Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org> said:
Perry writes:
Seems to me that bandwidth is going to be nearly free in both directions in a few years whether government intervenes or not.
I agree about the potential for it to be free, but, I gotta tell you, the monopolists running the cable systems in this country have no inclination to share that nearly free bandwidth with you, even if you're willing to pay for access to it.
I hate to disagree, considering that I prefer to agree with the philosophy here, but it *can't* work that way, regardless of what we wish. The problem is that bandwidth is a highly limited resource, just like real estate is a limited resource. Eventually we will complete saturate network bandwidth no matter what technology is used. This has been discussed in various forums for many years. Once optical fiber optic bandwidth peaks, you have to move to ultraviolet for greater channel capacity. Then that is exhausted, and we will continue pushing...gamma ray bandwidth fiber optic (or line of sight transmission) will eventually be a target, despite its extreme difficulties even in theory. At the same time we will be laying fiber and raising dishes to beat the band. But no matter how well all that goes, we will *very* quickly reach a saturation point of facilities as each new technology is introduced. These days it's easy to be optimistic, because bandwidth is growing geometrically. The problem is that there is no way in hell that that trend can continue indefinitely. One or two decades hence we will saturate theoretical limits. Bandwidth is and will always remain a scarce and precious resource. On the other hand, if you mean "slow channels by comparison with state of the art channels," then yeah, *that* may as well be free at any given point. Right this instant one could make an argument for 110 baud channels being free.
In order to get to a world in which free markets can meet our demand for high-bandwidth connectivity, we have to dig ourselves out from the market-failure position we're in now. And because government is part of the problem, changing government policy is part of the solution. So, that's one of the major thrusts of EFF's NII policy.
I agree, but this seems to be a subject change. Doug