn't all that much more reliable than my home server, they've all had their outages, and my home server also tends to have a multi-year uptime). How often have you had your home server decide to delete all your videos with a week prior notice, for example? With cloud services, economic and political failure are a much bigger risk than with your home server, and they tend to be much higher impact than your internet connection being down for a day or something (which obviously still would be a problem if you relied on "the cloud" while you are behind that broken connection). If your concern is technical availability, then the solution to that should be higher quality software for your home server rather than making yourself dependent on one central entity.
  - harshreality 12y ago
    1. Even if your internet were fast enough, cloud storage outbound transfer is expensive. If the primary purpose is archival, then it works. If you do anything interactive, you quickly lose the cost benefit. 2. Latency will hurt when you do anything interactive.
Decade 12y ago
Knowing the application is not important. What's important is having the connectivity, bandwidth, and latency. The applications will follow. The applications that people currently use most would not have been possible 15 years ago. Facebook? YouTube? Instagram? All completely impractical in a time, not that long ago, when 1.5 Mbps T1 was "fast." What I find most infuriating are the many people who justify current speeds (and prices!) by rationalizing that they don't use all that much bandwidth, anyway. Almost certainly, they're using more bandwidth than they were 15 years ago. If they have more bandwidth, I'm sure they can find a use for it. The worst for me is that gigabit fiber exists, but is usually not available. In 1900, telegraph was the lowest-latency way to communicate a long distance. (Never underestimate the bandwidth of a steam train full of mail hurtling down the transcontinental railway.) It was the best there was, and it enabled a revolution in communications. Now, gigabit fiber is the best, but it's uncommon. Instead, the telephone and cable companies would rather reinvest profits into lobbyists and mergers.
NateDad 12y ago
What bugs me is that I have fiber... it's just that it's Fios, so it's expensive for anything above cable modem speeds. I'm paying $75 a month for 75 down, 35 up, and for a mere $125 more per month, I could get 300 down, 65 up. :/

19 points by danyork 12y ago

So telepresence, basically?

I just moved to San Francisco and got Webpass (about 800mbps symmetrical). It has wildly changed my perceptions about how I use the internet. For example, instead of buying a $1000 Raided NAS, I just use arq to push my backups straight to S3. It's fast enough (~70MB/s to AWS NorCal Region). Uploading a 2GB video to YouTube? That'll take 45 seconds. It has really changed the fundamental way I use the internet.

XorNot 12y ago
This. I would use cloud backups extensively...but when it'll take 6 months to actually upload all the data I'd want to, then that goes out the window. If I had gigabit ethernet, the keeping files local practically no longer makes sense - my internet is faster then my disk storage. I can work almost entirely with cloud-based files and only keep a small amount of locally cached things. What's worse is people are also just completely ignorant about how new technologies work. In the recent NBN debate in Australia, there was no end of "the future is wireless! Femto-cells on every power pole!" With absolutely no consideration (or willingess to acknowledge) that any idea like that would absolutely require gigabit fiber backhaul (of much higher capacity then the wi-fi bandwidth if you want to use wavefront shaping techniques).
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  I'd say the exact opposite: If I had gigabit internet, then keeping files outside my own premises pactically no longer makes sense. The only reason I do that at all is because my DSL is the bottleneck when I need to share something. If I had a gigabit connection, why should I bother with the unreliability and surveillance of "cloud services"?
  - NateDad 12y ago
    I guarantee cloud services are more reliable than your home server. Also, if your house burns down, you're boned.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
      Well, yeah, of course you want to have offline offsite backups, but cloud services obviously don't help you with that, so I obviously was talking about online data. And no, cloud services certainly are not more reliable, and even if they were, using them would be the wrong solution. When assessing reliability, you have to consider the whole system and the impact of various failure modes you have to expect, not just simple technical availability, as you presumably are doing (and even on that front it seems to me like "the cloud" isn't all that much more reliable than my home server, they've all had their outages, and my home server also tends to have a multi-year uptime). How often have you had your home server decide to delete all your videos with a week prior notice, for example? With cloud services, economic and political failure are a much bigger risk than with your home server, and they tend to be much higher impact than your internet connection being down for a day or something (which obviously still would be a problem if you relied on "the cloud" while you are behind that broken connection). If your concern is technical availability, then the solution to that should be higher quality software for your home server rather than making yourself dependent on one central entity.
- harshreality 12y ago
  1. Even if your internet were fast enough, cloud storage outbound transfer is expensive. If the primary purpose is archival, then it works. If you do anything interactive, you quickly lose the cost benefit. 2. Latency will hurt when you do anything interactive.

Decade 12y ago

Knowing the application is not important. What's important is having the connectivity, bandwidth, and latency. The applications will follow. The applications that people currently use most would not have been possible 15 years ago. Facebook? YouTube? Instagram? All completely impractical in a time, not that long ago, when 1.5 Mbps T1 was "fast." What I find most infuriating are the many people who justify current speeds (and prices!) by rationalizing that they don't use all that much bandwidth, anyway. Almost certainly, they're using more bandwidth than they were 15 years ago. If they have more bandwidth, I'm sure they can find a use for it. The worst for me is that gigabit fiber exists, but is usually not available. In 1900, telegraph was the lowest-latency way to communicate a long distance. (Never underestimate the bandwidth of a steam train full of mail hurtling down the transcontinental railway.) It was the best there was, and it enabled a revolution in communications. Now, gigabit fiber is the best, but it's uncommon. Instead, the telephone and cable companies would rather reinvest profits into lobbyists and mergers.

NateDad 12y ago

What bugs me is that I have fiber... it's just that it's Fios, so it's expensive for anything above cable modem speeds. I'm paying $75 a month for 75 down, 35 up, and for a mere $125 more per month, I could get 300 down, 65 up. :/