You Think Bandwidth Is Expensive NOW!?

Get ready to open your wallet.  There’s going to be a huge growth in data traffic and it’s going to force all the ISP’s, networks and data transporters to charge more.  Why?  Because it’s going to take so much bandwidth that Julius Genachowski – yes, I know he’s out but he's the bandwidth-for-everyone champion – will be (as they say in Kentucky) batting his eyes like a bullfrog in a hailstorm. 

 

And another “why?”  

 

Because people always find a “way around.”  Another term:  “unintended consequences.”

 

When met with a challenge, creative folks always find a way around.  This time the challenge is unwanted monitoring of messages and other communication.  And the way around? Well, from what I’m reading, it’s scary.   

 

Here’s the thinking – and I’m seeing it on blogs and posts all over the place…people encouraging others to send the systems into overload.  They want folks to send so many messages that those seeking to monitor them can’t possibly track them all – even with programs from Algorithm City they’ll be frustratingly unable to look at it all.  But in order to overload the system, it’ll overload the system.  Hello, master of doublespeak.  Do you know what you just wrote?  

 

Yeah.  That overload will definitely frustrate the lurkers but it’ll also cost all of us.  First off in slowed communication as existing networks bog down and then in higher costs as networks have to add bandwidth to accommodate the additional traffic.  And they’re talkin’ about not 10 times but 10 THOUSAND times – or possibly a hundred thousand or a million or more times.  

 

Then, add to that the prospect that legitimate emails and attachments will be buried inside longer messages, “Nah, nah-nah-na-na-nah – try to find the real message,” which may increase the size of existing messages by a factor of X, where X=”a lot bigger number than you think.”  For that, how big does the pipe have to be?  

 

If you think that Netflix® video is slow now, just wait.  

 

What’s the real fix?  Take away the lurkers.  Let the medium run without the fear that someone’s monitoring it all.  Set rules that are very plain – and enforced – that limit lurking and monitoring.  So, regardless of which side of the lurker ops you stand, security or intrusion, be ready to spend some extra dough until the monitors return to sanity.

Dealing with the Growing Appetite for Bandwidth

Courtesy: K-Tel

Once upon a time I worked with some guys who created a faux K-Tel offer, “…call now, and you’ll get a copy of every song ever recorded.  That’s right.  Every song, every recording.  So you don’t forget, call before midnight tonight…”

In a related (I’ll tie them together eventually) incident, last week, an IT tech made an interesting, if not superficial recommendation that we start paying by the byte for bandwidth.  "That'll make you think twice before watching 'The Beaver' for the fourth time in a day."  OK, I'll tell you that I'm a firm believer in having skin in the game.  Give stuff away for free or on an all-you-can-eat basis and watch the waste.  Prime example:  go to an event with an open bar!

But, back to K-Tel.  Think about it.  If you were able to get a copy of every song, every video and similar content and keep it with you, that’d definitely cut down on your bandwidth usage, wouldn’t it?

You may not know it, but forms of that are happening all the time.  Various arrangements of store/forward are employed by content suppliers regularly.  For example, if you are on telco copper, some systems, when a particular VOD movie is ordered for the first time, the content is downloaded to the server at your local CO.  It stays on that server – for a specific period of time or, in some cases, in perpetuity – and is as close as that CO for the next person…or you, if you’re watching that episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle again.

It’s coming to home in a number of ways.  You know about SlingBox and RoKu and similar devices.  They have some of the store/forward capabilities.  Of course, if you use SlingBox for its main purpose, you’re going to need bandwidth between the box and your location.  But, the idea is, shorten the distance that data must travel to get to you.  One way or another, that’ll reduce overall bandwidth.

Then, a variety of PC and Mac devices like Time Capsule and some combination of media server/distribution system will allow you to store a lot of content locally, reducing bandwidth needed to the outside world.  It will mean higher capabilities in the home, like –n enabled WiFi but if that K-Tel offer put everything on your local machine, what a difference.

And what’s left?  Well, the hundreds of terabytes of content created every day have to get to you.  How else will you see the latest Mentos/Coke attempt?  But again, store/forward can put the materials a lot closer to you than they currently are. Yes.  Another cut in required bandwidth.  Don’t forget current movie releases.  As theaters go digital, they could easily install servers that allow store/forward.  It flies in the face of protecting digital rights since, somehow, theaters seem to be content leaks, but the technology’s right.

