I'm all for open systems. Limiting the amount of bandwidth at any level is, to me, a terrible thing to do. I understand that it doesn't necessarily fit the model as it applies to today's business for many ISPs, but, maybe its time to change the model.
This is where the separation of providers starts to take shape. The networks that can handle these loads and supply the end-user are going to win the customers. I honestly think the demand of large scale bandwidth is going to be fed to the end-user by the consumer electronics market. Look at CES last year. Look how many devices demand connectivity at certain levels. If your current service provider can't get you what you need, there will always be someone else who can. There is some great info here from a recent conference: http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/events/summit2008 Take a look at the slides. I like the reference to the slide where it breaks down how much bandwidth utilization there is expected to be per household: 35+ Mbps (and those are numbers from 2006!) 4 VoIP lines @ 100Kbps 2 SDTVs @ 2Mbps 2 HDTVs @ 9 Mbps 1 Gaming device @ 1Mbps 1 High Spedd Internet @ 10Mbps Scary how quickly it adds up :) My favorite quote: ³By the year 2010 bandwidth for 20 homes will generate more traffic than entire Internet in 1995² -d On 11/24/08 12:24 AM, "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: > >> It will be interesting to see how this plays out... the amount of >> bandwidth required to sustain this type of service is not cost >> effective. My upstream costs alone are over $50/Mbps. So if someone >> wants to run a constant 2Mbps stream, my raw cost is $100 per month >> (not including backhaul, support, AP costs, etc.). >> >> Wait until people realize that this type of service isn't going to >> be "free" as they think now.... when they get a $150/month internet >> bill, the $40 for DishTV will look pretty good. ;) > > Even the cable companies are feeling the burn here: > http://tinyurl.com/3oufk8 > > Or a better story: > http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-5079624.html > > I am glad to see these types of reports coming out. The cable ops > and telcos have been rapidly trying to commoditize Internet access > services and now they are realizing how stupid that was. In my > opinion, high profile companies that are setting these limits are > going to help the smaller guys (that's us) "get away" with what, in > many cases, we were already doing. BW caps are something that will > HAVE to happen in one form or another. > > <RANT> > Where are all the net neutrality people now? Why aren't you all > arguing that something like this is not relevant? Isn't this > something that you have all asked for? I mean, if I sell someone a > 2 meg connection, shouldn't they (and everyone else on the system) > be able to run at 2 meg for the whole month? What difference does > it make if I am buying a wireless connection, DSL or cable > connection? In a net neutral environment, should it matter that I > am streaming this type of content? > </RANT> > > I feel better. ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
