Time To Start Thinking About Infinite Bandwidth
from the it-changes-things dept
One of the things that is truly amazing is how difficult it has been for anyone to accurately predict what happens as bandwidth becomes more and more commonplace. Most of the original assumptions were based on faulty views of old technology -- i.e., the internet would become more like "tv" since it could handle the bandwidth. While there has been some of that, the more interesting elements have actually taken advantage of what the internet is good at: multi-directional communication, rather than one way broadcast communication. We already have television. We don't need another one. But a platform that allows anyone to communicate with anyone -- and with higher bandwidth? That starts to get interesting...But, even now, as average bandwidth rates are orders of magnitude above what they were just a decade ago, people are having trouble recognizing the next revolution -- when bandwidth is effectively infinite. However, it's time to start thinking about what that allows, because bandwidth is only going to increase, and it's only going to increase unique opportunities, applications and services. The article discusses a connected-Coke machine, which may seem like a small thing, and nothing to get excited about, but as you think about the progression, from simply alerting the company to when the machine was low, to increasing information about a variety of factors, to allowing customers to interact with the machine, you begin to recognize how the entire concept of even a basic "soda machine" starts to change. And those are all still low bandwidth exercises. What made that work wasn't the increase in bandwidth, but the increase in general connectivity. If you start to increase the size of the pipe significantly as well, you start to get even more possibilities.
So, all these arguments over "net neutrality" and "metered billing" are missing the point. Bandwidth is going to increase. Those who attempt to cap it or limit it are only going to make their own pipes significantly less valuable. However, those who recognize how empowering more bandwidth can be, and how approaching "infinite bandwidth" opens up the possibility for new services and apps that we can't even fathom today, will start to realize that providing ever more bandwidth increases value and clamping down on bandwidth kills value.
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: bandwidth, economics, infinite bandwidth
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If upload bandwidth increases significantly this would be good if I want to keep a network drive on (and password protected) with all my stuff on it and then access it from anywhere through my laptop (via vpn or something). Who needs flash drives or CD's/DVD's, everything would be directly accessible via the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What are some of the dangers of increased bandwidth? More monitoring of the population by authorities? More personal data over the Internet? People can already access a lot of your info from many of these social network sites and it's probably not very hard for crazy psychos to find everything they can about someone over the Internet these days. Privacy is also a concern as well and I think we should weigh the benefits and costs of increased bandwidth.
We may end up with a state where public cameras are everywhere and those public cameras feed into the Internet giving everyone access to them. Do we want anyone to be able to view cameras situated everywhere (ie: on freeways)? What other dangers can this pose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you dont publicly make your writings (and files) available - and keep what you want to have kept, under lock and key... the results you listed should not affect the people who are aware of the dangers.
...just as now, the persons who posted about their "drunken-fun" on [insert social networking site here] are now dealing with.
Moral of the story thanks to Benjamin Franklin, "The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead", ie; if you want something truly kept a secret don't tell anyone alive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The USA definitely does not need to be like the UK where there are speed cameras calculating your average speed. We don't need ANY speed cameras.
I live in Houston... No one drives the speed limit in Houston..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and flat screens are being made to include cams distributed within the screen. You will not be able to put ducttape over them ...
I'm keeping my old crt /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're not there yet, not in the US, anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We're not there yet, not in the US, anyway
Bandwidth is Tangible Goods?
Hmmm.
I had never thought of it like that before.
I guess the Telcos were right all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We're not there yet, not in the US, anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except that you can cram a bunch of people into each seat. Then the service slows down, the waiters are clueless about what's on the menu, and the screen is an endless slide show of LOLcatz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next bottleneck: processing/storage. What is the benefit of unlimited bandwidth if you can't handle or store all that feed anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once we get to the point that we are able to receive data faster than the storage (RAM buffer fills and the HD is working at max) of the time can handle then new faster ways to store data will have to be created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be fool by fancy naming people, it's all just part of the Masnick spin.
Mike, the soda machine thing is older than the commercial internet. I think it was MIT that had the first one, because the computer lab was one floor about the soda machine. So the geeks wired it up, and they could connect and find out all sorts of things, like how many sodas of each type, temperature, etc.
Innovation? Nope, been there, seen it.
It is also a pretty horrible example, mostly because the bandwidth required to do something like that is very small. That isn't a good example of "infinite" bandwidth. Perhaps Ubiquitous Bandwidth, but not infinite - there is no infinite.
I know it's easier for you, it's maybe another attempt to turn a Streisand effect phrase, but it's just not reflecting reality - another reason why your infinite distribution really isn't true either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't really think the metered billing argument misses the point. ISPs are hard at work convincing the public they need to charge them overages at up to 2,000% over cost because the big bad exaflood is coming, when in reality bandwidth delivery costs are dropping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In think this attempt to define "infinite bandwidth" has exposed the black box mentality applied to things around here. The black box is observed for a certain amount of time, perhaps a trend is noticed, and then it is extrapolated until it meets the "Masnick Theory of the Universe (MTU)". However, unless you understand the what the black box does and it's movings parts, you might mistake the results for something other than a random series of events.
