Segway Video Humor

[quade]

Ok . . . we have to be balanced to ride Segways so . . . here's the other side;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lc1YpvGZ5rg

[quade]

It is, after all, the world's greatest invention;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8RWDjp8yvTk

[hellphish]

Since when can we imbed youtube videos?

[quade]

Since when can we imbed youtube videos?

I guess since I asked about it and they implemented it . . . :D

See post here (http://forums.segwaychat.com/showthread.php?t=17209).

[Desert_Seg]

I guess since I asked about it and they implemented it . . . :D

See post here (http://forums.segwaychat.com/showthread.php?t=17209).

I wish they would un-implement it. Depending on whose analysis you read, YouTube is either the first or the second biggest user of bandwidth in the world.

As a person who works in the bandwidth optimization arena (yes, different business) I love it (makes me $$$$) but man does it slow down the internet and when I'm browsing on my Blackberry or on a slow connection it just mucks things up!

What most people tend to forget is that not everybody has broadband, in fact a minority worldwide have broadband or even a semblance thereof.

Steven

[quade]

The link takes practically zero bandwidth; certainly far less than some of the photos we routinely attach to posts. It's only when you actually stream it (and it's always your option not to) that significantly higher bandwidth is required.

[Desert_Seg]

The link takes practically zero bandwidth; certainly far less than some of the photos we routinely attach to posts. It's only when you actually stream it (and it's always your option not to) that significantly higher bandwidth is required.

Yes and no. The link uses slightly more bandwidth as an image of the same size but that's not the real point. The issue is the total bandwidth consumption

I don't have the numbers in front of my but, for math's sake let's say that "average" size is 100K. That is 100K that is shot out every time somebody opens that post (it is not cached locally on your PC).

You then multiply that times the the number of views and you have a large number.

Let's take your Segway Video Classics post. It has four (4) embedded links and has been viewed 81 times:

4 x 100K x 81 = 32.4 MB

Not a lot unless you are Frank Tropea and are hosting the site out of your own pocket and have bandwidth charges to pay for the embedded link! (most don't, btw as it is just a pointer). Of course, if you are on a non-broadband account you are looking at a slow load abut disabling the autoplay function is a great touch.

Now, let's take the flipside, which is that 1/2 those people click on the link. If I remember correctly the average YouTube vide is just over 6.1 MB in size....

4 x 6.1 x 40 = 976 MB just streamed across the internet thanks to YouTube (and you :D).

The point is that the viral nature of YouTube is killing the internet. As of June of this year YouTube accounted for 20% of all HTTP traffic (equal to 10% of all network traffic). Read that again....one company, one site, one application accounts for 10% of all traffic.

More numbers:

As of June YouTube was serving approx 100,000,000 (yep, 100 MILLION) videos a day. Average size, 6.1MB, that is 610,000,000 MB a day or 595.7 TB a day...every single day of the year.

Based on current worldwide network size, a constant growth rate in users, and the ever increasing downloads via HTTP (most often termed recreational downloads) there are strong indications that for many the internet will slow to a crawl between 2010 and 2012.

We proved how important controlling recreational internet at the local campus of a US college. In a matter of hours we were able to control the flow of P2P, YouTube, and Facebook (the three worst offenders on the net) and cut their bandwidth consumption by greater than 70%...saving them more than 55GB a day. Sure, some of the students aren't happy but...who's paying the bandwidth bill?

Anyway, I need to jump off my bandwagon here. I could go on forever.

Steven

[quade]

. . . there are strong indications that for many the internet will slow to a crawl between 2010 and 2012.

When I build my first computer in 1977 (a kit version of the Rockwell AIM-65) it had a total of 4k of memory and a 9600 baud serial port. A person could hook that up to a 150 baud hand set modem.

Things change. Bandwidth expands to fit the requirements and by 2012 there will be more than enough to satisfy the needs of YouTube. In fact, that's how it works; supply and demand. Nobody in this business is going to let the internet grind to a halt due to bandwidth concerns. It will just keep getting bigger. Trust me.

[Desert_Seg]

When I build my first computer in 1977 (a kit version of the Rockwell AIM-65) it had a total of 4k of memory and a 9600 baud serial port. A person could hook that up to a 150 baud hand set modem.

Things change. Bandwidth expands to fit the requirements and by 2012 there will be more than enough to satisfy the needs of YouTube. In fact, that's how it works; supply and demand. Nobody in this business is going to let the internet grind to a halt due to bandwidth concerns. It will just keep getting bigger. Trust me.

Sorry, that's now how it works. We already see a marked decrease in access speeds in major metropolitan areas. This is why large corporations are buying dedicated lines to interconnect their hubs, rather than rely on the telco for this service.

It is simple, it really is. There is a finite number of data bits that can be pushed across a cable, whether it be copper or fiber and there is a finite number of packets that can be handled by a router, switch, or firewall.

Your average residential user is at the tail end of a copper line that is maxed in transmission capabilities and yet people want more...more speed, more data, more downloads. So, their telco or cable company comes in and puts in fiber. But that too can only hold so much data.

So they create routers and switches that can move data faster and in smaller (more condensed) packets. We are deploying 10Gig boxes now...still not enough.

