Bandwidth as a finite resource..

[Nine Tailed Fox]

For some reason can't wrap my head around it yeah theirs limit on how much information can pass through wire but thinking ceiling is so high that it doesn't matter

[lewdicrous]

It doesn't matter for every day consumers, sure, but it does matter when you consider the professional market. 

[TetraSky]

It's only as finite... as they decide to make it. If ISPs invested more heavily in infrastructure instead of charging high prices and basically raking up all that cash and lobbying/sitting on it/buying up their competition... bandwidth wouldn't even be an issue.

[beersykins]

There's certainly some interface and medium limits, depends where you're going and the overall congestion for the resources you're trying to access.

 

A highway with cars is generally the comparison.  You could theoretically have unlimited cars on an unlimited width highway, realistically it depends on interfaces (lane width) and how they're connected.

[dalekphalm]

On 4/15/2020 at 5:13 PM, Nine Tailed Fox said:

For some reason can't wrap my head around it yeah theirs limit on how much information can pass through wire but thinking ceiling is so high that it doesn't matter

The rate speed is finite. A connection is only as massive as it’s maximum speed. 

 

The ceiling definitely matters. The ISP has to carefully consider that ceiling when trying to avoid congestion. 
 

And enterprise environments (offices and data centres too) definitely need to consider the ceiling as well. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

12 hours ago, beersykins said:

There's certainly some interface and medium limits, depends where you're going and the overall congestion for the resources you're trying to access.

 

A highway with cars is generally the comparison.  You could theoretically have unlimited cars on an unlimited width highway, realistically it depends on interfaces (lane width) and how they're connected.

Its not the perfect comparison though, as once you have fibre then widening the lanes is incredibly easy compared to widening a road.

[beersykins]

2 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Its not the perfect comparison though, as once you have fibre then widening the lanes is incredibly easy compared to widening a road.

But in a conceptual analogous road it's very easy. 

 

Plus burying new fiber is a labor intensive process.

[Alex Atkin UK]

1 hour ago, beersykins said:

But in a conceptual analogous road it's very easy. 

 

Plus burying new fiber is a labor intensive process.

You don't necessarily have to bury more fibre though as you can add more "lanes" to the road by sending different frequencies down the same fibre.  That's why its easier than on a real road, its more like being able to drive multiple cars down the same lane all stacked on top of each other.

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

You don't necessarily have to bury more fibre though as you can add more "lanes" to the road by sending different frequencies down the same fibre.  That's why its easier than on a real road, its more like being able to drive multiple cars down the same lane all stacked on top of each other.

What you’re talking about is either installing fibre that is intentionally underutilizes (this is what most fibre operators do when installing backbones or fibre runs outside), or, utilizing new technological innovations that allow the same fibre to run at higher capacities. 
 

The latter you can’t really depend on. The former is common - and in a comparison to a highway, is overbuilding extra lanes that aren’t needed yet. 
 

Overall it’s a very good comparison though. 
 

A highway has two factors:

Number of lanes

Speed of traffic

 

Network transmission mediums operate fairly similarly (eg: Number of twisted pairs in Ethernet or number of strands in fibre or number of channels in DOCSIS). 
 

The fact that in real life it’s a big deal to widen a highway is totally irrelevant to the analogy. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

11 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

What you’re talking about is either installing fibre that is intentionally underutilizes (this is what most fibre operators do when installing backbones or fibre runs outside), or, utilizing new technological innovations that allow the same fibre to run at higher capacities. 
 

The latter you can’t really depend on. The former is common - and in a comparison to a highway, is overbuilding extra lanes that aren’t needed yet. 
 

Overall it’s a very good comparison though. 
 

A highway has two factors:

Number of lanes

Speed of traffic

 

Network transmission mediums operate fairly similarly (eg: Number of twisted pairs in Ethernet or number of strands in fibre or number of channels in DOCSIS). 
 

The fact that in real life it’s a big deal to widen a highway is totally irrelevant to the analogy. 

I guess it depends on the country you are from, I find the highway comparison doesn't work in the UK particularly as we CAN'T overbuild highways because were a tiny island where space is a premium.

Plus underutilising fibre in this way would be like building a highway with thousands of lanes when you only need one right now, theres so many orders of magnitude difference in how much bandwidth we need now compared to how much bandwidth those fibres can take.

 

The fact that in the real world its a big deal to widen a highway is IMO vitally important to the analogy, as otherwise people take that analogy too literally and believe the lies by the ISPs about why they "have" to limit peoples speeds, or have bandwidth caps, etc.  The last thing you want, especially in the US, is to make it easier for the big telcos to con people into accepting crap service.

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I guess it depends on the country you are from, I find the highway comparison doesn't work in the UK particularly as we CAN'T overbuild highways because were a tiny island where space is a premium.

You’re overthinking the analogy. 

12 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Plus underutilising fibre in this way would be like building a highway with thousands of lanes when you only need one right now, theres so many orders of magnitude difference in how much bandwidth we need now compared to how much bandwidth those fibres can take.

This certainly can be true. Most fibre operators put in dark fibre because digging is usually the most expensive part. 

12 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

The fact that in the real world its a big deal to widen a highway is IMO vitally important to the analogy, as otherwise people take that analogy too literally and believe the lies by the ISPs about why they "have" to limit peoples speeds, or have bandwidth caps, etc.  The last thing you want, especially in the US, is to make it easier for the big telcos to con people into accepting crap service.

It’s an analogy not a direct 1:1 comparison. 
 

The whole point is that it’s a simple idea people are familiar with to explain the more complex idea of network infrastructure. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You’re overthinking the analogy. 

This certainly can be true. Most fibre operators put in dark fibre because digging is usually the most expensive part. 

It’s an analogy not a direct 1:1 comparison. 
 

The whole point is that it’s a simple idea people are familiar with to explain the more complex idea of network infrastructure. 

I just don't really like the road analogy because in most cases it more like increasing the speed limit than it is adding extra lanes.

There's a reason in networking you tend to prefer to talk about it in terms of "pipes", because its a closer analogy in most cases.

[Xplo1t]

1 hour ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I just don't really like the road analogy because in most cases it more like increasing the speed limit than it is adding extra lanes.

There's a reason in networking you tend to prefer to talk about it in terms of "pipes", because its a closer analogy in most cases.

Pipes are used in the analogy because they are typically round like cables, not because it's better in explaining the function.  You can knit pick either to death and in the end they are analogies.