Internet Bandwidth

[Joseph]

Now that Mike's thread has broached this topic, I decided to open a new thread on Internet bandwidth. Here is my opinion.<p>The transmission of data over the internet absorbs some bandwidth. Even though anyone's particular browsing or downloading may require only a small portion of the total available, Excessive unproductive transmission and reception of data bits skews the system toward wasteful expansion and input of resources for uneconomical upgrades. Thanks for the opening to unload this chip from my shoulders.<p>Now the other perspective, if people freely use all the bandwidth they desire, new technology will be developed to accommodate them. I think this latter view may not hold up in the new economic environment which has been taking root lately. But I could easily be wrong, anyone like to offer some thoughts? Thanks and best wishes.

[josmith]

What is the "new economic environment" you refer to?<p>It looks to me like it's full speed ahead until everything is used up.

[Mike]

Yea, i notice the same problem. for example, when i am on the internet with no prograns running, a lot of data comes wasting the bandwith. And, the modem downloads webpages quicker than downloads.<p>what kind of download speeds do you guys get with dialup? i get from 2 to 4kb, usually around 3kb.<p>while we're on this topic, does anybody know of an internet that delivers downloads faster (like netzero hispeed for downloads???)<p>-Mike<p>[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

[Joseph]

Joe, the economic environment I seem to have been seeing is less employment in technical professional fields and more openings in unskilled positions. Does this view match peoples' experiences?<p>Mike, I use Netzero HS and it seems to load pages about 2 or 3 times faster. I don't know if I am mostly imagining an improvement. One thing to check for is spyware type programs consuming your personal bandwidth. You can get Spybot Search and Destroy and are not obligated to pay a purchase price.

[Chris Smith]

Band width is the same as Radio frequency,... width. <p>It starts at one frequency, and finishes at another forming a width. <p>The reception rate of your modem has nothing to do with the band width of the web.<p> Modem speed is not band width, its bits per second acceptance rate, not width

[bridgen]

Chris (Smith) et al,<p>THAT's the point Chris.<p>Far too many people, the non-specialist press, the uninformed public, and, lamentably, people in the industry who should know better, use words that they don't understand because they think it smart. And once they get an idea into their head it's usually impossible to change it.<p>I raised the same point (about bandwidth) in another thread some weeks ago. The response was, typically, a defence. How often do you encounter anyone who will admit that they might possibly be wrong (about anything)?<p>Regards.

[Mike]

sorry, i thought the unknown consumption of bandwith was what you were talking about, so i shared my story. sorry...<p>just wondering, is netzero hs worth it???<p>-Mike

[Joseph]

What is the proper description for the fact that higher frequency signals can transfer more information than lower ones? Eg, the commercial AM broadcast band cannot pass as much information as the FM band can. Isn't that more bandwidth on FM than AM? The AM band is about 1mhz wide while the FM band is 20mhz wide. I think I might know what the gripe is since a 10khz wide band in the commercial region can pass just as much information as a 10khz wide band in the commercial FM band. But there is a whole lot more room up higher. Whew, now there is a polarization between those who like the term and those who are upset over it--my apologies.<p>[ February 18, 2004: Message edited by: Joseph ]</p>

[Joseph]

I think it seems to save me enough time to be worthwhile. I can't really say for sure. I have heard a view that it can't really work. But I know it can save some time when the settings are adjusted to allow GIF images to be sent with less bits than usual. The pictures have lower resolution, but one can right click on any one of them and ask for full clarity.

[Will]

I think David B may have simething right about the BS - Why hasn't someone just said what bandwidth actually means ? A channel is stated to have a workable bandwidth of some frequency range usually stated in Hz - either from F1 to F2 Hz or +/- Fbw Hz based on a channel center frequency of Fc Hz. Transmitted power levels typically attentuate along the channel so some attenuation is ususally expected. In specific terms the bandwidth is the frequency within which the power levels are not attenuated by more than 50% i.e. the 3 dB bandwidth because 3 dB is equal to 10 times the log to the base 10 of 2.
How computer types and others transform this to bits/sec etc is, I think, a matter of their personal choice and so has little meaning outside of a limited range of activities.

[Joseph]

Oh, that sounds familiar now. I couldn't remember and I guess I just didn't think to look it up or was too lazy or something. It seems that the computer people did change the meaning of the term quite a bit.

[ad5mb]

"Far too many people, the non-specialist press, the uninformed public, and, lamentably, people in the industry who should know better, use words that they don't understand because they think it smart. And once they get an idea into their head it's usually impossible to change it."<p>Exactly. Look what the computer twits did with the word protocol. It has about 12 meanings, and I never encounter the proper one. You have to determine which one is in use from the context.<p>My take on all this: Those of us who are into electronics learned that one word has one meaning, and learned what that meaning is.<p>Computer people started as business people, got into computers and networks to enhance their careers. Used words as buzzwords, explained things in too-simple terms to too-simple colleagues. Definitions of words got corrupted and multiplied.<p>Now that the OFEs ( One fact experts. Found on bar stools and lunch counter stools, distributing counter intelligence. I bet you can name one now ) have corrupted the language, we'll never get it back..<p>[ February 18, 2004: Message edited by: ad5mb ]</p>

[haklesup]

It seems both definitions are correct. We may all have to increase our intellectual bandwidth to accept alternate definitions as the technology progresses further. That's how the english language works (among others). In fact websters (www.m-w.com) lists both definitions while britannica only lists the Analog definition<p>Searching on Google for "definition of bandwidth" yeilds this tidbit:<p>The range of frequencies, expressed in Kilobits per second, that can pass over a given data transmission channel within a frame relay network. The bandwidth determines the rate at which information can be sent through a channel - the greater the bandwidth, the more information that can be sent in a given amount of time. Usually measured in bits-per-second. A full page of English text is about 16,000 bits. A 56Kbs modem can easily move 16,000 bits in less than one second.<p>This (confusing) definition clearly bends it to fit the internet. I thought that was what throughput was (see 7th definition on link below). Seems the digital world has corrupted an analog term. Perhaps we should say "Digital Bandwidth" and "Analog Bandwidth"<p>Further definitions at http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Bandwidth<p>WRT "the economic enviornment" (the way I see it) The dot com bubble was in part caused by investors overestimating how much "bandwidth" would be added to the internet over time. When the apps failed to generate enough money (indeed, many were free), the desire to build new infrastructure wained, thereby stalling internet growth. Most of that has passed and video and VOIP demands will ensure continued growth.

[Chris Smith]

Band width implies a frequency spectrum. <p>Bits per seconds have nothing to do with, directly, that band width. <p>Compression techniques and frequency multiplying can squeese in more data than other wise passable on a given frequency. <p>Also adding digital to analog can shrink or grow the amount of data otherwise passable through a given band. <p>Modem hand shakes tell the sender and reciever how much data can be sent with out locking up the system.<p>Actually it is band depth, not width, when speaking of data that is digital. <p>Because the data per byte ratio space of timing and data bits are time forward, and not frequency width in relationship to length of characters per second, and not width of the frequency spectrum.<p>[ February 18, 2004: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

[toejam]

the bandwidth of a one man band is a function of his beer consumption.