On The Importance Of Unfettered Broadband
from the it-goes-beyond-just-movies dept
A little over a year ago, I tried to explain why metered broadband or capped broadband slows down innovation. However, many have responded that as long as the basic caps are reasonably high, it shouldn't be a big deal, because, "how much bandwidth do you really need?" People note that the only ones who might be using up the 250GB caps announced from Comcast can only be downloading non-stop movies. But that's not really the point. The real question is what innovations are we not seeing because of limited bandwidth. Not so long ago, the very idea of something like YouTube was preposterous, but thanks to abundant bandwidth it became possible. But something like YouTube is just a tiny way down the path to what's possible.Tim Lee has a great post making the point that it goes well beyond just "how much bandwidth does a single person need" or even looking at what specifically they're downloading, to recognizing the change in tradeoffs for creating applications if bandwidth is effectively unlimited. As he notes, in any engineering situation, there are resource tradeoffs. If you're building an application, there are tradeoffs to making a client side app vs. a web-based app, for example. However, if bandwidth is truly abundant, the very nature of those tradeoffs change and it allows for entirely different types of development, often in ways that are difficult to fathom right now.
Lee gives a few random examples of what unlimited bandwidth might allow as the tradeoffs change:
People with cable or satellite TV service are used to near-instantaneous, flawless video content, which is difficult to stream reliably over a packet-switched network. So the television of the future is likely to be a peer-to-peer client that downloads anything it thinks its owner might want to see and caches it for later viewing. This isn't strictly necessary, but it would improve the user experience. Likewise, there may be circumstances where users want to quickly load up their portable devices with several gigabytes of data for later offline viewing.So the question is not how much bandwidth does any person really need. It's how will the entire ecosystem of what we can do change when bandwidth is completely abundant?
Finally, and probably most importantly, higher bandwidth allows us to economize on the time of the engineers building online applications. One of the consistent trends in the computer industry has been towards greater abstraction. There was a time when everyone wrote software in machine language. Now, a lot of software is written in high-level languages like Java, Perl, or Python that run slower but make life a lot easier for programmers. A decade ago, people trying to build rich web applications had to waste a lot of time optimizing their web applications to achieve acceptable performance on the slow hardware of the day. Today, computers are fast enough that developers can use high-level frameworks that are much more powerful but consume a lot more resources. Developers spend more time adding new features and less time trying to squeeze better performance out of the features they already have. Which means users get more and better applications.
The same principle is likely to apply to increased bandwidth, even beyond the point where we all have enough bandwidth to stream high-def video. Right now, web developers need to pay a fair amount of attention to whether data is stored on the client or the server and how to efficiently transmit it from one place to another. A world of abundant bandwidth will allow developers to do whatever makes the most sense computationally without worrying about the bandwidth constraints.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, tradeoffs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The real purpose of the caps
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Agreed...
Comcast is the predominant bully in the cable & internet arena; being huge, they figure they can do as they want (like when they throttled P2P traffic and got caught). Letting a cable company control internet traffic is a mistake; let them provide the pipeline (the wires) and let someone else manage them... someone who does not stand to lose money when more people download or stream media.
By the way, Comcast has also wormed its way into Clearwire, the new Sprint/Clearwire venture that will handle WiMax rollouts, so they'll impose the same limits on that technology as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim Lee's argument won't sway the SPs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rather, what I think would be the better argument to focus on primarily is that by allowing ISPs to have unfettered control of bandwidth would be giving ISPs the ability to have unfettered control over many other technologies, as they could hold bandwidth at ransom until those that need the bandwidth give in to the demands that ISPs would certainly take advantage of. Stifled innovation just being a side effect of greed, but it's not necessarily the case that that would happen at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shift to a Demand-side economic view
As the internet is continually expanded upon for things Vincent Cerf imagined, people will expect it to be held together with more than magic, pixie dust and handshakes.
If the providers can't provide, it will create new pressures and probably become regarded as a true utility- on the lines of water, sewage and electric.
How does this happen?
Well, as people move to commercial VoIP solutions, there will be a spike in unfettered bandwidth with QoS. Unfortunately, SIP is a real complex turd of a protocol that was never meant to be used in a residential setting, but hey, it's here. So by enacting bandwidth caps, all it will take is one person not able to call for emergency services on their VoIP phone to get some sort of action.
