In 2009 why is the Internet still so slow?

[Pennglock]

I would appreciate it if someone with technical knowledge could chime in. What exactly is the biggest bottleneck for US internet users currently?

I am mainly wondering why it is still virtually impossible to stream HD quality video from any legitimate providers. For instance Youtube looks and sounds like complete ****. Ive seen my connection download at 2-3mb/second, so I feel like maybe the content providers are being stingy? Maybe I just answered my own question... Youtube probably needs to find a way to make money before they devote any capital to increasing bandwidth.

 

[ysc]

Well two reasons I can think of, one the providers still do not provide what they say they will, and haven't pushed the envelope on what they can provide.
Two is that there is so much use of services like youtube, and bbc iplayer here in the UK, that it is taking up a vast amount of bandwidth and new servers etc. can only just be set up fast enough to keep up with the current levels.

 

[Conrad]

It's the rate of growth of the use of the internet coupled with the non-growth of the network that carries it.

Currently YouTube alone uses as much bandwidth in one month as the entire internet did per year just 9 years ago.

 

[edinatlanta]

Originally Posted by Conrad

It's the rate of growth of the use of the internet coupled with the non-growth of the network that carries it.

Currently YouTube alone uses as much bandwidth in one month as the entire internet did per year just 9 years ago.

Isn't that why there was talk of Internet 2 or whatever it was?

Is it true that our current connection systems in all honesty can't handle YouTube and other such sites?

 

[Philosoph]

I was talking about this a few weeks ago with my uncle, who runs a telecom engineering firm. According to him, the problem isn't so much physical infrastructure as it is government regulations concerning the ways in which they may or may not deliver bandwidth.

 

[Dedalus]

I blame Comcast. **** you, Comcast.

 

[Tad Ferguson]

Yeah I'd say the problem is the US oligopoly internet situation. Japan has some some net that's fast as balls! http://blogs.fayobserver.com/techsas...nternet-speed/

 

[lakewolf]

It's because some dumb people want to download HD quality TV from youtube, they are congesting the tubes......

 

[Conrad]

Originally Posted by edinatlanta

Isn't that why there was talk of Internet 2 or whatever it was?

Is it true that our current connection systems in all honesty can't handle YouTube and other such sites?

The "internet 2", from what I understand, is meant to be a network which takes the internet back to it's academic roots. Keep entertainment on the commercial internet, but have v.2 for research and what not.

And yes, it is true that the current internet system can hardly handle the demand placed upon it by media intense sites. The main current blames are Youtube and sites offering streams of HD television broadcasts. The real naysayers are calling for the internet to actually run out of bandwidth in the next 2-3 years, but that's beyond anything I know or could possibly form an informed opinion of.

However, the current major push is a new IP address sytem. The new address system is more efficient and makes sure there are enough IP addresses. The current system is actually running low on availble IP's- current estimates are sometime in 2011 IPv4 will run out. But don't fret, IPv6 is already coming into play and the two systems can coexist.

 

[Connemara]

Time Warner is a POS.

 

[Cas Ruffin]

There's supposed to be an internet blackout that's supposed to be happening in a couple years. Demand is too high for supply.

 

[dtmt]

Because we didn't elect Al Gore.

 

[fredfred]

I have a suspicion that RCN, Comcast, Time Warner (US ISPs) have put "governors" (sp?) on their systems. I.e, if you are using too much, they purposely slow down your transfer speed. So if you use a quick speed test, it'll look like you get, say 7 mb download speed. but if you try to download an HD movie it'll slow down your system - unless of course you pay them more money to upgrade to a higher level of service.

**** the cable providers. Leaches all of them. The have lobbied congress so that you can NOT have a city-wide FREE wi-fi service, which is certainly feasible. FREE high speed service is possible. But not when Comcast is in the game.

 

[Dedalus]

Here's an enlightening article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/bu...0isp.html?_r=1 **** TWC. They want all the benefits of monopoly without any of the responsibility of keeping up with technological advances.

 

[briancl]

It really isn't as evil and malicious as some people make it out to be. ISP's are a for-profit business. Rolling out ultra-high bandwidth consumer connectivity costs lots of money. Verizon spent billions (10-20 billion) on FIOS, and the cable companies are investing many hundreds of millions on DOCSIS 3.0, which should boost cable speeds up near Verizon's fiber. That kind of investment will obviously be slow to roll out.

I had no faster than 56k modem at home for 5 years before jumping up through 1mbit to 8mbit connections in the next 5 years. That is real growth.

And I think internet is actually very fast.. YouTube is an incredibly popular site, so they have to ration out their bandwidth carefully which is why you can't download their HD streams instantly. I find it hard to believe that anyone in a major metropolitan area can't get fast, affordable internet access. I pay 50 bucks to Comcast and get their 16mbit down 2mbit up (which bursts to something like 20/5mbit). It is incredibly fast and a pretty good value. And there are people who are far more fortunate than me who can get FIOS at 50/20mbit.

I've worked for ISP's and telecoms for 10 years now, and my insiders perspective is that growth is steady and about as good as one can expect for such a large, spread out country.