Slow broadband is such a pain

alexd wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher (for it is he) wrote:
>
>> There's probably no more than 20Gbytes/second internet to the USA.
>
> Jesus wept. Where do you get this stuff from? TAT-14, one link from the USA
> to Europe, has 1.87Tbps capacity alone.
>
> https://www.tat-14.com/tat14/stations.jsp
>
1/. I said Bytes not bits

2/. How much of that is

(a) used
(b) used for internet

The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Wed, 07 Dec
2011 16:04:41 +0000 the perfect time to write:

>Andrew Benham wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:07:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> It was demonstrated some years ago that a Boeing 747 full of DVDS was
>>> faster than the internet to the USA *for that amount of data..*
>>
>> Remembering never to confuse bandwidth and latency :-)
>
>They are intimately connected.
>
>To get a Terabyte of data over a Gigabyte a second link takes 1000
>seconds. No matter if the latency is zero. Actually adding latency
>doesn't affect throughput at all. but slow throughput on real sizes of
>data does produce 'latency' when you measure using ping etc.
>
>
>A Terabyte is only 20 DVDS.
>
>There's probably no more than 20Gbytes/second internet to the USA.

There are at least 9 links between the continental USA and Europe
which individually exceed that 20 GB/s, and together with a number of
smaller links total over 12.5Tb/s, with _at least_ another 70Tb/s
already under construction and due for commissioning next year.
It looks probable that we will pass 100Tb/s transatlantic capacity
sometime in 2012.
>
>You can get a lot more than 20DVDS on a plane.

Yes, but it will be over 10 hours before you can even start to read
the data at the other end.
And a Terabyte is about 115 DL DVDs, or if you have the right quad
layer equipment and media, 8 BDs.

The 747 may still be ahead on bandwidth, but not by as much as you
think, and at far greater expense.

The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Deux wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:57:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Deux wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:27:50 +0000, Martin Jay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/16038102>:
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Begin Quote -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Twenty-five-year-old Hayley Gaffney is one of around 200 people
>>>>> taking part in the Cornwall trial.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until she got the 4G broadband she was only getting speeds of just
>>>>> over 1Mbps.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The internet was an absolute nightmare," she says. "It just kept
>>>>> crashing because it was so slow."
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- End Quote -----
>
> It was demostarted some years ago that a Boeing 747 full of DVDS was
> faster than the internet to the USA *for that amount of data..*

The trouble with a 747 full of DVDs is if it goes too slow it crashes.
This might provide a clue as to the type of internet connection Hayley
Gaffney used to have, especially when you consider that her email took
days to arrive. Her stupid ISP had decided to save money by batching up
the IP packets and sending them by plane!

women and boy porn addict anonymous sex porn stream milf anorexia wome
porn grace period for sex ass sexy wet the other boleyn girl sex scene
tera patrick xxx video farm lessons porn naitou2 hentai free free se
offender sereach foriegn porn phrrases only for girls xxx pics henta
titty ****ed xxx raimi strips sex dating in spring valley ohio teenag
sex and california law fetish messy sex free interacial sex site
swingers adult sex wellingto


--
Lola_Mof

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:07:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> It was demostarted some years ago that a Boeing 747 full of DVDS was
> faster than the internet to the USA *for that amount of data..*

Sorry for the late reply, forgot about this thread.

No, the Boeing 747 of DVDs was not faster. It may have taken less time
for the full amount of data to be transferred, but that is not the same
as speed.

Say, the server had the original data and the client received it. Each
byte that was transmitted would be done in milliseconds. Can a 747 make a
journey in miliseconds.

Here's another analogy. A HGV with the usual speed limiter and a Porsche
959 (top speed 197mph) are used to see which can get a full load of cargo
from one place to another. The Porsche is able to zoom past the HGV but
because of it's small boot space it has to make many journeys, where as
the HGV can make it in one.

The HGV completes the load before the Porsche has even made a dent in its
load. So would you say that a HGV is faster than a Porsche 959?