>From my brother. (Jud stop me if this goes contrary to list rules.) ------ Forwarded Message From: "Steve Brady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:19:14 -0500 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: OT Bandwidth
Chris If I might submit a rejoinder: If the issue is "wasted bandwidth" then one usually is concerned about the strain on the "system" and not on the individual conduits that one chooses to bring to one's individual point of service. In fact, one could, if one would so choose, implement filtering devices that would limit the amount of "incoming" waste to the bandwidth. Specifically, if you don't like what a specific newsgroup talks about, don't sign up for that group (this is of course the default, NO one subscribes to ALL the newsgroups, as a practical matter!) If you don't want to download large files, email systems are designed to provide up to a specific K limit, to allow the user to exercise judgement on what is "needed or necessary" for their functioning. It is when one argues that "in general" people are wasting bandwidth, that the discussion moves from the specific to the general, and the discussion then moves into the capacity on the network (both the arcs, and the nodes.) In one final, nit-picking point, logistics management includes the discipline of transportation, and that has come to include the transportation of information, via electronic means. There is a reason why the language of transportation (networks, routes and routers, switches and switching, (data)warehousing is so closely related to the language of information management. If one were to research the area, one would find articles already being written discussing the "internet" as the sixth mode of transportation. Respectfully, Steve Brady -----Original Message----- From: Christian M. M. Brady [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:00 PM To: Entourage:mac Talk Subject: Re: OT Bandwidth On 3/19/02 7:20 PM, "Joshua Yeidel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Entourage-Talkers, > > It is interesting to hear from a professor of logistics management. > It would be comforting to be able to understand the issue by applying > simple commodity analogies. > > Unfortunately, bandwidth (that is, telecom capacity) is not evenly > distributed in space. The "overbuilt" national infrastructure doesn't > mean much to my 56K modem which achieves only 33K on our rural > telephone lines. But this isn't about overall capacity then (which is what Harry seemed to be concerned with). Instead you are now talking about your ability to access it. > Also, excess capacity is not evenly distributed in time. At any > particular moment, (say, the moment when _I_ am downloading a security > update from Microsoft), there may be a notable deficit of capacity; > at 3 the following morning, there may be more than plenty. > > So the "logistics" of bandwidth and its "wastability" may be hard to > generalize. Perhaps but Harry (and I may have misunderstood him) seemed to be referring to overall system capacity. A capacity which while finite is not even close to be used at the moment. You do bring up a good point about your ability to access it, but this is, IMO something slightly different (as I implied in my first post). My sending this email may clog up your box and take a minute to download on a slow connection, but it is only using a very tiny amount of the overall bandwidth available across the net. Even in HTML format. Cb Cbrady @ tulane.edu -- Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. -- G.K. CHESTERTON, The Man who was Thursday ------ End of Forwarded Message -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
