Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday October 16 2017, @07:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the quite-a-'bit'-faster dept.

Tired of slow internet connections? CableLabs announces a new version of DOCSIS 3.1 (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification) with Full Duplex 10Gbps connectivity. From an article at The Register:

Which is why an announcement by the cable industry's research and development arm, CableLabs, this week is such good news. The organization has completed work on an upgrade to the next-generation DOCSIS 3.1 spec that in the next few years will replace the "M" in Mbps with a "G" for gigabit.

DOCSIS 3.1 is the cutting edge of home cable technology, and big players such as Comcast in the US are testing it in specific markets with a new generation of modems. That testing and rollout of near-gigabit broadband in the US, UK, Canada and beyond has been somewhat marred, though, by the fact that high-speed DOCSIS 3.1 home gateways powered by Intel Puma chips suffer from annoying latency jittering under certain conditions, and can be trivially knocked offline by attackers. No fixes are available.

Those hardware problems aside, the DOCSIS 3.1 spec has another issue: it sticks to the age-old sucky 10-to-1 downlink-uplink ratio.

No longer with the Full Duplex Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification. Full Duplex DOCSIS 3.1 will allow broadband subscribers – in the next two years – to benefit from up to 10Gbps both up and down. And it will be possible on existing household connections rather than requiring the installation of new fiber.

[...] You can find out more about Full Duplex DOCSIS 3.1 on the CableLabs website.

So, you could reach your monthly 1 TB data cap allowance in just under 3 hours, assuming, of course that the upstream link is not so oversubscribed that you only actually get a fraction of that.

All kidding aside, that is a huge speed improvement. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that a 100GB BDXL Blu-ray disk could be downloaded in about 2 minutes. As the connection is full-duplex, it could be uploaded in about 2 minutes, too.

I can't even think of anything where that kind of speed would be useful in a home, except for making for speedier downloads of game/OS updates/installs and maybe for offsite backups.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @07:25PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @07:25PM (#583119)

    - distcc for compiling boost and llvm
    - streaming 4k porn
    - giving your refrigerator and toaster plenty of bandwidth - can't have them looking bad in front of the rest of the botnet

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday October 16 2017, @08:18PM (3 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @08:18PM (#583139) Journal

      I reckon there could be something potentially useful... like... generating "conversational noise" for the NSA to record at 1Tb/household; that would be a useful DDoS, one that it is even legal - the NSA intercepts the traffic on their own will, I didn't asked them to.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday October 17 2017, @01:14AM (2 children)

        by coolgopher (1157) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @01:14AM (#583244)

        Having a /56 IPv6 subnet, I have been tempted to write a small daemon that would generate traffic from random addresses and ports in that subnet, and if finding a similar conversational partner latch on and do full-on TCP sessions of noise. I'd QoS that locally to minimise the impact to my real traffic, while it'd still look clean on the outside. Maybe then add a switch of two to actually allow routing of real traffic over the noise, just to build a very nice haystack. Alas, I have so many other projects I'd rather spend my time working on... (and I'd still feel bad for wasting bandwidth, though it may be the lesser evil).

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday October 17 2017, @01:33AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 17 2017, @01:33AM (#583249) Journal

          Contribute as a tor relay (not exit node, just a relay) - the traffic you'll generate will be useful to someone and you'll have no idea what transits you computer from where and where to.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday October 17 2017, @04:32AM

            by coolgopher (1157) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @04:32AM (#583315)

            Interesting, I hadn't thought of that possibility. Cheers!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @07:29PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @07:29PM (#583123)

    Several homes could simply share the same Internet connection.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday October 16 2017, @07:51PM (6 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday October 16 2017, @07:51PM (#583132)

      There's a couple of problems with that:

      1) You'd have to coordinate with your neighbors; one person would be on the hook for the bill while trying to chase around his neighbors for payment. Not a good situation.
      2) Liability: if you're the one whose name is on the account, you have to worry about your idiot neighbors doing something that'll get you in trouble, like torrenting or worse.

