Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
But a big lot of it is just marketing because there are precious few people that actually need more than 10 Mb/s.
|
Same reason justified 2400 and 1.4K baud modems. Nobody needed DSL (1400K and 3000K) in 1990 because advance technology 2.4K modems were fast enough.
Silicon Valley suffered a 1990s downturn, in part, because technologies developed for DSL speeds (ie 1 Gig computer) had no market. Due to fear of technology (ie packet switching) in the last mile, innovation and economic growth was stifled. Microsoft even had to sue Qwest who refused to provide anything other than obsolete circuit switched technology.
Same was learned from pollution control. When the American auto industry stifled innovation, then other countries developed those products that would reap major profits and jobs. American cars then contributed to Bosch's profits because Bosch developed oxygen sensors that Americans knew were unnecessary. "I don't need no stinkin oxygen sensor. My car starts just fine." I don't need no fast internet because products that could use it do not exist.
Same reasoning is why other technologies (ie smart phones, PC and laptops, VCRs, light bulbs, disk drives, semiconductor memory, quantum dots, transistor radios, lithium batteries) moved overseas.
DSL (Broadband) was demonstrated when the IBM PC was introduced. Broadband technology is that old. New products and innovations were denied for almost 20 years because telcos (last mile providers) refused to innovate using the same reasoning that says we don't need 100 Mb. We did not need 1000K modems because we had 1.2K modems. Lessons to be learned from history.
Expect innovative products from Korea because their residential internet has been 100 Mb for only $20. Five times faster for one half the price. Some here are still on 33K modems due to fear of innovation inspired by costs controls, lack of competition, and Michael Powel's rhetoric. Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, etc also want to destroy net neutrality for increased profits. Encouraged by rules that also stifle innovation.
Geography is a troglodyte myth. "Death of distance" has long proven that communication costs increase almost zero with distance. Without competition, cable and fiber companies have stopped expanding their networks. They have gone into a 'maximize profits' mode; common to monopolies and duopolies. For example, the most urbanized states in America are NJ and lower NY. Verizon refused to installed fiber or copper wires into Mantalokin NJ and Fire Island NY after damage from near zero hurricane Sandy. With a new American internet advocated by Michael Powel, residents must spend more money on a slower wireless service that does not support some communication functions. Why can Verizon not afford to install service in the most urban state in America - where distances are shortest? Geography is irrelevant.
Laws that created 'last mile' duopolies mean American internet has fallen to about 20 in the world - and dropping. Many know 8 Mb will always be fast enough for the same reason 2.4K modems were fast enough. Comcast, Verizon, et al love that myth.
Amazing that so many have no idea what, how, and why innovation is created and is so necessary. 20Mb internet means more jobs, wealth, productivity, products, profits, and markets go to our foreign competition. America was once a world leader in internet. Since Michael Powel, America is slowly conceding another industry due to companies that want to make profits; the product be damned.