# Is the internet on the brink of collapse?



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2015)

I dont know how other people feel about it, but, for me the WWW has become quite important. 

The Royal Society https://royalsociety.org/ are set to discuss data demand issues and where do we go from here.

_The deployment to market is about six to eight years behind the research lab - so within eight years that will be it, we can't get any more data in._






What the Internet really looks like: Each yellow line is one of the major fiber-optic cables that carry Internet traffic around the world. These are the 'plumbing' of the internet, and many are routed undersea



The cables and fibre optics that send information to our laptops, smartphones and tablets will have reached their limit.
Experts warn science has reached its limit and that fibre optics can take no more data from a single optical fibre.
The internet companies could always put down additional cables - but that will mean higher bills. 
Experts say we could be faced with paying double or will have to put up with an internet that switches off intermittently.
Storing information in large 'server farms', rather than transferring it, would take the strain off the network. 

The internet is heading towards a 'capacity crunch' as it fails to keep up with our demand for ever faster data, scientists have warned.
Leading engineers, physicists and telecoms firms have been summoned to a meeting at London's Royal Society later this month, to discuss what can be done to avert a web crisis.

The cables and fibre optics that send information to our laptops, smartphones and tablets will have reached their limit within eight years, experts warn.

So far, engineers have managed to keep ahead of demand, increasing internet speeds 50-fold in the last decade alone.
n 2005, broadband internet had a maximum speed of 2 Megabits per second. Today 100Mb-per-second download speeds are available in many parts of the country.

But experts warn that science has reached its limit - that fibre optics can take no more data.

The result, according to Professor Andrew Ellis, who has co-organised the Royal Society meeting on May 11, will be higher internet bills.
Professor Ellis, of Aston University in Birmingham, told the Daily Mail: 'We are starting to reach the point in the research lab where we can't get any more data into a single optical fibre.
'The intensity is the same as if you were standing right up against the sun.

'The deployment to market is about six to eight years behind the research lab - so within eight years that will be it, we can't get any more data in.

'Demand is increasingly catching up. It is growing again and again, and it is harder and harder to keep ahead.

'We have done very well for many years to keep ahead. But we are getting to that point where we can't keep going for ever
The professor warned that it also takes a huge amount of electricity to transfer data.

'The internet uses the same energy as the airline industry - about two per cent of a developed country's entire energy consumption,' he said.

'That is just for the data transfer. If you then add the computers, the phones, the television, then it is up to eight per cent of the country's energy consumption.'

Every time internet speed increases, the electricity it takes to transfer the power also rises.

Professor Ellis said: 'That is quite a huge problem. If we have multiple fibres to keep up, we are going to run out of energy in about 15 years.




Not everyone, however, is convinced of the severity of the situation.

Andrew Lord, head of optical research at BT and a visiting professor at Essex University, insists scientists will come up with a solution.
Professor Lord, who will address the Royal Society meeting, said storing information in large 'server farms', rather than transferring it, would take the strain off the network.
'The internet is not about to collapse,' he said. 'It has a lot of bandwidth left in it.'
A spokesman for the Royal Society said: 'Communication networks face a potentially disastrous 'capacity crunch' as demand for data online outstrips the capacity of the optical fibres that carry internet signals.

'This meeting brings together experts to discuss why we're heading towards a capacity crunch, what can be done to avert it, and the impact if we do nothing: data rationing, the end of net neutrality and rising costs for going online.'


----------



## qubit (May 2, 2015)

If I can't access TPU because of this then my life would stop.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2015)

Before the internet, there was the ARPANET





want to know more........ 40 maps that explain the internet..... have a click, its interesting.
http://www.vox.com/a/internet-maps


----------



## Fourstaff (May 2, 2015)

I don't know about US, but East Asia has been laying cables down like mad.


----------



## The Von Matrices (May 2, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Experts say we could be faced with paying double or will have to put up with an internet that switches off intermittently.


That seems a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?  Even in the worst case scenario, there would just be congestion and slow transfers, not a complete disconnection.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2015)

In the UK there is a massive rollout of optic cabling.  The Govt has prioritised rural areas in the hope that it will stimulate employment.

