"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
OK think about it like this. Some day you will hit a brick wall in terms of bandwidth usage, because your eye does not have infinite resolution.
All services now, and all services that may be thought up in the future, will all require that they be presented to the eye (the eye being the greater bandwidth user of all the senses).
Stream at 'retina' quality and you can present ANY service you will ever think of.
Without an upgrade to infrastructure, technology stagnates.
You ever hear that (rumored) Bill Gates quote? "640K of memory ought to be enough for anyone."
No one's going to develop consumer technologies that require 100mbps Internet connections if those 100mbps connections show no promise of high adoption.
I was just thinking the same thing. Wireless service needs a new business model: one which isn't funded (extorted) by bandwidth caps and roaming fees, but also not by personal information harvesting and targeted advertising. Perhaps by hardware sales...
How would you suggest that might work? Would the owners of AI receive some of Apple's hardware revenue for instance, or did you have something else in mind?
I recall musing on AI a year or two ago that one day the internet will be so fast we will cease even thinking about download speeds just as we didn't when watching an analog TV show in the past, it was 'just there'. We are getting closer.
I hope you're right. At the moment mobile still faces an obstacle greater than speed: coverage. Even within big cities there are dead spots (not to mention subways that inexplicably don't have repeaters), and once you're outside a major metropolitan area there's only old, slow technology.
So, like you say, maybe some day, but it'll take more than a Samsung or Qualcomm developing faster transmission/reception methods. We'll need infrastructure to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
[...] Adequate speed to stream in high res video is all that most will care for.
I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. Perhaps real-time apps that do the heavy lifting in the cloud. Improved navigation through both faster map updates and real-time crowd-sourcing would be welcome. Or just sufficient bandwidth to be able to use data while you're on the phone!
4G is almost completely useless since you can exhaust your monthly data plan in less than one minute at full speed.
Similarly, 5G will be entirely useless unless a method is devised to force cell carriers to give customers enough bandwidth to actually use it. Downloading HD movies? Don't make me laugh. You can't even download a SINGLE movie in HD with current cell data plans, even the expensive plans.
And yes, the carriers will have to be forced. They certainly have shown zero signs of offering more data on their own.
I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. Perhaps real-time apps that do the heavy lifting in the cloud. Improved navigation through both faster map updates and real-time crowd-sourcing would be welcome. Or just sufficient bandwidth to be able to use data while you're on the phone!
Sure, by my point really is, that there will become a time that further bandwidth is not required because your brain can only process a certain bandwidth of information. And I do understand that 5G and further will be needed to achieve this (I'm no luddite). But I truly believe that we are nearing the end of what is required from bandwidth, and the average consumer will demand less vigorous bandwidth upgrades from here (streaming HD) onwards, eventually hitting a brick wall beyond which it is nigh on pointless.
I can see a need for landline bandwidth having a need for much greater improvements though. As bandwidth beyond your immediate human usage will be required. For instance with high res wallpaper, your room could change at a click of a finger so a serene video stream of a forest or a beach. But once your average sized room (or house) can be filled with retina video, again we will hit a wall, beyond which further bandwidth will rarely be needed.
Yes, Okay, I am guilty of giving an approximation. I admit I was off. But not as far off as you...
In what way am I off? As you note in your follow up post this article states bits and Verizon use bytes. I never made any statement about cost; i referred to that as "your scenario."
Those areas might leap frog to 5G. Some countries go from being vastly behind to superior service.
Considering the fact that 3G and now 4G has been out for some time and there still aren't any upgrades in site I'm not holding my breath. Its the ole thinking of well it will cost more than they'll get back in revenue to do it so until they're forced to do it, you'll never see it. I think this is why you see large gaps in coverage in many areas around the US.
I'd like to see data caps either eliminated, or at least increased to a respectable amount. The bottom line plan shouldn't be what it is today. It should be far far above that, especially if were going to see gigabits/second.
Sure, by my point really is, that there will become a time that further bandwidth is not required because your brain can only process a certain bandwidth of information. And I do understand that 5G and further will be needed to achieve this (I'm no luddite). But I truly believe that we are nearing the end of what is required from bandwidth, and the average consumer will demand less vigorous bandwidth upgrades from here (streaming HD) onwards, eventually hitting a brick wall beyond which it is nigh on pointless.
