Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?

[doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)]

Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org> said:
>Perry writes:
>> Seems to me that bandwidth is
>> going to be nearly free in both directions in a few years whether
>> government intervenes or not.
>
>I agree about the potential for it to be free, but, I gotta tell you, the
>monopolists running the cable systems in this country have no inclination
>to share that nearly free bandwidth with you, even if you're willing to
>pay for access to it.

I hate to disagree, considering that I prefer to agree with the philosophy
here, but it *can't* work that way, regardless of what we wish.

The problem is that bandwidth is a highly limited resource, just like
real estate is a limited resource. Eventually we will complete saturate
network bandwidth no matter what technology is used. This has been discussed
in various forums for many years. Once optical fiber optic bandwidth
peaks, you have to move to ultraviolet for greater channel capacity.
Then that is exhausted, and we will continue pushing...gamma ray bandwidth
fiber optic (or line of sight transmission) will eventually be a target,
despite its extreme difficulties even in theory.

At the same time we will be laying fiber and raising dishes to beat the
band. But no matter how well all that goes, we will *very* quickly reach
a saturation point of facilities as each new technology is introduced.

These days it's easy to be optimistic, because bandwidth is growing
geometrically. The problem is that there is no way in hell that that
trend can continue indefinitely. One or two decades hence we will saturate
theoretical limits.

Bandwidth is and will always remain a scarce and precious resource.

On the other hand, if you mean "slow channels by comparison with state of
the art channels," then yeah, *that* may as well be free at any given
point. Right this instant one could make an argument for 110 baud
channels being free.

>In order to get to a world in which free markets can meet our demand for
>high-bandwidth connectivity, we have to dig ourselves out from the 
>market-failure position we're in now. And because government is part of
>the problem, changing government policy is part of the solution. So,
>that's one of the major thrusts of EFF's NII policy. 

I agree, but this seems to be a subject change.
	Doug