Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
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
Doug Merritt writes:
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.
Doug, I think you may be under the impression that we're talking about a single fiber-optic or coax cable. You can have a single (or double or triple) infrastructural network, but add bandwidth to each one. I think the notion of "scarcity" doesn't apply to cable any more than it applies to personal computers.
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.
Or you add a new cable. Not hard. Nothing I have ever read has suggested that "scarcity," as that term is normally used in reference to a resource, applies in any meaningful way to cable. I believe that Perry's prediction is closer to the truth than yours. --Mike
Doug Merritt says:
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.
Lets see whether this is reasonable. A single fiber optic strand has enough capacity in theory to carry the equivalent of every call made in the U.S. during the peak capacity utilization period on Mother's Day. A single fiber can carry more data than can be transmitted by the entire radio spectrum from low frequency AM to Ku band satelite. Thats bandwidth for literally thousands of simultaneous video signals. Using switching technology rather than shared access LAN style technology, every person in the world could concievably be sending and receiving that much at once. I don't know about you, but I personally can't produce more than 750 simultaneous videos at once for network distribution, so I suppose I'm uninteresting, but even the people who can do more than that are likely going to be fine. If they aren't, well, I suppose they could get TWO fibers coming into their home, or maybe even TEN or ONE HUNDRED if necessary.
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.
I suspect that we have a wee bit longer to go than that. When people start faxing themselves regularly we may have to go to slightly more exotic technologies. Perry
In article <9311111430.AA28017@snark.lehman.com> pmetzger@lehman.com writes:
A single fiber optic strand has enough capacity in theory to carry the equivalent of every call made in the U.S. during the peak capacity utilization period on Mother's Day. A single fiber can carry more data than can be transmitted by the entire radio spectrum from low frequency AM to Ku band satelite. Thats bandwidth for literally thousands of simultaneous video signals.
"All the world's comms needs can be met with a single fibre" contrast this with a famous quotation from history... "All the country's computing needs can be met with a single computer" :-) G (It'll be a nice one to quote to my grandchildren in years to come...)
Graham Toal says:
In article <9311111430.AA28017@snark.lehman.com> pmetzger@lehman.com writes:
A single fiber optic strand has enough capacity in theory to carry the equivalent of every call made in the U.S. during the peak capacity utilization period on Mother's Day. A single fiber can carry more data than can be transmitted by the entire radio spectrum from low frequency AM to Ku band satelite. Thats bandwidth for literally thousands of simultaneous video signals.
"All the world's comms needs can be met with a single fibre"
contrast this with a famous quotation from history...
"All the country's computing needs can be met with a single computer"
You didn't understand the point. Not a SINGLE fiber. Each person would have their own fiber into a switched fabric the way everyone has their own phone line into a switched fabric. Each person would have all that capacity TO HIMSELF. If he needed more, he could get two, or even ten, not that he'll need more than one. Perry
participants (4)
-
doug＠netcom.com -
gtoal＠an-teallach.com -
Mike Godwin -
Perry E. Metzger