      Having multiple homes sharing a single connection isn't a new idea at all, and has been a possibility ever since WiFi routers became commonplace. But you don't see too many people doing this in real life.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @08:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @08:50PM (#583152)

        Informative? Nah.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Monday October 16 2017, @09:09PM (4 children)

        by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @09:09PM (#583166) Homepage Journal

        I leave my wifi without a password specifically so that my neighbors, if there's trouble with their wifi, can use mine. It's never caused me problems.

        Though once a neighbor came to my door apologizing because his daughter had been using my wifi. I told him it was OK. That's what it was for. He had a hard time understanding that.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday October 16 2017, @09:45PM (3 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday October 16 2017, @09:45PM (#583179)

          That's great, but don't be surprised if the MAFIAA sues you because one of your neighbors was torrenting something.

          Besides, even if you're not worried about that, at the very least I'd set up public and private networks, and give the private one QoS priority over the public one. Also, maybe you live in some rural-ish area and just aren't worried about your neighbors misusing it, but another thing you can do is set up two private (WPA2-protected) networks, with yours being given priority, and then give out the password to trusted neighbors, so that random drive-by people can't use it.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:27AM (1 child)

            by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:27AM (#583335)

            Nononononono. You've got this all wrong.

            Plausible deniability

            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday October 17 2017, @02:41PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @02:41PM (#583477)

              Plausible deniability is a way of arguing to win a court case where you've been sued. The problem with it is, you still have to hire a lawyer (at least $1k on retainer), appear in court, etc. It costs a small fortune to defend yourself in court against a lawsuit, even if it's baseless. You can try to countersue for legal fees, but American courts aren't very good about awarding that unless it's really obvious that the case was frivolous. And even if you do win a judgment, it can be hard to collect.

              Lawsuits are a huge money sink for anyone who isn't a lawyer, or a very wealthy entity that can bully small defendants into settling, which is exactly the business practice of the MAFIAA in these cases (threaten you with a lawsuit, then get you to settle for $3k).

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @03:08PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @03:08PM (#583491)

            Run the guest network through a VPN, and it won't be a problem. That also lets you trivially switch wifi networks to quickly get various geoblocked content. I keep an open network like so for guests, though split off Netflix traffic so it doesn't trigger proxy warnings for anyone who would connect.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Monday October 16 2017, @07:35PM

    by ledow (5567) on Monday October 16 2017, @07:35PM (#583128) Homepage

    "I can't even think of anything where that kind of speed would be useful in a home, except for making for speedier downloads of game/OS updates/installs and maybe for offsite backups."

    It gives ten people 100Mbps each.

    People are always so blinkered by line speed that they forget everyone has smartphones, tablets, laptops, PC's, set-top-boxes, gadgets, etc. all connected at the same time.

    The problem you have is that no ISP has that kind of backhail that they can give every customer the 1Gbps, let alone 10Gbps.

    Think about it, 1,000,000 and you're pushing 10 petabits per second. With encryption, cloud services, etc. everything is becoming uncacheable too.

    Sure, it'll come eventually, but it's going to cost an arm and a leg and it'll be used mainly to have a 10Gbps carrier with a 100Mbps stream inside it... for reliability, etc. nobody ever uses the maximum theoretical. They'll use it to have better, newer, modems and security features, etc. and they'll sit there for their lifetime doing 1/10th of what they're capable of, at best, unless you pay a huge premium. But when you do, they won't need to send you a new modem.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday October 16 2017, @07:49PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday October 16 2017, @07:49PM (#583131) Journal

    But Can ISPs and Modems Keep Up?

    ISP keeping up? Ha! Good one. Not like they are in a rush to cut their own throat by selling better streaming pipes. Let's also not forget the infrastructure upgrades they won't invest in either.

