5% of the users use 95% of the bandwidth while downloading their bootleg MP3s and BitTorrents. Why do we have to subsidize their activity?
Well, first of all, I would ask you to give yor sources for that “5%” figure. I am just curious where you got the number.
Secondly, let’s say that Beck or some other figure was driven off the air, and the only way to get his program was thru file-sharing. Would you want to be able to do so? Even if “we” were subsidizing it?
The American public subsidizes all manner of things that a lot of us may not use. Take sugar - I can’t really eat it, and have to peer at every label to see if corn syrup is included in the ingredient list. (It makes for sparse pickings sometimes, when all the HFCS is eliminated from your diet.) But our Ag Dept subsidizes sugar production in order to keep it cheap. It’s considered to be a vital part of commerce.
Now I may not feel that Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Bean are a sensible investment for my tax dollar, but that’s the law right now. On what basis does the legislation get rewritten to eliminate sugar subsidies if the sweeteners go to candy production? Likewise, how will you eliminate net subsidies for those who download illegally? After all, many bittorrents are actually of copyright-free properties. How do you tell the difference? Or do you just get rid of them all?
“5% of the users use 95% of the bandwidth while downloading their bootleg MP3s and BitTorrents. Why do we have to subsidize their activity?”
You don’t have to subsidize them you know. Most cable folks can shift to DSL to save money, or if DSL is too fast (and expensive), then dialup is available at reduced cost. We live in the boondocks, so sats were the only thing available outside of dialup which was not acceptable for our level of use. Sats are expensive, but well worth it. I never worried about others using more than I did. As time went by, speed increased to the point that suppertime reduction in speed wasn’t noticeable, or at least we did the high capacity stuff later in the evening. Rural fiberoptics (yes, there is such a thing), solved many of the problems associated with satcom (lag and capacity issues. Technology marches on!
You’re asking the wrong question. If bandwidth is a problem, then work at getting the bandwidth increased. The speed is unbelievable, compared to what was available 10 years ago. Comcast is bumping it up swiftly. It’s not like the capacity is going to remain static, else we’d all still be on dialup. Tell the ISP’s to increase their capacity. Demand drives technology. Viewing bandwidth as a zero sum game is unrealistic. Ten years from now the current internet will be considered quaint, and the applications.....limited.
Much of the media content will be delivered over the net, Hulu being a great example of what is to come. Skype video conferencing is another high bandwidth app that would have been considered “magic” a decade ago. Don’t bemoan the fact the others use more capacity than you (they’re either going to use more or less). Without demand, there is no increase in capacity. All it takes is additional investment and R&D. It’s coming anyway, so encourage it.