I think the question being posed at the Royal Society is whether current planning will cope with future expansion, especially in areas of large population with huge demand.



The Von Matrices said:


> Even in the worst case scenario, there would just be congestion and slow transfers, not a complete disconnection.



please dont remind me of the dialup days


----------



## DinaAngel (May 2, 2015)

I think these so called experts is being paid to say this. If we don't allow the Internet to grow then bad stuff happens. War etc.

Fusion reactors are soon done and then power problem is gone. First one is being made in France.
50 mW into it and 500 mW out

People are just greedy and lazy
the cables aren't that expensive.
it costs more to build roads than to lay fiber from USA to the uk


----------



## W1zzard (May 2, 2015)

No worries, internet = tons of money, so they will build new capacity - to make more money, or if capacity really ends up short, bandwidth prices for hosting will go up a few percentage points. market economy and capitalism to the rescue


----------



## DinaAngel (May 2, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> No worries, internet = tons of money, so they will build new capacity - to make more money, or if capacity really ends up short, bandwidth prices for hosting will go up a few percentage points. market economy and capitalism to the rescue


Germany got such terrible internet speeds. Will it ever change?


----------



## W1zzard (May 2, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> Germany got such terrible internet speeds. Will it ever change?


The article is not really about end-user connectivity, but backbones, especially intercontinental ones. My connection here is 50 mbit, the lowest available, i could get 200 mbit if i wanted. if i could save a few bucks i'd even be happy with 16 mbit.

in my old place the maximum is like 2 mbit/s, that sucks, but was still usable


----------



## qubit (May 2, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> Fusion reactors are soon done and then power problem is gone. First one is being made in France.


I wish it was that easy. The French one is the ITER prototype which is currently under construction. There are still lots of hurdles to go through for a design that's commercially viable and will last for years, unfortunately. The basic problem is that the intense heat of the plasma destroys the reactor walls too quickly.



W1zzard said:


> in my old place the maximum is like 2 mbit/s, that sucks, but was still usable


I remember my first broadband connection in 2002. It was a mere 0.5Mb/s, but it felt like a sports car!


----------



## vega22 (May 2, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> In the UK there is a massive rollout of optic cabling.  The Govt has prioritised rural areas in the hope that it will stimulate employment.



how much fibre has bt really laid?

from what i have seen they have only put it down in places where they already had total internet coverage and high population.

none of the people i know from the more remote corners have had anything more than vague promises of the "near future" variety.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2015)

I'm far more concerned about processors than network cabling.  Worst case scenario, we can always lay more cables to increase capacity.  The problem is the switches and routers.  There's only so much data they can handle so fast.  If process technology doesn't keep charging forward, we're going to have open highways with congested intersections.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> how much fibre has bt really laid?
> 
> from what i have seen they have only put it down in places where they already had total internet coverage and high population.
> 
> none of the people i know from the more remote corners have had anything more than vague promises of the "near future" variety.













 The guys doing the work 100ms from my house.....very rural remote West Wales. Only 800 people live in my village.

A thing about subaqua cabling networks. Including a CNN interview. Interesting, not much to read.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/04/tech/gallery/internet-undersea-cables/


----------



## AsRock (May 2, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> I think these so called experts is being paid to say this. If we don't allow the Internet to grow then bad stuff happens. War etc.
> 
> Fusion reactors are soon done and then power problem is gone. First one is being made in France.
> 50 mW into it and 500 mW out
> ...


but to put the cable there takes digging up the roads.  And i bet the cable that is placed on the sea floor is nothing cheap.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2015)

The last cable laid under the Pacific cost $ 300 million

https://www.telegeography.com/


----------



## Aquinus (May 2, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The problem is the switches and routers. There's only so much data they can handle so fast. If process technology doesn't keep charging forward, we're going to have open highways with congested intersections.


