UK internet bandwidth and the near future

[esh]

Okay so I'm just sitting here pondering bandwidth on the average UK line here while I watch some live tournaments here that are streamed online from the USA. I imagine a lot of folks can believe that in the not-so-distant future that streaming films and the like will be an everyday occurrence (if it is not for you already!) and then it will be TV and so on.

Except, hold on a moment, I am watching both streams available here for this tournament, and they are a fairly moderate 1Mbit each. That's reasonable quality. It looks a bit blurry full screen and occasionally turns to gunge when a lot is going on, but it's fine. If I watched the whole tournament - unlikely perhaps, but not impossible - which is Friday night, then afternoon and night on Saturday and Sunday, then I have eaten more than 26GB. Of on-peak bandwidth. That's pretty much 3/4 of my monthly bandwidth on the top home package here. The site that streams the matches offers high or "ultra" quality subscription for tiny amounts of cash, which would frankly be unfeasible given the bandwidth it would chew.

A lot of the blame here lays at BT's feet and the exhaustive costs they place on ADSL max. But surely these limits have to be lifted by quite some measure to enable these fairly obvious features that are going to be commonplace in a few years?

[Rik]

BT will argue that bandwidth costs them money, you can have as much as you want, but you have to pay for it. Broadband isn't really designed to replace broadcast - in the former, you have to transmit the data specifically, point to point, for every request, in the latter, you transmit it once, and everyone chooses whether to use it or not. TBH, streaming video is a very inefficient way of getting TV to people, so I don't see any regulatory pressure falling on BT to make bandwidth cheaper.

[esh]

I agree that TCP/IP wasn't designed for this. But then it wasn't designed for so many things. I'm sure x86 architecture could be far more efficient but we're stuck with it now, and it seems to be a bit like that with the internet. I can't see the inexorable march of data usage slowing any time soon. I was just wondering if there was any technologies or methodologies being investigated currently that would not involve pretty much starting a new internet.

What about upstream? I'm not charged for that. Does it cost very little or do people generally use such a small amount it is not charged for?

[Rik]

I accept that people will use the 'net to get the data they want, so you're right - demand will grow and technology will be developed to allow larger volumes of traffic, probably the lasers rather then continual investment in more fibre.

As to upstream, I've never known whether the lack of charge is based on the relatively small amount people use - which I suspect is changing slowly - or whether BT's charging model allows it to be free. Not all ISPs see it the same.

[Technical Ben]

Perhaps some sort of in between will appear. Like Googles data-centre in a crate. They could put one at each phone exchange, use wifi or some other system or even an open network to broadcast. You'd have to cue up requests (like Bittorrent) but I'd guess it could be a way to sponsor the infrastructure to be supplied.

[Rik]

Google Ads here we come.

[pctech]

Rik was referring to ADSL (the physical infrastructure) rather than the protocol but you are correct.

Even if the bandwidth was unlimited you would hit up against the fact that streaming video is very latency sensitive and a 100 ms delay is not uncommon when receiving data from the USA because it has to traverse subsea cables and even though these are mostly fibre optics there is still a delay due to the distance travelled.

This is the main reason Content Delivery Networks such as Akamai came into being, so that content was stored nearer to the user to reduce latency.

The way to bring streaming costs down is for every ISP to place multicast routers into every exchange along with their own DSLAM (unbundling) but as well as space there is the cost of the devices themselves as well as the backhaul to connect them to the rest of the network.

Unfortunately the only companies with the financial muscle to do such a thing are the likes of BT, Cable and Wireless, Sky of course and perhaps Virgin unless of course the big American tier 1 players such as Cogent, Sprint and Level 3 want to extend their networks into local exchanges.

Or perhaps we'll get America's equivalent of BT AT&T, muscling in as all of these companies have cables landing in either London. Manchester or Southport on Merseyside.

[pctech]

Google Ads here we come.

Oh yes, I forgot Google.

[Technical Ben]

That's roughly what I was suggesting pctech. A data centre at each exchange would at least be a start. It would free up some heat from the backbones. As the datacentre could cache youtube, itunes, BBCiplayer etc content. Their is still local congestion, but users could set up a download the day before, and it should be with them the next day I guess.

[pctech]

For this to work Ben Google would have to be your ISP *shudder* because at the moment your router only 'sees' the ISP's edge router because a tunnel is created through BT's infrastructure except in the case of BT Retail where the traffic is dropped at the nearest Point of Presence.

I have to say I'm not fully up on the technicaities of the BT Wholesale CDN service that is currently being offered to ISPs, I assume it requires so some sort of traffic steering based on IP.

[davej99]

BT will argue that bandwidth costs them money, you can have as much as you want, but you have to pay for it. Broadband isn't really designed to replace broadcast - in the former, you have to transmit the data specifically, point to point, for every request, in the latter, you transmit it once, and everyone chooses whether to use it or not. TBH, streaming video is a very inefficient way of getting TV to people, so I don't see any regulatory pressure falling on BT to make bandwidth cheaper.

Rik has it right here.

Terrestrial and satellite broadcasters pay for their own content delivery infrastructure and we pay them by licence, subscription or when we purchase advertised products. Their infrastructure is indeed very efficient. Satellite delivery of premium content provides timeslots for near on demand HiDef video. Moreover the bandwith is mutually exclusive and is not impacted by the number of stream users.

Internet broadcasters and distributors, especially using Bittorrent, get a near free ride by comparison, utilising user paid for machines and user paid for bandwith to deliver their content, soaking up the largest chunk of global capacity by far and pocketing the proceeds. This in a sense is parasitic; distribution for free; bandwith for free; driven by copyright for free.

The arguments about free open and equal access are well rehearsed. The problem it that it is not economically sustainable. Sure the technology can be devised, but no one wants to pay for it. Meantime we are edging towards life on demand over twisted pair and an iplayer that makes Baird's mechanical Televisor look high definition.

[Technical Ben]

Thanks for the heads up PCtech. I knew my IP was routed, I did not realise content was to such a degree too. Makes you think that some sort of "web" instead would be much more efficient.   
IE, currently, to send an email to my neighbour, the packets would travel to IDNet headquarters, then over to BT then back to next door. When really, the local exchange is the closes point of contact. 

[pctech]

It would Ben but then everyone would have to run their own mailserver, then there's admin of IPs, domains etc and carriers such as Level 3 and Cogent who run cables to the States only run them to specific points such as Telehouse in London and Telecity in Manchester (other data centres are available)