Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

How many vlogs can the Internet handle?

Expand Messages
  • Randolfe Wicker
    When we see that there are millions of potential vloggers in the USA alone, one wonders if the Internet has the capacity to handle millions of video vlogs. I
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
      When we see that there are millions of potential vloggers in the USA alone, one wonders if the Internet has the capacity to handle millions of video vlogs.
       
      I noted that someone sent a link to an instructional vlog on silk-screening in a discussion about T-shirts.  I don't think any of us has realized the huge impact vlogging might have on society.  Just in terms of education, you can teach everything from using the computer to how to sew much more effectively using video.  With vlogging, you don't even have to produce videotapes!
       
      I'm not a computer geek.  Does anyone know how to measure current Internet capacity to handle vlogs?  I can imagine how this will impact the number of people needing/using cable connections to the Internet, even the number of people who will be purchasing stronger computers (as I am doing) just to be able to edit and post video.
       
       
      Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
       
      Videographer, Writer, Activist
      Advisor: The Immortality Institute
      Hoboken, NJ
       
       
    • Joshua Kinberg
      The internet has limitless capacity. Your Hosting provider however may be a different story. -Josh
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
        The internet has limitless capacity.
        Your Hosting provider however may be a different story.

        -Josh


        On 9/1/05, Randolfe Wicker <rhwicker@...> wrote:
        When we see that there are millions of potential vloggers in the USA alone, one wonders if the Internet has the capacity to handle millions of video vlogs.
         
        I noted that someone sent a link to an instructional vlog on silk-screening in a discussion about T-shirts.  I don't think any of us has realized the huge impact vlogging might have on society.  Just in terms of education, you can teach everything from using the computer to how to sew much more effectively using video.  With vlogging, you don't even have to produce videotapes!
         
        I'm not a computer geek.  Does anyone know how to measure current Internet capacity to handle vlogs?  I can imagine how this will impact the number of people needing/using cable connections to the Internet, even the number of people who will be purchasing stronger computers (as I am doing) just to be able to edit and post video.
         
         
        Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
         
        Videographer, Writer, Activist
        Advisor: The Immortality Institute
        Hoboken, NJ
         
         


        SPONSORED LINKS
        Rss reader Fireant Internet directory
        Individual Free rss reader


        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




      • andrew michael baron
        ... Not so fast, Josh. The internet has a very limited capacity both by the amount of severs in place and funny enough, based on the limited number of unique
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005

          On Sep 1, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Joshua Kinberg wrote:

          The internet has limitless capacity.

          Not so fast, Josh. The internet has a very limited capacity both by the amount of severs in place and funny enough, based on the limited number of unique IP addresses (plans are in place to upgrade the protocol).

          The question is a good question. The internet as a whole needs to become more robust to handle the massive increase in data transfer on the horizon, as a result of video.

          Your Hosting provider however may be a different story.

          You know that's true! :)


          -Josh


          On 9/1/05, Randolfe Wicker <rhwicker@...> wrote:
          When we see that there are millions of potential vloggers in the USA alone, one wonders if the Internet has the capacity to handle millions of video vlogs.
           
          I noted that someone sent a link to an instructional vlog on silk-screening in a discussion about T-shirts.  I don't think any of us has realized the huge impact vlogging might have on society.  Just in terms of education, you can teach everything from using the computer to how to sew much more effectively using video.  With vlogging, you don't even have to produce videotapes!
           
          I'm not a computer geek.  Does anyone know how to measure current Internet capacity to handle vlogs?  I can imagine how this will impact the number of people needing/using cable connections to the Internet, even the number of people who will be purchasing stronger computers (as I am doing) just to be able to edit and post video.
           
           
          Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
           
          Videographer, Writer, Activist
          Advisor: The Immortality Institute
          Hoboken, NJ
           
           


          SPONSORED LINKS
          Rss reader Fireant Internet directory
          Individual Free rss reader


          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






          SPONSORED LINKS
          Rss reader Fireant Internet directory
          Individual Free rss reader


          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





        • Kunga
          I did and do. This is my dream come true and Alvin Toffler predicted this years ago. I think you meant to write I don t think many of us realized... --
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
            I did and do. This is my dream come true and Alvin Toffler predicted
            this years ago. I think you meant to write "I don't think many of us
            realized..."
            --
            Taylor Barcroft
            New Media Publisher, Editor, Video Journalist
            Santa Cruz CA, Beach of the Silicon Valley
            http://FutureMedia.org



            On Sep 1, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Randolfe Wicker wrote:

            > I don't think any of us has realized the huge impact vlogging might
            > have on society.
          • Clint Sharp
            ... IPv6 is still 10 years away at best. IPv4 is too prevalent to easily replace with an entirely different protocol. It s not just all the applications that
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
              andrew michael baron wrote:

              >
              > Not so fast, Josh. The internet has a very limited capacity both by
              > the amount of severs in place and funny enough, based on the limited
              > number of unique IP addresses (plans are in place to upgrade the
              > protocol).

