That's a little disingenuous though. The killer app for gigabit is video, and most video (just under half of all North American internet traffic is Netflix and Youtube) is or is transitioning to a CDN model whereby very little traffic actually egresses your ISP's (and sometimes even more granular than that) network. That's actually true for most top sites. Even smaller providers often have CDN edge devices running within their network. Plus (and I know you already know this), there's not a single "backbone" - a lot of companies run national data transit networks, and almost every ISP is multi-homed.
The "backbone" would similarly fall over if current subscribers used all of their existing bandwidth, even locally - your standard 8-channel D3 node has about 343mbit and serves a few hundred customers, yet most cable providers offer a 100+mbit package. 4 customers could therefore kill the node--but that very rarely happens. A faster connection certainly means that fewer customers would have to fully leverage it for congestion to take place, but I don't believe there's a linear relationship between consumption and link speed. The doomsdayers have been prognosticating the imminent exaflood forever now, and it has yet to pass. Your core argument is that 40gb links are not fast enough to support a full nation with gigabit connections. I don't necessarily disagree, but providers aren't going to upgrade unless they have to. As traffic increases, the major data transit links will be upgraded to keep pace. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bryan Seitz Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] Just a question? Well it isn't even necessarily about money. A lot of the backbone is private and (well NSA tapped) the limiting factor really is technology. Ie, the big links just aren't big enough and the routers not powerful enough to sustain a country full of gigabit users. Granted 100G ports and tech aren't cheap at all, quite the opposite. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:19:18AM -0400, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: > And this is a shame because this is exactly what should exist, were it > not for the fact that the US is in decline. > On 9/23/2013 10:16 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: > > The internet backbone isn't anywhere near where it needs to be to > > support Gigabit. Not even close, no way, no how. 40Gbps backbone > > links are standard with 100Gbps being upgraded to but do the math if everyone has gigabit.... not gonna happen. > > > > (I have 500/100 here in Northern VA). > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:14:25AM -0400, DSinc wrote: > >> Anthony, > >> On this point I am squarely in your corner! > >> Yes, I am blessed to live here. I have no plans to ever leave. > >> Duncan > >> > >> On 09/23/2013 09:51, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: > >>> I think a lot of markets controllers won't have to provide > >>> affordable gigabit...they want to have customers pay through the nose for it. > >>> You seem to be in a part of the country where the thinkers are > >>> more progressive and forward thinking. Greed is the bottom line. > >>> > >>> On 9/23/2013 8:08 AM, DSinc wrote: > >>>> Thanks Anthony, > >>>> Actually, not certain where I am ATM. I am still a bit freaked > >>>> out. I suppose EPB (Electric Power Board) was serious about > >>>> building out the "Scenic City" area to showcase a Giga-bit > >>>> networkgrid. Sure, I know EPB didit mainly so they could control > >>>> all the new modern power distribution and switching equipment > >>>> they installed to provide better QOS. > >>>> I guess I'm confused still. If EPB can and has done GBit, what is > >>>> stopping other major metro areas from doing the same thing? Sure, > >>>> money, equipment, vision, dedication, whatever. At EPB, TN I have > >>>> Harold Depriest sitting at the top of EPB; and, Harold risked a > >>>> bit and said, "Let's make this so!"He pulled it off. Thank you Harold. > >>>> Duncan > >>>> > >>> -- Bryan G. Seitz