Until we reach a point where we reach a seamless integration of the Internet in our lives, we'll arguably need more. Presently, even with 4G, there is a noticeable delay with acquiring driving directions, viewing a restaurant's online menu, or downloading a report from my dropbox at a remote location. At some point we'll reach a level (somewhat google glass-esque) where any information we want is instantly available at our fingertips (or retinas). It's not about raw throughput, its about quick access to small bits of data at the same time.
Will we eventually hit a user-limited bottleneck where the user cant process enough information and you're talking differences in download speeds in terms of a couple nanoseconds? Sure. But I think we're all a fair ways off from that just yet.
I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. ...
Yep, although full predictions can be difficult. The devil is in the details.
Back in the mid-1990s, I and some others were contracted by a major carrier to predict what would be possible if people had ubiquitous broadband access.
One of the things we got right was that there would be cloud storage for things like documents, photos and videos. Instead of emailing lots of copies to everyone, users would upload their info only one time, and then simply send links to others to download / view the info if they wished. Sure enough, this has happened.
What we got dead wrong was to assume that people would have to rent this cloud storage from the carriers. Everyone thought it obvious that "only carriers could afford such huge amounts of storage". It never occurred to us that cloud storage websites (especially for photos and videos) would spring up all over the place, paid for mostly by advertisements. That is, we did not foresee the dot com boom and "free" sites like Flickr or YouTube.
So about the time Apple purges the last Samsung component from their assembly lines, Samsung will have a SEP Apple needs so it'll resume payments to the company.
There's no inherent problem with participating in such a global economy. The only risk is what do the fees look like after burning so many bridges. Remember, "standards-essential" doesn't mean "free", and while there's an obligation on the patent-holder to ask for pricing within reasonable bounds, there is no obligation to charge all licensees the same amount.
Actually I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND means.
The largest things you can currently download onto your phone are films. There is a cap on app size on 3G.
So the question is, who needs to be able to download an entire film faster than you could actually watch it?
4G is fine for streaming even the best resolution on a mobile screen.
Personally I'd rather stream it just in time to make sure it's the film I want, in the right language, in a decent quality. I'd hate to use a gig of data in seconds to find out it's not the film I wanted or it was unwatchable.
5G is just another one of those things playing towards the idiots who think they need faster and bigger everything.
Sheeze guys. You act like we'll never need more bandwidth. Of course we're going to need these types of speeds within a few years. If nothing else, this would allow one to drop landlines for everything and connect entirely over the air. All TVs and computers in the house running off a single WiFi 5G router. And 10 years after that, that will seem quaint.
And besides teleportation takes a LOT more bandwidth than HD movies.
1. More bandwidth should lead to larger (or cheaper) data plans.
2. Improving bandwidth should lead to additional use-case scenarios for cloud based storage.
For the first, we obviously won't gain as much as possible because the telecoms will be greedy, but that's business (and to be expected); in the long run, it will still be a net positive for consumers. The second is really quite nebulous, as prophecies generally are, but it's a nice thought that (for example) fast wifi will someday be ubiquitous and local hard drives will become nothing but RAM (as they nearly already are in terms of performance relative to the end user).
So the question is, who needs to be able to download an entire film faster than you could actually watch it?
That leaves downloading it slower than you can actually watch it. I'd rather the video download happens faster than I'm able to watch it so it doesn't continually pause itself and cache before letting me continue watching. This also affects the ability to jump ahead in the video if it's being downloaded in order, like with iTS media, and being able to copy something quickly so you can take it to an area that doesn't have a fast or any internet connection.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
OK think about it like this. Some day you will hit a brick wall in terms of bandwidth usage, because your eye does not have infinite resolution.
All services now, and all services that may be thought up in the future, will all require that they be presented to the eye (the eye being the greater bandwidth user of all the senses).
Stream at 'retina' quality and you can present ANY service you will ever think of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmobius
Without an upgrade to infrastructure, technology stagnates.