I think that comes down the the same argument as the cabling though. If they really run out of switching capacity it means that they need to segment their network more and add more routers at different parts of the network. It's the same argument with bandwidth and DOCSIS. You can provide 1Gbps on DOCSIS 3.x, the question is how many more nodes and intermediate switches will need to be added to accommodate the load. Network traffic, even more so on tier 1 and 2 networks, tend to be designed in a way to can scale horizontally if they were to decide to build their network up. Although any upgrades cost money and in a capitalistic society where ISPs have a chokehold on certain markets, there isn't a whole lot of incentive. That's the big problem IMHO.

The only down side might be (slightly) increased latency due to more routers and hops across the internet, but I would happily give up 7ms and 115Mbps to get 11-13ms and 300Mbps, but that's me.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 2, 2015)

Google will Save us with their Zepplins and don't forget Facebook with their R101 

Maybe amazon will fit Pico Cells into their fleet of Delivery Drones ( Amazon PRIME customers only )

Hope is not lost quite yet snigger


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I think that comes down the the same argument as the cabling though. If they really run out of switching capacity it means that they need to segment their network more and add more routers at different parts of the network. It's the same argument with bandwidth and DOCSIS. You can provide 1Gbps on DOCSIS 3.x, the question is how many more nodes and intermediate switches will need to be added to accommodate the load. Network traffic, even more so on tier 1 and 2 networks, tend to be designed in a way to can scale horizontally if they were to decide to build their network up. Although any upgrades cost money and in a capitalistic society where ISPs have a chokehold on certain markets, there isn't a whole lot of incentive. That's the big problem IMHO.
> 
> The only down side might be (slightly) increased latency due to more routers and hops across the internet, but I would happily give up 7ms and 115Mbps to get 11-13ms and 300Mbps, but that's me.


I believe OC-768 is the largest deployed and it is 40 Gb/s.  If you look at top of the line networking equipment, that number comes up frequently.


----------



## Aquinus (May 2, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I believe OC-768 is the largest deployed and it is 40 Gb/s.  If you look at top of the line networking equipment, that number comes up frequently.


I get that, but the consumer isn't going to getting SONET OC-768 fiber to their house, but I diverge. My point is that regardless of bandwidth you have the traveling salesman problem because we're talking about a graph, not a tree, of nodes at tier 1 and 2 networks. Internet traffic doesn't always take the same path across the internet, it's important to remember that because it can (and will) adjust if a path become less advantageous to take. That's really my only point that I'm trying to make. I would rather give up a little bit of latency to get a lot more bandwidth, that's it.


----------



## qubit (May 2, 2015)

"Is the internet on the brink of collapse?"

Peak internet?


----------



## cadaveca (May 2, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The last cable laid under the Pacific cost $ 300 million
> 
> https://www.telegeography.com/


Let's put the money into perspective. 30 million customers (say, a country like Canada), paying $10 a month, pays for that cable in a mere 30 days. SO in a year, $10 per customer can lay 12 new cables across the ocean.  The idea that costs will go up or any of that other nonsense is FUD.

Break it up to 6 billion people on the planet = pennies per person. The internet is here to stay, and it isn't going to go "poof".


----------



## redeye (May 2, 2015)

the diagram is missing the arctic cable... the one from japan to the u.k.  going though the Canadian arctic, (northwest passage).  being laid as we speak... to be operational in 2017, testing in 2016...

this cable will cost any where form 400 million to 600 x2 depending if it gets connected to seattle...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2015)

It currently takes roughly 230 milliseconds for a packet to go from London to Tokyo; the new cables will reduce this by 30% to 170ms. Currently these routes racking up around 15,000 miles. It’s only 10,000 miles (16,000km) across the Arctic Ocean, and with fewer land crossings.







A cross section of a modern submarine communications cable.
1 – Polyethylene
2 – Mylar tape
3 – Stranded steel wires
4 – Aluminium water barrier
5 – Polycarbonate
6 – Copper or aluminium tube
7 – Petroleum jelly
8 – Optical fibers






Heres a little something about @redeye  's cable.......less than a minute to read, prices and stuff.

http://www.dailywireless.org/2012/03/21/intercontental-arctic-fiber/

and Google it seems have been especially busy

http://www.dailywireless.org/2014/08/11/google-joins-new-submarine-cable-partnership/


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 2, 2015)

Wow, talk about FUD ...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Wow, talk about FUD ...



could be....or it could be an interesting topic for discussion and learning. The Royal Society has always been a very respected institution.