              IPv6 is still 10 years away at best. IPv4 is too prevalent to easily
              replace with an entirely different protocol. It's not just all the
              applications that have to be upgraded, but upgrading all the people is
              pretty fucking expensive as well.

              Secondly, we're years away from running out of usable address space.
              Provisions put in place in the mid 90s, including but not limited to
              advocation of NAT and the implementation of Classless Interdomain
              Routing (CIDR), truly stopped the scary space in which usable address
              space was being allocated. We've got years before we're going to run
              out of addresses. Asia on the other hand is quickly running out, but
              that's because they got totally hosed on the initial allocation, but
              it's a fixable problem. There is no practical limit to the amount of
              video the Internet can handle at this time, only limits in the amount of
              money people want to spend to provide it. It can't currently replace
              broadcast television, only because multicast was never effectively
              implemented over the Internet, but assuming that was (the standard has
              been in place for nearly 10 years now), it would be easily possible to
              offer live streaming across the Internet with minimal bandwidth
              overhead, and it would largely eliminate the need for things like
              BitTorrent.

              Saying the internet is "very limited" is a scare tactic and is
              incredibly uninformed.

              Clint

              --
              Clint Sharp
              New Media Guy & Technologist
              ClintSharp.com Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

              We are the media.
            • andrew michael baron
              ... So Clint, are you saying that you are not interested in considering a problem of this magnitude that will arrive in ten short years from now? ... Yea,
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
                On Sep 1, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Clint Sharp wrote:

                >>
                >
                > IPv6 is still 10 years away at best. IPv4 is too prevalent to easily
                > replace with an entirely different protocol. It's not just all the
                > applications that have to be upgraded, but upgrading all the people is
                > pretty fucking expensive as well.
                >


                So Clint, are you saying that you are not interested in considering a
                problem of this magnitude that will arrive in ten short years from now?


                > Secondly, we're years away from running out of usable address space.

                Yea, years away is not very far either Clint, you should be very,
                very scared. I'm warning you Clint!!! This is dangerous. You should
                be VERY VERY worried.

                >
                > Saying the internet is "very limited" is a scare tactic and is
                > incredibly uninformed.
                >

                Whew! you are hot tonight!


                > Clint
                >
                > --
                > Clint Sharp
                > New Media Guy & Technologist
                > ClintSharp.com Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/
                >
                > We are the media.
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
                > ~-->
                > Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital
                > divide today!
                > http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                > ~->
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Kunga
                rotflmao. But I love you both. Clint the opinionated vs. Andrew the diplomat. lol you guys crack me up. -- Taylor Barcroft New Media Publisher, Editor, Video
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
                  rotflmao. But I love you both. Clint the opinionated vs. Andrew the
                  diplomat. lol you guys crack me up.
                  --
                  Taylor Barcroft
                  New Media Publisher, Editor, Video Journalist
                  Santa Cruz CA, Beach of the Silicon Valley
                  http://FutureMedia.org

                  Clint Sharp:

                  >> IPv6 is still 10 years away at best. IPv4 is too prevalent to easily
                  >> replace with an entirely different protocol. It's not just all the
                  >> applications that have to be upgraded, but upgrading all the
                  >> people is
                  >> pretty fucking expensive as well.
                  >>
                  > On Sep 1, 2005, at 5:01 PM, andrew michael baron wrote:
                  >
                  > So Clint, are you saying that you are not interested in considering a
                  > problem of this magnitude that will arrive in ten short years from
                  > now?
                  >
                  > On Sep 1, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Clint Sharp wrote:
                  >
                  >> Secondly, we're years away from running out of usable address space.
                  >>
                  > On Sep 1, 2005, at 5:01 PM, andrew michael baron wrote:
                  >
                  > Yea, years away is not very far either Clint, you should be very,
                  > very scared. I'm warning you Clint!!! This is dangerous. You should
                  > be VERY VERY worried.
                  >
                  > Clint Sharp:
                  >>
                  >> Saying the internet is "very limited" is a scare tactic and is
                  >> incredibly uninformed.
                  >>
                  >> Andrew Baron:
                  >
                  > Whew! you are hot tonight!
                • Verdi
                  ... Please elaborate. What technology is that? -Verdi
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
                    On Sep 1, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Clint Sharp wrote:

                    > It can't currently replace
                    > broadcast television, only because multicast was never effectively
                    > implemented over the Internet, but assuming that was (the standard has
                    > been in place for nearly 10 years now), it would be easily possible to
                    > offer live streaming across the Internet with minimal bandwidth
                    > overhead, and it would largely eliminate the need for things like
                    > BitTorrent.