Here’s a question.  If you had to pay per byte from your broadband supplier, would you agree to “share” with others?  The scenario goes like this:  This morning I watched a 3 minute clip of Black Eyed Peas.  Heck, make it on sharpening lawn mower blades if that makes you feel better.  Because I’m enrolled as a “sharer”, it stays on my PDA/phone/tablet for a period of time.  I’m sitting on the porch and my next door neighbor wants to watch the same clip.  (Poor guy.  His mower is a mess.  And his lawn...)  He hits “download” and the return data says, “Hey! It’s right there next to you,” and it steers his tablet to your phone to get it.  Does that work for you?  Are you willing to do that?  Makes sense.  It’s right there.  Your neighbor wants it.  If you can pay a reduced rate for your download and he gets to do the same, too, does that make sense?

Don’t read any bias into the question. Ignore security issues which can be dealt with. And look at the grand scheme.  Even digital broadcast could be accessed from your neighbor's device.  In fact, just about anything that more than one person would want to watch/listen to/investigate fits the idea.  I really want to know:  would you do it? 

If not, and demands keep up, bandwidth can’t.  I’ve written about it before but as legislators continue to pass regulations against the laws of physics, we’re headed for a mess where bits leaving a server will look like the bridge scene from Godzilla.

The Reripper, or "Rip it Again, Sam."

The Reripper

I was listening to a weekend radio show - a combination tech advice/infomercial half hour on audio video. 

I don't often agree with their suggestions like $40-a-foot speaker cable (the stuff that in true double-blind tests showed no significant difference from good old #12 stranded).  But they got to talking about ripping instead of ripping off.

Their point:  Everyone is going back and ripping their audio and video.  New, faster technology, better compression and greater flexibility are the main reasons.

I had to smile.

I'm betting we're all reripping our media.  I never was a fan of lossy recording but I have to admit that my initial rips of CD's were in mp3.  The reason?  Most radio automation is centered on that format.  Hey!  Don't let the word out.  If people start figuring out that CD's go to mp3 then to iBoc, they may abandon HD forever.

A little balance:  I know a lot of non-tech folks who loaded their iPods with music at 64, or worse, 48 kbps.  I feel a tinge of guilt even calling that music.  But they did get thousands of songs on their players.  Some still listen that way.  Those folks won't recognize the artifacts that come with the signal path that I described above.  Many of us, though, will and do hear the difference.

So, to the ultimate end of best quality audio, I'm reripping everything at full bandwidth, uncompressed.  I practiced this with vinyl to hard drive, giving Adobe Audition its best shot at working when I applied corrections.  Then, I started with CD's some time ago after laying a big fat scratch down the side of Patricia Barber - well, a CD of hers, that is.  When you realize that even the best mp3 has something missing - even though at my age, I may never notice - you feel like you're cheating yourself.

So I'm one of their unwashed...feeding them all in again and doing the full processing.  Those of you who have done so all along (I can only name one person), feel free to send me the Bronx cheer.  Anyone else, get 'em stacked up and let the reripping begin.

I only have a couple of suggestions:

Vinyl:  Don't transfer on a bad stylus.  Don't transfer on a "DJ" stylus.  Don't increase the stylus force to try to track a warped or scratched record.  Think first.  If the record's a mess, move it to last in the pile.  If it's gummy or dirty, clean it.  There are some great vinyl washers still floating around. 

Some folks say, no, transfer it first, that way you'll have something.  True enough, if you can afford to replace a stylus damaged by gunk or from being rattled out of a record's grooves.  If you want to ensure that you at least get something, switch to that conical stylus and have at it.  Then clean the record and get back to the elliptical gem.  But remember, a vertical, conical stylus tracking at 6 grams is a lot like dragging a 10 penny nail around the grooves and future passes will have reduced quality.

After recording, I keep two copies - the dry or unprocessed right-from-the-disc copy and the Audition-processed one.  It's fun listening to the processed version and the clean sound that comes from click, pop, and surface noise removal.  But I have some great stuff that is filled with noise - parties 40 or more years ago where an out-of-uniform gorilla was flipping records on his Garrard grinder - and I guess I'm just used to that sound.  In fact, We're only in it for the Money sounds shallow without the wushes and ticks.  Keeping that in mind, sometimes you can add a little processing without destroying the sound.  Duh.

CD's:  Check out the CD for scratches.  If you're reading this, you know how to clean one.  Here again, you may want to try an initial transfer without cleaning to see what you get.  However, if you're monitoring errors and see a lot, a second pass, after cleaning, is a good idea.

Cassettes: Cassettes can be fun to transfer.  First, demagnetize the heads.  A straight pass works first time around, provided the tape hasn't been stretched.  If it has, try this - unspool about 50 feet onto the ground.  Carefully pull it across an ice cube at abouts one foot per second.  This should shrink the tape.  Then carefully wind it back... OK, listen.  DON'T do that!  Toss the tape. 