    And while we're at it, I assume that 10Gbps is the total bandwidth available to a group of homes sharing the same channel/segment/whatever. So in the end you might get 10Gbps with very deep pockets while living in an exclusive neighborhood. For the rest of us it means sharing that 10Gbps with 10000 other customers while still paying $50 for 50mbps.

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday October 16 2017, @08:13PM (5 children)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday October 16 2017, @08:13PM (#583137) Homepage Journal

    A man can't walk down the street these days without tripping over two or more people fucking on camera.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @08:19PM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @08:19PM (#583140)

    The line which stuck out to me in this news summary was:

    Those hardware problems aside, the DOCSIS 3.1 spec has another issue: it sticks to the age-old sucky 10-to-1 downlink-uplink ratio.

    This begs the question of why a 10-to-1 download-upload ratio is sucky. In mind mind, it is perfectly reasonable.

    If I paid $50 for 25MB/sec, and I could distribute that in any way I wanted to, I'd probably go something like 20MB/sec download 5MB/sec upload. Granted that's a 4-1 ratio, but it's nowhere near 1-1.

    So why is a 10-to-1 such a bad ratio? I expect it matches the majority of consumption habits for the vast majority of people.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @08:25PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @08:25PM (#583142)

      I expect it matches the majority of consumption habits for the vast majority of people.

      People who have been trained to be consumers instead of producers.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by maxwell demon on Monday October 16 2017, @08:51PM (1 child)

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday October 16 2017, @08:51PM (#583155) Journal

        Even most producers will have asymmetric bandwidth needs. For example, if you contribute to an Open Source/Free Software project. you're downloading a complete repository, but uploading only the changes that you wrote yourself.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday October 16 2017, @10:54PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @10:54PM (#583204) Journal

          For example, if you contribute to an Open Source/Free Software project. you're downloading a complete repository, but uploading only the changes that you wrote yourself.

          Really?
          What if you decide that you'd better keep the project hosted on your own home server, for whatever reasons (like not trusting the cloud, or be dissatisfied with the limited collab tools or the way the documentation is organized).
          Or adopt a peer-to-peer protocol to access a truly distributed repository - e.g. I can see a case for an open-source game, the 3D artifacts (models, textures, animations, etc) can go very quickly over the 1GB/repository quota allowed by github for free (as in beer) [github.com]

          The fact that most of the people don't need to serve [eff.org] doesn't preclude the existence of the right to serve [theregister.co.uk]**.
          IMHO this is one of the rights that 'net neutrality' should guard - a neutral internet imposes no restriction based on source/destination/protocol

          ---

          ** gosh, guys it has been only 4 years [crossies.com] since, you already forgot?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday October 17 2017, @02:32AM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @02:32AM (#583274) Journal

        And notice how the consumers and producers are both being pushed on to clouds floating above walled gardens.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by dmanny on Monday October 16 2017, @08:34PM

      by dmanny (6202) on Monday October 16 2017, @08:34PM (#583145)

      Clearly it depends on the workload. All of these services work on economies of scale and in aggregation. However if your use of internet data includes sourcing considerable payload, having asymmetric service is indeed sucky. In my case I am a VPN user against my company's VPN. There are times I need to fetch large amounts of data, process/correct it and eventually return it. With my current DOCISS based providers, this is an issue.

      Dale

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday October 16 2017, @09:49PM (1 child)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday October 16 2017, @09:49PM (#583182)

      So why is a 10-to-1 such a bad ratio? I expect it matches the majority of consumption habits for the vast majority of people.

      For now, perhaps, but as cloud-based backup services become popular, having slow upload speeds is an issue for that particular usage. How long does it take to upload 1 TB of data to a cloud provider? That's not a large amount of data any more; that's a typical consumer hard drive now, and that's how much data you need to upload to do an initial sync. Of course, after the initial sync, it isn't quite as bad, but it's still not that hard for people to generate a lot of data, even if they aren't big torrent downloaders. Digital photos and movies from your phone or consumer cameras are huge now.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:08AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:08AM (#583376)

        How long does it take to upload 1 TB of data to a cloud provider?

