bandwidth explosion

[Joe Chisolm]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:56:31 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:10:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:17:40 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
miv0je539gupbbqf5dt6n7fjrgjc0jrbmt@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:55:11 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/07/19 14:38, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:58:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
What do people do that takes so much bandwidth? Upgrade MS
windows???

Most people won't actually use that bandwidth. Web browsing needs
short bursts. Even movies don't need 500 mbits. So averaged rates
across multiple households will be much lower. But the backbone
rates must still be amazing.

And frequently latency is more important than bandwidth.

High (average) bandwidth with high latency means there are many bits
in the pipe - and those will be wasted when re-transmission occurs.

Also, many web transactions are small, to get advertising cookies, and
to enable a real-time auction of your eyeballs.

(And then there are the gamers...)

Going from, say, 30 mb to several hundred makes a nice difference when
browsing. It's shocking to me that I can fill a screen with stuff from
France in about a second.

I load a lot of pdf's too, and they are dramatically faster now.


Sure,
I downloaded (via 4G modem) a complete Linux based distro this week
(xinutop),
took a few minutes.
Surprised me, and at least on my PC I can download that in the
background if I like,
got latest Debian too that way last month..
Speed is not so important for that.


I wish I knew how the Internet actually works. Apparently not many
people really do.

I figured that out when I was having the servers at home..
It is actually simple, name servers are like a phonebook lookup for the
IP number.
Some things are encrypted these days but for the rest the principle is
the same as any LAN.
To navigate and see what's happening you need to know a few Linux
commands,
like for example:
whois host traceroute ping etc etc And run some network monitor, I use
'snort'.
Firewalls, Linux has iptables for that.
Know about ports,
and the most important tool in Linux: netcat
Really netcat is the coolest thing I have.
It makes it so easy to set up a link to anywhere in the world with TCP
or UDP,
just from the command line or from a script.
man netcat.
Probably forgot some other stuff, but it is simple.

There must be millions of miles of multi-gigabit fibers all over the
world and under the oceans. Gigantic switching and routing centers
somewhere. I don't think it's simple.

I've been told that roughly a dozen people really understand the system,
and that I've met one of them. Nice guy, but he doesn't talk about what
he really does.

I worked for one of the companies that did wholesale bandwidth and
connectivity in the late 90s and early 2000s. Dot com, money was
flowing. At the end there was a LOT of dark fiber laying in the
ground. If memory serves, we started with 16 wavelengths per fiber,
went to 32 and when we sold out I think it was up to 64 or maybe
128. I've seen ads for 192 wavelengths on a single pair of fiber,
400Gbit/s per wavelength.

Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications
(aka SPRINT) put a lot of fiber down along their right of way.
I never saw one but they had a train setup to lay the cable.

Pipeline companies where also in the business. Williams
Communications (WilTEL) came out of Williams Pipeline. They
ran the fiber in decommissioned pipelines. They had a pig
setup that would run through the line pulling the fiber.

Internet Exchange Points (IXP) used to be this hush hush,
secret handshake to talk about it, thing. Now you can pull
up a map of the IXPs. A job a few years ago we were setting
up a data center, got a fiber link to the closest IXP. They
where almost giving away 10G ports because so many networks
were moving to 100G links.

--
Chisolm
Republic of Texas

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:16:30 -0700) it happened Joerg
<news@analogconsultants.com> wrote in <gpbus5FnabrU1@mid.individual.net>:

On 2019-07-18 10:19, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:10:50 -0500, Bill Gill <billnews2@cox.net
wrote:

On 7/18/2019 12:44 AM, John Larkin wrote:


At work, we signed up with MonkeyBrains for microwave internet
service. We ordered the 50+50 mbit plan. It's actually speed testing
about 350+350.

And at home, a guy from Comcast (our local cable TV pirates) knocked
on the door and proposed to upgrade us for free, faster internet and
more cable TV (including HBO) for about half our current price. They
swapped out the modem today and the internet here is now running about
450+50 mbits. AT&T and Sonic keep leaving flyers on the doorknob
offering us a gigabit.

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.


I keep getting offers of gigabit ethernet from my cable
provider. I am currently getting about 47 megabit downloads.
I can't imagine what I would need anything faster than that for.
If I had a large family and every individual was streaming
a different program I might be able to use most of it,
but there really aren't that many people that could use it
all.

