From: Jeff Bone (jbone@jump.net)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 20:23:10 PDT
Sorry, yeah, you're right, B not b. (I usually write Mbit instead of Mb, but that's just me. ;-)
jb
Brian Atkins wrote:
> Actually I think you meant 40MB (320Mb) and 33MB below. At any rate...
> later this year you will be able to get a gigabit for perhaps around
> $7k/month from TeraBeam Networks in certain areas of some major cities.
> Assuming bandwidth keeps doubling every 12 months at a minimum, then
> you should get a gigabit in some areas of the US for around $100/month
> in 6 years or so? Might take 8-9 years to be widespread and really cheap.
>
> TeraBeam info: http://www.tbtf.com/blog/2000-03-05.html#5
>
> Jeff Bone wrote:
> >
> > It's staggering to think about, really... the difference between gigabit and top-end DSL is
> > close-order 4-5x the difference between today's top-end DSL and the first commercial modems.
> > When you think about the increase in depth, richness, and variety of experience between the
> > first modems and DSL, and then multiply that *increase* by 4-5x, that's what gigabit to the
> > house is going to get us over today's high-end pipes.
> >
> > Wow.
> >
> > Another way to think about it: Ultra SCSI has a max bandwidth of 40 Mb / sec; IDE / ATA has
> > something like 33 Mb / sec. Gigabit network interfaces are right around the capacity of
> > today's top-end consumer local storage.
> >
> > Wow, wow, wow.
> >
> > Thanks to everybody for the thoughts on how to use it... keep 'em flowing. ;-) Here's a
> > follow-on question: when do y'all think consumer-priced gigabit to the home will be available
> > in your respective areas?
> >
> > jb
> >
> > Brian Atkins wrote:
> >
> > > All of those take less than 10mbit or 1/100th of the gigabit/sec proposed...
> > > Even if you do HDTV level videoconferencing with multiple participants you
> > > aren't going to break 100mbit (not to mention that the cameras would cost
> > > a crapload of $$$). So it doesn't appear that the average human is capable
> > > of individually generating or consuming more than 100mbit/sec ? It would
> > > have to be some kind of software under their control doing someting for
> > > them to really suck up that much bandwidth. They could run a warez server,
> > > or run a Beowulf/cluster that is in multiple physical locations.
> > >
> > > Jesse wrote:
> > > >
> > > > DVD quality video on demand.
> > > > "real" teleconfrencing.
> > > > remote apps that don't perform like a dog. (though my soon-to-be-ex employer intonet.com
> > > > can do it with DSL-level bandwidth or a tad more.)
> > > >
> > > > jesse
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 03:17:46PM -0500, Jeff Bone wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Somebody asked me a really interesting question yesterday. What can you
> > > > > do with a gigabit to the home? In particular, what are the killer apps
> > > > > enabled by 3 orders of magnitude greater bandwidth than DSL?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts appreciated,
> > > > >
> > > > > jb
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > jesse reed vincent --- root@eruditorum.org --- jesse@fsck.com
> > > > pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > I have images of Marc in well worn combat fatigues, covered in mud,
> > > > sweat and blood, knife in one hand and PSION int he other, being
> > > > restrained by several other people, screaming "Let me at it!
> > > > Just let me at it!" Eichin standing calmly by with something
> > > > automated, milspec, and likely recoilless.
> > > > -xiphmont on opensource peer review
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 20:28:43 PDT