If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   The media discovers the concept of bandwidth: "the video just can't squeeze through the wire and onto the screen." Everybody knows video goes through tubes   (npr.org) divider line 41
    More: Fail, electronic media, Dial-up Internet, bandwidth, Aspen Institute, Morning Edition, Google Fiber, tubes, wires  
•       •       •

2103 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Oct 2012 at 9:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-25 09:09:25 AM
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-25 09:15:26 AM
The more bandwidth you have, the more you use. There is NEVER enough bandwidth.

NPR might want to start hiring some people with actual engineering knowledge one of these days. All these commies on the payroll with their degree in French poetry really aren't cutting it...
 
2012-10-25 09:21:02 AM
But there is a place where some people never worry about bandwidth.

Yeah New Guinea tribesmen who haven't yet met outsiders probably never worry about bandwidth but in the developed world this statement makes no sense at all.
 
2012-10-25 09:21:44 AM
SERIES-OF-TUBES.jpg
 
2012-10-25 09:22:10 AM

LordZorch: The more bandwidth you have, the more you use. There is NEVER enough bandwidth.

NPR might want to start hiring some people with actual engineering knowledge one of these days. All these commies on the payroll with their degree in French poetry really aren't cutting it...


All he's saying is that we'll never need more that 640k of bandwidth.
 
2012-10-25 09:22:22 AM
Maybe it's just me, but... done in one.
 
2012-10-25 09:23:54 AM
I'm literally listening to this on the radio right now. Are you a wizard, subby?
 
2012-10-25 09:24:30 AM
its not a dump truck...

/sent my staff an internet yesterday.
 
2012-10-25 09:33:13 AM
Audio gets through the wires fine. Movies are just too damn fat.
 
2012-10-25 09:34:25 AM

LDM90: I'm literally listening to this on the radio right now. Are you a wizard, subby?


I heard it on the way in to work this morning and damn near caused a pile-up on the 190 from the involuntary facepalm.
 
2012-10-25 09:40:57 AM
That whole thing read like a placed ad for Google's fiber service.

/which I desperately, desperately want
 
2012-10-25 09:42:54 AM

VRaptor117: That whole thing read like a placed ad for Google's fiber service.

/which I desperately, desperately want


I would name my first child Google McFiber if they would come to the cincinnati area.
 
2012-10-25 09:43:31 AM
Looking at the latest pictures it seems that G&R's bandwidth is going up.
 
2012-10-25 09:46:15 AM
It never fails to amuse me when the bandwidth providers sell users on all the cool things they can do with the bandwidth and the awesome devices and then scream when we actually use it.
 
2012-10-25 09:46:18 AM
What? Of course video goes through wires, it has to otherwise there would be massive synchronisation issues with the sound. Light travels much faster than sound so it's pushed through wires to slow it down. If you just beamed the pictures around like nobody's business you'd get the sound later like with thunderstorms and the film would be ruined.
 
2012-10-25 09:49:31 AM
There's always a damn catch. Either the bandwidth is too slow for the content or the ISP's impose a cap. Either way there's always something to come in the way. Sure the new connections are super fast, but stream 6 HD movies in a week, do a bit of downloading and browsing too and all of a sudden you've nearly hit your months cap already. So then you are back to limiting what you view online.

Maybe things will be different with Google entering the picture. I'll reserve judgement for now though.
 
2012-10-25 09:53:59 AM
This is why I never got the mocking for the "series of tubes" statement. It was a perfectly reasonable analogy to make about bandwidth.
 
2012-10-25 10:09:09 AM

Thoguh: This is why I never got the mocking for the "series of tubes" statement. It was a perfectly reasonable analogy to make about bandwidth.


The "tubes" analogy itself was fine. Anyone who's spent time around a server has referred to a "fat pipe" or similar.

For me, it was the rest of the comment- something like "My staff sent me an internet last Thursday, and I didn't get that internet until this morning, because the tubes were clogged with movies" that showed a lack of technical understanding.
 
2012-10-25 10:10:05 AM

LDM90: I'm literally listening to this on the radio right now. Are you a wizard, subby?