----------



## DinaAngel (May 3, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The last cable laid under the Pacific cost $ 300 million
> 
> https://www.telegeography.com/


Yeah and it costs up to a billion to just do Roads. 300 million would cover like 4 miles of road


----------



## DinaAngel (May 3, 2015)

I wish norway would do theyr own cable to the uk. Btw good night


----------



## Solaris17 (May 3, 2015)

internet goes down reboot DHCP server problem solved.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 3, 2015)

Solaris17 said:


> internet goes down reboot DHCP server problem solved.


Internet got a Virus  Nuke DC     "" Sounds better "" 

awh you edited


----------



## dorsetknob (May 3, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> I wish norway would do theyr own cable to the uk. Btw good night




Its under construction

*HVDC Norway–Great Britain*

They Just got to sort out the power line kit for Networking


----------



## twilyth (May 3, 2015)

I wonder if any of the mux'ing protocols use circular polarization yet.  If not, that should be good for at least an order of magnitude increase.

Anyway, porn built the internet so it's really just a matter of coming up with the next big porn fetish.  My vote goes to shokushu goukan.


----------



## remixedcat (May 3, 2015)

it will if people won't stop using windows vista, realplayer, IE, and netscrape buttigator!


----------



## hat (May 3, 2015)

Must be all the cat videos on youtube. Hopefully h.265 becomes standard soon so we can all experience more HD cat videos at a fraction of the bandwidth.


----------



## twilyth (May 3, 2015)

hat said:


> Must be all the cat videos on youtube. Hopefully h.265 becomes standard soon so we can all experience more HD cat videos at a fraction of the bandwidth.


You laugh but there's a show on Animal Planet called "America's next cat star" - sort of like "Next top model" from what I can tell.

edit - not that I watch such things (meaning next top model - of course. )


----------



## vega22 (May 6, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The guys doing the work 100ms from my house.....very rural remote West Wales. Only 800 people live in my village.




dude you're the 1st person i have bumped into outside a city who has(is) been upgraded so far. only been doing it for 2 years now?


----------



## Vayra86 (May 6, 2015)

I am not really worried about this problem. The economical damage would be tremendous, so there is bound to be a solution in time.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The guys doing the work 100ms from my house.....very rural remote West Wales. Only 800 people live in my village.



And the Village's name is *Royston Vasey  *

@CAPSLOCKSTUCK, shops in " The "Local Shop "


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 6, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> And the Village's name is *Royston Vasey  *
> 
> @CAPSLOCKSTUCK, shops in " The "Local Shop "



Wrong village



Spoiler










wrong shop too.  but as you can see, i am quite relaxed when i am out shopping. I take it all in my stride


----------



## Debat0r (May 6, 2015)

I think you're exaggerating the problem a lot.
Also:


> The last cable laid under the Pacific cost $ 300 million


Big deal. _One_ cable company made a _profit_ of almost $500 million last year, which was a year in which it wasn't doing all that well. 
You're not telling me that we can't afford to lay cables like this.
Source


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 6, 2015)

Debat0r said:


> I think you're exaggerating the problem a lot.
> Also:
> 
> Big deal. _One_ cable company made a _profit_ of almost $500 million last year, which was a year in which it wasn't doing all that well.
> ...



Noone is saying that laying cables is the hard part, i know we are talking millions but on the scale of things it is nothing. I think  $ 300 mill is a drop in the ocean for a subaquatic cable that crosses the Pacific.

what @Aquinus said i think is more of an issue



Aquinus said:


> I think that comes down the the same argument as the cabling though. If they really run out of switching capacity it means that they need to segment their network more and add more routers at different parts of the network. It's the same argument with bandwidth and DOCSIS. You can provide 1Gbps on DOCSIS 3.x, the question is how many more nodes and intermediate switches will need to be added to accommodate the load. Network traffic, even more so on tier 1 and 2 networks, tend to be designed in a way to can scale horizontally if they were to decide to build their network up. Although any upgrades cost money and in a capitalistic society where ISPs have a chokehold on certain markets, there isn't a whole lot of incentive. That's the big problem IMHO.
> 
> The only down side might be (slightly) increased latency due to more routers and hops across the internet, but I would happily give up 7ms and 115Mbps to get 11-13ms and 300Mbps, but that's me.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

laying Cables is Just as difficult now  as it was at the end of the 19 century / start of the 20 century when Britain started to Cable the World  ( FOR the EMPIRE ).
Same Problems Exist. often Still the same solution works.

when you consider the alternative is Space orientated ie Satellite uplink/downlink that in itself has its own problems

Ground links/cables are still the preferred choice  Maintenance is cheaper and easyer

One CME hitting those Satellites and their totaly fried maneuvering fuel only lasts a few years 

If a Satellite fails you just have to launch a replacement (if you can find a clear orbit)
Cable you can repair 
Cable will last Decades longer than Satellite


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 6, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> laying Cables is Just as difficult now  as it was at the end of the 19 century / start of the 20 century when Britain started to Cable the World  ( FOR the EMPIRE ).
> Same Problems Exist. often Still the same solution works.
> 
> when you consider the alternative is Space orientated ie Satellite uplink/downlink that in itself has its own problems
> ...




A satellite/cable guy, a friend of mine, visited last night....extolling the virtues of satellite web, excellent up and down speeds, however a ping of more than 400ms makes gaming much too laggy in his opinion. Great for bringing access to remote areas.
he was talking specifically about this village.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrenny


which is a lot closer to "civilisation" than where i live.  BT (through cost) will not lay fibre to that village so the locals have bought into  a satellite system installed by one inhabitant, i think he said they pay about £ 10.00 month for 10/10 speeds.
The initial installation is expensive but living in a rural idyll is worth more than money in my opinion.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Wrong village
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I Stand Corrected the Village of Royston Vasey is in the north of England and not Wales


----------



## DinaAngel (May 6, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> A satellite/cable guy, a friend of mine, visited last night....extolling the virtues of satellite web, excellent up and down speeds, however a ping of more than 400ms makes gaming much too laggy in his opinion. Great for bringing access to remote areas.
> he was talking specifically about this village.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrenny
> 
> ...


Don't get sat internet. The ping lol
Almost better to move to the moon and get sat net.

Nah we Will probably make the moon our wifi planet. Soo strong antennas to beam earth having solar panels on the back side of the moon as its allways directed at the sun. 
Servers should be put on the moon so internet capacity problem solved


----------



## Nosada (May 6, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> the back side of the moon as its allways directed at the sun


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

@DinaAngel
Build something like this in orbit / _Lagrange point_
would be better than on the moon




DinaAngel said:


> the back side of the moon as its allways directed at the sun.



that is something of a myth  ( nah its blatantly untrue )  Look at some Celestial mechanics for a better idea of the sun lit faces of the moon

Thoughts like what your saying are akin to saying the dark side of the sun   (well it must be dark because we only see the light side)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 6, 2015)

I dont think the moon will ever be an option

The average distance between the moon's surface and the earth's surface is 380,500 kilometers(km). Light is an electromagnetic wave and travels at a speed roughly 3 x 10^8 meters/second(m/s) in a vacuum. Since distance = speed*time the time it takes for the laser pulse to travel from the the earth to the moon is, time = distance/speed. For round trip time = 2*(distance/speed). So the calculation is: time=2*(38500 x 10^3 m / 3 x 10^8 m/s) = 2.56 s.
Thats one hell of a ping.

