The Need for Speed

Julian Sanchez | June 6, 2003

Researchers in California say they've developed a new "Fast TCP" protocol. It'll work on existing infrastructure, but apparently enables much higher transmission speeds. The article claims that five-minute feature film downloads and streaming cable-quality television are among the possiblities. I can probably think of better uses of all that bandwith than replicating Comcast and Blockbuster, but you get the picture.

Comments

MP|6.6.03 @ 2:00AM|#

You have to wonder what "ganging 10 Fast TCP systems together" means. I can't see consumers having such gang-bang hardware.

And all Cal-Tech is doing is fine-tuning the protocol, likely by just dropping a lot of acks and doing a data flood. A DVD quality video is still going to take an unbearably long time over a 1 Mbps cable modem or DSL line.

But its nice to dream...

Rus|6.6.03 @ 2:32AM|#

Well, the idea seems to be that the existing hardware wouldn't need to be replaced, so in theory your existing 1Mbs cable modem would work ( although I'd expect at least a firmware upgrade would be required, as well as perhaps a OS patch for the TCP/IP stack ).

|6.6.03 @ 2:40AM|#

Go for it

Croesus|6.6.03 @ 3:39AM|#

Aren't cable modems and such for downloading pr0n movies faster? :)

James Merritt|6.6.03 @ 3:58AM|#

Julian Sanchez: "I can probably think of better uses of all that bandwith than REPLICATING Comcast and Blockbuster, but you get the picture."

When I first read that passage, I saw the word that I have made all-caps above as if it were actually "replacing." And frankly, I can't think of a better use for all that bandwidth than REPLACING Comcast or Blockbuster, though they will probably just co-opt the technology and laugh at me as they mail me my exhorbitant bill every month. ;-)

I think that there ought to be a "sampler" cable service, which, for FREE, lets you get an idea of all the programs available on the system. But to view any of them, you would then have to download the programs for some small fee each. Right now, with a gazillion channels and nothing on, we are paying to have instantaneous access to them all, all the time, whether we can watch 24/7 or not. In the future, you should be able to pay only for what you view (and/or download), and on that basis, the total bill for services rendered and goods delivered -- the check you write to the cable company -- should probably never exceed $30-40/month. Anybody who would pay more would be either a) accumulating a library; b) availing himself or herself of a lot of expensive PPV; c) sorely in need of a life.

I want to have a smorgassbord video-on-demand service like this -- including network shows, cable-channel shows, syndicated shows, movies, specials, news, public affairs, and sports (the latter three categories also available in live streaming form for breaking stories) -- starting next month. Where do I sign up?

Warren|6.6.03 @ 4:20AM|#

"I can probably think of better uses of all that bandwith than replicating Comcast and Blockbuster"

You're talking about porn right?

As MP points out, changing to protocol might squeeze a few more bps through, but doesn't actually create bandwidth. And as Claude Shannon taught us, you can only push data so fast through a given size pipe.

L.DeFoster|6.6.03 @ 4:55AM|#

Not if there ain't "no pipe", Warren; not if we're talking wide open space (as in spectrum broadcasts); as in laser-shooting via satellites.

Expand your horizons. Think big.

|6.6.03 @ 4:57AM|#

Who's Claude Shannon!?

Leo Luger|6.6.03 @ 5:24AM|#

DeFoster's got a good point. See Julian Sanchez' next piece, "Almost There Bob..."

Warren|6.6.03 @ 6:18AM|#

Who is Claude Shannon!?? I weep for the children.
No but seriously he's a great historical figure (died only last year) and is most famous for two equations.
The Shannon limit: Which places an absolute maximum on rate data can be encoded and transmitted in a given bandwidth.
and
The Shannon theorem: Which places an absolute minimum on the time it takes you to juggle x number of balls with y number of hands.
Neo-maxum-zoom-dweebies such as myself think he was way cool.

Here is a fairly good page from a brief Google search
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/work.html

Oh, and there is always a pipe LD (BTW I once wrote 5,000 words on Lee De Forest). Lasers and the like are just bigger pipes, and of course would require all new hardware so not relevant to this post. Sorry

|6.6.03 @ 7:49AM|#

Am I the only one that thought this post was about drugs?

Warren|6.6.03 @ 7:59AM|#

Plutarck,
Yes. Yes you are.

ron|6.6.03 @ 12:08PM|#

actually i've never really found the massive amounts of bandwidth provided by my college useful for anything other than collecting and distributing high quality copies of entertainment media. i dont think the average person will have a better use for it either. we're obviously moving in the direction of tv on demand, and i guess i (and the thousands of people like me) would be early adopters of that. i dont even watch television shows anymore, i just download the ones i like. some of them are even available captured from high definition tv feeds, so watching them on my pc actually gives me better quality than my tv.

|6.6.03 @ 12:27PM|#

I wouldn't call it "replicating Comcast and Blockbuster" either. High-bandwidth downloading for the masses could do for movies what low-bandwidth did for music: re-empower consumers and force distributors to put extra content on discs as a selling point. I'm not sure how this could help TV yet, but I loved nothing more than having an entire library of The Simpsons on hand and commercial-free while I was in college. It's not a high-ended noble ideal, but it's what the people actually want, and that's what a free market is, right?

|6.7.03 @ 12:19PM|#

The last ten feet limit all consumer communications. The lasers can shoot all over the place, but it will still be a copper wire coered in 1950s lead paint into your Aunt Ethel's garage.