[LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
Simon Sharwood
simon at jargonmaster.com
Mon Feb 13 17:08:30 AEDT 2017
Whatever TV evolves into, with however many cameras, the incentive to
minimise bandwidth will remain.
Hence the ITU seeking another doubling of compression by 2020 - see
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/09/itut_pushes_start_on_new_codec_standard/
Also hence things like the OpenFog Consortium's new reference -
https://www.openfogconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/OpenFog_Reference_Architecture_2_09_17-FINAL.pdf
- outlining how to build clouds that reach the edge of the network, putting
compute and storage where they can make the biggest impact on the user.
Long story short, there are architectural issues under very active
consideration that recognise work inside the network will be at least as
important to handling future traffic as the possible headline speed of the
last mile connection.
S.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:00 PM, <link-request at mailman.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> Send Link mailing list submissions to
> link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> link-request at mailman.anu.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> link-owner at mailman.anu.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Link digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co (David Boxall)
> 2. Re: Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co (David Lochrin)
> 3. Re: Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co (JanW)
> 4. Re: Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co (Stephen Loosley)
> 5. Re: Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co (Andy Farkas)
> 6. Re: Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co (Paul Brooks)
> 7. Re: Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co (David Lochrin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:21:36 +1100
> From: David Boxall <linkdb at boxall.name>
> To: David Lochrin <dlochrin at key.net.au>, link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
> Message-ID: <de86a8e8-d500-d5e7-2d3c-b801801e8f24 at boxall.name>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 12/02/2017 11:37 AM, David Lochrin wrote:
> > ...
> > There's an interesting tension here between the BIRRR group who want
> reliable, landline based, voice and basic broadband services in rural &
> regional areas and the proponents of high-speed (>=1Gbit/sec) availability.
> > ...
> The stated aim ofBIRRR is equitable access to broadband services. What's
> adequate is debatable, but it would probably be services that will meet
> foreseeable demand. I reckon that includes 1 Gb/s in the short term,
> with an upgrade path.
>
> Meanwhile, MyRepublic is calling Morrow's bluff:
> <http://www.zdnet.com/article/myrepublic-calls-nbn-1gbps-
> claim-ludicrous-launching-gigatown-to-prove-it/>
> > In the 12 weeks since launching as an NBN RSP, Demos said MyRepublic
> > has signed up 10,000 customers to its high-speed plans, which proves
> > that customers do want faster services -- as does the fact that 40
> > percent of its New Zealand customers are already on 1Gbps plans.
>
> --
> David Boxall | When a distinguished but elderly
> | scientist states that something is
> http://david.boxall.id.au | possible, he is almost certainly
> | right. When he states that
> | something is impossible, he is
> | very probably wrong.
> --Arthur C. Clarke
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:00:53 +1100
> From: David Lochrin <dlochrin at key.net.au>
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
> Message-ID: <201702121700.53125.dlochrin at key.net.au>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Sunday 12 February 2017 13:21:36 David Boxall wrote:
>
> > The stated aim ofBIRRR is equitable access to broadband services. What's
> adequate is debatable, but it would probably be services that will meet
> foreseeable demand. I reckon that includes 1 Gb/s in the short term, with
> an upgrade path.
>
> 1 Gb/sec to a private home or small business? Can you justify that with a
> little quantitative accounting for bandwidth usage?
>
> David L.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:17:09 +1100
> From: JanW <jwhit at internode.on.net>
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
> Message-ID: <0410af$1b9aknn at ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 05:00 PM 12/02/2017, David Lochrin wrote:
>
> >1 Gb/sec to a private home or small business? Can you justify that with
> a little quantitative accounting for bandwidth usage?
>
> Is it speed people need or unlimited data or both? Is the speed needed for
> times that there is high demand? Think multiple children in a household in
> the evening putting stress on while parents are streaming video perhaps?
>
> Home businesses are another class of service need where it would be mushed
> up into a 'home' need, or telecommuting.
>
> And this is 'now'. I'd bet most Linkers can remember the shift from a
> low-speed dial-up connection to ADSL and it was on all the time! Wow!
> That's happened in the last 20 years. I'd have to go do some research, but
> my bet is that the demand growth is exponential over that time. So why not
> 1Gb/sec? Or even higher in the next 5?