        Can you even read your hard disk at 1GB/s (which is what a 10:1 rate means for upload with 10GB download speed)? When your backup speed is bound by disk I/O, a faster connection won't help.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @10:23PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @10:23PM (#583191)

      This begs the question of why a 10-to-1 download-upload ratio is sucky. In mind mind, it is perfectly reasonable.

      What a sucky mind-mind you have if it's begging the question [wikipedia.org].
      Go ask for a refund if you still gave the warranty certificate but, in any case, get rid of it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:12AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:12AM (#583231)

        From your own link:

        To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow... the conclusion is assumed to be true in the premise.

        As applied to this article summary: "it sticks to the age-old sucky 10-to-1 downlink-uplink ratio"

        Conclusion it sticks to the age-old sucky 10-to-1 downlink-uplink ratio
        Premises a 10-to-1 downlink-uplink ratio is sucky

        Contrary to what you believe, people do properly use the term. I suppose you are the type of person who automatically corrects somebody by say, "You should have said, 'please give the book to James and I,'" applying rules without actually understanding them.

        I'd suggest you go ask for warranty service on your pedant card, but I expect it was sold off an unlicensed knock-off seller online so they'll probably ignore your request.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:36AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:36AM (#583380) Homepage
          > From your own link:
          >
          > > To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow... the conclusion is assumed to be true in the premise.
          >
          > As applied to this article summary: "it sticks to the age-old sucky 10-to-1 downlink-uplink ratio"
          >
          > Conclusion it sticks to the age-old sucky 10-to-1 downlink-uplink ratio
          > Premises a 10-to-1 downlink-uplink ratio is sucky

          Equivocation - you're letting "the question" apply to two different things. (A term in the original argument, and then a new question by the person following up.)

          > Contrary to what you believe, people do properly use the term.

          Nope. People are using it more and more in the improper way such that it is in the process of becoming a second and acceptable different meaning for the phrase.

          Eventually it will probably become the primary meaning. The original phrasing was clumsy, it would have been better to just call the concept "assuming your own conclusions". But the new meaning simply shows a lack of both understanding (of the traditional meaning of the phrase) and of imagination - what's wrong with "inviting a question" or "raising a question"?
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 17 2017, @01:12AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 17 2017, @01:12AM (#583243) Journal

      I don't have a lot of personal experience to draw on, but those ISP contracts that I have looked at all specify that I WILL NOT run a dedicated server. It is verboten. Doing so would apparently upset their precious little business model.

    • (Score: 2) by http on Tuesday October 17 2017, @04:58AM (4 children)

      by http (1920) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @04:58AM (#583326)

      You've got a proplem with your reasoning process if you think any ratio is normal. Bytes don't care which direction they're going.

      --
      I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:40AM (3 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:40AM (#583393) Homepage
        The bytes are irrelevant, they indeed don't care, but also they don't know what they represent.

        Bytes from nett producers will be more of an outgoing burden for the producer than they are a burden for any individual consumer. Bytes into nett consumers will be more of an incoming burden for the consumer than they are a burden for any individual producer, unless that consumer is tied to one source.

        Producers will have different ratio preferences from consumers - but both will have prefered ranges of ratios.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by http on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:00PM (2 children)

          by http (1920) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:00PM (#583539)

          Uh, no.

          The only thing a producer needs to care about is if I have enough bandwidth to download the content and upload various control/feedback data. They don't give a rat's ass if I'm using 100% of my artificially limited upload bandwidth or 1% of it, as long as the individual requirements for delivering and negotiating their content are met. They don't have a preferences for me having externally imposed ratios, let alone a particular value.

          --
          I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:20PM (1 child)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:20PM (#583670) Homepage
            Whaaaaat?

