[IP] on the definition of broadband
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:08:14 +0000 (GMT)
From: Matthew Gream <matthew.gream@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: on the definition of broadband
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Surely "broadband" should be determined in terms of what content delivery
it enables - because, when we think about it, broadband has come to
describe the delivery of a minimum set of mature digital content to
consumer markets than to describe the underlying technical delivery
medium. The mainstream medium is unarguably DSL or cable, however ISDN,
satellite, WLAN and metro ethernet are all relevant (I am not so familiar
with any of the latter).
While E1/T1 could be used to deliver broadband, it's less of a broadband
medium it's less available (for practical purposes) to consumer markets.
On the other hand, basic rate ISDN (2B+D) was and still is heavily
available. However, ISDN technologies (even at PRI, which is equivalent to
E1) have been referred to as "narrowband" and I believe that reflects the
fact that ISDN is largely point to point fixed connectivity between
endpoints (being a telephony evolution), whereas ATM is referred to as
"broadband" because it supports VC/VP flexibility and concurrency (in the
world before IP became ubuiqitous). Certainly however you can use
"narrowband ISDN" to enable "broadband services" by dialing into an ISP -
confusing the matter.
So broadband suggests (a) concurrency of delivery of content (today, this
is enabled by IP) and (b) minimum requirements of quality of content, (c)
for the needs of the consumer market (today, phenomenal growth with DSL).
Given that (a) and (c) need to argument, we turn to (b) and ask a question
like:
''what bundle of services adequately qualifies as "broadband content" and
what are the minimum qualitative attributes of that bundle ?''
Do we mean digital streaming video at 128Kbps, or is 64Kbps a sufficient
rate ? Or should it relate to equivalent quality of existing PAL/NTSC to
satisfy a replacement technology for broadcast television ? Including at
least a certain quality of audio - stereo ? Does the bundle include a
requirement for multiple streams ? How about at least concurrent
interactive web surfing at the same time - at what rate ? Should the
bundle include at least VOIP as a replacement technology for telephony -
how many VOIP services at what quality ? Is the bundle representative of
the actual needs of the average information consumer ? Does this represent
the information age equivalent of "universal access" to "8khz POTS" with
"directory assistance" ?
Just some thought for debate: not guaranteed to be correct!
Matthew
Dave Farber said:
>
> Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:02:34 +0100
> From: Bjørn Vermo <bv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [IP] more on "Let them eat megabits"
> To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> My wife forwards me selected tidbits from your list,
> and I have a couple of comments to this interesting article:
>
>
>>>From: Rahul Tongia <tongia@xxxxxxx>
> ...
>
>>>A response to Eli Noam's and other discussions on ICT and development.
>>>
>>>
>>>The entire definition of "broadband" is somewhat murky, though some
>>> governments and entities define it varyingly as connections between
>>> 128+ kbps to those over 640 kbps (if not more). When Japan and Korea
>>> already have connections in the 10+ mbps range, my 640 kbps DSL sure
>>> doesn't seem that broad.
>
> I have worked with data communications for 30 years,
> and must say that it is only after marketing people got involved
> that medium-speed connections were promoted to "broadband".
> The definition, dating to when the concept was first discussed
> and most companies still were happy if they had 9600b/s analog modems,
> is that broadband in digital terms starts at 2048k bits/s.
> This is an E-1 connection, which can accomodate 32 E-0 basic channels.
>
>>>The attributes that really matter, especially for developing countries
>>> (er, emerging economies or nations in transition) are that the
>>>connection is always on, and that it is "all you can eat" (flat rate
>>> pricing). The actual speeds depend on what applications you want, and
>>> that is a chicken-and-egg issue. The other, equally important issue
>>> is the pricing (not just flat rate) -- it needs to be affordable.
>
> I agree that "always on" is important.
> I stongly disagree that flat-rate is in any way desirable.
> Flat rates are guaranteed to promote wasteful use of resources,
> and keeps prices high.
>
> Low rates based on actual costs rather than on marketing ploys
> and estimations of how to maximize profit in a given market
> will eventually have to be established.