Bill

Datasheet PDFs are usually below 1 mbyte, so load fast. 50 real
megabits is about all anyone really needs.

Remember data books? When we moved the company about 12 years ago, we
filled a dumpster with data books.


There are a few, especially application data books, that I will never
part with. Not all of the stuff has made it into a digital archive and
if I don't scan it in beforehand (a lot of work), it's gone.

Also, California now has the electrical grid reliability of Romania but,
of course, at x times the cost. Like we did when Gray Davis was governor
and we had the dreaded rolling "gray-outs". When the electricity goes
kerklunk it is very nice to have data books with at least the basic
stuff in there. So after PG&E announced that their "solution" to fire
safety is to simply shut whole areas off for several days I vowed not to
throw any more data books into paper recycling.

But but, databooks are a fire hazard!
Laptops are good against mains interrupts, for an hour or so at least,
I have a zillion pdf files on several PCs and laptops.
No more databooks, and everything is found via google.
If google ever goes down (or bing) then there really is a problem.
I can get internet via satellite, I can even listen in on what others download,
but that usually works via some landline dial up to get the URL.
and the latency is very big.
When copying the sat downloads you have no choice in the content,
It all does not matter, have some transistors in stock and you can do anything.
Some PICs helps too.


And who needs 'tronics anyways, you need a bomb shelter and some survival training
and a .. oh well have not got the shelter yet...
If the greens get their way we will all be living in a grass hut eating mushrooms,
cooking on solar, come think of it I have some of those nice Fresnel lenses,
a fire maker, Oh well, I am prepared for trump's next booboo.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:21:28 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
<13s1jehj962mrobc3f6do4sk2qc4hdvqes@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:36:48 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2019-07-18 13:15, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure. And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.


Where I lived 25 years ago that would have been blazingly fast. 9600bd
was the max and sometimes that would ratchet down to 4800db.


It was not a pleasant experience. My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s. And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless scrolling".


Nowadays you need 2GB of RAM to write "Hello World". Minimum.

When I moved my first laptop over to Linux and things become sticky
folks in a Linux NG told me that its 1GB RAM is inadequate. It wasn't
with Windows but I guess with Windows 10 it would be the same kind of bloat.


I used to design modems, for SCADA systems over leased lines. I think
I did one at 75 baud. 300 was common.

Before the internet existed we used 'GViditel' via landline telephone
at 75 Bd uplink and 300 Bd downlink.
I think Viditel was a copy of the French invention Minitel ( https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel ).

http://buziaulane.blogspot.com/2005/07/25-years-online-in-netherlands-compact.html

I was an early adaptor. in the eighties.
used it among other things to download CP/M programs from the Kaypro user group.
When internet came it slowly died.

The Viditel format was much the same as UK Ceefax, Dutch Teletext and German Videotext.
I still use the decoding software I wrote for that,
Ported many times to new processors,

ComeME tO ThINk oF iT iT Has As MuCH INfo ConTEnT aS uSEneT
Shows it is not in the transmission speed !

 

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:56:31 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

There must be millions of miles of multi-gigabit fibers all over the
world and under the oceans. Gigantic switching and routing centers
somewhere. I don't think it's simple.

I've been told that roughly a dozen people really understand the system,
and that I've met one of them. Nice guy, but he doesn't talk about what
he really does.

I worked for one of the companies that did wholesale bandwidth and
connectivity in the late 90s and early 2000s. Dot com, money was
flowing. At the end there was a LOT of dark fiber laying in the
ground.

So now we know where the "dark net" is running

If memory serves, we started with 16 wavelengths per fiber,
went to 32 and when we sold out I think it was up to 64 or maybe
128. I've seen ads for 192 wavelengths on a single pair of fiber,
400Gbit/s per wavelength.

I remember talks about 80 colors at 10 Gbit/s each in some
transatlantic fibers of that dot com era.

The standard DWDM raster is 100 GHz channels. Yes, the channels are
really defined in frequency not with wavelengths. I just wonder how
they could put 400 Gbit/s through a 100 GHz channel, no way with 2 or
4 level modulation.

Some have split the 100 Hz channel raster to half channels (50 GHz
suitable for 40 Gbit/s) or quarter channels (25 GHz for 10 Gbit/s).

 

On Friday, 19 July 2019 03:43:33 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 7/18/19 4:15 PM, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure. And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.
It was not a pleasant experience. My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s. And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless scrolling".