                    Please elaborate. What technology is that?

                    -Verdi
                  • Michael Sullivan
                    nevermind all that. cyberterrorism cyberterrorism is coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... -- sull - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
                      nevermind all that.  cyberterrorism cyberterrorism is coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      On 9/1/05, Clint Sharp <clint@... > wrote:
                      andrew michael baron wrote:

                      >
                      > Not so fast, Josh. The internet has a very limited capacity both by
                      > the amount of severs in place and funny enough, based on the limited
                      > number of unique IP addresses (plans are in place to upgrade the
                      > protocol).

                      IPv6 is still 10 years away at best.  IPv4 is too prevalent to easily
                      replace with an entirely different protocol.  It's not just all the
                      applications that have to be upgraded, but upgrading all the people is
                      pretty fucking expensive as well.

                      Secondly, we're years away from running out of usable address space.
                      Provisions put in place in the mid 90s, including but not limited to
                      advocation of NAT and the implementation of Classless Interdomain
                      Routing (CIDR), truly stopped the scary space in which usable address
                      space was being allocated.  We've got years before we're going to run
                      out of addresses.  Asia on the other hand is quickly running out, but
                      that's because they got totally hosed on the initial allocation, but
                      it's a fixable problem.  There is no practical limit to the amount of
                      video the Internet can handle at this time, only limits in the amount of
                      money people want to spend to provide it.  It can't currently replace
                      broadcast television, only because multicast was never effectively
                      implemented over the Internet, but assuming that was (the standard has
                      been in place for nearly 10 years now), it would be easily possible to
                      offer live streaming across the Internet with minimal bandwidth
                      overhead, and it would largely eliminate the need for things like
                      BitTorrent.

                      Saying the internet is "very limited" is a scare tactic and is
                      incredibly uninformed.

                      Clint

                      --
                      Clint Sharp
                      New Media Guy & Technologist
                      ClintSharp.com          Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

                      We are the media.



                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                      Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!
                      http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
                      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                           http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






                      --
                      sull
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      "The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directory
                      http://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator
                      http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog
                    • Joshua Kinberg
                      This conversation reminds me of that commercial where this guy is sitting at his computer clicking around the web when his computer starts speaking to him and
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
                        This conversation reminds me of that commercial where this guy is
                        sitting at his computer clicking around the web when his computer
                        starts speaking to him and says "You have reached the end of the
                        internet... please go back now."

                        This is simply preposterous. The discussion was not about the
                        limitations of IP addresses... it was about how many video clips can
                        the Internet handle -- the answer to that is way more than we could
                        possibly hope to create. The more pressing question is bandwidth --
                        i.e. can the server hosting your videos serve limitless simultaneous
                        requests? The answer to this is most definitely no.

                        The tricky thing about the way the internet works is that the more
                        popular a file is (the more simultaneous requests to the server for
                        that file), the more difficult it becomes for any requestor to
                        actually get that file. This is the problem directly addressed by
                        BitTorrent and similar technologies. BitTorrent is designed to solve
                        the bandwidth burden. Whether or not it does so in a usable way is
                        another matter.

                        -josh


                        On 9/1/05, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...> wrote:
                        > nevermind all that. cyberterrorism cyberterrorism is
                        > coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                        >
                        >
                        > On 9/1/05, Clint Sharp <clint@... > wrote:
                        > > andrew michael baron wrote:
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Not so fast, Josh. The internet has a very limited capacity both by
                        > > > the amount of severs in place and funny enough, based on the limited
                        > > > number of unique IP addresses (plans are in place to upgrade the
                        > > > protocol).
                        > >
                        > > IPv6 is still 10 years away at best. IPv4 is too prevalent to easily
                        > > replace with an entirely different protocol. It's not just all the
                        > > applications that have to be upgraded, but upgrading all the people is
                        > > pretty fucking expensive as well.
                        > >
                        > > Secondly, we're years away from running out of usable address space.
                        > > Provisions put in place in the mid 90s, including but not limited to
                        > > advocation of NAT and the implementation of Classless Interdomain
                        > > Routing (CIDR), truly stopped the scary space in which usable address
                        > > space was being allocated. We've got years before we're going to run
                        > > out of addresses. Asia on the other hand is quickly running out, but
                        > > that's because they got totally hosed on the initial allocation, but
                        > > it's a fixable problem. There is no practical limit to the amount of
                        > > video the Internet can handle at this time, only limits in the amount of
                        > > money people want to spend to provide it. It can't currently replace
                        > > broadcast television, only because multicast was never effectively
                        > > implemented over the Internet, but assuming that was (the standard has
                        > > been in place for nearly 10 years now), it would be easily possible to
                        > > offer live streaming across the Internet with minimal bandwidth
                        > > overhead, and it would largely eliminate the need for things like
                        > > BitTorrent.
                        > >
                        > > Saying the internet is "very limited" is a scare tactic and is
                        > > incredibly uninformed.
                        > >
                        > > Clint
                        > >
                        > > --
                        > > Clint Sharp
                        > > New Media Guy & Technologist
                        > > ClintSharp.com Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/
                        > >
                        > > We are the media.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        > sull
                        > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        > "The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation
                        > from which new form is born"
                        > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        > http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directory
                        > http://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator
                        > http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                        >
                        >
                        > Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        >
                      • Clint Sharp
                        ... No, I said it would be 10 years before IPv6 will be in wide use. The military will drive it s adoption initially (following of course the academic
                        Message 11 of 11 , Sep 1, 2005
                          andrew michael baron wrote:

