On 21 May 2006 at 21:43, Diane Poremsky wrote: > The real problem isn't end users capability because there are a heck of a > lot of people who won't want any of those devices.
I think you underestimate the ability of app developers to find ways to gobble bandwidth. > ..ut the capability of > the access providers. Will the internet be able to handle the load? Or will > we have a two tiered internet, where heavy users pay even more? I certainly hope so! There already *IS* a multi-tiered ethernet -- if you need, say, 100+meg speeds, you can get an oc12 but it'll cost you beaucoup bucks. Compared to the REALLY big bandwidth pipes, all of the stuff we're talking about is basically down in the noise. > But... people like my sisters still won't need more bandwidth than they have > now because they won't have xboxes ans tivos. As I say, I think that you underestimate the ability of application developers to come up with bandwidth-hungry, attractive applications. Why not CUSeeMe done right [and high quality, high bandwidth]. How about being able to get streaming HDTV feeds? It used to be that being "online all the time" was considered silly -- who needs to be tethered to the internet *THAT*MUCH*?-- but now 24/7 connections are the norm for most more-than-dialup channels. Give them bandwidth and they'll find a way to use [or perhaps "waste" :o)] it... /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- -- ---------------------------------------- The WIN-HOME mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
