Do we need more bandwidth -- your Editors comments

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bruce Kushnick <bruce () newnetworks com>
Date: December 31, 2005 7:29:19 PM EST
To: "David J. Farber" <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Do we need more bandwidth -- your Editors comments

Speed is only important in relationship to the applications that need  
the
bandwidth.
The US phone companies don't have a clue about this issue -- thus they
can claim we don't need speed because they just don't get it. They think
speed is for video channels', an distorted legacy application, as bob
frankston might say.

Speed is important because of the applications demand it.

The French PTT gets it. They don't talk about speed. they deliver the
application. in this case, integrated video conferencing --- people to
people video.
http://www.francetelecom.com/en/our_solutions/residential/ 
presentation/index.html

Now, imagine you doing a tele-gathering with 4 people simultaneously ---
Without speed you simply can't do it.

That's what the US telcos don't get... high-bandwidth peer-to-peer...  
ie,
people talking to people, as joe plotkin of bwaynet keeps saying. The
application
is symmetric -- thus FIOS is a dog because it is a fiber wire that has a
speed-governor on it on the upstream to stop customers from creating new
applications.

One other point -- both Korea and Japan have 100 Mbps service,
bi-directional, and priced to be used by residential customers at $35-45
dollars. ---  imagine the applications their customers will design  
that we
will never be
able to keep up with. --- FIOS top speed at $199 is 30 Mbps (5 down).
It's not a consumer product and it has no clue about the applications
that other countries are already doing....

Bruce Kushnick, Teletruth.
============


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:55 PM
Subject: [IP] Do we need more bandwidth -- your Editors comments


> Way back when I was planning what became the Gigabit Testbed program,
> many people I talked with said "who would ever need gigabit paths
> between organizations let alone desks. " But there were those like
> Erich Bloch at the NSF and others including Bob Kahn and Jon Smith,
> who saw the future and supported the idea. That initiative bought
> gigabit capacity to the national internet a good 3-4 years before it
> might have happened otherwise.
>
> During the planning I went over to my colleagues at Wharton and asked
> what their community could do with gigabit capacities. After 15
> minutes I had to stop them and say that we were not yet capable of
> supplying the bandwidth they wanted. They were visualizing real
> business application that if successful could save enough money and
> give enough flexibility that the cost would be irrelevant.
>
> What they need is 100 gig or more  channels and systems that can
> generate and absorb data at those rates.  Saddly I don't see the same
> commitment to doing the research that will yield that environment as
> eventually we saw in the Gigabit testbeds.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as bruce () newnetworks com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/