From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89D1C3B25E for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id n202so65147647oig.3 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:45:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HRsmMKjxYr49FW8WTXDersOUQQ3A7BtaPwQ4ZKpIYUg=; b=F3TDcG4phGnTXxDG42OB6/jd0bkO1chkEjXUOM4e5vtA/lIjSq1pPip/YsRw4ki8Ut iTXvmF5kruffjDoRhO83QGGQWcBJ0+hQPJWhRK/DVBziJMi6tM6WZQd35qUYnGEFQR7Y NNEI9DiYowWx+azV/IDM3BBkYwUHlWhSE2/jv7mry7oVY+9/ZYwaH9B1qxcvDa6//NEa pFk2Tq3R7bqGlWvI7LfvEzmv4KeZ0ftl9wZe1nf/h12a+ulUSoqkEq6OK5DZRFbEjZbL czb7EyJAtc4WyG+xP/ZcEsR7U/sVAxwBAd4+5VvYxItfySLvdypZLOZrtoVlrOyWNMK9 P+pw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HRsmMKjxYr49FW8WTXDersOUQQ3A7BtaPwQ4ZKpIYUg=; b=J2dvjdJcGMWgfNCSw61UHMUADXHy4hS2dbxHXRgtkKanKw8ygV4ve6LJIDe4wcXiNS of0oTAzrxyV57L7uwhmxVlaULoIRaqXLIO9VcpPYDLObygGxzjy6RJG42gNxtPxhXyK8 COZfYt9VJULQSiGOMH44/rJOsLZ8Kqag2IBNP/Rb1GlSifYGRFd7yeCXUNuxhmYqI3js cPQ5lSlJhUEu5bi6jMeqonUUnOuLnrtIw4ILkwwyigmLPBszpQWafSPW1J3XAUnYJag1 PfVM2jbSXhonRv4Tw72kDfP9W00CNnuxftgINmso+hScpoWlFiqGVO2I5LYv4Bk57nR+ XGdA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngve7r3pUWJnbuwQiPdXBIX9yXpGqPihOQ4t8I5xH5cQRk2wr2RjxNrTljfvyYvamEN/ZD1RB5Flv2C6d/w== X-Received: by 10.202.90.3 with SMTP id o3mr9253195oib.46.1477597507841; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:45:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.221.106 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:45:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5a2d4224-3f4e-80f0-3b0b-b2fbbdd59697@gmail.com> <77a4abf0-bc94-0d2e-eebe-d72e2e676255@gmail.com> From: Aaron Wood Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:45:06 -0700 Message-ID: To: David Lang Cc: Dave Taht , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d5edc9374c1053fddfa15 Subject: Re: [Bloat] 22 seconds til bloat on gfiber? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:45:08 -0000 --001a113d5edc9374c1053fddfa15 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:30 PM, David Lang wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Dave Taht wrote: > >> >> I am increasingly convinced that without a killer application that >> requires it, >> we've hit "peak bandwidth". >> > > You sound like my College Professor from the early 90's who said that the > networks were now going to be so fast that there was no way that users > would need all the available bandwidth, and that it was up to the students > in the class to invent new uses :-) > > Then the web happened. > > any declaration of 'peak bandwidth' is only a temporary state. I thought 1080p was going to be close to the high-water-mark for video bandwidth needed, and then 4K came out, and now I'm seeing 8K cameras from RED. Although we're deep into diminishing returns on video, I'm sure there will be other applications... I know that even with ~150Mbps service, I'm routinely at that limit, and wanting more. But I want upload more than I want download. 12Mbps is peanuts. I think as we get more cloud photo/video stuff happening, there will be a push for faster upload speeds (mostly for backups and pushing to the cloud). 100 DSLR images (24MP, losslessly compressed) take about 30 minutes to upload at 12Mbps... 12Mbps is only 5.4GB/hour... I'd love to have 150Mbps synchronous. -Aaron --001a113d5edc9374c1053fddfa15 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:30 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Dav= e Taht wrote:

I am increasingly convinced that without a killer application that requires= it,
we've hit "peak bandwidth".

 You sound like my College Professor from the early 90's who said that t= he networks were now going to be so fast that there was no way that users w= ould need all the available bandwidth, and that it was up to the students i= n the class to invent new uses :-)

Then the web happened.

any declaration of 'peak bandwidth' is only a temporary state.

I thought 1080p was going to be close to the hi= gh-water-mark for video bandwidth needed, and then 4K came out, and now I&#= 39;m seeing 8K cameras from RED.=C2=A0 Although we're deep into diminis= hing returns on video, I'm sure there will be other applications...=C2= =A0 I know that even with ~150Mbps service, I'm routinely at that limit= , and wanting more.=C2=A0 But I want upload more than I want download. =C2= =A012Mbps is peanuts.=C2=A0 I think as we get more cloud photo/video stuff = happening, there will be a push for faster upload speeds (mostly for backup= s and pushing to the cloud). =C2=A0100 DSLR images (24MP, losslessly compre= ssed) take about 30 minutes to upload at 12Mbps...

12Mbps is only 5.4GB/hour...=C2=A0 I'd love to have 150Mbps synchronou= s. =C2=A0

-Aaron
--001a113d5edc9374c1053fddfa15--