From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 05:39:31 PST
To: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Subject: Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
In-Reply-To: <199311110705.XAA04155@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199311111337.AA29933@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 
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