Your ISP cannot get an unlimited or infinite connection to the internet. They are all on "the more you use, the more you pay" plans with their connectivity providers. The reason is because there is a limit to how much goes down any connection - even the best piece of fiber is limited - yes, the number is big, but it is limited.
Bandwidth costs right now are quickly reaching the bottom of a curve, where in the 15 years the prices have dropped dramtically, they will no longer be able to drop as fast. Much of what goes into connectivity costs are physical, location of equipment, cables, staff, etc - all stuff that cannot be outsourced to India or cut back on to save the bottom line. If anything, there is potential that the cost of bandwidth may start to rise over time, at a level similar to inflation, as the costs for maintaining the network pace inflation themselves.
So no, there is no "infinite bandwidth". There is a lot of it out there, but is sure isn't infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The black box is observed for a certain amount of time, perhaps a trend is noticed, and then it is extrapolated until it meets the "Masnick Theory of the Universe (MTU)". However, unless you understand the what the black box does and it's moving parts, you might mistake the results for something other than a random series of events."
It makes me wonder. Did you read any Techdirt early in the century? Mike said a lot of wacky, stupid, controversial shit, I'm sure you would agree. Lots of sensible people like you popped up in the comments to set him straight, but the stubborn bastard just argued his points.
Then skip back to the present, and...WTF? He was right about a lot of those things? Oops. Of course, the original crop of Anonymous Cowards have long since dropped off, so they're not around to say "Mea culpa", but are replaced by a new crop like you, who think that his current predictions are whacked.
This blog has a 10-year record. It has correctly predicted "improbable" futures for years. Mike should scrape together a bullet list of the things he predicted through the decade, and had to argue, which turned out correct. OK, so as a contributor here, I'm biased, but the record speaks for itself.
In contrast, I have found the Anon Cowards to have had very little predictive reliability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if I post today "the yankees will win the pennant" and then do that for each of every other team in the league, I will be right on at least one of those predictions.
A broken watch is still accurate twice a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure enough, a bunch of creative businesspeople/artists are coming up with new business models and new ways of making money. Mike trots them out on his blog - not to prove he was right, or he'd link to his ancient posts predicting it - but to make current arguments to try and convince the die-hards and the Luddites that it is possible. But those people deny the current reality just as they denied his predictions before.
Well, he predicted it, and the Anon Cowards of the day told him he was stupid then. No, he's no demi-god, and he's not the only one to have been right. But he has mostly been right, and that counts for a lot.
Like I said, he should produce a list of his predictions, and then the outcomes. Then perhaps you could do the same, and we could compare grades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The mistake you are making is in lumping them all together. Some of them have proven to be much more accurate than Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course industries have incentive to make us believe this lie and they're willing to invest resources (ie: by controlling the media and such) into convincing the public of their lies. They have incentive to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course industries have incentive to make us believe this lie and they're willing to invest resources (ie: by controlling the media and such) into convincing the public of their lies. They have incentive to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coke Machine
(E '87)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality - Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way
Bandwidth is going to increase. Those who attempt to cap it or limit it are only going to make their own pipes significantly less valuable. However, those who recognize how empowering more bandwidth can be, and how approaching "infinite bandwidth" opens up the possibility for new services and apps that we can't even fathom today, will start to realize that providing ever more bandwidth increases value and clamping down on bandwidth kills value.
--- ENDQUOTE ---
Of course I agree with the above paragraph, but the line that preceded it, 'So, all these arguments over "net neutrality" and "metered billing" are missing the point.' is a problem.
The USA has moved from Internet leader to Internet laggard. We can't invent the future of tomorrow on the network of yesterday. It's hard to see the road ahead from last place.
If I'm developing an application for Asia, I have to imagine a low-end customer as having access to 20 Mbps on fiber. For the U.S., I don't have to imagine -- it's 1.5 Mbps on twisted pair. Have you seen those Asian social websites? They take a long time to load here in the U.S. because they're very bandwidth intensive (plus the distance-added latency which further affects speed).
Our broadband overlords are wasting time looking fondly at the past of CompuServe charging $12.50 an hour ($6 if you were at 300 baud). Their bumper sticker says, "As a matter of fact, I do own the God-damned Information Superhighway." That thinking is holding us back. We could ignore them if we could get some competition, but aside from having 14 different junction boxes on every home in America, these same overlords are in charge of the competition as well.
They are in our way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overlords own the God-damned Information Superhighway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality
Which of course would be fixed very quickly by competition, as you've stated elsewhere. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh huh
And an arrogant, elitist, anonymous shithead is an asshole ALL of the time.
Go troll somewhere else you corporate shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed one point
And since most providers don't like to compete, they try to arrange it so that they do have a Monopoly and don't have to. The cable internet situation in Canada is a good example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]