so some people live event driven lives - the internet just makes this worse, and the fact that people have an order of magnitude more "friends" on facebook, than in Real Life, just means that the interrupt rate soars and attention span withers and noone gets anything done anymore - this is the True Cause of the recession, not stupid greedy bankers at all...
anyhow, so if we all revert to old (uucp style, for the older readers) connectivity and make delay tolerant use of the interweb, then noone can expect us to see an email (let alone answer it) until the next day - this would also allow perfect statistical multiplexing (and resource pooling) of the network - people are already timeshifting when they watch TV programs (via netflix/lovefilm, or via iPlayer in the UK) - so this is timeshifting when you deal with what USED to be asynchronous communication....
I think we could charge people more money for this apparently less reliable service... ... ...
maybe call it calmail or the retreat from realtime
yes its true, all of it - the internet doesn't really exist, so it must be.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Funding 4G deployment...
so there's a common thread in current stories in the regulatory, economic and technical community concerning the deployment of 4G very fast wireless/cellular data services).
It goes like this:
1.demand is growing exponentially
2.revenue only grows linearly with number of users
3. ergo, we can't afford to deploy 4G
there's a couple of things wrong with this argument.
1. cost of deployment doesn't necessarily grow exponentially with capacity - there are
a) aggregation factors; b) energy cost savings with newer kit; c) new tricks (cooperative relaying from multiple masts).
2. revenue does grow - lots of users pay a lot more for unlimited data service contracts on than they did for voice/txt message contracts and also for very limited 2.5G (GPRS/Edge) typical volume limited services - If 35M people in the UK were paying a typical unlimited data contract, of, currently around 30 pounds per month, that is 12billion pounds per year - that is quite enough to deploy LTE.
3. revenue from the other side of the net also grows (if more people download more video, youtube and the BBC etc have to buy more high speed services from fixed net providers - these are non trivial income streams
someone is telling porkie pies.
It goes like this:
1.demand is growing exponentially
2.revenue only grows linearly with number of users
3. ergo, we can't afford to deploy 4G
there's a couple of things wrong with this argument.
1. cost of deployment doesn't necessarily grow exponentially with capacity - there are
a) aggregation factors; b) energy cost savings with newer kit; c) new tricks (cooperative relaying from multiple masts).
2. revenue does grow - lots of users pay a lot more for unlimited data service contracts on than they did for voice/txt message contracts and also for very limited 2.5G (GPRS/Edge) typical volume limited services - If 35M people in the UK were paying a typical unlimited data contract, of, currently around 30 pounds per month, that is 12billion pounds per year - that is quite enough to deploy LTE.
3. revenue from the other side of the net also grows (if more people download more video, youtube and the BBC etc have to buy more high speed services from fixed net providers - these are non trivial income streams
someone is telling porkie pies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
music while you browse
Blog Archive
About Me
- jon crowcroft
- misery me, there is a floccipaucinihilipilification (*) of chronsynclastic infundibuli in these parts and I must therefore refer you to frank zappa instead, and go home