I wrote such a long comment at CoreEcon that I figured I should replicate it here:
I had a look at X Media Lab, and I saw games and digital video. I can see that being beneficial for education. But I can’t see that needing 100Mbps.
For example, Fire Department 3, is a computer game, but also simulates a very real scenario. This approach could help in future to train people for all kinds of jobs, where they must respond to scenarios that are not easy to stage in real life. A further advantage is in letting people who are geographically distant from each other, experience teamwork and get to know each other. However, there is no indication that it needs more than a 512kbps Internet connection to play in online teams.
As far as practical examples go, I have yet to hear someone say, “I am trying to create digital video as a home-based entrepreneur/artist/developer/etc, but my Internet is too slow.” Perhaps I’m just not looking hard enough.
But I have noticed that, out and about in the suburbs where I live, the only thing people want Internet above 512kbps for is downloading TV shows.
The progression of Internet technologies has taken us from 300bps to 1mbps and beyond. In the days of 300bps dial-up, Internet speeds were a serious deterrent to trying to transmit anything more than a few words in real-time. There was a desire to be able to transmit pages of text in a matter of seconds. With today’s Internet, we have achieved the wishes of the 1980’s. This blog took a split-second to load on my computer.
Our current uses of the Internet are still largely based on text and relatively narrow data streams, such as Internet games. The application of the Internet to video has largely been in replacing and improving the broadcast television model.
If we look at broadcast television, yes, it is amazingly useful for education. Specialist educational programs, news, current affairs and documentaries have far more benefits than simply entertainment. But all these applications can be, and are, delivered under 512kbps. For example, Google News, blogs, the New Matilda website, and Wikipedia. Youtube has benefited me personally by demonstrating processes that are best expressed in video, and are harder to learn about via text. All under 512kbps.
David does make an excellent point that we really have no way of predicting what the world will throw at us in 2007, 2012, and beyond. My contention is that, based on previous experience, we may not need this.
I will use the analogy of a book store I once worked at: the manager installed high-speed “gigabit” (1,000Mbps) networking in-store, in order to future-proof for as-yet unknown applications. This investment was made several years ago, but those cables still serve nothing more than glorified cash registers. Perhaps we should leave the huge infrastructure investments until we have some idea of what the actual purpose of that investment is?
Setting out some practical examples where ‘decent broadband’ is necessary would really help my understanding of this issue.
As for using virtual reality simulations to manage pain in children, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support this idea. Many parents know that all we have to do is plonk little Timmy in front of the telly, and he’ll stop complaining pretty quickly.