But if it's generally OK, do a pass and see how it sounds.  Do a full fast-forward/rewind to exercise the cassette.  From there, you can EQ it, apply noise reduction or whatever you please.  There are some who will tell you to EQ it going in to the computer.  You sure can but what you get is what you get and you can't go back without hauling out the cassette player again.  Yeah, I have a couple of tricks for jammed cassettes or those with high friction or bad tape paths...lemme know if you want them.

I'm almost done with the CD's.   Full resolution, full backup, even for the stuff I don't even like.  Hey! Tastes change.  Then, you bet, I'm cloning the drive and storing it somewhere else.  Remember the story about the guy who bought a suit with two pair of pants - and burned a hole in the coat?

Photos:  I don't think anyone has imported stills at a lower resolution than the original digital file.  If so, you may want to go back and redo those...if you still have them on the camera disc.  Where the big change has come is in scanning flat art.  Really high quality scanners and big drives have made way for 1200, 4800, even 9600 dpi and more.  (Check if you're going to buy.  Is that true resolution or interpolated?) 

If you scanned in photos at 300 dpi that may be OK, depending on use.  But if you have some good 8x10 publicity shots or news photos, you may want the highest resolution...in case Angie Harmon wants to blow up the digital version to check a license plate number.

Video:  It's software/hardware combination. I've found a couple that really work.  And I ingest videos at the highest rate possible (I mean, my machine ingests them).  I have a high quality VHS player and commercial interface and hardware.  But even with somewhat lower quality acquisition software, you can get HiDef files. 

Working out of your Element

Sometimes we get asked to perform tasks outside our job description – or outside our area of expertise. Most of us, smartly, investigate the job and, if we can do it, we just do. But what happens when you’re totally outside your area.

OK, friends…this one’s kinda political. Specifically about politicians and appointees who think that “just because it’s a good thought, it should be implemented.”

Now, I’m not against implementing good ideas. But when someone comes up with one of those “good ideas” which is outside their area of expertise, it spells danger. Case in point:

The FCC continues its push for reassignment of broadcast television spectrum to personal services like smart phones and PDA’s. “Everyone should have broadband,” is the thinking. And, yes, it’s admirable. And in support of it, Richard H. Thayer, professor at a major university, filed a story with the New York Times. Now, I do give him credit for his statement that it, “…sounds too good to be true…” because it is.

Professor Thayer makes the point that there are a lot of folks who aren’t on cable or satellite who could be converted – by forcing the systems to provide low cost service – thereby freeing the broadcast spectrum. He also tries to draw a picture of broadband being more efficient than broadcast.

This is a perfect example of someone working outside their area of expertise. And, yes, it’s dangerous.

First, think about the physics. It is evident that Professor Thayer doesn't understand the "economics" of spectrum allocation. (The Buried Treasure in Your TV Dial, New York Times, 2-27-10).

Do the math on the spectrum requirements for people in 1200 autos, 2 C&NW trains and two "El" trains on the Kennedy Expressway in his city and you will see that there isn't enough spectrum space available even including that currently allocated to broadcast TV.

Then do the math on efficiencies. In New York City, a program with a 5 rating is reaching about 550,000 households or (with an average VPVH of 1.5) 825,000 individuals. Divide that 6 megahertz TV channel by the 825,000 and you get a spectral "cost" of about 7.3 Hz*. Not kilohertz, just good old Hertz! Now stack that up against the multi-kilohertz to megahertz of bandwidth required PER PERSON under Professor Thayer's proposal and you'll quickly see his tremendous error.

*I’m being generous since the full six megahertz is only used in the 1080i HD mode.

Once again, good ideas need to be tempered with reality. Otherwise, you may be creating rules against the laws of physics. Hey, if that’s possible, let’s outlaw auto accidents and heart attacks, too.

We live through this regularly as legislators pass regulations without looking at the real world. Today, for example, automakers were informed that their new MPG target is 54. Think they’ll make it? It’s double what the rules are today. Might happen but the laws of physics say it has to be with small, light – and potentially unsafe – cars with fewer weight-adding amenities and no pickup. Or with electric cars, right? Infinite MPG – while they push the pollution caused by coal. Again, politicians think electricity is free…and they don’t realize that there’s actually a real live formula for converting horsepower to watts. That law against hurricanes must be just around the corner.

It’s a shame Professor Thayer didn’t run his idea past a truly distinguished professor from his same school, Prof. Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics. I doubt he would have let Thayer’s work out of the building.