stop post whoring NOW! [Archive] - Yamaha Forum : Your Yamaha Motor Products Community & Resource

: stop post whoring NOW!


tilbury007
11-20-2007, 11:00 AM
By Iain Thomson in California VNU Net - Tuesday, November 20 11:00 am
The internet could suffer a dramatic slowdown by 2010 as the sheer scale of data exceeds the ability of the network to cope.
Analyst firm Nemertes Research Group has spent the past year analysing data flows over the internet and the core infrastructure that carries that information.
The company has concluded that serious bottlenecks will occur in three to five years.
"Our findings indicate that core fibre and switching/routing resources will scale nicely to support virtually any conceivable user demand," said the Nemertes report.
"But internet access infrastructure, specifically in North America, will cease to be adequate for supporting demand within the next three to five years.
"We estimate that the financial investment required by access providers to 'bridge the gap' between demand and capacity ranges from $42bn to $55bn, or roughly 60 to 70 per cent more than service providers currently plan to invest. "
The authors do not envisage that the internet will actually fail to operate, but that access times and bandwidth constraints will fall to such levels that innovation will be seriously hampered.
The next generation of YouTube, for example, would not be possible in this scenario, according to the research.
E-commerce will also be hit hard as access times will be erratic, and customers will be turned off and less able to make purchases.
Business will suffer much less, however, since most have access to fast network connections that are unavailable to consumers.
"Consumers are often not able to purchase these 'fat pipes' at any price," the report continues.
"So an additional effect of the bandwidth crunch at the edges would be to increase the gap between the 'haves' (chiefly businesses) and the 'have-nots' (chiefly consumers)."
The report echoes earlier warnings by Dr Larry Roberts who led the team that built the internet's predecessor, Arpanet.
Dr Roberts warned last month that the internet would be in trouble unless serious technological advances were achieved in networking.
Nemertes report: The internet singularity, delayed. Why Limits in Internet Capacity Will Stifle Innovation on the Web

R4Ltony
11-20-2007, 11:07 AM
I want to help speed thing along!

valerossi
11-20-2007, 11:07 AM
Let me start helping the world by start banning some people... :rofl

Bogie
11-20-2007, 11:23 AM
Can I help too Val!! :sneaky :lol

tilbury007
11-20-2007, 11:24 AM
Can I help too Val!! :sneaky :lol


you're 1st on the ban list:lol

Bogie
11-20-2007, 11:27 AM
you're 1st on the ban list:lol
Not if I get you first bish!!! :rofl

My picture posting must have finally wounded the internet huh? :mrgreen

Firehawk
11-20-2007, 11:29 AM
I want to help speed thing along!

Nice sig.....:kicknuts

:lol :lol

R1Lover
11-20-2007, 11:46 AM
Nice sig.....:kicknuts

:lol :lol

:lmao

KWComp
11-20-2007, 11:50 AM
Nice sig.....:kicknuts

:lol :lol


For the record, I only asked if someone was going to quote it in there sig, I didnt conspire anything with anyone. :rofl

Firehawk
11-20-2007, 12:26 PM
For the record, I only asked if someone was going to quote it in there sig, I didnt conspire anything with anyone. :rofl

That's OK....Tony needs to go take a look at SBF. :mrgreen

No pictures of Tony out there? I beg to differ....:lol

KWComp
11-20-2007, 12:38 PM
Link!!!

R4Ltony
11-20-2007, 04:25 PM
That's OK....Tony needs to go take a look at SBF. :mrgreen

No pictures of Tony out there? I beg to differ....:lolAt least I'm wearing sunglasses and a hat...:finger

Junior
11-20-2007, 04:41 PM
you know.... 56k was lightning fast, until we started throwing around 5mb pictures and flash animations everywhere we went. :fact

fjorn
11-20-2007, 05:12 PM
56k was never fast. It would take me hours to download shit off of BBS'. It was better than 33k, which was better than 19.2, and light years ahead of 9600.













Nothing compares to dialing into Compuserve and other BBS' on my old Tandy1000EX with a 300 baud modem back in the late 80's.:old

Junior
11-20-2007, 05:24 PM
ok, not "lightning fast" but it was certainly enough.

we've compounded the problem by insisting on huge files everywhere we go.

fjorn
11-20-2007, 05:53 PM
For end users, 56k might have done okay. However, for those of us in the IT field, 56k was horrid. Where I currently live, I was stuck at 56k for years on end. I wasn't able to get DSL or cable until about 3 years ago. I wound up having to get dual-channel ISDN for a year because I couldn't do what I had to for work on 56k.

I still have those ISDN modems. I should throw them up on ebay, I know some places still use them, and I could probably get at least $20 for each one.

R4Ltony
11-20-2007, 07:55 PM
My first internet connection was dial up through the office server's DSL hook up. Man was that ever slow...

R1 MASTER
11-20-2007, 08:26 PM
Lots of money to be made for providing service. I'm sure the providers will spend just enough to keep speeds reasonable.


Ride safe.

Firehawk
11-20-2007, 09:17 PM
At least I'm wearing sunglasses and a hat...:finger

got others....:)

valerossi
11-21-2007, 12:06 AM
56k was never fast. It would take me hours to download shit off of BBS'. It was better than 33k, which was better than 19.2, and light years ahead of 9600.


Nothing compares to dialing into Compuserve and other BBS' on my old Tandy1000EX with a 300 baud modem back in the late 80's.:old

ok, not "lightning fast" but it was certainly enough.

we've compounded the problem by insisting on huge files everywhere we go.

I don't think it was fast enough, I remember how long I had to wait to just to load one naked chick pic of less than 100 KB... :rofl