Anyone who isn't also on the latest hardware and high-bandwidth (or at
least recent enough to run modern web sites with lots of scripting well)
probably isn't high enough income to be spending enough money on
advertiser's products to make it worthwhile the extra dev time to make
it a good experience for them.

There are a lot of fellow capitalists like me here in this NG I assumed
but often seem to misconstrue the thrust of it with respect to pandering
to the lowest common denominator of customer.

The Internet is almost entirely revenue-driven and nobody gives a fuck
what someone's experience on a slow-ass budget connection is or some
retiree's out in the boonies with a 10 year old PC and a 56k modem (lol)
or satellite internet "experience" is like on a modern web page it is
not worth anyone's time or money to make it better when was the last
time you bought a Maserati Ghibli or a $10 Starbucks drink you saw
advertised online?

The reality is that attitude loses companies sales.


NT

 

On Thursday, 18 July 2019 21:36:46 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

On 2019-07-18 13:15, Rob wrote:

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.


Where I lived 25 years ago that would have been blazingly fast. 9600bd
was the max and sometimes that would ratchet down to 4800db.

Luxury. I still remember 300 baud. And how many phonelines did the average bulletin board have?


NT

 

[piglet]

On 19/07/2019 7:18 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Before the internet existed we used 'GViditel' via landline telephone
at 75 Bd uplink and 300 Bd downlink.
I think Viditel was a copy of the French invention Minitel ( https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel ).

I remember it as 75/1200 - highly assymetric

1200 baud was wonderful compared to 110 or 300 baud.

piglet

 

On Friday, 19 July 2019 09:16:59 UTC+1, piglet wrote:

On 19/07/2019 7:18 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Before the internet existed we used 'GViditel' via landline telephone
at 75 Bd uplink and 300 Bd downlink.
I think Viditel was a copy of the French invention Minitel ( https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel ).

I remember it as 75/1200 - highly assymetric

1200 baud was wonderful compared to 110 or 300 baud.

piglet

Yes, 300/300 & 1200/75 were the main standards at one time. With more than 1 encoding IIRC.


NT

 

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:18:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:21:28 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
13s1jehj962mrobc3f6do4sk2qc4hdvqes@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:36:48 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2019-07-18 13:15, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure. And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.


Where I lived 25 years ago that would have been blazingly fast. 9600bd
was the max and sometimes that would ratchet down to 4800db.


It was not a pleasant experience. My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s. And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless scrolling".


Nowadays you need 2GB of RAM to write "Hello World". Minimum.

When I moved my first laptop over to Linux and things become sticky
folks in a Linux NG told me that its 1GB RAM is inadequate. It wasn't
with Windows but I guess with Windows 10 it would be the same kind of bloat.


I used to design modems, for SCADA systems over leased lines. I think
I did one at 75 baud. 300 was common.

Also 110 baud with 20 mA or 60 mA was common. Essentially Telex
technology. Also this was the maximum speed of many Teletypes.

Before the internet existed we used 'GViditel' via landline telephone
at 75 Bd uplink and 300 Bd downlink.
I think Viditel was a copy of the French invention Minitel ( https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel ).

http://buziaulane.blogspot.com/2005/07/25-years-online-in-netherlands-compact.html

I was an early adaptor. in the eighties.
used it among other things to download CP/M programs from the Kaypro user group.
When internet came it slowly died.

The Viditel format was much the same as UK Ceefax, Dutch Teletext and German Videotext.

So the display format was the same as in TeleText 24 lines with 40
characters and some block graphics.

I still use the decoding software I wrote for that,
Ported many times to new processors,

ComeME tO ThINk oF iT iT Has As MuCH INfo ConTEnT aS uSEneT
Shows it is not in the transmission speed !

If the only input device was just a numeric keypad, no wonder that
there were not much end user input

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:12:21 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
<gp13jepbqt8d4123vdlqn9l6uri2mcffe9@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:18:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:21:28 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
13s1jehj962mrobc3f6do4sk2qc4hdvqes@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:36:48 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2019-07-18 13:15, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure. And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.


Where I lived 25 years ago that would have been blazingly fast. 9600bd
was the max and sometimes that would ratchet down to 4800db.


It was not a pleasant experience. My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s. And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless scrolling".


Nowadays you need 2GB of RAM to write "Hello World". Minimum.