But none of this will happen if it's approached from a demand-side economic view, and the powers that be start laying more fiber to increase bandwidth and stop investing in toilet drain projects like that God awful TIA, which apparently does little beyond humoring linguistics officers and fighting sniffles.
The money spent on that would be better spent in laying fiber, adding redundancy, and just overall-- infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael's arguement only looks at it from the consumers's POV
If the role of the ISP becomes similar to that of other public utilities, then they in effect become a commodity supplier. (Note: one definition of a commodity is anything that is primarily differentiated by its price.) As a marketing person, I can tell you that is NOT where any good marketing person wants to land up. You want to bundle other value-added services into packages that hopefully give you a unique and compelling offering in the market. Just offering a big fat pipe with no caps at a fixed monthly price is NOT appealing to the Comcasts of the world, even though I as a consumer would love to have just that.
I am not trying to defend the ISPs, just trying to point out how it looks from their point of view. I use Comcast as my ISP and would love to drop them given their recent decision to add caps, but the only other option available to my home is Qwest at a much slower (too slow) speed at nearly the same price. I use Vonage for both of our voice lines. I am probably not one of Comcast's more profitable customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Caps
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gates' own example
"no one will need more than 640k of memory. . ."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unlimited vs. efficient
Unfortunately, that's how you end up with bloated pigs instead of useful, efficient software. All you have to do is look at your own computer -- does all the new bloatware, requiring 4GB of memory and a terabyte of disk, really do that much more than the applications of the past, that just a few years ago required only a few hundred MB of memory (or less) and a 100MB disk? The applications became bloated because developers no longer paid attention to the efficient use of resources (memory, disk and CPU). Microsoft codes for the next generation of hardware, so that their developers don't have to think about fast or efficient. App too slow? Get a faster processor. Get more memory. Get a bigger hard drive.
If you allow that line of thinking with Internet apps ("So what if our application transfers 2 petabytes of data -- bandwidth is unlimited!"), we'll be right back where we are now -- inefficient, poorly-implemented bandwidth-sucking applications, and ISPs that will again find the need to implement caps.
Unlimited bandwidth is not the answer. Efficient use of bandwidth is.
This is a direct parallel to the auto industry. Just because gas was cheap and plentiful was not a good reason to completely ignore fuel efficiency, but that's what the auto makers did, and look where that got them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
At what point does Internet Access become a public utility?
While I am usually not a fan of letting the government make technology decisions, as internet access continues to become more essential to our basic lives and also becomes more of a commodity, at what point would it make sense to treat it as a public utility? Or is internet access somehow fundamentally different than the the other utilities and hence should not be regulated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
unlimited resources causes bloatware
part of why windoze has such a big footprint i think is because the devs know they have the space to spread out. everyone has 3ghz processors and 500gb harddrives. the devs don't have to write tight efficient code because the builders will just throw enough hardware at the slug to make it fast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: At what point does Internet Access become a public utility?
Also at issue is their former use of the term "unlimited". If you purchase a VoIP phone service, you get unlimited local and long distance, meaning that you can make as many calls as you want at any time you want. Comcast interprets the term "unlimited" as 24/7 access, not unlimited usage. So, in their jaded thinking, they are still offering "unlimited" access, when they are not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unlimited vs. efficient
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: unlimited resources causes bloatware
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Innovation not limited only by bandwidth
"People with cable or satellite TV service are used to near-instantaneous, flawless video content, which is difficult to stream reliably over a packet-switched network."
Some of this innovation needs to take place at the ISP or higher level. The innovations are limited by protocols and infrastructure in addition to bandwidth. Truly innovative solutions would not necessarily need more bandwidth if they just use it more efficiently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Gas, Free Water...Why Not?
We'd also see much more innovation in cars and other internal combustion vehicles if gasoline were flat rate. Should we force gas to be free to release the latent innovation?
My lawn would look better if the damned city just made water flat rate. I could water constantly, and have elaborate fountains. Just think of the innovations in fountain design!
There are constraints in this world. As an economist, you should appreciate that resources are not unlimited. Innovation, thus, must take place within these constraints.
Data transport, though not expensive, is also not free. Thus, there are cost constraints to moving data. Carriers should offer reasonable terms, and innovators should invent within the realm of economically viable use of limited resources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Give ANY industry the opportunity and they'll charge for it; either directly or indirectly. They'll find a way to charge for it. Cable and satellite and their ilk are not innovators; they're leeches.
