In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Roedy Green
<see_website@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:34:17 GMT
<5afak3trm8stb87q9rcmc91mg9ju12f6ju@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> A study that hit the news today announced that given projecting
> spending by ISPs, there will be Internet gridlock by 2012. The demand
> is growing far faster than the infrastructure to sup****t it.
>
> There are ways surely other than spending billions to improve the
> capacity of the Internet.
Sure. Increasing per-subscriber rate frees would get those billions in
a twinkling.
>
> 1. Use of low priority packets and low usage time for bulk file
> transfer.
Router changeouts.
>
> 2. massive caching of popular files. Caching should also be able to
> take advantage of end-user disks for public use using digital
> signatures.
I have no idea what this means unless you're referring to something like
BitTorrent.
>
> 3. hardware compression on both ends.
Router changeouts, user hardware changeouts, server hardware changeouts.
Look up F5's BigIP product line for an example on the server side. Note
that compression can be thought of as a data transmission rate versus
power consumption rate tradeoff.
>
> 4. replacing poor compression video with the best.
I am curious as to what "the best" is at this point. So far, the video
I've seen thus far is extremely poor at any resolution beyond 320x200.
>
> 5. more use of client side computing instead of HTTP so that visuals
> are generated locally. Websites you view frequently use a scheme like
> the Replicator to keep your copy up to date for local browsing.
HTTP already has a caching mechanism. What visuals are you discussing?
HTML is always rendered locally.
>
> 6. zoning laws to ensure any new building or one undergoing major
> renovation gets wired with optical fibre.
That only helps if someone can supply said fibre.
>
> 7. universal system to use nearly all local wireless LANs for cell and
> laptop communication.
You'll have to clarify that.
>
> 8. Pricing to discourage sending uncompressed data or data.
So OK then, don't charge flat rate. Charge by the
gigabyte. (Current pricing is maybe 1 cent per gigabyte,
regardless of whether one uses it or not. Raise this to
15 cents per *used* gigabyte -- the assumption being that
users only use their computer 2 hours out of every 24,
roughly -- and the ISPs would then reinvest the revenue.)
--
#191, ewill3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Woman? What woman?"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