You ever hear that (rumored) Bill Gates quote? "640K of memory ought to be enough for anyone."
No one's going to develop consumer technologies that require 100mbps Internet connections if those 100mbps connections show no promise of high adoption.
Oh jog on.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
I was just thinking the same thing. Wireless service needs a new business model: one which isn't funded (extorted) by bandwidth caps and roaming fees, but also not by personal information harvesting and targeted advertising. Perhaps by hardware sales...
How would you suggest that might work? Would the owners of AI receive some of Apple's hardware revenue for instance, or did you have something else in mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I recall musing on AI a year or two ago that one day the internet will be so fast we will cease even thinking about download speeds just as we didn't when watching an analog TV show in the past, it was 'just there'. We are getting closer.
I hope you're right. At the moment mobile still faces an obstacle greater than speed: coverage. Even within big cities there are dead spots (not to mention subways that inexplicably don't have repeaters), and once you're outside a major metropolitan area there's only old, slow technology.
So, like you say, maybe some day, but it'll take more than a Samsung or Qualcomm developing faster transmission/reception methods. We'll need infrastructure to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
[...] Adequate speed to stream in high res video is all that most will care for.
I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. Perhaps real-time apps that do the heavy lifting in the cloud. Improved navigation through both faster map updates and real-time crowd-sourcing would be welcome. Or just sufficient bandwidth to be able to use data while you're on the phone!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
gibiBIT for the tech v. gibiBYTE for how how iSP charges you, so you'd need to get 80 seconds of unwanted video for your scenario.
Yes, Okay, I am guilty of giving an approximation. I admit I was off. But not as far off as you...
From the AI story:
"Samsung says has achieved download and upload speeds of tens of gigabits per second (Gbps)"
From Verizon Wireless's website:
"Data overage is $15 per 1GB of data if you go over your plan allowance."
(10Gb/s) / 8 = 1.25 GB/s.
(1.25 GB/s) x 10 s = 12.5 GB.
($15/GB) x 12.5 = $187.5
So that ten-second mistake will actually cost over $185.
Similarly, 5G will be entirely useless unless a method is devised to force cell carriers to give customers enough bandwidth to actually use it. Downloading HD movies? Don't make me laugh. You can't even download a SINGLE movie in HD with current cell data plans, even the expensive plans.
And yes, the carriers will have to be forced. They certainly have shown zero signs of offering more data on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. Perhaps real-time apps that do the heavy lifting in the cloud. Improved navigation through both faster map updates and real-time crowd-sourcing would be welcome. Or just sufficient bandwidth to be able to use data while you're on the phone!
Sure, by my point really is, that there will become a time that further bandwidth is not required because your brain can only process a certain bandwidth of information. And I do understand that 5G and further will be needed to achieve this (I'm no luddite). But I truly believe that we are nearing the end of what is required from bandwidth, and the average consumer will demand less vigorous bandwidth upgrades from here (streaming HD) onwards, eventually hitting a brick wall beyond which it is nigh on pointless.
I can see a need for landline bandwidth having a need for much greater improvements though. As bandwidth beyond your immediate human usage will be required. For instance with high res wallpaper, your room could change at a click of a finger so a serene video stream of a forest or a beach. But once your average sized room (or house) can be filled with retina video, again we will hit a wall, beyond which further bandwidth will rarely be needed.
In what way am I off? As you note in your follow up post this article states bits and Verizon use bytes. I never made any statement about cost; i referred to that as "your scenario."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Those areas might leap frog to 5G. Some countries go from being vastly behind to superior service.
Considering the fact that 3G and now 4G has been out for some time and there still aren't any upgrades in site I'm not holding my breath. Its the ole thinking of well it will cost more than they'll get back in revenue to do it so until they're forced to do it, you'll never see it. I think this is why you see large gaps in coverage in many areas around the US.
