Decius wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] o broadband line capping
]
] Do you understand the rational with this? I don't get it...

yeah, the rational is transit costs for upstream providers. But the fact remains that most of the HSI providers use peering, which has essentially no cost of transmission. Just the cost of having a peering point, which you'd have either way.

But that's not the real driver. Look at who is left in the HSI space. It's RBOCs and cable cos. Both of these monopoly players have strong agendas for limiting bandwidth speeds because their own product sets are not built yet. We don't want no hackers figurin out how to make that dang Internet work better unless we can charge em for it!

] ] o high cost with costs rising ($50/mo for avg 384k line)
]
] Well, yes, rising in general, but there is another way to put
] this. Asymetric access is cheap. Symetric access is not.

I disagree. Asymetric access is not cheap if you are peering. In order to peer, you must push as much as you pull. Even if you are not peering and you are paying for transit with your neighboring systems, you still want as much equilibrium as possible. The only way you wouldn't want equilibrium is if you were pushing a LOT of data (a la Exodus or Akamai) because then everyone wants to connect with you and you can dictate pricing or policy. It's supply and demand.

] broadband cannot be used for servers. Symetric access is
] priced to suck money out of businesses. I can think of a wide
] range of potential applications for home servers, but I think
] there are niches where those applications can exist today, and
] until they become popular enough to create competitive
] pressures this is not going to change.

I agree with this part. But I think the reasoning behind it is that the HSI SP's can't figure out a way to derive revenue from it yet without causing an uproar. They're missing the point. You don't derive revenue from it. You let it happen organically and you nurture it. The result will be that people will want more bandwidth, which is where you make money.

] ] o bandwidth intensive applications destroyed (ie Napster)
] ] o bandwidth intensive sectors under assault (ie RIAA, MPAA,
] ] etc)
]
] Look for PVR based VoD in 2004, probably not over the Internet
] though. Their strategy with this will be to create proprietary
] devices that are computers but aren't open, upon which they
] can provide access to content in a controlled way. (This is,
] in general, an extremely dangerous development worth serious
] consideration. On the one side we have computers, which are a
] totally open platform upon which to build these services, and
] on the other side we have these closed systems, like X-boxes
] and PVRs, which are essentially the same things, and competing
] for the same space, but are totally closed and not adaptable.
] Currently the Tivos and x-boxes of the world are blowing the
] pants off the snapstreams and pc gamers...)

For the masses, yes. But what do the masses generally eat? They eat what the early adopters were eating last year. This cycle is why preserving and nurturing innovation is SO important. We're not doing this just because we get our rocks off. We're doing it because it'll eventually get everyone's rocks off. VoD has been 'almost here' for nearly 10 fucking years. At this point, there's absolutely no reason why we should wait any longer. We have the transmission technology. We have the compression technology. We have the storage technology. We have the playing mechanisms. We have the content. We have the distribution methodology. But can you go to a store and buy it today? Nope.

] The reason I'm putting so much effort into getting a stable
] mythtv running is that it is a frontier that needs to be
] settled. There are lots of opportunities for interesting,
] legitimate applications here that won't be developed in the
] cable world because its so closed. At the same time, about 50%
] of what presently makes mythtv interesting is currently
] illegal. The copyright problem continues to be something that
] holds us back.

Totally agree. And the illegalities are what's preventing further development and even further possibilities.

] ] o legislation preventing use of NAT, firewalls, multiple
] ] machines on home networks (TN HB457, S-DMCA laws, etc)
]
] I don't think its fair to call this a block, but it could be a
] block if it is passed and enforced. A pre-emptive strike to
] (essentially) outlaw computers as a platform for certain kinds
] of broadband services...

it's totally a block. It's FUD in the marketplace. You don't think the Consumer Products people weren't shitting bricks last year when this was stomping all over the state legislatures? They've got Billion dollar R&D projects that were essentially in jeopardy because of crap like this. I'm guesstimating that we lost about 6 months of development and innovation because of the threat of these laws.

] ] ] What is the application for all this bandwidth?
] ]
] ] it's already here. Imagine having a device in your home
] which
] ] allows you to check email, video and audio conference with
] ] anyone anywhere, visit any website, play any song ever
] ] recorded, watch any television or movie ever made, play any
] ] video game ever made, store your pictures and home movies,
] and
] ] turn your lights on and off for you automatically.
]
] Yeah, sounds like mythtv to me... The thing is that this isn't
] all that interesting to me. VoD, MoD, and GoD are interesting
] because I don't have to go out to the store, but thats really
] it. Netflix is almost as good. Is it really worth all of this
] effort in order to make this stuff more immediately available?
] No. I don't think it is.

I do. The thing about Netflix that isn't satisfying is that it requires planning and a higher degree of interaction. Call it what you will (laziness? superficial living? the decline of western civilization?) but I want it now. I don't want to have to think about what movies I'd eventually like to see. I want to think and chose the content that I want to experience right now. I have no idea what I'll be doing in a month. I might not have the time to sit through the 6 DVDs I ordered, or I might be totally onto something else by then. This is a poor example, but I think it illustrates the key point and that is immediacy.

] The internet is not a particularily good broadcast medium. The
] thing that makes the internet different from previous
] technologies, and the reason that so many people have latched
] on to it, is the many to many aspects. Its not about having
] video on demand. Its about being able to recommend a video
] segment on MemeStreams, and then spawning a discussion off of
] that segment, which maybe links to other segments. Remixding
] segments. Producing your own segments.

and here's where you're getting it! It's not about broadcasting (and one could argue that VoD is not broadcasting per se). It's about these services being opened and developed so that they can bloom into other things. It *will* be about the interactivity, but you've gotta crawl before you can walk. We are seeing the transformative effects of the Internet on society today, but it's only the beginning. Once this stuff becomes more mature and more ingrained, it will open up a tremendous amount of societal change and opportunity.

] The systems that enable that sort of participation are the
] ones that will succeed, regardless of how they work,
] technically...

agreed, but like I said, you can't get to C before A and B.

] ] It's not really a question of mobility versus bandwidth.
] We're
] ] talking fixed bandwidth. Today's mobile tech doesn't allow
] for
] ] significant bandwidth.
]
] I disagree on this point. A properly considered wireless
] system would allow for mobility, either because I can "roam"
] from my "base station" in my house to mobile cells that use
] the same protocols/hardware, or because the base stations in
] peoples homes are the mobile cells, or a combination of the
] two. This is what makes Wifi interesting, despite it's
] shortcomings. There will be future generations of this
] technology.

I see your point in terms of ubiquity of a standard service. But that doesn't solve the problem of distribution. You'll still need something to connect all of these hotspots together, and that's likely not wireless, or at least not the same wireless standard that you're using within a hotspot. And as you know, nature abhors a standard, so we'll likely have competing standards for quite some time with the market unable to pick a dominant one. Making wireless less attractive from a 'plug n play' perspective for a global jetsetter such as yourself.

RE: The Many Paradoxes of Broadband | Andrew Odlyzko [PDF]