> You’re basically guaranteeing a virtual switched circuit
Which means you need state (and the overhead that goes with it) for each connection within the network. That's horribly inefficient, and precisely the reason packet-switching won.
> An internet based on ATM would have been amazing.
No, we'd most likely be paying by the socket connection (as somebody has to pay for that state keeping overhead), which sounds horrible.
> You could now shave off another 20-100ms of latency for your FaceTime calls, which is subtle but game changing.
Maybe on congested Wi-Fi (where even circuit switching would struggle) or poorly managed networks (including shitty ISP-supplied routers suffering from horrendous bufferbloat). Definitely not on the majority of networks I've used in the past years.
> The horror of packet switching is all the buffering it needs [...]
The ideal buffer size is exactly the bandwidth-delay product. That's really not a concern these days anymore. If anything, buffers are much too large, causing unnecessary latency; that's where bufferbloat-aware scheduling comes in.
The cost for interactive video would be a requirement of 10x bandwidth, basically to cover idle time. Not efficient but not impossible, and definitely wouldn’t change ISP business models.
The latency benefit would outweigh the cost. Just absolutely instant video interaction.
It is fascinating to think that before digital circuits phone calls were accomplished by an end-to-end electrical connection between the handsets. What luxury that must have been! If only those ancestors of ours had modems and computers to use those excellent connections for low-latency gaming... :-)
You’re arguing for a reduction in quality in internet services. People do notice those things. It’s like claiming people don’t care about slimmer iPhones. They do.
Which means you need state (and the overhead that goes with it) for each connection within the network. That's horribly inefficient, and precisely the reason packet-switching won.
> An internet based on ATM would have been amazing.
No, we'd most likely be paying by the socket connection (as somebody has to pay for that state keeping overhead), which sounds horrible.
> You could now shave off another 20-100ms of latency for your FaceTime calls, which is subtle but game changing.
Maybe on congested Wi-Fi (where even circuit switching would struggle) or poorly managed networks (including shitty ISP-supplied routers suffering from horrendous bufferbloat). Definitely not on the majority of networks I've used in the past years.
> The horror of packet switching is all the buffering it needs [...]
The ideal buffer size is exactly the bandwidth-delay product. That's really not a concern these days anymore. If anything, buffers are much too large, causing unnecessary latency; that's where bufferbloat-aware scheduling comes in.