> Unfortunately, it is difficult to get there without real competition.
>
> ...
>>>importantly*, the users who ask for broadband are not the same as
>>> those who seek but don't have basic dial connectivity. Gone are the
>>> days when there were waiting lists of years for a phone connection (in
>>> many countries). Cellular and competition (and new technology)
>>> changed that. In Indian cities, one can get a new phone line within 1
>>> day (!), compared to the week Verizon asks. So why doesn't everyone
>>> have a phone line? Lack of affordability (combined with user
>>> perceived demand).
>
> I have lived with a state monopoly which had three-year waiting lists,
> and I have no desire to get back to that situation.
> On the other hand, I have not had any wired telephone connection since
> 1995.
> Technology has moved on, and today it does not seem like a good idea to
> build an expensive copper or fibre infrastructure except in the most
> densely populated urban areas.
>
> ...
>>>Similarly, cellular phones used as local phones are exceptionally
>>> appealing to many in developing countries, since the same phone number
>>> works on their job (often, the informal sector) and at home.
>
> This is the real point. A mobile phone and supporting infrastructure
> costs less per user than old fashioned landline phones.
> It is only in places where the old infrastructure has already been
> installed that it makes any economical sense to use wire-based
> communications
> unless you need very high capacity or extreme reliability.
>
>
>>>How much bandwidth do people need? There are few developing countries
>>> aiming for megabits to every home. But as Taylor Reynolds pointed
>>> out, building a new network just to do dial-up copper is a bad idea.
>>>Unfortunately, the poorest actually need the most bandwidth, to
>>>counteract a lack of literacy. Many of us do text emailing quite
>>> comfortably, but others need voice messaging, if not pictures and
>>> graphics to help them use the system. This is all the more true when
>>> considering interaction with business/government, and accessing public
>>> information, not just contacting friends and family. In a new model,
>>> bandwidth might replace some end-user hardware, which has been a major
>>> stumbling block for users to buy in to using ICT. For example, voice
>>> recognition, difficult to do on a cheap handheld or thin client, can
>>> be done at a local or even regional server, if there is reasonable
>>>connectivity.
>
> G3 mobile networks will have the bandwidth most people need, and I
> believe this is the way people in China will get their communications
> needs satisfied.
> With the enormous Chinese market, handsets and more computer-like
> terminal devices will be very cheap because manufacturing cost is very
> low compared to
> development and non-recurring setup costs for this kind of equipment.
>
> Voice technology is on its way into such devices right now. IBM have
> been using substantial resources in this sector for many years, and have
> released development toolkits aimed at makers of small devices this
> year.
>
> What it takes for developing countries to reap the benefits of this, is
> to get in place a couple of G3 operators who should not pay too much for
> their
> operating licences, but instead should be bound to compete under terms
> that encourage low prices to gain a large market.
>
>
>>>Applications give us a hint as to why developing country users NEED
>>> bandwidth. A colleague went to India a shortly while back. His
>>> laptop required its weekly dose of Windows and anti-virus update.
>>> Size, 8.3 megabytes (a major update). His dial-up, 28.8 kbps. In
>>> practice, it took nearly 6 hours, and he was lucky it didn't
>>> disconnect on him. His cost for that update, about $6, or almost a
>>> week's average income in India.
>
> The answer to this is to avoid using Windows.
> You do not need all those antivirus and security updates on any other
> platform.
> If he had used a Mac OS X or Linux laptop (or whatever else, for that
> matter),
> the problem would not have existed.
>
> Being a careful professional, I have avoided most such problem.
> The few cases I have seen through the years, have been on Windows
> systems. It is a platform I just think is untenable in any
> technologically
> undeveloped area.
> Most users will need some form of solid IT infrastructure to use it, or
> they will
> end up causing major problems both for themselves and others.
>
> --
> Bjørn Vermo
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as matthew.gream@xxxxxxxxx
> To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at:
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
--
Matthew Gream
matthew.gream@xxxxxxxxx
http://matthewgream.net
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/