>
> Jan
>
>
>
> I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
>
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jwhit at janwhitaker.com
> Twitter: <https://twitter.com/JL_Whitaker>JL_Whitaker
> Blog: www.janwhitaker.com
>
> Some psychopaths become serial killers, and other psychopaths become
> prosecutors. - Bob Ruff, Truth and Justice, June 2016
>
> Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do
> you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
> ~Margaret Atwood, writer
>
> _ __________________ _
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 06:53:17 +0000
> From: Stephen Loosley <stephenloosley at outlook.com>
> To: "link at mailman.anu.edu.au" <link at mailman.anu.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
> Message-ID:
> <CY4PR22MB096898D856C3940B58ED25FFC2460 at CY4PR22MB0968.
> namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Jan writes,
>
> > So why not 1Gb/sec? Or even higher in the next 5 years?
>
> ?Why The Internet Pipes Will Burst When Virtual Reality Takes Off?
>
> Feb 9th, 2016. Written by Bo Begole (VP and Global Head of Huawei
> Technologies? Media Lab)
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2016/02/09/why-
> the-internet-pipes-will-burst-if-virtual-reality-takes-off/#47bcc01a64e8
>
>
> Last month, I talked about the coming era of responsive media, media that
> changes the content dynamically to fit the consumer's attention, engagement
> and situation. Some of the technologies that need to make that happen are
> coming out now (VR goggles, emotion-sensing algorithms, and multi-camera
> systems) but there's one fly in the ointment: the new bandwidth required by
> responsive media could be too much and the internet's firehose will burst.
>
> That's a pretty dramatic claim so let me explain where this alarm is
> coming from. The aim of virtual reality is to generate a digital experience
> at the full fidelity of human perception - to recreate every photon your
> eyes would see, every small vibration your ears would hear and eventually
> other details like touch, smell and temperature.
>
> That's a tall order because humans can process an equivalent of nearly 5.2
> gigabits per second of sound and light - 200x what the US Federal
> Communications Commission predicts to be the future requirement for
> broadband networks (25 Mbps).
>
> Woah! Bringing this down to the bottom line, assuming no head or body
> rotation, the eye can receive 720 million pixels for each of 2 eyes, at 36
> bits per pixel for full color and at 60 frames per second: that's 3.1
> trillion (tera) bits! Today's compression standards can reduce that by a
> factor of 300 and even if future compression could reach a factor of 600
> (which is the goal of future video standards), that still means we need 5.2
> gigabits per second of network throughput; maybe more.
>
> "Hold on, Chicken Little," you are saying. "5.2 Gbps is just a theoretical
> upper limit. No cameras or displays today can deliver 30K resolution -
> we're only seeing 8K cameras coming out this year."
>
> But there's the rub. Cinematographers and even consumers are no longer
> using just a single camera to create experiences. I mentioned several 360
> degree panorama camera systems last month - these rigs generally consist of
> 16 or more outward facing cameras. At today's 4K resolution, 30 frames per
> second and 24 bits per pixel, and using a 300:1 compression ratio, these
> rigs generate 300 megabits per second of imagery. That's more than 10x the
> typical requirement for a high-quality 4K movie experience.
>
> There's more. While panorama camera rigs face outward, there's another
> kind of system where the cameras face inward to capture live events. This
> year's Super Bowl, for example, was covered by 70 cameras, 36 of which were
> devoted to a new kind of capture system called Eye Vision 360 which allows
> the action to be frozen while the audience pans around the center of the
> action to see the details of the play at the line! Did the ball cross the
> goal line? Was the player fouled? See for yourself by spinning the view to
> any angle you choose.
>
> Previously, these kinds of effects were only possible in video games or
> Matrix-style movies because they require heavy computation to stitch the
> multiple views together. Heavy duty post-processing means that such effects
> haven't been available during live action in the past but soon enough they
> will be. That's because new network architectures can move the
> post-processing off of high-end workstations at the cameras so that
> processors on the edge of the network and the client display devices (VR
> goggles, smart TVs, tablets and phones) themselves can perform advanced
> image processing to stitch the camera feeds into dramatic effects.
>
> "Okay, Chicken Little," you continue, "but even when there are 16 or 36 or
> 70 or more cameras capturing a scene, audiences today only see one view at
> a time. So the bandwidth requirements would not total up to the sum of all
> the cameras in the rig. Plus, dynamic caching and multicast should be able
> to reduce the load, by delivering content to thousands from a single feed."
