| Author |
Message |
Electroniker
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Waste of Bandwidth |
|
|
We often see people on Usenet talking about a post wasting bandwidth.
While the intended meaning is clear, the logic is backwards.
It is unused bandwidth that is wasted because we can not go back in
time and reclaim it. Using bandwidth up to the limits of channel
capacity would be optimizing the process.
I can see where one can be less than optimal in their use of bandwidth
in the sense that they are using more bits to convey a message than
required by information theory. But if the purpose of bandwidth is to
provide a means for communicaton, then we should communicate up to the
limits of the channel. And all that dark fiber out there tells me we
have a long ways to go before we hit the limits of available capacity.
Reminds me of all of the old Bureau of Reclaimation chiefs who thought
that every drop of Colorado River water that wasn't used was being
wasted. (See Cadillac Desert by Mark Reisner)
And to all, a good night.
Blakely |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Scott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: Waste of Bandwidth |
|
|
On 23 Dec 2005 14:49:52 -0800, "Electroniker" <Railtramp@aol.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | We often see people on Usenet talking about a post wasting bandwidth.
While the intended meaning is clear, the logic is backwards.
It is unused bandwidth that is wasted because we can not go back in
time and reclaim it. Using bandwidth up to the limits of channel
capacity would be optimizing the process.
|
The bandwidth that is being wasted is not so much the Internet
bandwidth, but rather the attention bandwidth of the human readers.
When a person wastes time reading a useless posting, that is time lost
in that person's life that can never be recovered. If he wasn't
reading that posting, he might have been doing something more
rewarding, like finding truly useful posts, or turing off his computer
and playing with his kids.
-Robert Scott
Ypsilanti, Michigan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nappy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: Waste of Bandwidth |
|
|
"Electroniker" <Railtramp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135378192.442816.85790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | We often see people on Usenet talking about a post wasting bandwidth.
While the intended meaning is clear, the logic is backwards.
|
I think people are really referring to the noise floor. That's how I think
of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thad Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
OT: Waste of Bandwidth |
|
|
Electroniker wrote:
| Quote: | We often see people on Usenet talking about a post wasting bandwidth.
While the intended meaning is clear, the logic is backwards.
It is unused bandwidth that is wasted because we can not go back in
time and reclaim it. Using bandwidth up to the limits of channel
capacity would be optimizing the process.
|
From the perspective of the person that pays for the pipe, unused
capacity is a payed-for-but-unused resource. Paying a high price in
order to provide adequate response time for email or newsgroup articles
seems a waste of money if two paragraphs of text are accompanied by a
300 kb graphic for style (not content) purposes. Similar arguments can
be made for nominal text that is in the form of HTML with multiple
layers of formatting, Word or PDF documents with low-information-content
images, etc. In order to save overall cost, some organizations put
rules in place to reduce the average bandwidth cost of communication,
such as no video, no audio, etc. The rules are intended to keep
communication efficient to minimize the required cost of providing
adequate capacity for a large connection. Of course, the cost of the
rules in terms of human time wasted is important, too. ;-)
Wasted bandwidth in the referenced use really means
low-information-density usage, which results in a higher averaged cost
for higher bandwidth to provide adequate information flow. It means
that the communication in question is taking up bandwidth that would
otherwise be used more efficiently (more information per byte) and thus
may be forcing either a higher overall price or slower service on a
larger system level.
The current situation of almost-free bandwidth for a large percentage of
Internet connection is interesting. What happens when everyone wants to
watch entertainment high-definition streaming video at the same time?
In the long term, people will pay for what they use, one way or another.
Luckily, technology is lowering the cost.
| Quote: | I can see where one can be less than optimal in their use of bandwidth
in the sense that they are using more bits to convey a message than
required by information theory. But if the purpose of bandwidth is to
provide a means for communicaton, then we should communicate up to the
limits of the channel.
|
This gets into the Fallacy of the Commons when you start overloading a
common channel. The per-message-efficiency perspective is intended to
help produce efficient aggregate usage, where costs do count.
Effectiveness depends on cooperation, not a guaranteed thing.
--
Thad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norm Dresner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: Waste of Bandwidth |
|
|
"Electroniker" <Railtramp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135378192.442816.85790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | We often see people on Usenet talking about a post wasting bandwidth.
