Skip to main content

Gig.U, Gigabit to the Home

Gig.U is on track. That’s cool.

I’ll be very interested if Gigabit Ethernet to the home makes a difference to the ordinary home user. I’ll go on record and say that I don’t think it will. The Gig.U experiment might come up with novel and interesting uses that can’t be met by a 10 or 100Mbps home connection, but if the interesting & novel new uses for high bandwidth to the home show up, they will not radically change ordinary home users lives.

Once you get above about 6Mbps to the home, what makes a difference to the home user isn’t bandwidth, it’s data caps & quotas. If I have a 6Mbps internet connection with a high data cap (like Comcast’s 250GB cap), I can radically change how I consume information. If I have higher bandwidth connection but a low data cap (like a 2GB cap on a 3G/4G phone or the 50GB caps imposed by other ISP’s), I can’t fundamentally change how I consume information/media. That’s why I don’t care if my phone is 3G or 4G. In either case it’s still a 2GB cap, so It’s still a handicapped phone. Because it’s capped, It’s not capable of changing my lifestyle.

In short:

  • Low caps prevent high bandwidth from being a game changer.
  • Faster bandwidth is irrelevant unless it is accompanied by a higher cap/quota. Without a high cap/quota, we are not going to change how we access information.
  • Slower bandwidth with a higher cap can dramatically change how we access information, and therefor is more valuable than faster bandwidth with a lower cap.

As I’ve written before:

  • Network access should be ubiquitous. That means everywhere, no excuses.
  • Moderate speeds and ubiquitous coverage is more important than high speeds with sporadic coverage.
  • Low access costs are essential - under $40/month, for example. Tiered access is OK, if you want cheap, you give up fast.
  • Low end (4Mbps) broadband is like electricity, it’s a necessity, and even the poorest of society should have access to it.
  • There have to be reasonable quotas. Comcast’s 250GB/month quota is quite reasonable. Others are not.

Broadband access like the railroads on the prairie. When the railroads got built, you either made sure they went through your town or your town died. That’ll happen  with broadband too, communities that have incumbent telco/cable providers that do not deliver low cost, ubiquitous broadband will shrivel up and die, much like the communities that got bypassed by the railroads.

FWIW – At work I have GigE to the desktop connected to a GigE LAN that uplinks to a 10Gig backbone that is connected to multiple Tier 1 ISP’s at multi-gigabit or 10Gigabit speeds, but none of that has made any difference in how I work, how much work I get done or what I do at work.

What has made a difference?

VDI.

Comments

  1. I honestly don't get how a 'typical' household can saturate even a 20Mbit link... I consider myself a downright packet wasting monster at home; I stream Netflix, have the wife watching youtube and me browsing at the same time while my phone ticks away checking emails every minute and still have room to spare.

    My big conservatism on the fiber-to-the-house / GB business is that the ball still belongs to the upstream guys anyways.

    If you can't get a delivery pizza, or high speed internet to your house these days it's time to move!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

“imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance” --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup is necessary, b…

Ad-Hoc Verses Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to …

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:
In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. The…