>
> Ah, but Responsive Media changes that. VR goggles and Tango-embedded
> tablets will let audiences dynamically select their individual point of
> view. That means two things: 1) the feed from all of the cameras needs to
> be available in an instant and 2) conventional multicast won't be possible
> when each audience member selects an individualized viewpoint. So, there it
> is. The network will be overwhelmed. The sky is falling.
>
> Of course, network capacity is increasing every day, which will help
> alleviate the problem, but increasing the fixed network capacity is really
> only a finger in the dike.
>
> In addition to increased capacity, the network architecture needs to be
> able to adapt dynamically by using technologies like software-defined
> networking and network function virtualization. By transforming our old
> network infrastructure away from hard-wired switches and router boxes and
> into a software platform, it will become more flexible in how resources are
> allocated to meet changing demands. New capacity can be added for major
> events at lower cost using commodity computer hardware rather than
> specialized, inflexible network boxes.
>
> Finally, video/audio compression technologies are being developed that can
> achieve much higher compression ratios for these new multi-camera systems.
> Whereas conventional video compression gets most of its bang from the
> similarity of the images between one frame and the next (called temporal
> redundancy), VR compression adds to that and can leverage the similarity
> among the images from different cameras (like the sky, trees, large
> buildings and others, called spatial redundancy) and use intelligent
> slicing and tiling techniques, using less bandwidth to deliver full 360
> degree video experiences.
>
> All of these advances may still not be enough to reach the theoretical
> limits of a fully immersive experience but they should carry us through for
> several years to come.
>
> Ultimately, we likely need a fundamentally new network architecture - one
> that can dynamically multicast and cache multiple video feeds close to
> consumers and then perform advanced video processing within the network to
> construct individualized views.
>
> Responsive media will require this kind of information-centric networking
> that avoids the choke points of a conventional host-centric networking and
> allows the network itself to optimally distribute bits only where needed so
> we can fully enjoy the future of individualized responsive media.
>
>
> And also, quote:
>
> ?Virtual Reality (VR) video experiences will be the next major
> bandwidth-consuming application, according to ARRIS CTO Charles Cheevers.
> ARRIS estimates that a VR game in 720p will require 50 Mbps, and a 4K VR
> game (do they exist yet?!) will need 500 Mbps. ?So maybe VR is the one that
> drives the need for gigabit speeds, gigabit Wi-Fi and all that stuff,?
> Cheevers said.?
>
> Ref: http://www.onlinereporter.com/2016/06/17/arris-gives-us-
> hint-bandwidth-requirements-vr/
>
> Cheers,
> Stephen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:28:53 +1000
> From: Andy Farkas <andyf at andyit.com.au>
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
> Message-ID: <58A02AD5.6030002 at andyit.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> On 12/02/2017 16:17, JanW wrote:
>
> > I'd have to go do some research, but my bet is that the demand growth is
> exponential over that time. So why not 1Gb/sec? Or even higher in the next
> 5?
> >
>
> Oh Jan, Jan, Jan.... Mr. Trumble and his yes-men have told us that all
> we'll
> need is 15Mbps by 2023. Didn't you read the Vertigan/Ergas report? One
> of several that Mr. Trumble spent^Wgave millions of dollars to the authors?
>
> The +$20million being spent on advertising obviously hasn't been affective
> enough... the $700,000 spent to change their name seems to have slid
> right over your head..
>
> /s
>
> -andyf
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:34:43 +1100
> From: Paul Brooks <pbrooks at layer10.com.au>
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au, JanW <jwhit at internode.on.net>
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
> Message-ID: <CA4FA697-89EC-4AF5-ACC1-7B11B8AE357B at layer10.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> For mine its the now and the future - Jan your last paragraph nails it.
>
> We're spending this extremely large sum of money to build base
> infrastructure that will mostly last 15 - 30 years or more. The bits with a
> shortish lifetime are easily upgraded for relatively low cost.
> Recall that it was just over 10 years ago that Telstra finally uncapped
> its ADSL1 network from 1.5 Mbps as the top speed (Nov 2006), now we
> consider 50 times this as common and required. Similarly the HFC cable
> initially provided the extremely high speed of 8 Mbps in around 1999. We're
> just 18 years on from then.
