Agreed on both counts. The Wifi consortium and vendors and FCC etc all need to change a lot of things to get Gigabit wireless to truly work in the house on all floors.
Until then the Ethernet cable wins. Also agree on the streaming. My personal opinion is that all devices will be gutted and just have a common decoding chip to power the 4K screen. Everything, and I mean everything, will be streamed direct from content providers through intermediary CDNs. This means everything injecting themselves in the middle of the stream or bundling etc will be GONE. Already happening as Amazon, Netflix and other traditional players moving to producing CONTENT. The standards and codecs will be arranged. The device manufacturers will adopt and you bill buy content directly from the source. Cell phones, tablets, TV etc will all become very, very thin with very little electronics. Just basically decoding streams and sending small amounts of data for peripheral input. Imagine a cell phone that is all battery and screen and radio. No more complex I/O or CPU intensive stuff. No more OS on the devices. Our OS will ‘follow’ us around all our devices, since the devices are merely windows to our cloud hosted OS. From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps Yes. Sigh. But read this review which says 2 GB of RAM is limiting even for web browsing given the demands of modern websites: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/review-hp-improves-its-200-laptop-a-lot-but-its-still-a-200-laptop/ And computers seem to be going away, people expect to do all this stuff on their phones. Of course most bandwidth is now used for video, and people are hooking up smart TVs and other dedicated video streaming devices. I really hate it that people buy a Roku or Apple TV or streaming stick and connect it via WiFi despite it being 2 feet from their router. I have a Roku 2 and it’s connected with an Ethernet cable even though the router is in another room. If people are spending so much time and money watching video over the Internet and complaining their Internet isn’t fast enough, why not give it the best chance and bypass WiFi with a $5 cable? From: Josh Luthman<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:15 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps GOING to expect? Have you not been dealing with customers' 802.11b Linksys routers not pulling 25 meg on their Windows 98 PC? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Kind of scary when you realize SATA-3.0 transfer rate is 6 Gbps, SAS-3 is 12 Gbps, SATA-3.2 is 16 Gbps. And people are going to expect they can run a speedtest from their iPad or Android with a low power CPU, on their dodgy WiFi, and complain if they don't get the advertised Internet speed. -----Original Message----- From: Nate Burke Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 10:55 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps I have mixed feelings on it, I think that if you're pushing the envelope, then you should pay for it. But as the market meets demand, prices should come down. Remember back when 10/100 switches were $1000? Now, you can get a 24 Port 1G switch with 10G uplinks for, what, $400? In another 10 years, 100G will probably be the same. Pickup a 24 Port 100G switch with 1TB uplinks for $200. Although at the same time, Throwing more Bandwidth at the problem just makes for sloppier code. Average webpage loads are now, what 5-6mb, for really no more content. Things used to be efficient, as it was the programs responsibility for performance, Now it's the clients responsibility if things are slow (upgrade your PC, upgrade your internet) https://xkcd.com/1605/ On 2/5/2016 10:34 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: You tell them and they'll tell you how your capital expenses don't matter. In 1995 they decided that internet should be free and they'll never stop believing it. On 2/5/2016 10:04 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: I cringe when people portray multi gigabit bandwidth as costing pennies, as if the only cost is the fiber. Yeah, until you have to route those packets, rather than just transporting a beam of light. -----Original Message----- From: Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 8:57 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps It's not un-common to do 100Gpbs as follows:- Bonding 10x 10G circuits Bonding a combination of 40G circuits. providing 100G switched transport is easy. Having a router, to do 100G transport is not, Expect to pay approx $100k for a router (loaded ready to go, on the 2ndary markets) Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232<tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232> Help-desk: (305)663-5518<tel:%28305%29663-5518> Option 2 or Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sterling Jacobson" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 1:01:09 AM Subject: [AFMUG] 100Gbps So... Let's just say, for a minute, that I could sell Adobe a 100Gbps line. What would that be priced at? I think I can do it technically with a pair of fiber I can get end to end. Are their LD optics at 100Gbps yet? Or are we still talking dense wave multiplexing?
