You’re going to hear a lot on this topic in the months and years to come.
In a way, it’s an old concern. The web’s inventor was reportedly furious with Marc Andreessen for creating the image tag because he was afraid that the increased bandwidth demand of transferring tiff and jpeg files would crash the Internet.
It didn’t happen. Then again, video files are exponentially bigger than graphics files and video watching on the Internet is evolving into a very popular activity with a hockey stick like growth curve.
Here’s a video produced by an industry group that has a stake in the outcome. Great example of using video to make complex ideas more easily comprehensible.
– Ken McCarthy
P.S. For over 25 years I’ve been sharing the simple but powerful things that matter in business with my clients.
If you’d like direction for your business that will work today, tomorrow and twenty years from now, visit us at the System Club.
Hi Ken,
Once again thanks for sharing valuable information with us.
This is a great example as the information was easily understood.
Regards
Arthur
Nice link, Ken.
And nice video production too.
S-
Who was the web’s inventor of the internet that was reportedly furious with Marc Andreessen?
(Sir) Tim Berners Lee (then) of CERN, the European physics research lab (www.cern.ch)
We need have no worries on this score. Content is King. With video it will require more bandwidth. But consumers will want to consume it. Therefore they will pay more. Therefore bandwidth will increase. As Ken says, the problem “didn’t happen” – I agree.
So the problem is that multiple copies of the same video will be streamed out from a single source to multiple subscribers? Which is highly inefficient.
I guess the solution will be for ISP’s to have computers to intelligently cache copies of streaming videos locally to groups of viewers, so that every new viewer can watch the video from the locally cached version (at the local phone exchange perhaps), not from the source on the internet itself.
Nice video.
But if I am reading it right, it is a thinly disquised promotion for the “tiered internet”.
The tiered internet is what all the big bandwidth users are pushing for. It gives preferential bandwidth to those who can pay – such as Amazon and WalMart.
Entenpreneurs and small business owners will get pushed down to the lowest bandwidth cataegory.
In other words, those that pay extra will have fast loading sites and those that don’t will have slow loading sites.
Not exactly a level playing field for those getting started.
Just my two cents….
good content is a rare commodity…the medium is NOT the message…unless I can paint more than twelve paintings in a year, there is no need for a panic…as an example…the capacity of the medium called the internet will and is being tempered by the ability of artists to produce good content…without good content, all we have is a pencil, just lying around…
Ed:
You said: “The tiered internet is what all the big bandwidth users are pushing for. It gives preferential bandwidth to those who can pay – such as Amazon and WalMart.”
Actually, Amazon, Google and eBay are all *opposed* to tiered pricing.
Think about that.
The companies that make fiber, install it, provide services to installers, push the technical envelope on it, are in favor of tiered pricing. As are service providers like Verizon and Comstat who have to invest billions to bring the network up to speed.
We live in an age where some people can sit around for days playing multi-player real-time video games with surround sound for the same price as your grandma who reads the quilting forum every now and then.
Does that makes sense?
Most business I know have multi-tiered pricing – airlines, shipping etc. It’s a free market solution to a real problem.
Who is going to be motivated to build the next generation of bandwidth if they’re compelled to give heavy bandwidth users a subsidy?
I don’t have an opinion either way, but I am suspicious of Google et. al. using fear as a tactic for selling their position.