Re: Should we oppose the

D >The problem is that bandwidth is a highly limited resource, just like
D >real estate is a limited resource. Eventually we will complete 
D >saturate network bandwidth no matter what technology is used. This has
D >been discussed in various forums for many years. 

Then why have telecoms prices been declining for years?  A three minute 
phone call from the US to England cost $25 in 1955 (in 1955 dollars).  
Where in the current comms spectrum do you see saturation and rising 
prices?

It seems to me that in most resources we get predictions of shortages for 
centuries but those shortages never appear because the market eliminates 
or dodges them.

DCF



--- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

>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. 

Eventually yes.  Some media are already saturated (short wave),
but in general, the terestrial bandwidth will not approach it's
upper limit in our lifetimes.

Terrestrial networks are limited only by the cost of putting down
the infrastructure (fiber these days) and maintaining the equipment
to drive it.  A single fiber will of course have limited band width
that will no doubt be reached in our lifetimes, but when that runs
out, there's always more room in the trenches, and if there's a
will, there's room for a new trench.

As the existing infrastructure is paid off, and the monopolies
which were granted for it's initial construction break up, the
price of terrestrial bandwidth drops.

There is no shortage of intra-continental bandwidth (at least not
in populated wealthy areas such as north america, Singapore, etc).
There may be a shortage of inter-continental bandwidth.  The cost
of laying undersea fiber makes it difficult for new competition to
get a foothold and hence the market lends itself to de facto
monopolies.


brad