When I moved my first laptop over to Linux and things become sticky
folks in a Linux NG told me that its 1GB RAM is inadequate. It wasn't
with Windows but I guess with Windows 10 it would be the same kind of bloat.


I used to design modems, for SCADA systems over leased lines. I think
I did one at 75 baud. 300 was common.

Also 110 baud with 20 mA or 60 mA was common. Essentially Telex
technology. Also this was the maximum speed of many Teletypes.


Before the internet existed we used 'GViditel' via landline telephone
at 75 Bd uplink and 300 Bd downlink.
I think Viditel was a copy of the French invention Minitel ( https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel ).

http://buziaulane.blogspot.com/2005/07/25-years-online-in-netherlands-compact.html

I was an early adaptor. in the eighties.
used it among other things to download CP/M programs from the Kaypro user group.
When internet came it slowly died.

The Viditel format was much the same as UK Ceefax, Dutch Teletext and German Videotext.

So the display format was the same as in TeleText 24 lines with 40
characters and some block graphics.

I still use the decoding software I wrote for that,
Ported many times to new processors,

ComeME tO ThINk oF iT iT Has As MuCH INfo ConTEnT aS uSEneT
Shows it is not in the transmission speed !

If the only input device was just a numeric keypad, no wonder that
there were not much end user input

Minitel and Viditel had a real keyboard, was 2 ways,
in Ceefax / teletext you could only request page numbers with the TV remote,
a one way info system.
But it used the same character set and control sequences, even simple graphics.
There were bulletin boards etc in Viditel.
Later in Ceefax a second level was added that linked to internet URLs,
and I think even some simple feedback is possible, never used that.
I am happy it still exists, very nice way to read the news.
You can read it here online too:
https://nos.nl/teletekst#101
Here my version on the PC, this from Germany via satellite:
http://panteltje.com/pub/xvtx-p.gif
I use this program every day to see what is up in the world.
We changed terrestrial system here from DVB-T to DVB-T2 just a month ago,
today I got a nice box from China via ebay, DVB-T2 H265, recording to USB stick:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/173920120323
and it has Ceefax / Videotext too, works perfectly, and is cheap.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:16:52 +0100) it happened piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote in <qgru9n$s21$1@dont-email.me>:

On 19/07/2019 7:18 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Before the internet existed we used 'GViditel' via landline telephone
at 75 Bd uplink and 300 Bd downlink.
I think Viditel was a copy of the French invention Minitel ( https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel ).

I remember it as 75/1200 - highly assymetric

1200 baud was wonderful compared to 110 or 300 baud.

piglet

Oops you are absolutely right,
I has a Siemens 75 / 1200 Bd modem from the KPN telco here for that.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/19/19 4:32 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 19 July 2019 03:43:33 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 7/18/19 4:15 PM, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure. And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.
It was not a pleasant experience. My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s. And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless scrolling".


Anyone who isn't also on the latest hardware and high-bandwidth (or at
least recent enough to run modern web sites with lots of scripting well)
probably isn't high enough income to be spending enough money on
advertiser's products to make it worthwhile the extra dev time to make
it a good experience for them.

There are a lot of fellow capitalists like me here in this NG I assumed
but often seem to misconstrue the thrust of it with respect to pandering
to the lowest common denominator of customer.

The Internet is almost entirely revenue-driven and nobody gives a fuck
what someone's experience on a slow-ass budget connection is or some
retiree's out in the boonies with a 10 year old PC and a 56k modem (lol)
or satellite internet "experience" is like on a modern web page it is
not worth anyone's time or money to make it better when was the last
time you bought a Maserati Ghibli or a $10 Starbucks drink you saw
advertised online?

The reality is that attitude loses companies sales.


NT

Nothing wrong with "losing sales", intrinsically.

Bank of America treats its customers like junk, never negotiates on
anything, and is almost never afraid to lose a client. If you're a
regular Joe and you tell them "I'm thinking about closing my acc..." the
likely result is first customer rep you talk with will close it for you
before the words are even out of your mouth they don't care much about
"retention" at all.

They seem to do OK for themselves:
<https://www.thestreet.com/investing/earnings/bank-of-america-stock-is-flirting-with-a-big-breakout-on-earnings-15023196>

 

[bitrex]

On 7/19/19 11:49 AM, bitrex wrote:

On 7/19/19 4:32 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 19 July 2019 03:43:33 UTC+1, bitrex  wrote:
On 7/18/19 4:15 PM, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure.  And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the
bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some
websites.
It was not a pleasant experience.  My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s.  And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets
too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless
scrolling".