                          > So Clint, are you saying that you are not interested in considering a
                          > problem of this magnitude that will arrive in ten short years from now?

                          No, I said it would be 10 years before IPv6 will be in wide use. The
                          military will drive it's adoption initially (following of course the
                          academic implementations in place now), followed if not coinciding with
                          wireless adoption. Wireless will be the first to widely adopt it,
                          simply because it's a closed box, they can work with the manufacturers
                          to support it, and they have more IP-enabled devices to support than any
                          other ISP. Much much further down the road will be the adoption of IPv6
                          on PCs and for the wider Internet. The main problem with IPv6 adoption
                          is the problem with maintaining two Internets, with tunnels running
                          amuck tunneling IPv6 over IPv4 and later IPv4 over IPv6. It's a huge
                          logistical problem.

                          To explain where I'm at in the chain, I implement new networks, systems
                          and software for a living. When the adoption rate has picked up to the
                          point where all the devices I need to glue together a cohesive network,
                          with computers, routers, switches, network devices (firewalls, load
                          balancers, etc), have stable IPv6 implementations, then I'll start
                          considering what I need to do to learn an entirely new set of protocols
                          that will double the amount of knowledge I need to have to operate
                          effectively. Throwing away codebases with 15+ years of work in
                          developing an IPv4 stack is no simple undertaking, and even bigger than
                          that is throwing away the experience of a workforce with 15+ years of
                          experience working with IPv4.

                          Addressing is only one of the reasons to consider switching to IPv6, and
                          it's probably not even the best one. Among the better reasons include
                          QoS built into the IP stack (most implementations don't contain QoS
                          support right now), IPSec built into the protocol, better routing based
                          on geographic regions (meaning aggregation is much simpler, requiring
                          less memory to hold routing tables), better autoconfiguration
                          (eliminating DHCP), multicast routing built into the protocol, etc.
                          However, of all of these except addressing are easily done with IPv4
                          implementations, it's just that they're not available on the Internet in
                          a standard fashion. Which only leaves addressing as the crunch to
                          switch, and since that's not an immediate issue anymore (last I heard
                          2032 was the estimated date for running out of IPv4 addresses by the
                          IANA), we're still waiting for a driving force to drive adoption.

                          >
                          > Yea, years away is not very far either Clint, you should be very,
                          > very scared. I'm warning you Clint!!! This is dangerous. You should
                          > be VERY VERY worried.

                          I don't know if this was serious or sarcasm. I'm not worried, and I'll
                          tell you why. I understand at a fundamental level how IP and the
                          Internet works and how addresses are assigned. I can tell you, from
                          memory, in intricate detail how data moves about on the Internet, from
                          session establishment, to packet routing (and the protocols that build
                          those routing tables). I can tell you detailed reasons why addressing
                          is no longer an immediate issue, and thusly with that expert knowledge,
                          I'm not concerned. There's not a lot of things I'm an expert in, this
                          is one of them, so I'm thusly incredibly confident that there's
                          absolutely nothing to be concerned about.

                          >
                          > Whew! you are hot tonight!
                          >
                          Yeah, I know, sorry. It's really not an incredibly topical conversation
                          for this list, but still fun none-the-less. We should probably take it
                          off-list if we want to continue past this point.

                          Clint

                          --
                          Clint Sharp
                          New Media Guy & Technologist
                          ClintSharp.com Contact Info: http://clintsharp.com/contact/

                          We are the media.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.