Dave Taht's question about all the redundant fiber that
was put down in the telecom bubble is a very interesting
one. It would be nice if some folks on the list could
provide some solid information, even if only for one
large carrier.
My impression, from communications with various folks,
is
Yes, human impatience and peace of mind do matter.
But willingness to pay is not unlimited. There is
an argument, presented in my paper "The volume and
value of information," in the International Journal
of Communication in 2012,
https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1570/740
that
Yes, definitely.
But some of those criteria can be combined into one, namely
"transaction latency," how long it takes to get something
done. Which includes things like uploading a video clip,
or a complicated PowerPoint deck, and (behind the scenes
from the standpoint of the end user) lots of
Yes! Some other ways to the basic idea are that
The function of data networks is to satisfy human impatience.
and
The goal is to minimize transaction latency.
Once you accept either one, the conclusion that follows is that
there is no limit to potential demand (which, however, as always,
It's an interesting question. Even leaving aside the question of
billing costs, there are conflicting incentives. Service providers
want to extract maximal revenues, but that requires not just
fine-scaled pricing, but very overt and fine-scaled price
discrimination (which may often be
Since several members of this list requested it, here is a summary
of the responses to my request for information about Internet growth
during the telecom bubble, in particular the perceptions of the
O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet Internet doubling every 100 days
myth.
First of all, many
!
--Jessica
From: Kenny Sallee kenny.sal...@gmail.com
To: Jessica Yu jyy...@yahoo.com; Andrew Odlyzko odly...@umn.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 4:01:00 PM
Subject: Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble
On Fri, Aug 6
Fascinating. Memories may be plastic (something that has been
established scientifically), or else we may have yet another
inconsistency to add to the pile of others. Is there any
documentation about the doubling every nine months? I have
never seen that particular claim emanating from anyone
Jorge,
Many thanks for the comments.
To the entire NANOG list: I have received many comments, a few
through the list, most off-list. I greatly appreciate all, and
will be responding to them all off-list, since this is not an
operational matter. If there is interest, I can summarize
for the
From: Andrew Odlyzko odly...@umn.edu
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thu, August 5, 2010 11:38:38 AM
Subject: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble
Apologies for intruding with this question, but I can't think
of any group that might have more concrete information
will
settle for more informal comments, and promise confidentiality to anyone
who requests it.
Andrew Odlyzko
odly...@umn.edu
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/mania03.pdf
Bubbles, gullibility, and other challenges for economics,
psychology, sociology
malicious hackers?
Andrew Odlyzko
On Fri Oct 19, Scott Berkman wrote:
I agree, they have been doing this in select locations for some time. I
live in Atlanta and have seen this happening for about the 3 months, but I
have friends in the suburbs that have (or had) no issues. I imagine
12 matches
Mail list logo
