With so much data moving up and down, how much impact will this have on the internet? Some carriers are already feeling the pain with movies and tiv streaming. It just continues to get more or more crazy with the bits and bauds flying all over the place.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is Apple About to bring the internet to a crawl?
- Thread starter nostresshere
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bringing the internet to a crawl and stressing the networks of mobile operators who do not invest enough of their profits back into infrastructure are two different things.
Bring the internet to a crawl? No.
Put more strain on the mobile operator networks: Probably.
Bring the internet to a crawl? No.
Put more strain on the mobile operator networks: Probably.
This is what I was thinking.
I mean you can now download or backup things wirelessly to the cloud instead of simply syncing to the host computer - lot of un-necessary uploading here unless your on holiday away from you computer.
I know the whole thing supposed to eliminate needing a computer but there is going to be data flying everywhere and a lot of countries have caps and slow broadband providers.
I think Microsoft will first, with their announcement of a TV service for Xbox 360. Between that, Netflix, and all of the rest of the cloud/streaming services... Yeah, the internet is definitely going to explode on 12/21/2012, causing the end of the world.
Agreed ... but does cloud syncing work when not on WiFi? Maybe I missed it, but I thought it was WiFi only. WiFi is more widespread so I don't seeing that be a problem, because with 2Gb data plans basically everyone would be over their limit with all of this constant syncing and cloud copying.
I was actually thinking of the primary internet, not the cellular network. After all, that WIFI goes over somebodies internet connection. The same one that is doing all that video streaming and downloads. There will be lots of stuff going up and down that used to take place via cable to your PC/Mac.
Bringing the Internet to a crawl?
One "channel" on a provider's high-speed fiber connection today is 10 Gigabits/sec. (That is 1000X the bandwidth used by a 10 Megabits/sec 3G cellphone.) Times up to 160 (DWDM) channels/fiber. Times up to 72 fiber pairs per 144 strand fiber bundle. Times however many bundles there are in a conduit. 100 Gigabits/sec per channel is coming, albeit with fewer channels (e.g. 80) per fiber. The point is, there is plenty of extremely cheap bandwidth possible in "the internet" core-- wherever there is fiber.
Then, you have CDN's offloading high-demand content to locations closer to consumers, and reducing the cost and bandwidth required to provide content centrally. This reduces internet bandwidth demands and cost even further.
Getting the bandwidth to wireless devices can be much more expensive and difficult. You need cell towers and backhaul to local CO's. Your neighbors might not want more cell towers. Putting in the backhaul may require expensive digging.
In the US, in the home, things are somewhat better. In many places, you have your choice of the local cable monopoly or the local phone monopoly DSL. "Broadband". Much of the local equipment is limited in the bandwidth, particularly upstream bandwidth, available. In a few places, there are some local competitive providers. In some countries, there are much more aggressively priced broadband capabilities available. This, along with wireless, is where there are significant costs to providing bandwidth.
The point of all this? When people talk about "the internet" being slow, they are talking about the last mile (or 20 miles), wired or wireless, not the internet core. In the internet core, between major cities, there is almost unlimited bandwidth available extremely cheaply.
One "channel" on a provider's high-speed fiber connection today is 10 Gigabits/sec. (That is 1000X the bandwidth used by a 10 Megabits/sec 3G cellphone.) Times up to 160 (DWDM) channels/fiber. Times up to 72 fiber pairs per 144 strand fiber bundle. Times however many bundles there are in a conduit. 100 Gigabits/sec per channel is coming, albeit with fewer channels (e.g. 80) per fiber. The point is, there is plenty of extremely cheap bandwidth possible in "the internet" core-- wherever there is fiber.
Then, you have CDN's offloading high-demand content to locations closer to consumers, and reducing the cost and bandwidth required to provide content centrally. This reduces internet bandwidth demands and cost even further.
Getting the bandwidth to wireless devices can be much more expensive and difficult. You need cell towers and backhaul to local CO's. Your neighbors might not want more cell towers. Putting in the backhaul may require expensive digging.
In the US, in the home, things are somewhat better. In many places, you have your choice of the local cable monopoly or the local phone monopoly DSL. "Broadband". Much of the local equipment is limited in the bandwidth, particularly upstream bandwidth, available. In a few places, there are some local competitive providers. In some countries, there are much more aggressively priced broadband capabilities available. This, along with wireless, is where there are significant costs to providing bandwidth.
The point of all this? When people talk about "the internet" being slow, they are talking about the last mile (or 20 miles), wired or wireless, not the internet core. In the internet core, between major cities, there is almost unlimited bandwidth available extremely cheaply.