Anyone who isn't also on the latest hardware and high-bandwidth (or at
least recent enough to run modern web sites with lots of scripting well)
probably isn't high enough income to be spending enough money on
advertiser's products to make it worthwhile the extra dev time to make
it a good experience for them.

There are a lot of fellow capitalists like me here in this NG I assumed
but often seem to misconstrue the thrust of it with respect to pandering
to the lowest common denominator of customer.

The Internet is almost entirely revenue-driven and nobody gives a fuck
what someone's experience on a slow-ass budget connection is or some
retiree's out in the boonies with a 10 year old PC and a 56k modem (lol)
or satellite internet "experience" is like on a modern web page it is
not worth anyone's time or money to make it better when was the last
time you bought a Maserati Ghibli or a $10 Starbucks drink you saw
advertised online?

The reality is that attitude loses companies sales.


NT


Nothing wrong with "losing sales", intrinsically.

Bank of America treats its customers like junk, never negotiates on
anything, and is almost never afraid to lose a client. If you're a
regular Joe and you tell them "I'm thinking about closing my acc..." the
likely result is first customer rep you talk with will close it for you
before the words are even out of your mouth they don't care much about
"retention" at all.

They seem to do OK for themselves:
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/earnings/bank-of-america-stock-is-flirting-with-a-big-breakout-on-earnings-15023196

"Abundance mentality." There are pushing 9 billion people in the world -
there are always more yous, where you came from.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/18/19 10:17 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:55:11 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/07/19 14:38, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:58:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
What do people do that takes so much bandwidth? Upgrade MS windows???

Most people won't actually use that bandwidth. Web browsing needs
short bursts. Even movies don't need 500 mbits. So averaged rates
across multiple households will be much lower. But the backbone rates
must still be amazing.

And frequently latency is more important than bandwidth.

High (average) bandwidth with high latency means there
are many bits in the pipe - and those will be wasted
when re-transmission occurs.

Also, many web transactions are small, to get advertising
cookies, and to enable a real-time auction of your eyeballs.

(And then there are the gamers...)

Going from, say, 30 mb to several hundred makes a nice difference when
browsing. It's shocking to me that I can fill a screen with stuff from
France in about a second.

I load a lot of pdf's too, and they are dramatically faster now.

I wish I knew how the Internet actually works. Apparently not many
people really do.

Internet is used for game distribution now too, modern "AAA"-title video
games can be 50+ gigabytes of content or more.

Final Fantasy 15 was 150 gigabytes when deecompressed

 

[Joerg]

On 2019-07-19 01:26, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, 18 July 2019 21:36:46 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-07-18 13:15, Rob wrote:

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.


Where I lived 25 years ago that would have been blazingly fast. 9600bd
was the max and sometimes that would ratchet down to 4800db.

Luxury. I still remember 300 baud. And how many phonelines did the average bulletin board have?

My first communications device was a Lorenz 15 telex machine running at
45 baud, via ham radio. This one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKwp7MxFVI8

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

On 2019-07-18 22:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:16:30 -0700) it happened Joerg
news@analogconsultants.com> wrote in <gpbus5FnabrU1@mid.individual.net>:

On 2019-07-18 10:19, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:10:50 -0500, Bill Gill <billnews2@cox.net
wrote:

On 7/18/2019 12:44 AM, John Larkin wrote:


At work, we signed up with MonkeyBrains for microwave internet
service. We ordered the 50+50 mbit plan. It's actually speed testing
about 350+350.

And at home, a guy from Comcast (our local cable TV pirates) knocked
on the door and proposed to upgrade us for free, faster internet and
more cable TV (including HBO) for about half our current price. They
swapped out the modem today and the internet here is now running about
450+50 mbits. AT&T and Sonic keep leaving flyers on the doorknob
offering us a gigabit.

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.


I keep getting offers of gigabit ethernet from my cable
provider. I am currently getting about 47 megabit downloads.
I can't imagine what I would need anything faster than that for.
If I had a large family and every individual was streaming
a different program I might be able to use most of it,
but there really aren't that many people that could use it
all.

Bill

Datasheet PDFs are usually below 1 mbyte, so load fast. 50 real
megabits is about all anyone really needs.