The system i mentioned before uses a geostationary satellite at about 23 deg. I did ask my mate for the name of it but he couldnt remember. He did tell me that the guy who bought the system uses it like the wifi hotspots in the early days of www  you pay for the password to access his system but the link from his installation to your router is cabled.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

Lots of places in DEEP Rural America do this  as its the only way to get any form of Broadband

Some Rural Towns in America are way to far for the TeLco to bother with broadband or Cable Tv /internet Sometimes even Telephone fixed or Mobile

Our Au buddies have it even worse in the Outback

Yes @CAPSLOCKSTUCK    There are worse places than Wales


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 6, 2015)

@DinaAngel


Should we build a base on the 'DARK' side of the moon? Esa wants international team to colonise the far side of lunar surface

Incoming chief Johann-Dietrich Wörner made the comments in Colorado
He wants a permanent international moon station to succeed the ISS
And with it on the far side, it could perform key science and experiments
This includes using lunar resources and observing the universe without interference from Earth
Mr Wörner, who will become Director General of Esa on 30 June, made the comments at the Space Foundation’s National Space Symposium in mid-April in Colorado.
‘It seems to be appropriate to propose a permanent moon station as the successor of ISS,’ he said, reported Space.com.


The moon is tidally locked to Earth, which means that we always see the same face pointing towards our planet.
This means that the far side - often erroneously called the ‘dark’ side of the moon, although both sides receive equal amounts of light - is not in the line of sight of Earth.
If astronauts were to be based there, they would therefore need a system of relay communications satellites to stay in contact with Earth.

@dorsetknob _ There are worse places than Wales   .....  _Dorset?


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

The main Reason they have given for a Farside base is Science  Electronic interference from Earth would be Blocked by the mass of the moon



Spoiler:  Another Reason 



All the Trophy size Clangers live on the Far Side so the Hunting is Better there


----------



## DinaAngel (May 6, 2015)

Nosada said:


>



its not a myth lol, one side of the moon is allways directed to the sun









http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question3.html

or are you saying you dont believe nasa?
the world isnt in 2D
im sorry but this loses my respect, its a childs thing. i learnt it as a child

the stupid people tought ooh it must be a myth and then people started believing it!


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

Face plant with 2 hands

top picture 
Sun > earth > full moon on nearside Correct   = Far side moon is DARK (no Sunlight)

Moon travels 180 degree's orbit = New Moon   Far side is in Sunlight Near side is Dark ( no Sun light)

Therefore Your Still wrong 

Depending where the moon is in orbit around the earth the near side (which is *Tidally* locked) goes through its phases  ie new 1st quater full and waning

The Far side Also has the same phases   we just do not see them from earth
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=T...gKAC&ved=0CBsQvwUoAA&biw=922&bih=529&dpr=1.09
Can i now un face palm myself


----------



## DinaAngel (May 6, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Face plant with 2 hands
> 
> top picture
> Sun > earth > full moon on nearside Correct   = Far side moon is DARK (no Sunlight)
> ...


i didnt mean to say dark side of the moon, i meant to say One side
u must not have refreshed as i changed it.

also i misunderstood what you wrote at first so my bad. we are both correct

also to fix ping issue from moon to us. we could use the coherence principle
atoms linked that move instantly to eachother.
its a bunch of particles that does this, that can be galaxys apart and still move without delay


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

Far side   dark side near side front Back  it dont matter as the moon orbits the earth the whole moon receives sunlight sooner and later
we still only see light hitting the *Tidally* locked face   facing the Earth  go through its phases ie new 1st quater full and waning

the Side we do not see from earth   still  gets illuminated

So your YET Still wrong

Wilki
The idiomatic phrase "dark side of the Moon" does not refer to "dark" as in the absence of light, but rather as the unknown, as until humans were able to send spacecraft around the Moon, this area had never been seen. While many misconstrue this to think that the "dark side" receives little to no sunlight, in reality, both the near and far sides receive (on average) almost equal amounts of light directly from the Sun. However, the near side also receives sunlight reflected from the Earth, known as earthshine. Earthshine does not reach the area of the far side which cannot be seen from Earth. Only during a full moon (as viewed from Earth) is the whole far side of the Moon physically dark. The word "dark" may also refer to the fact that communication with spacecraft can be blocked while on the far side of the Moon, during Apollo space missions for example.[1]

Now if the MOON was *Tidally* locked  To the SUN   you would be correct
PLEASE WATCH THIS
http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2015/feb/07/nasa-dark-side-moon-video
Please can i un doublefaceplant myself