Yes. I magically wake up at 7AM to get the kid off to school, and like most wizards, listen to NPR for anything fark-worthy.
 
2012-10-25 10:10:48 AM

Thoguh: This is why I never got the mocking for the "series of tubes" statement. It was a perfectly reasonable analogy to make about bandwidth.


The internet is not a truck. It's a series of tubes.

Why is it not a truck? What's a truck have to do with it?
 
2012-10-25 10:12:52 AM
I typically recommend one of two ways of increasing bandwidth to my coworkers. Both are based on the fact that we are using a digital signal, made up of 1's and 0's, and not the older analog wave signal. The first technique is to have the user straighten the his cables so the ones don't get caught in the bends. If that doesn't work I have them email an excel file of zeros to flush the lines, a word file doesn't work as that is the character 0 versus the number 0. Placebo effect really does work.
 
2012-10-25 10:16:20 AM

The sound of one hand clapping: There's always a damn catch. Either the bandwidth is too slow for the content or the ISP's impose a cap. Either way there's always something to come in the way. Sure the new connections are super fast, but stream 6 HD movies in a week, do a bit of downloading and browsing too and all of a sudden you've nearly hit your months cap already. So then you are back to limiting what you view online.

Maybe things will be different with Google entering the picture. I'll reserve judgement for now though.


The catch is, this time the data is being routed directly through google. I also suspect that we're going to revisit the idea of a tiered internet once google controls a preponderance of traffic.
 
2012-10-25 10:21:25 AM

Swiss Colony: What? Of course video goes through wires, it has to otherwise there would be massive synchronisation issues with the sound. Light travels much faster than sound so it's pushed through wires to slow it down. If you just beamed the pictures around like nobody's business you'd get the sound later like with thunderstorms and the film would be ruined.


Cheron: I typically recommend one of two ways of increasing bandwidth to my coworkers. Both are based on the fact that we are using a digital signal, made up of 1's and 0's, and not the older analog wave signal. The first technique is to have the user straighten the his cables so the ones don't get caught in the bends. If that doesn't work I have them email an excel file of zeros to flush the lines, a word file doesn't work as that is the character 0 versus the number 0. Placebo effect really does work.


You guys should collaborate on a book
 
2012-10-25 10:38:51 AM

Thoguh: This is why I never got the mocking for the "series of tubes" statement. It was a perfectly reasonable analogy to make about bandwidth.


So when peopel say that something is "going down the tubes," are they referring to video and its bandwidth...or that the bandwidth is good/not good or that the video is good/not good or what?!?!
 
2012-10-25 10:49:08 AM

VRaptor117: That whole thing read like a placed ad for Google's fiber service.

/which I desperately, desperately want


And the awesome thing is, the Google Fiber with HD TV bundle costs the same as Time Warner charged around here for internet with basic cable (no HD).
But it won't be installed in my FIberhood until next summer :(
 
2012-10-25 11:22:07 AM
"The Band Width" would be a cool band name. Why I thought of that, I don't know.
 
2012-10-25 11:52:50 AM
www.idigitaltimes.com

/made a good point about rural bandwidth
 
2012-10-25 11:58:59 AM
Surprising as it may seem, in places without a high enough population density, cable/phone companies and even wireless providers don't have sufficient motivation to provide new technologies.

In many parts of the country (even in rather urbanized states) you couldn't even get CABLE TV until the late 80's.

I lived inbetween Baltimore and Annapolis for a couple of years and the little corner I was in couldn't get DSL or cable-based internet (unless I paid $500+ to run a few hundred feet of cable). Choices were dial-up, satellite or wireless (just squeezed into the outskirts of the Baltimore Sprint 4G network) which was what I ended up with.
 
2012-10-25 12:09:54 PM
Sometimes the tubes get clogged and you have to get out the network plunger.
 
2012-10-25 12:44:09 PM

cefm: Surprising as it may seem, in places without a high enough population density, cable/phone companies and even wireless providers don't have sufficient motivation to provide new technologies.

In many parts of the country (even in rather urbanized states) you couldn't even get CABLE TV until the late 80's.

