[173080] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Net Neutrality...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Harlan Stenn)
Tue Jul 15 15:29:26 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org>
To: Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com>
In-reply-to: <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:28:00 +0000
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Brett Glass writes:
> At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> >There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which
> >it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
>
> Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
>
> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
> accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that
> additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose
> of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to
> redefine "broadband" as a symmetrical 10 Mbps?
For single-person households, nefarious things.
For households (or small businesses) things change. And while most
folks will not need those uplink speeds, for others it can be real
useful.
And yes, there is room for abuse.
H