My suggestion: Open it up, full throttle; wide open.
Oh yeah, one other thing: every municipality supported by a tax base should provide free, high-speed, "unfettered" wireless access to EVERYONE. Comcast, Mediacom, etc. can find some other way to make a buck other than sucking the users dry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's Part Of The Ploy To Rob From You
Unless you buy your approved multimedia from the cable company you will be paying more for your internet connection.
Now is the time to break with the telcos and cable companies (if you can) and get your internet connection from someplace else.
I hope wimax hits it big. But not in the hands of the cable or telco companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's Part Of The Ploy To Rob From You
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unfettered Broadband
[ link to this | view in thread ]
5GB cap in 2009
Caps are all about money, greed, and making seniors execs at ISP's wealthy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Caps are not a problem
It simply the pricing structure.
If broadband is $10 plus $.10/GB, 250GB comes to $35/month.
Cable is looking at pricing bandwidth like cellphone plans, with minimums, buckets, floors, overages, and "nights and weekends".
If, instead, it was truly metered, the usage rates were not exorbitant, and we could actually monitor our usage/bill, I don't see why it would be a problem for the consumer. I have a measured phone bill, a measured cellphone, a measured gas, electric, water and sewer bill, and I'd be happier if my trash was by-the-pound.
Why not the same for broadband, and while you're at it, let me buy only the channels I want on the TV?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time to chime in here.
The average consumer does not need 250G/mo of broadband at this time. Even if someone where to download 8 HD movies a day, they'd not touch the cap.
Consumers who utilize more than this per month are probably being assumed to be a business, which has a much different pricing structure than a consumer, often with larger benefits of utilizing the business account. I've yet to see anyone challenge this cap when they were affected to a degree in which the ISP didn't work with them to remove the cap.
So far, these blogs have been speculation on what could be but doesn't touch what is actual.
I do agree that as the web continues to grow, the need for more broadband will be apparent, at which time most ISPs would then readjust their cap. But 250G/mo now seems pretty damn reasonable for the average consumer.
Now I want to focus something said in the initial blog:
Today, computers are fast enough that developers can use high-level frameworks that are much more powerful but consume a lot more resources. Developers spend more time adding new features and less time trying to squeeze better performance out of the features they already have. Which means users get more and better applications.
This is not entirely accurate. In fact, over the past 20 years, consumers have been arguing more is not often better as programs get more difficult to use, rather than easier.
A great example of this is Microsoft products. I remember a time in which these were absolutely easy to use and did quite well for what they were intended. In looking at products today from Microsoft, not a single one is easy to use and trying to use them are challenging for many users, especially those who've been using the product for quite some time.
I remember when the web's largest complaint was page load times. Website's with large images and complicated database transactions over a limited (truly capped by the FCC here, folks) phone line weren't tolerated much. This wasn't too long ago.
Now, more and more "applications" are getting so big, websites place in "loading" screens, forcing visitors to wait. For what? A dancing fish singing the blues?
I've been teaching people for years the KISS* method is the ONLY rule to define how the application should be developed. To think each line of code costs you $1 to write, so save money when developing.
This has lead some of my students to rethink the way to actually develop code and to utilize the full potential of available resources rather than do what most do today: Bundle it all up.
I can only say if that the argument for non-capped accounts is such that we have to endure longer loading screens just to see dancing fish singing the blues, I say keep the caps.
Maybe this will force developers to rethink their design and retain the KISS method, rather than overloading their products with features that less than 5% of users take advantage of.
Just because something can be done does not necessarily mean it should be done.
*KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real purpose of the caps
You're a right funny one, you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Every broadband account is already capped by the fact that each user's account is speed capped at whatever service tier they pay for. If I have a 6Mb account, I can't magically download data at 20Mb. This automatically limits how much data I can transfer.
So what the ISPs are saying is that they've sold everyone accounts with caps that they can't support. Of course they knew right from the start that they couldn't support the speeds that they were selling. So now, rather than upgrade to support the service tiers that they have, they're imposing usage caps so that they can use any upgrades to offer even higher tiers of service that they can't support.
What they should do is figure out how much they'd need to charge to actually support the service tiers they're offering and charge people that with no usage cap. It might be higher, but at least people wouldn't have to worry about getting nickel & dimed to death in overage charges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]