I lived inbetween Baltimore and Annapolis for a couple of years and the little corner I was in couldn't get DSL or cable-based internet (unless I paid $500+ to run a few hundred feet of cable). Choices were dial-up, satellite or wireless (just squeezed into the outskirts of the Baltimore Sprint 4G network) which was what I ended up with.


Which is why we need a Rural Telecommunications Act like the REA in the thirties. It was part of FDR's New Deal - run wires to people in the sticks to a) put people back to work and b) improve quality of life for everyone. Worked pretty damn well, too. There was something like that for broadband included in the stimulus bill, IIRC, but that money has either all been spent or the program has been shut down. There's still missing last mile solutions in a whole lot of areas, and not enough money was earmarked for the sticks compared to urban areas.

Oh, and like many other industries, I think it's necessary to either do some trust-busting to allow more competition than either Charter or AT&T in my neighborhood or go for complete nationalization, like the old electric co-ops.
 
2012-10-25 01:05:09 PM

cefm: Surprising as it may seem, in places without a high enough population density, cable/phone companies and even wireless providers don't have sufficient motivation to provide new technologies.

In many parts of the country (even in rather urbanized states) you couldn't even get CABLE TV until the late 80's.

I lived inbetween Baltimore and Annapolis for a couple of years and the little corner I was in couldn't get DSL or cable-based internet (unless I paid $500+ to run a few hundred feet of cable). Choices were dial-up, satellite or wireless (just squeezed into the outskirts of the Baltimore Sprint 4G network) which was what I ended up with.


even in places with some of they highest population densities they don't provide first world standard broadband.

google is going to eat their lunch. google fiber is, I think, google's long term play.
 
2012-10-25 02:16:50 PM
Wait... Verizon just sort of STOPPED rolling out FIOS?

Travesty, was very impressed with the idea of that when I was on holiday in NY last year, thought wow...they must be taking this seriously.

Sad to see they just kind of 'stopped' They could have had the entire United States wrapped up for a good decade...
 
2012-10-25 02:18:20 PM

phyrkrakr: Which is why we need a Rural Telecommunications Act like the REA in the thirties. It was part of FDR's New Deal - run wires to people in the sticks to a) put people back to work and b) improve quality of life for everyone. Worked pretty damn well, too. There was something like that for broadband included in the stimulus bill, IIRC, but that money has either all been spent or the program has been shut down. There's still missing last mile solutions in a whole lot of areas, and not enough money was earmarked for the sticks compared to urban areas.Oh, and like many other industries, I think it's necessary to either do some trust-busting to allow more competition than either Charter or AT&T in my neighborhood or go for complete nationalization, like the old electric co-ops.


There is a program like that already, it is funded by a tax on landlines (and something else I think), although I am not sure it of a size and level of funding to put a big enough dent to be seriously noticeable given the scale involved.
 
2012-10-25 02:32:24 PM

moel: Wait... Verizon just sort of STOPPED rolling out FIOS?


Infrastructure costs money -- money could be lining the shareholders pockets. After all, they have zero incentive to bring faster internet speeds to market where no competition exists.
 
2012-10-25 03:10:16 PM

phyrkrakr: cefm: Surprising as it may seem, in places without a high enough population density, cable/phone companies and even wireless providers don't have sufficient motivation to provide new technologies.

In many parts of the country (even in rather urbanized states) you couldn't even get CABLE TV until the late 80's.

I lived inbetween Baltimore and Annapolis for a couple of years and the little corner I was in couldn't get DSL or cable-based internet (unless I paid $500+ to run a few hundred feet of cable). Choices were dial-up, satellite or wireless (just squeezed into the outskirts of the Baltimore Sprint 4G network) which was what I ended up with.

Which is why we need a Rural Telecommunications Act like the REA in the thirties. It was part of FDR's New Deal - run wires to people in the sticks to a) put people back to work and b) improve quality of life for everyone. Worked pretty damn well, too. There was something like that for broadband included in the stimulus bill, IIRC, but that money has either all been spent or the program has been shut down. There's still missing last mile solutions in a whole lot of areas, and not enough money was earmarked for the sticks compared to urban areas.