            Did you read my post? Go back, and have another stab, and this time read for comprehension.

            Having said that, your response seems to show a complete ignorance of the fact that the producer needs to give *billions of fucks* about his own outgoing bandwidth, so you're clearly not thought anything through, even the content of your own outgoing payload.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by http on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:37AM

              by http (1920) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:37AM (#583756)

              I guess I'll have to be explicit: The only thing about me that a producer needs to think about is my bandwidth with respect to them. As long as the absolute upload speed I allocate to them and the absolute download speed I allocate to them are above the two minimum numbers required, they don't care if I'm using 99% of my bandwidth, or 50%, or 1. The only time they'll get even remotely interested is if their content is 100.1% of my bandwidth.

              Again, the producer doesn't care about my ratio and probably has no business caring... unless a fucked up ratio imposed by my ISP interferes with them delivering, and thus selling, content to me.

              --
              I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:11PM (#583581)

      it's fine for ignorant slaves. enjoy.

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday October 16 2017, @08:22PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Monday October 16 2017, @08:22PM (#583141)

    I can't even think of anything where that kind of speed would be useful in a home, except for making for speedier downloads of game/OS updates/installs and maybe for offsite backups.

    At those speeds I'm sure the hope is you simply move everything into the cloud. IF they can also bring the latency down, they might get a lot of stupid people to do just that. Don't download the game, OS, whatever, just display ultraHD with compression so light it isn't noticeable and run everything in the cloud. Putting the cloud at the ISP head end would solve latency btw. Of course they don't need symmetrical links to do Cloud so what ARE they thinking? And naturally they want to stream all TV and nuke broadcast entirely. Suspect the cable bandwidth to push 10gbps will almost mandate a drastic scaleback of broadcast allocation.

  • (Score: 1) by dmanny on Monday October 16 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)

    by dmanny (6202) on Monday October 16 2017, @08:29PM (#583143)
    From the summary of the article presented on soylent

    ...another issue. It sticks to the age-old sucky 10-to-1 downlick-uplink ratio.

    Then in the submission:

    ...As the connection is full-duplex, it could be uploaded in about 2 minutes, too.

    But, quibbles like that aside, thank you for the story.

    Dale

    PS: I'd put out a shout to Chris of ITC working with Google Fiber. After his visit this morning, I have 1Gbps symmetric service awaiting migration of my internal network. I currently also have CCI/Surewest and TimeWarner / Spectrum. Mindboggling for someone that learned to program over 103 modems. Three out of four services, just for a bit in transition... Not interested in AT&T due to contract periods.

    • (Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:24PM

      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:24PM (#583423) Journal

      This is not my bailiwick, but as I understand it, there are TWO standards at play here: (1) The "DOCSIS 3.1" spec now supports 10Gbps and (2) there is a new spec "DOCSIS 3.1 Full Duplex" which supports symmetric communications — 10Gbps both up and down.

      If I am mistaken, I hope someone else can clear up the confusion for me!

      --
      Wit is intellect, dancing.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Monday October 16 2017, @08:30PM (3 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Monday October 16 2017, @08:30PM (#583144) Journal

    I can't even think of anything where that kind of speed would be useful in a home, except for making for speedier downloads of game/OS updates/installs and maybe for offsite backups.

    Two or three security cams streaming to remote storage 24/7.
    Two or three Teenagers streaming content, gaming, face (and genital) chatting.
    A couple TVs streaming high bandwidth video content with or without anyone watching.
    No less than 3 Android/IOS devices PER Person constantly connected gobbling facebook updates, checking mail, surfing the web.
    A couple of machines running bittorrent 24/7, including some totally forgotten about by their owners, downloading and uploading Linux Distros or 4K Movies, pirated or not.
    Some actual web surfing and shopping.
    An ever increasing number of useless IOT things sitting around the house listening to your every word and transmitting them to Google or Amazon.
    Samsung watching you watching your TV.