Remember data books? When we moved the company about 12 years ago, we
filled a dumpster with data books.


There are a few, especially application data books, that I will never
part with. Not all of the stuff has made it into a digital archive and
if I don't scan it in beforehand (a lot of work), it's gone.

Also, California now has the electrical grid reliability of Romania but,
of course, at x times the cost. Like we did when Gray Davis was governor
and we had the dreaded rolling "gray-outs". When the electricity goes
kerklunk it is very nice to have data books with at least the basic
stuff in there. So after PG&E announced that their "solution" to fire
safety is to simply shut whole areas off for several days I vowed not to
throw any more data books into paper recycling.


But but, databooks are a fire hazard!
Laptops are good against mains interrupts, ...

Fire hazard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIB4UQ2oSJo

... for an hour or so at least,
I have a zillion pdf files on several PCs and laptops.
No more databooks, and everything is found via google.

Until the power goes down. When there is a wild fire it can do so for
several days in our area.

If google ever goes down (or bing) then there really is a problem.

All it takes is the local power grid going down. Google will still work
hundreds of miles away but then you can't get there via Internet.

I can get internet via satellite, I can even listen in on what others download,
but that usually works via some landline dial up to get the URL.
and the latency is very big.
When copying the sat downloads you have no choice in the content,
It all does not matter, have some transistors in stock and you can do anything.
Some PICs helps too.


And who needs 'tronics anyways, you need a bomb shelter and some survival training
and a .. oh well have not got the shelter yet...

I only need a wood-fired barbecue and home-brew.

If the greens get their way we will all be living in a grass hut eating mushrooms,
cooking on solar, come think of it I have some of those nice Fresnel lenses,
a fire maker, Oh well, I am prepared for trump's next booboo.

In Europe I'd be more concerned about Vladimir's booboos.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joseph Gwinn]

On Jul 18, 2019, Phil Hobbs wrote
(in article<ZP6dnelkSpcBvazAnZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@supernews.com&gt:

On 7/18/19 1:19 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:10:50 -0500, Bill Gill <billnews2@cox.net
wrote:

On 7/18/2019 12:44 AM, John Larkin wrote:


At work, we signed up with MonkeyBrains for microwave internet
service. We ordered the 50+50 mbit plan. It's actually speed testing
about 350+350.

And at home, a guy from Comcast (our local cable TV pirates) knocked
on the door and proposed to upgrade us for free, faster internet and
more cable TV (including HBO) for about half our current price. They
swapped out the modem today and the internet here is now running about
450+50 mbits. AT&T and Sonic keep leaving flyers on the doorknob
offering us a gigabit.

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.
I keep getting offers of gigabit ethernet from my cable
provider. I am currently getting about 47 megabit downloads.
I can't imagine what I would need anything faster than that for.
If I had a large family and every individual was streaming
a different program I might be able to use most of it,
but there really aren't that many people that could use it
all.

Bill

Datasheet PDFs are usually below 1 mbyte, so load fast. 50 real
megabits is about all anyone really needs.

Remember data books? When we moved the company about 12 years ago, we
filled a dumpster with data books.

I still have about 40 databooks, and I keep collecting them. When I was
working on the TAOS v. Intersil patent/trade secret case a few years
back, TAOS claimed that integrating for 100 ms was a trade secret
because it got rid of 50, 60, 100, and 120 Hz junk from lighting. I
scanned a few pages from my 1987 Intersil databook showing their
dual-slope ADCs doing the exact same thing.

Wow. I knew the 100 millisecond gate trick in the mid 1970s. I probably
learned it from a data sheet as well.

Hmm. I was not integrating, I was scanning a linear array of photo beams, and
the reason to scan at ten Hz was to make lighting interference (especially
from fluorescent lamps) stand still in the scans, and thus cancel out - we
were looking for changes in transmission over time. I think I got the idea
from the reasoning for the frame rate of NTSC TV, locked to 60 Hz so the hum
bars in the TV picture would stand still and thus not be noticed.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Joerg]

On 2019-07-19 01:32, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 19 July 2019 03:43:33 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 7/18/19 4:15 PM, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure. And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.
It was not a pleasant experience. My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s. And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless scrolling".


Anyone who isn't also on the latest hardware and high-bandwidth (or at
least recent enough to run modern web sites with lots of scripting well)
probably isn't high enough income to be spending enough money on
advertiser's products to make it worthwhile the extra dev time to make
it a good experience for them.