I'd like to see data caps either eliminated, or at least increased to a respectable amount. The bottom line plan shouldn't be what it is today. It should be far far above that, especially if were going to see gigabits/second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Sure, by my point really is, that there will become a time that further bandwidth is not required because your brain can only process a certain bandwidth of information. And I do understand that 5G and further will be needed to achieve this (I'm no luddite). But I truly believe that we are nearing the end of what is required from bandwidth, and the average consumer will demand less vigorous bandwidth upgrades from here (streaming HD) onwards, eventually hitting a brick wall beyond which it is nigh on pointless.
Until we reach a point where we reach a seamless integration of the Internet in our lives, we'll arguably need more. Presently, even with 4G, there is a noticeable delay with acquiring driving directions, viewing a restaurant's online menu, or downloading a report from my dropbox at a remote location. At some point we'll reach a level (somewhat google glass-esque) where any information we want is instantly available at our fingertips (or retinas). It's not about raw throughput, its about quick access to small bits of data at the same time.
Will we eventually hit a user-limited bottleneck where the user cant process enough information and you're talking differences in download speeds in terms of a couple nanoseconds? Sure. But I think we're all a fair ways off from that just yet.
One thing for sure when 5G speeds hit the market, AT&T will be several years late to the party like they are with LTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. ...
Yep, although full predictions can be difficult. The devil is in the details.
Back in the mid-1990s, I and some others were contracted by a major carrier to predict what would be possible if people had ubiquitous broadband access.
One of the things we got right was that there would be cloud storage for things like documents, photos and videos. Instead of emailing lots of copies to everyone, users would upload their info only one time, and then simply send links to others to download / view the info if they wished. Sure enough, this has happened.
What we got dead wrong was to assume that people would have to rent this cloud storage from the carriers. Everyone thought it obvious that "only carriers could afford such huge amounts of storage". It never occurred to us that cloud storage websites (especially for photos and videos) would spring up all over the place, paid for mostly by advertisements. That is, we did not foresee the dot com boom and "free" sites like Flickr or YouTube.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
So about the time Apple purges the last Samsung component from their assembly lines, Samsung will have a SEP Apple needs so it'll resume payments to the company.
There's no inherent problem with participating in such a global economy. The only risk is what do the fees look like after burning so many bridges. Remember, "standards-essential" doesn't mean "free", and while there's an obligation on the patent-holder to ask for pricing within reasonable bounds, there is no obligation to charge all licensees the same amount.
Actually I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND means.
The largest things you can currently download onto your phone are films. There is a cap on app size on 3G.
So the question is, who needs to be able to download an entire film faster than you could actually watch it?
4G is fine for streaming even the best resolution on a mobile screen.
Personally I'd rather stream it just in time to make sure it's the film I want, in the right language, in a decent quality. I'd hate to use a gig of data in seconds to find out it's not the film I wanted or it was unwatchable.
5G is just another one of those things playing towards the idiots who think they need faster and bigger everything.
Sheeze guys. You act like we'll never need more bandwidth. Of course we're going to need these types of speeds within a few years. If nothing else, this would allow one to drop landlines for everything and connect entirely over the air. All TVs and computers in the house running off a single WiFi 5G router. And 10 years after that, that will seem quaint.
And besides teleportation takes a LOT more bandwidth than HD movies.
1. More bandwidth should lead to larger (or cheaper) data plans.
2. Improving bandwidth should lead to additional use-case scenarios for cloud based storage.
For the first, we obviously won't gain as much as possible because the telecoms will be greedy, but that's business (and to be expected); in the long run, it will still be a net positive for consumers. The second is really quite nebulous, as prophecies generally are, but it's a nice thought that (for example) fast wifi will someday be ubiquitous and local hard drives will become nothing but RAM (as they nearly already are in terms of performance relative to the end user).
That leaves downloading it slower than you can actually watch it. I'd rather the video download happens faster than I'm able to watch it so it doesn't continually pause itself and cache before letting me continue watching. This also affects the ability to jump ahead in the video if it's being downloaded in order, like with iTS media, and being able to copy something quickly so you can take it to an area that doesn't have a fast or any internet connection.
Other companies working on same thing.
Samsungs version currently uses 20 antennas, couldn't fit in a tablet, much less a cell phone, and isn't even projected to be viable until 2020.
Not news.
And since when does ai tout Samsung dreams and promises?
Curious.