"Cisco's New Router: Trouble for Hollywood"

[diogen]

Here.
Cisco CRS-3 Router Speeds Streaming, Worries Film Execs - TIME

The CRS-3, a network routing system, is able to stream every film ever made, from Hollywood to Bombay, in under four minutes. That's right — the whole universe of films digested in less time than it takes to boil an egg. That may sound like good news for consumers, but it could be the business equivalent of an earthquake for the likes of Universal Studios and Paramount Pictures.

Diogen.

 

[TheForce]

If they were smart, rather than greedy, they would figure out how to make a few bucks off this. The new technology just removes the bottleneck in a whole new business model for their industry.

 

[diogen]

Honestly speaking, the backbone - where the CRS-3 is used - isn't the bottleneck for a long time; the last mile is.

And expecting the MAFIAA to be smart as opposed to greedy is asking for a miracle...

Diogen.

 

[TheForce]

So you disagree with this statement pull quoted from your linked article then:

As it turns out, these megarouters sitting inside data centers of major telcos and cablecos are among the biggest bottlenecks of the Internet, because as bandwidth speed to end users has shot up in recent years, router technology has not kept up, resulting in traffic jams that can slow or freeze downloads.

 

[diogen]

I do.

There are edge cases where this can be true: those "special" rooms at the telcos where everything is filtered and what needed - recorded, might well run out of bandwidth. And all that infrastructure for the elusive Internet 2.0, Google-net, etc. will certainly benefit from it.

Some 6-7 years ago it was shown in numbers that the backbone bandwidth will fail when every internet user starts transmitting and receiving hidef streams at the same time...

Diogen.

 

[stimpson]

Some 6-7 years ago it was shown in numbers that the backbone bandwidth will fail when every internet user starts transmitting and receiving hidef streams at the same time...

Diogen.

How likely is it that will ever to happen?

 

[diogen]

Well, not likely, I think.

But there are many changes afoot.
More people get online. More video is streamed online (e.g. YouTube).
Every type of communication is packetized and sent over the internet nowadays.

In the early days it was hard to use up 100MB a day, now 30GB/day is a piece of cake...

And with all the BigBrother attitude spreading, it is getting harder to keep a tab on all this. Add China hackers and it's a nightmare.

Fast, next generation routers will help. But not us, consumers.
Hollywood should be afraid China steeling everything they ever filmed but not Jo-Shmo downloading the latest 3D Avatar...

Diogen.

 

[TheForce]

I do.

There are edge cases where this can be true: those "special" rooms at the telcos where everything is filtered and what needed - recorded, might well run out of bandwidth.

Just trying to understand--- It seems to me that ALL consumers and most businesses connect via these bottlenecks. How many connect into the backbone directly. If this is the case where the bottleneck occurs, it seems to me this is the NEXT place to fix things for the next level of bandwidth usage.

Consider the extreme case following your worst case scenario. All of us here on this forum would not be sending packets of text exchange in the forum, but rather (in the not tooo distant future) be conferencing with each other using web video cameras and conferencing, PLUS computers that store the exchange to servers for others who were not there to later download and review. This is how I see the next generation of internet evolving that WOULD consume a n order of magnetude similar to the not likely scenario of everybody downloading HD video. Although we turn on the TV and watch and instead of satellite it is IPTV because satellite has long since been replaced with IPTV.

At this point I see the next restriction, not a bottleneck as in the case of the telcos router but rather a system wide limitation that has been reached.

 

[diogen]

It seems to me that ALL consumers and most businesses connect via these bottlenecks.

I think so, too.
But there are equipment "boxes" on both side of the ocean connected with undersea optic cables.
The guys owning those boxes need Cisco's new routers. Not you and me.

Shortly after going public in 2004, Google went on a buying spree gobbling up all the dark fiber they could find, from Silicon Valley to New York.
Why was this fiber dark? Because the backbone was overbuild, I think.

Now this very fiber is used by Google to offer its 1Gbps service.
I don't think there is anything in the way of Google one day offering its own Internet, G-Internet...

Diogen.

EDIT: Google's ways to push the envelope... AppleTV? iPhone OS running on a tablet?
Here comes Google TV and Android OS running on every TV:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/17/google-tv-android-based-web-platform-for-the-living-room-with/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/technology/18webtv.html?ref=technology
That can consume quite a bit of bandwidth...

 

[diogen]

Here is a bit more about the "Google Internet" and where those Cisco routers can find extensive application
Google’s Traffic Is Giant, Which Is Why It Should be Your ISP | Epicenter | Wired.com

Moreover, Google has been deploying banks of servers inside those same networks, so traffic to Google’s servers never has to leave an ISP, cutting down on lag time and transit costs. Arbor estimates that more than half of the ISPs in Europe and North America are home to a bank of servers known as a Google Global Cache.

Diogen.

 

[mike123abc]

What the real trouble is that cable should have DOSIS 3.0 running by 100 million houses in 3 years. When everyone can easily get 100mbit service movie downloads will take reasonable amounts of time.