There are a lot of fellow capitalists like me here in this NG I assumed
but often seem to misconstrue the thrust of it with respect to pandering
to the lowest common denominator of customer.

The Internet is almost entirely revenue-driven and nobody gives a fuck
what someone's experience on a slow-ass budget connection is or some
retiree's out in the boonies with a 10 year old PC and a 56k modem (lol)
or satellite internet "experience" is like on a modern web page it is
not worth anyone's time or money to make it better when was the last
time you bought a Maserati Ghibli or a $10 Starbucks drink you saw
advertised online?

The reality is that attitude loses companies sales.

Oh yeah.

Most people with substantial disposable income that I know live a rather
low-tech life. On purpose.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

On Saturday, 20 July 2019 00:42:14 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

On 2019-07-19 01:32, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 19 July 2019 03:43:33 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 7/18/19 4:15 PM, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure. And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.
It was not a pleasant experience. My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s. And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless scrolling".


Anyone who isn't also on the latest hardware and high-bandwidth (or at
least recent enough to run modern web sites with lots of scripting well)
probably isn't high enough income to be spending enough money on
advertiser's products to make it worthwhile the extra dev time to make
it a good experience for them.

There are a lot of fellow capitalists like me here in this NG I assumed
but often seem to misconstrue the thrust of it with respect to pandering
to the lowest common denominator of customer.

The Internet is almost entirely revenue-driven and nobody gives a fuck
what someone's experience on a slow-ass budget connection is or some
retiree's out in the boonies with a 10 year old PC and a 56k modem (lol)
or satellite internet "experience" is like on a modern web page it is
not worth anyone's time or money to make it better when was the last
time you bought a Maserati Ghibli or a $10 Starbucks drink you saw
advertised online?

The reality is that attitude loses companies sales.


Oh yeah.

Most people with substantial disposable income that I know live a rather
low-tech life. On purpose.

Most sales are not sold to people with 'substantial disposable income'. Sales cover the whole gamut of incomes. And not everyone who can afford to chooses to throw money unnecessarily at things. The idea that if you can afford to you should spend more to get much the same seems to me quite stupid.


NT

 

On Friday, 19 July 2019 16:49:12 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:

On 7/19/19 4:32 AM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 19 July 2019 03:43:33 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
On 7/18/19 4:15 PM, Rob wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Sounds like mad competition to give away bandwidth. The backbone fiber
links must be moving astronomical amounts of data. Each county around
here might need a petabit per second.

Sure. And unfortunately it hampers those that don't have the bandwidth.
Developers often get the fastest hardware and fastest connection, and
develop bloated websites with lots of images (static and moving), tons
of scripting to do some simple thing, etc.

Some time ago I tried connecting using 56k modem and visit some websites.
It was not a pleasant experience. My connection is 100Mbit/s and that
appears to be enough for now, but undoubtedly it will get too slow when
everyone else has 500Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s. And my 3GHz CoreDuo PC gets too
slow to comfortably work with those websites that have "endless scrolling".


Anyone who isn't also on the latest hardware and high-bandwidth (or at
least recent enough to run modern web sites with lots of scripting well)
probably isn't high enough income to be spending enough money on
advertiser's products to make it worthwhile the extra dev time to make
it a good experience for them.

There are a lot of fellow capitalists like me here in this NG I assumed
but often seem to misconstrue the thrust of it with respect to pandering
to the lowest common denominator of customer.

The Internet is almost entirely revenue-driven and nobody gives a fuck
what someone's experience on a slow-ass budget connection is or some
retiree's out in the boonies with a 10 year old PC and a 56k modem (lol)
or satellite internet "experience" is like on a modern web page it is
not worth anyone's time or money to make it better when was the last
time you bought a Maserati Ghibli or a $10 Starbucks drink you saw
advertised online?

The reality is that attitude loses companies sales.


NT


Nothing wrong with "losing sales", intrinsically.

it all depends. If I lost too many I wouldn't do ok. Losing a few's ok. But it's better to work constructively with people & end up with more. (Of course there are also some best got rid of.)

In the case of websites, _the majority_ of customers who want to buy something fail to follow the ordering process to the end. Sellers are making endless very basic mistakes. Such haemorrhaging of customers is idiocy.


NT