[142329] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik Amundson)
Wed Jun 22 16:54:44 2011
From: Erik Amundson <Erik.Amundson@oati.net>
To: "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" <mksmith@adhost.com>, Jeroen van Aart
<jeroen@mompl.net>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:52:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CA279BAA.17EBF%mksmith@adhost.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation =
are ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's=
not like life support or something that will cause loss of life if it isn'=
t there. The only thing to even discuss here is 'want'. Yes, consumers 'w=
ant' super-fast Internet, faster than any of us can comprehend right now. =
1Tbps to the house, for everyone, for cheap!
- Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksmith@adhost.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:19 PM
To: Jeroen van Aart; NANOG list
Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.
On 6/22/11 12:48 PM, "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
>Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> When I was in grad school, the director of the computer center=20
>> (remember
>> those) felt that there was no need for 1200 bps modems -- 300 bps was=20
>> fine, since no one could read the scrolling output any faster than=20
>> that anyway.
>>=20
>> Right now, I'm running an rsync job to back up my laptop's hard drive=20
>>to my office. I hope it finishes before I leave today for Denver.
>
>I understand the sentiment, but the comparison is flawed in my opinion.
>The speeds back then were barely any faster than you could type, I know=20
>all too well the horrors of 1200/75 baud connectivity.
>
>Luckily nowadays now it's about getting your dvd torrent downloaded in=20
>2 minutes, vs. 20 minutes, or 2 hours. Or your whole disk backed up=20
>before your flight leaves. You're now able to back it up online to begin w=
ith.
>
>The thing here is that I talk about *necessity*. Once connectivity has=20
>reached a certain speed threshold having increased speed generally=20
>starts leaning towards *would be nice* instead of *must*.
>
>And so far the examples people gave are almost all more in the realm of=20
>luxury problems than problems that hinder your life in fundamental ways.
>
>If you have a 100 mbps broadband connection and your toddlers are=20
>slowing down your video conference call with your boss by watching the=20
>newest Dexter (hah!). Then your *need* can be easily satisfied by=20
>telling your toddlers to cut the crap for a while. Sure it'd be nice if=20
>your toddlers could watch Dexter kill another victim whilst you were=20
>having a smooth video conference talk with your boss, but it's not=20
>necessary.
>
>Greetings,
>Jeroen
To paraphrase Randy Bush - I hope all my competitors work on their version =
of what their customers "need" versus what they "want". Why on earth would=
you not want to give them what they want? Why does "need" have anything t=
o do with it, particularly when "need" is impossible to quantify?
Mike