While the intended meaning is clear, the logic is backwards.
It is unused bandwidth that is wasted because we can not go back in
time and reclaim it. Using bandwidth up to the limits of channel
capacity would be optimizing the process.
|
[BIG SNIP]
....
Back when I was paying for connectivity by the hour (and many people still
do), to have to download any material I didn't want just to get through
another day's newsgroup postings was literally a waste of not only
"bandwidth" but money too. Now that my connectivity charges are by the
month regardless of actual connection-time, anything extraneous is wasting
an using more of the ISP's available bandwidth that I need -- that's the
wasted bandwidth. Looked at another way, if every one of us could cut our
actual download by, say 50%, the ISM could reduce the amount of bandwidth it
has to purchase from a higher-level supplier and cut its bandwidth-related
hardware costs as well.
No economical or social "good" comes from using 100% of the possible
bandwidth of every connection.
Norm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Everett M. Greene
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Waste of Bandwidth |
|
|
"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> writes:
| Quote: | "Electroniker" <Railtramp@aol.com> wrote
We often see people on Usenet talking about a post wasting bandwidth.
While the intended meaning is clear, the logic is backwards.
It is unused bandwidth that is wasted because we can not go back in
time and reclaim it. Using bandwidth up to the limits of channel
capacity would be optimizing the process.
[BIG SNIP]
....
Back when I was paying for connectivity by the hour (and many people still
do), to have to download any material I didn't want just to get through
another day's newsgroup postings was literally a waste of not only
"bandwidth" but money too. Now that my connectivity charges are by the
month regardless of actual connection-time, anything extraneous is wasting
an using more of the ISP's available bandwidth that I need -- that's the
wasted bandwidth. Looked at another way, if every one of us could cut our
actual download by, say 50%, the ISM could reduce the amount of bandwidth it
has to purchase from a higher-level supplier and cut its bandwidth-related
hardware costs as well.
No economical or social "good" comes from using 100% of the possible
bandwidth of every connection.
|
And there are people such as college students who just
don't have a clue about their usage. They get free,
high-speed access and can't comprehend what others are
trying to tell them about their bloated communications.
"Doesn't everyone have a T3 connection?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Hills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Waste of Bandwidth |
|
|
In article <1135378192.442816.85790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Electroniker <Railtramp@aol.com> writes
| Quote: | We often see people on Usenet talking about a post wasting bandwidth.
While the intended meaning is clear, the logic is backwards.
It is unused bandwidth that is wasted because we can not go back in
time and reclaim it. Using bandwidth up to the limits of channel
capacity would be optimizing the process.
I can see where one can be less than optimal in their use of bandwidth
in the sense that they are using more bits to convey a message than
required by information theory. But if the purpose of bandwidth is to
provide a means for communicaton, then we should communicate up to the
limits of the channel. And all that dark fiber out there tells me we
have a long ways to go before we hit the limits of available capacity.
Reminds me of all of the old Bureau of Reclaimation chiefs who thought
that every drop of Colorado River water that wasn't used was being
wasted. (See Cadillac Desert by Mark Reisner)
And to all, a good night.
Blakely
|
As I see it wasting bandwidth is using html where a simple ascii message
would be 4K html takes 20K.
Also things like using graphical backgrounds and logo's in emails. They
add nothing and often get bounced by company firewallls and mail
scrubbers.
The other thing to look at is yes you have a 2Mb link but if we all try
to pull 2mb at the same time you will find your local ISP access point
will get overloaded never mind the main trunks.
The ISP's have realised that local Internet use is 24/7 but not all at
the same time by the same people. EG there are 1000 business users who
are not using their computers at home in the day time. This is a bit
like reserving an air ticket. they always take more reservations than
seats.
The mobile phone network is the same. Some cells can get overloaded. eg
the N. Circular 16:30 to 17:30 :-(
So you can use your link to download at 2Mb but not a continuous 2mb all
the time. It is not the 2mb that is important but the contention ratio.
Some are 25-1 others 50-1 and some 100-1 This is why broad band is (in
the small print) UP TO a speed.
In any event the facts is: The less junk that you put on the network the
faster it will run.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in