Why? Because of latency. It doesn't matter how big you make the pipe or how fast you make the boxes, physics limit the speed at which data can travel. 200ms latency on a network will ALWAYS be 200ms latency. You can only appear to make it faster but caching data, using multiple connections, or multiple routes but the latency is still there.

The positive on this is that more and more people are getting access to the Internet. The negative is that more and more people are getting access to the Internet. Each person uses exponentially more bandwidth than is available to them and therein lies the problem.

Steven

[quade]

Let's revisit your original claim; "Based on current worldwide network size, a constant growth rate in users, and the ever increasing downloads via HTTP (most often termed recreational downloads) there are strong indications that for many the internet will slow to a crawl between 2010 and 2012."

Would you care to place a wager on this? I think we may need to define a few terms such as "slow to a crawl" and dates, but I'd be willing to make the over/under at "slower than 61.8% and January 1, 2011". I certainly don't think you're ever going to see that much of a reduction due to normal bandwidth demands (terrorist, nuclear and natural disasters not withstanding).

Perhaps at some under-engineered facility, but certainly not system wide.

[DarthSegVator]

I wish they would un-implement it. Depending on whose analysis you read, YouTube is either the first or the second biggest user of bandwidth in the world.

As a person who works in the bandwidth optimization arena (yes, different business) I love it (makes me $$$$) but man does it slow down the internet and when I'm browsing on my Blackberry or on a slow connection it just mucks things up!

What most people tend to forget is that not everybody has broadband, in fact a minority worldwide have broadband or even a semblance thereof.

Steven

If you have a problem with this...fine.

Others don't. There is no need to "ban" something simply because it doesn't work for you.

Skip over the thread or don't play the video.

Your choice. Personally, I think it's kinda neat and I like it.

[Desert_Seg]

If you have a problem with this...fine.

Others don't. There is no need to "ban" something simply because it doesn't work for you.

Skip over the thread or don't play the video.

Your choice. Personally, I think it's kinda neat and I like it.

My goodness. Who died and made you "ruler"? I didn't ask for a ban, I stated my opinion just have you have just stated yours. Or is it that I can't state my opinion if it doesn't agree with yours?

Why does everything on SegwayChat have to evolve into a negative?

Geez...

Steven

[Five-Flags]

... Perhaps at some under-engineered facility, but certainly not system wide.

I think the point Steven is making is that system-wide the system IS under-engineered; no-one could have predicted the explosive growth. So now, everyone is trying desperately to keep up with demand.

It's not so simple as saying "add more" -- I work for a local government and we're busily trying to predict what our needs will be in three years in order to get them budgeted for City Council to approve. (Anyone got a good crystal ball they can spare???) Most large corporations also have a two-to-three year lead time for large acquisitions.

You can't just think "I'll get this, and then get more later if I need it". If you go back to Council for more, it's "Why didn't you get what you needed the last time?"

The infrastructure is growing, but do you see at&t going out and replacing every home phoneline with 1 Gb fiber to the demarc by 2011? 100Gb to the Central Offices?

It is coming, but slowly - as demand and finances allow.

[hellphish]

Yes and no. The link uses slightly more bandwidth as an image of the same size but that's not the real point. The issue is the total bandwidth consumption

I don't have the numbers in front of my but, for math's sake let's say that "average" size is 100K. That is 100K that is shot out every time somebody opens that post (it is not cached locally on your PC).

You then multiply that times the the number of views and you have a large number.

Let's take your Segway Video Classics post. It has four (4) embedded links and has been viewed 81 times:

4 x 100K x 81 = 32.4 MB

Not a lot unless you are Frank Tropea and are hosting the site out of your own pocket and have bandwidth charges to pay for the embedded link! (most don't, btw as it is just a pointer). Of course, if you are on a non-broadband account you are looking at a slow load abut disabling the autoplay function is a great touch.

Now, let's take the flipside, which is that 1/2 those people click on the link. If I remember correctly the average YouTube vide is just over 6.1 MB in size....

4 x 6.1 x 40 = 976 MB just streamed across the internet thanks to YouTube (and you :D).

The point is that the viral nature of YouTube is killing the internet. As of June of this year YouTube accounted for 20% of all HTTP traffic (equal to 10% of all network traffic). Read that again....one company, one site, one application accounts for 10% of all traffic.

More numbers:

As of June YouTube was serving approx 100,000,000 (yep, 100 MILLION) videos a day. Average size, 6.1MB, that is 610,000,000 MB a day or 595.7 TB a day...every single day of the year.

Based on current worldwide network size, a constant growth rate in users, and the ever increasing downloads via HTTP (most often termed recreational downloads) there are strong indications that for many the internet will slow to a crawl between 2010 and 2012.

We proved how important controlling recreational internet at the local campus of a US college. In a matter of hours we were able to control the flow of P2P, YouTube, and Facebook (the three worst offenders on the net) and cut their bandwidth consumption by greater than 70%...saving them more than 55GB a day. Sure, some of the students aren't happy but...who's paying the bandwidth bill?

Anyway, I need to jump off my bandwagon here. I could go on forever.

Steven
Responding to the bolded: What are you talking about? The whole point of embedding youtube is so that Frank DOESN'T pay for hosting videos. You seem to understand that but you have a strange (and long) way of saying it.