    Nobody going outside for days on end.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday October 16 2017, @08:54PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday October 16 2017, @08:54PM (#583158) Journal

      360-degree VR telepresence, teledildonics, brain-to-brain communication [theguardian.com]....

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday October 16 2017, @09:28PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @09:28PM (#583173) Journal

        brain-to-brain communication

        Heh, this is a tough one, it requires both ends to connect to a brain.

        You think I'm kidding? Hey, Alexa, ...? Ok, Google, .... Siri, is Cortana still alive?
        See? Most of the time there's an "AI" on one end and a nerve ganglion at the other.

        (grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 16 2017, @09:12PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @09:12PM (#583167) Journal

      All of the above xor... Windows 10 telemetry (boom tishhh!)

      (shit, I can't grin over this one, too lamely close to reality)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 16 2017, @09:05PM (6 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 16 2017, @09:05PM (#583164) Homepage Journal

    I can't even think of anything where that kind of speed would be useful in a home, except for making for speedier downloads of game/OS updates/installs and maybe for offsite backups.

    While 10GB/s is, perhaps, a bit excessive for residential use, the real benefit is the full-duplex bit. If I can host my own content in a secure manner (of which there are many ways and many use cases) with the additional upload bandwidth, the cloud (i.e., someone else's servers) becomes much less attractive.

    Not just from a storage perspective, but from a freedom perspective. I can securely encrypt information and don't need to worry about middlemen holding encryption keys. I can host the content that *I* want without a bunch of ethically-challenged advertising whores spying on my every keystroke.

    When we have enough bandwidth (preferably symmetrical) we can host our own content with those of our choosing without the spying, sucking up personal data wholesale on "social networks" and other unwholesome activities.

    When I have the bandwidth (and no abusive TOS), with which to directly and securely communicate with others, with no gatekeeper or middleman, my liberty (and those I communicate with as well) is increased.

    Sure, a lot of people don't know or care that being bent over in this way. Personally, I'm sick of it.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 16 2017, @09:21PM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @09:21PM (#583170) Journal

      What About Liberty?

      What about it? Have you ever had it?

      (speaking for myself, I'm paying my ISP $10/mo for dedicated IPv4 address and the contract doesn't stop me to host whatever server I want. Problem is... except for a period of 6 months some years ago, I don't really need it)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 16 2017, @11:45PM (1 child)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 16 2017, @11:45PM (#583220) Homepage Journal

        I have multiple *free* IPv4 addresses and my ISP doesn't care that I run all manner of servers too. And that's great. For what it is.

        The rub is that my upload bandwidth is small, so I can't share (securely or otherwise) much, whether it's photos from a family wedding, medical information or video from a company softball team. it's just too slow

        Without reasonable upload bandwidth at a reasonable cost, we're incented to use systems that interpose themselves between those who create, share and/or communicate.

        Those who control such systems are, at best, using that position to make money by spying on people. At worst, they're actively seeking control as well as profit by deciding *what* you see and read, and in which order. The truth is likely somewhere in between.

        Some folks have created tools and other software to create decentralized ways to replace those systems but they failed to garner much interest, largely because the slow upload capacity (whether limited by bandwidth or TOS) for most users makes it impractical.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 16 2017, @11:50PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @11:50PM (#583221) Journal

          I'd wish I could retract my comment, but I can't. The best I can do is to apologize for it (and offer a link to an updated one [soylentnews.org]).

          Yes, indeed, the liberty to host your own server should be derived and be defended by net neutrality (assuming such a thing still exists).

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by nobu_the_bard on Monday October 16 2017, @09:25PM (2 children)

      by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Monday October 16 2017, @09:25PM (#583171)

      You can purchase business lines with higher upload speeds and host stuff at home/work.

