how-to block ads
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Gridfear
Re: "The Grid" a long way away from general internet use
said by TKJunkMail  :The idea is that it will ultimately be what replaces the current Internet for the mainstream public across the world. Sounds right to me. I see us following the same path to deployment that we followed for the established internet.
said by TKJunkMail :Think of it like the road system in Germany. Super high speed autobahns tie together cities. But when you get to those cities, speeds drop off precipitously.
Roads and transport are governed by numerous physical limitations that don't apply to shuttling the electrons around.
As far as the data rate differences, it's the same as our existing media structure. Data across the peers travels at one rate. Data to the CO, a fraction of that. Data to the node, a fraction of that.
At present, the average (don't know about median) speed to the user is acceptable-to-good, but not inspirational.
said by TKJunkMail :The cities will NEVER have speeds like the autobahns. And home users will NEVER have the speeds that tie these research centers together - at least not in my or even current teens lifetimes. Will home users speeds rise? Of course. But it won't approach the speeds tying together these research centers. Sounds like the class warfare talking points. Our (USA) poorest people live far better than kings did for thousands of years, but many only focus on the top tier and the gap between.
It's OK by me if the Top Tier Standard of Living doubles if it means mine triples. That would mean our gap would widen even further, but I would be ahead.
It's OK by me if the pencil neck's internet increases ten-fold, even if mine only increases five-fold. It's a losing game to base your success on others.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
Gridfear
@verizon.net
| reply to S_engineeer
"The consumer ultimately rationed a miniscule amount of access but could benefit from the technologies. We will however, be paying through the nose, and it will be sold as a telecom breakthrough!"
And why does that bother you? The cost of developing this network was rationalized by it's first intended use: research and the researchers at the universities and research offices where they do their work, not web surfers and P2P users sitting at home. Even the most noble consumer end-user uses don't justify free access.
Access to a very high-speed network is not a right, it's a value-added service you must pay for. Someone will have to build the infrastructure to bring GRID (or whatever it will be called when it gets to the rest of us) to commercial and eventually residential users, but those users will have to pay a fee to justify the investments made. And if the government did it, those fees would be called taxes. | |
|
