←back to thread

306 points carlos-menezes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lysace ◴[] No.41890996[source]
> We find that over fast Internet, the UDP+QUIC+HTTP/3 stack suffers a data rate reduction of up to 45.2% compared to the TCP+TLS+HTTP/2 counterpart.

Haven't read the whole paper yet, but below 600 Mbit/s is implied as being "Slow Internet" in the intro.

replies(9): >>41891071 #>>41891077 #>>41891146 #>>41891362 #>>41891480 #>>41891497 #>>41891574 #>>41891685 #>>41891800 #
Aurornis ◴[] No.41891146[source]
Internet access is only going to become faster. Switching to a slower transport just as Gigabit internet is proliferating would be a mistake, obviously.
replies(3): >>41891187 #>>41891205 #>>41891292 #
tomxor ◴[] No.41891187[source]
In terms of maximum available throughput it will obviously become greater. What's less clear is if the median and worst throughput available throughout a nation or the world will continue to become substantially greater.

It's simply not economical enough to lay fibre and put 5G masts everywhere (5G LTE bands covers less area due to being higher frequency, and so are also limited to being deployed in areas with a higher enough density to be economically justifiable).

replies(2): >>41891425 #>>41891795 #
nine_k ◴[] No.41891795[source]
Fiber is the most economical solution, it's compact, cheap, not susceptible to electromagnetic interference from thunderstorms, not interesting for metal thieves, etc.

Most importantly, it can be heavily over-provisioned for peanuts, so your cable is future-proof, and you will never have dig the same trenches again.

Copper only makes sense if you already have it.

replies(1): >>41892952 #
tomxor ◴[] No.41892952[source]
Then why isn't it everywhere, it's been practical for over 40 years now.
replies(2): >>41893719 #>>41900468 #
1. nine_k ◴[] No.41893719[source]
It is everywhere in new development. I remember Google buying tons of "dark fiber" capacity from telcos like 15 years ago; that fiber was likely laid for future needs 20-25 years ago. New apartment buildings in NYC just get fiber, with everything, including traditional "cable TV" with BNC connectors, powered by it.

But telcos have colossal copper networks, and they want to milk the last dollars from it before it has to be replaced, with digging and all. Hence price segmenting, with slower "copper" plans and premium "fiber" plans, obviously no matter if the building has fiber already.

Also, passive fiber interconnects have much higher losses than copper with RJ45s. This means you want to have no more than 2-3 connectors between pieces of active equipment, including from ISP to a building. This requires more careful planning, and this is why wiring past the apartment (or even office floor or a single-family house) level is usually copper Ethernet.