      Personally I don't recommend it though for your purposes; it's more prone to problems than data center connections, bandwidth issues aside. Your content goes down if metal thieves decide to attack your lines outside or whatever. By hosting stuff on your home setup you also get stuck with all of the hassles; DDoS, botnet probes, etc, all happening on the same line you use for your internet access. You could just rent a rack at a data center (a real one, not a virtual instance with a web interface) and host your own "cloud".

      I see your point but don't think it is a good strategy for anything you intend to host with any level of seriousness, whatever the bandwidth. If you just want to throw up stuff for your friends/family/co-conspirators/etc and use tunnels or something to restrict access though .... hmm...

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @10:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @10:12PM (#583186)

        It's cheaper, though, and you have better security. I'm going to buy a high bandwidth home internet connection anyway, and I have a Linux desktop PC anyway. So I slap two extra hard drives into the PC and an extra 16GB of RAM, and now it runs my own instance of the open source Sandstorm software 24/7 (broadly similar to OwnCloud but arguably much better) while I can still play the occasional game, surf the web, watch movies, and so forth. Total cost is $300 for the two extra drives, SATA cables, and RAM and maybe $13 per month for the higher bandwidth connection. I can also run some Linux ISO torrents 24/7 (I don't pirate... not that I expect anyone to believe me) and maybe a node for Yacy or GNU Social or similar.

        How much would I have to spend to get an equivalent server from some other server provider? And while law enforcement issues can get a warrant to seize my servers, it's unlikely to happen unless they have a good cause. Compare that to hosting at some colocation center, where overly broad warrants can allow an agency to sift through your data because someone else once shared torrents of Scary Movie 4 from the same virtualization host.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:16AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:16AM (#583235) Homepage Journal

        You can purchase business lines with higher upload speeds and host stuff at home/work.

        I am aware. But that's not the point.

        The point is not whether *I* have decent upload bandwidth, but that synchronous (and *fast*) bandwidth can decentralize and get us away from the "cloud" and centralized communications hubs.

        Personally I don't recommend it though for your purposes; it's more prone to problems than data center connections, bandwidth issues aside. Your content goes down if metal thieves decide to attack your lines outside or whatever. By hosting stuff on your home setup you also get stuck with all of the hassles; DDoS, botnet probes, etc, all happening on the same line you use for your internet access. You could just rent a rack at a data center (a real one, not a virtual instance with a web interface) and host your own "cloud".

        My purposes aren't what you think they are. I'm interested in replacing the spies and advertising executives with secure, easy to use, peer-to-peer communications That will require both quality, easy-to-use software and a credible federation system.

        It also requires wide usage. As such, it's not my upload bandwidth that's at issue, it's *everyone's*.

        I see your point but don't think it is a good strategy for anything you intend to host with any level of seriousness, whatever the bandwidth. If you just want to throw up stuff for your friends/family/co-conspirators/etc and use tunnels or something to restrict access though .... hmm...

        At least WRT this discussion, I'm thinking a little bigger. I want to be a participant in an environment that allows me to control and share my stuff in a secure fashion without intermediaries. As long as there are middlemen, they have control, for whatever purpose.

        Unless large numbers of people are able to securely share (i.e., with significant upload bandwidth), that will be a complete non-starter.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 1) by istartedi on Monday October 16 2017, @11:52PM

    by istartedi (123) on Monday October 16 2017, @11:52PM (#583223) Journal

    My ISP is requiring a new modem in literally 1 week from today. I'm not too happy about putting out $70 for something that doesn't really get me anything I don't already have. Under the current system their network is plenty fast for anything I want to do; but it's not RELIABLE. They routinely go down for several hours at night. That's not 2 or 3 AM either, sometimes it's as early as 10 PM. I don't know if the roll-out of the new modem tech is causing it. It's been like this for a year now. I'd much rather have RELIABLE internet than be able to download an entire movie that much faster. I can already stream video just fine. Once you get to that point, most of us don't care much for more speed. I'm certainly not willing to pay for any more speed. I'd throw 'em an extra $5/mo if they could even give me 3 9s. reliability.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(1)