[173121] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Net Neutrality...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Wed Jul 16 15:58:35 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:42:17 -0400
To: Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com>
In-Reply-To: <201407151909.NAA07574@mail.lariat.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On July 15, 2014 at 13:08 nanog@brettglass.com (Brett Glass) wrote:
> 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?
You can do the same sort of calculation for devices. Once the screen
is updating at the screen refresh rate you are done, plus or minus
getting a faster screen but as you note that's not open-ended. At some
point you can't see faster refreshes anyhow.
etc for other human interface devices.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