----------



## DinaAngel (May 6, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Far side   dark side near side front Back  it dont matter as the moon orbits the earth the whole moon receives sunlight sooner and later
> we still only see light hitting the *Tidally* locked face   facing the Earth  go through its phases ie new 1st quater full and waning
> 
> the Side we do not see from earth   still  gets illuminated
> ...


your misunderstanding me, we mean the same thing


----------



## dorsetknob (May 6, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> its not a myth lol, one side of the moon is allways directed to the sun





DinaAngel said:


> your misunderstanding me, we mean the same thing



No  i did not misunderstand you

you are still wrong  
How can one side of the moon always face the sun  if the whole surface gets equal sunlight over the rotation of 1 orbit

If one side always faced the sun it would have to rotate in its orbit of earth in order to keep one face towards the sun 

Due to tidal locking, the Moon rotates on its axis in the same rotational direction as Earth in 29.5 Earth days which is the same number of Earth days that it takes the Moon to orbit the Earth. Thus, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.


----------



## twilyth (May 7, 2015)

The lock isn't perfect though



> The orbit and the rotation aren't perfectly matched, however. The moon travels around the Earth in an elliptical orbit, a slightly stretched-out circle. When the moon is closest to Earth, its rotation is slower than its journey through space, allowing observers to see an additional 8 degrees on the eastern side. When the moon is farthest, the rotation is faster, so an additional 8 degrees are visible on the western side. [The Moon: 10 Surprising Lunar Facts]


----------



## mastrdrver (May 7, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Wow, talk about FUD ...



I agree.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> could be....or it could be an interesting topic for discussion and learning. The Royal Society has always been a very respected institution.



What exactly has this "Royal Society" made?

Speculation is only worth something when your actually manufacturing components that the "internet" uses. Otherwise it's futile and worthless.

There's more then enough room out there to handle even more.

Quick fact: AT&T's (the old AT&T not the new ATT) Uverse ended up about 15 years late to the party thanks to the FCC and their wise wisdom. It was planned to launch in about 1990. Thanks to lawsuits from the cable companies and the small Bell's, the FCC decided to that AT&T had to put Uverse on hold because it would put others out of business. AT&T was planning to run fiber-to-the-home for free all houses/businesses that wanted Uverse. Instead the FCC stepped in with their great oversight wisdom and said no. I ended up moving to Kansas, instead of New Hampshire, because my dad was an electrical engineer for AT&T at the time. When he retired in 2001/2002, they had done the research to figure out that there was enough room (once all the equipment for a land line was removed) to make it so you could stay on your home wifi as long as you were in about a 30 mile radius from your home wifi.


----------



## BumbleBee (May 7, 2015)

burn it all to the ground.


----------



## xvi (May 7, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Heres a little something about @redeye  's cable.......less than a minute to read, prices and stuff.
> 
> http://www.dailywireless.org/2012/03/21/intercontental-arctic-fiber/
> 
> ...



Related:


----------



## DinaAngel (May 7, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> No  i did not misunderstand you
> 
> you are still wrong
> How can one side of the moon always face the sun  if the whole surface gets equal sunlight over the rotation of 1 orbit
> ...


Your wrong 
http://m.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html


----------



## RCoon (May 7, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Can i now un face palm myself



You may.

Can we also stop talking about how awesome the moon is(and how I still can't land a damn Kerbal on it) and get back to the cables that make the internets please?

You're welcome to take it to Science section, or better yet, GN.


----------



## FireFox (May 7, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Moon, Sun, Earth, Sunlight?



WTF


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 7, 2015)

In answer to the question.............yep





Me......just now, at home,




Spoiler



and the moon is made of cheese and a man lives there......defnitely



@mastrdrver 
There are approximately 1,600 Fellows and Foreign Members, including around 80 Nobel Laureates. Current Fellows include Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Harry Kroto, Tim Berners-Lee, Paul Nurse and John Sulston. 

complete listing of the Fellowship from 1660 onwards is available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society


----------



## Tatty_One (May 7, 2015)

Thread has now descended from a genuine "Network & Security" piece and moved initially to FUD followed quickly by off topic poop, it was a toss up between moving to GN or close, closing is easier so thank you all for your contributions.


----------