>
> Do we need to supply 1 Gbps to the majority of premises today? No.
> Will we sometime in the next 15- 20 years? Absolutely. It's only 10x over
> what we can provide today.
> So we should absolutely only spend the money once to provide the specs we
> need now, with enough headroom to be also able to provide the specs we'll
> need over the next decades. Because it costs no more to do it this way.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: JanW <jwhit at internode.on.net>
> Sent: 12 February 2017 5:17:09 PM AEDT
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
>
> At 05:00 PM 12/02/2017, David Lochrin wrote:
>
> >1 Gb/sec to a private home or small business? Can you justify that with
> a little quantitative accounting for bandwidth usage?
>
> Is it speed people need or unlimited data or both? Is the speed needed for
> times that there is high demand? Think multiple children in a household in
> the evening putting stress on while parents are streaming video perhaps?
>
> Home businesses are another class of service need where it would be mushed
> up into a 'home' need, or telecommuting.
>
> And this is 'now'. I'd bet most Linkers can remember the shift from a
> low-speed dial-up connection to ADSL and it was on all the time! Wow!
> That's happened in the last 20 years. I'd have to go do some research, but
> my bet is that the demand growth is exponential over that time. So why not
> 1Gb/sec? Or even higher in the next 5?
>
> Jan
>
>
>
> I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
>
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jwhit at janwhitaker.com
> Twitter: <https://twitter.com/JL_Whitaker>JL_Whitaker
> Blog: www.janwhitaker.com
>
> Some psychopaths become serial killers, and other psychopaths become
> prosecutors. - Bob Ruff, Truth and Justice, June 2016
>
> Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do
> you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
> ~Margaret Atwood, writer
>
> _ __________________ _
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
> --
> Sent unplugged
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:55:40 +1100
> From: David Lochrin <dlochrin at key.net.au>
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Cc: Paul Brooks <pbrooks at layer10.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Demand 'still not there' for 1Gbps: NBN Co
> Message-ID: <201702131155.40663.dlochrin at key.net.au>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Sunday 12 February 2017 22:34:43 Paul Brooks wrote:
>
> > Do we need to supply 1 Gbps to the majority of premises today? No.
> > Will we sometime in the next 15- 20 years? Absolutely. It's only 10x
> over what we can provide today.
> > So we should absolutely only spend the money once to provide the specs
> we need now, with enough headroom to be also able to provide the specs
> we'll need over the next decades. Because it costs no more to do it this
> way.
>
> The problem with this argument is that (a) it's focussed on technology
> rather than actual human needs, and (b) David Boxall's original post
> concerned NBN services in the bush not densely populated cities.
>
> Jan points out that speeds have increased by a factor of (say) a million
> from ~0.0000096 Mbit/s dialup in the early 90's to ADSL2+ data rates now.
> But it would be difficult to argue that the economic "utility" of that
> bandwidth has also increased by a million times. Voice typically takes
> less than 20 Kbit/s, better & more interactive web technology takes much
> more, and the big bandwidth user is video. However a typical household
> will comfortably fit all that in 10 Mbit/sec.
>
> Even I Gbit/s is 100 times more again. And many remote areas now have 0.0
> Mbit/sec.
>
> Given that we're dealing with broadband Back o' Bourke and not greater
> Sydney, the cost of providing 10 Mbit/sec in remote areas is likely to be
> orders of magnitude less than 1 Gbit/sec. While I'm no fan of the current
> Government's approach, all governments have to make package decisions -
> what is worth doing within the country's economic constraints.
>
> So I suggest arguments about baandwidth in remote areas need to be
> properly thought through in terms of utility and cost/benefit if they're to
> get a hearing where it counts.
>
> David L.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Link Digest, Vol 291, Issue 10
> *************************************
>
--
Simon Sharwood | JargonMaster Corporate Communications |
M +61 (0)414 37 37 26 |
E simon at jargonmaster.com | W www.jargonmaster.com
24 North Street Marrickville NSW 2204 AUSTRALIA
ABN: 14743763968
Work blog: jargonmaster.wordpress.com
Free/Busy details: http://www.jargonmaster.com/calendar/
I'm a member of DHBC.org.au and a vExpert
More information about the Link
mailing list