On 7/19/18 1:30 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> On 18/Jul/18 23:56, Keith Stokes wrote:
>
>> At least in the US, Jane also doesn’t really have a choice of her
>> electricity provider, so she’s not getting bombarded with advertising
>> from vendors selling “Faster WiFi” than the next guy. I don’t get to
>> choose my method of power generation and therefore cost per kWh. I’d
>> love to buy $.04 from the Pacific NW when I’m in the Southern US.
> And that's why I suspect that 10Gbps to the home will become a reality
> not out of necessity, but out of a race on who can out-market the other.
>
> The problem for us as operators - which is what I was trying to explain
> - was that even though the home will likely not saturate that 10Gbps
> link, never mind even use 1% of it in any sustained fashion, we shall be
> left the burden of proving the "I want to see my 10Gbps that I bought,
> or I'm moving to your competitor" case over and over again.
>
> When are we going to stop feeding the monster we've created (or more
> accurately, that has been created for us)?
There is a point beyond which the network ceases to be a serious
imposition on what you are trying to do.
When it gets there, it fades into the background as a utility function.
The fact that multiple streaming audio / video applications in a
household doesn't have to routinely cheese people off point to the
threshold having been reached for the those applications at least in
fixed networks. For others it will it still be a while. When that 5GB
software update or a new purchased 25GB game takes 20 minutes to
deliver that's a delay between intent and action that the user or
service operator might seek to minimize. Likewise, Latency or Jitter
associated with network resource contention impacts real-time
applications. When the network is sufficiently scaled / well behaved
that these applications can coexist without imposition that stops being
a point of contention.
> Mark.
>