Oh, and like many other industries, I think it's necessary to either do some trust-busting to allow more competition than either Charter or AT&T in my neighborhood or go for complete nationalization, like the old electric co-ops.


yea, maybe we should have given the telecom companies 200 billion dollars in the mid 90s to get ahead of the curve in broadband rollout, surely they wouldn't have just pocketed that money!
 
2012-10-25 04:12:08 PM

xria: There is a program like that already, it is funded by a tax on landlines (and something else I think), although I am not sure it of a size and level of funding to put a big enough dent to be seriously noticeable given the scale involved.


I'm not familiar with that program - the one that was included with the stimulus required all the money to be spent within a certain time period, which has now passed.

SuperT: yea, maybe we should have given the telecom companies 200 billion dollars in the mid 90s to get ahead of the curve in broadband rollout, surely they wouldn't have just pocketed that money!


[notsureifserious.jpg]

The REA didn't give money to companies - it loaned cash to electrical co-ops made up of end users who built out the infrastructure themselves and purchased electricity at bulk rates. It would be super sweet if the government would give loans for end users to form their own group that would build their own fiber networks and buy bulk bandwidth. Community-based orgs that aren't looking solely to turn a profit are, generally speaking, much better at providing customer satisfaction - see credit unions vs. Bank of America, for example.
 
2012-10-25 04:38:05 PM

phyrkrakr: xria: There is a program like that already, it is funded by a tax on landlines (and something else I think), although I am not sure it of a size and level of funding to put a big enough dent to be seriously noticeable given the scale involved.

I'm not familiar with that program - the one that was included with the stimulus required all the money to be spent within a certain time period, which has now passed.

SuperT: yea, maybe we should have given the telecom companies 200 billion dollars in the mid 90s to get ahead of the curve in broadband rollout, surely they wouldn't have just pocketed that money!

[notsureifserious.jpg]

The REA didn't give money to companies - it loaned cash to electrical co-ops made up of end users who built out the infrastructure themselves and purchased electricity at bulk rates. It would be super sweet if the government would give loans for end users to form their own group that would build their own fiber networks and buy bulk bandwidth. Community-based orgs that aren't looking solely to turn a profit are, generally speaking, much better at providing customer satisfaction - see credit unions vs. Bank of America, for example.


oh I know, but the telecoms have successfully lobbied in many areas to make co-ops illegal.

If I had my way, we'd just nationalize the telecom infrastructure.Upgrade everything to buried fiber(in the interest of national security and continuity of communications) and let any business who was able run an ISP do so, lease out the lines at the same rate to everyone. no local monopolies or any of that jazz.

but telecos would buy off lawmakers so that it end up being something that would further entrench them.
 
2012-10-25 10:12:26 PM

MrEricSir: moel: Wait... Verizon just sort of STOPPED rolling out FIOS?

Infrastructure costs money -- money could be lining the shareholders pockets reinvested. After all, they have zero incentive to bring faster internet speeds to market where no threat of potential competition exists.

 
2012-10-26 01:07:39 AM

LordZorch: The more bandwidth you have, the more you use. There is NEVER enough bandwidth.

NPR might want to start hiring some people with actual engineering knowledge one of these days. All these commies on the payroll with their degree in French poetry really aren't cutting it...


Jevons paradox applies here
 
2012-10-26 09:12:48 AM

Horseraddish: Jevons paradox applies here


It's like those people that expected electricity consumption to go down when people stopped using CRT televisions and computer monitors and switched over to plasma, LED, and LCD. At best it stayed the same as people went from a 27" TV to a 50" or larger...
 
2012-10-26 10:52:41 AM

Cheron: I typically recommend one of two ways of increasing bandwidth to my coworkers. Both are based on the fact that we are using a digital signal, made up of 1's and 0's, and not the older analog wave signal. The first technique is to have the user straighten the his cables so the ones don't get caught in the bends. If that doesn't work I have them email an excel file of zeros to flush the lines, a word file doesn't work as that is the character 0 versus the number 0. Placebo effect really does work.


This is brilliant, going to have to try that.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report