My co-author Krish posted the other day specifically in reply to Comcasts 250Gb
data cap. There's been some significant discussion about this move on the
blogosphere – some liken it to a new plague that will bring the end of
civilization as we know it. On one hand of course, and in these days of such
economic uncertainty, it seems almost obscene to be getting so worked up about a
data cap – but we're digital natives and data is the blood that pumps through
our veins.
It's actually quite apropos that this topic is now doing the rounds – this
weekend I'm taking part in an invitation only unconference for Telecom New Zealand that seeks to be;
a vehicle for helping to drive Innovation into Telecom, to harness what works
for people, to share what people have found is going on in the world and discuss
what Telecom could or should be doing
I just finished a session that looked at the wider broadband issue in New
Zealand. To give you a bit of context – New Zealand is a very long way from
centres of content creation, it also has limited international connectivity
coupled with a large complex geography and small population. All this conspires
to creating real problems around connectivity.
A business partner of mine lives 30 minutes away from New Zealand's second
largest city – he is unable to get DSL – that gives you some context around our paradigm. I
myself live in a rural community and can only achieve around 1Mb broadband
speeds. Given our limited bandwidth we're also constrained in terms of traffic -
most data plans in New Zealand (and bear in mind they've just been increased)
are sub 10Gb per month. Here at the conference, attended as it is by early
adopters that get free telco services, most people still only use around the
10-20Gb per month region of traffic.
I live my life in the clouds – my documents are created, shared and edited
online. I account, project manage, collaborate and communicate online. My photos
are stored online – and yet I generally total well under 10Gb traffic per
month.
I said the same to Krish and his answer was couched in terms of "well I
stream all my content – my audio and video resides in the cloud so I need
serious bandwidth" – well sure…. but why? I mean why stream all your audio -
they make iPod's after all don't they?
So there are two issues here: speed/bandwidth and coverage. Coincidently, in
this election year in New Zealand there is much political debate about where we
should be investing in Internet infrastructure – one group says fibre to a
selected section of the population while others claim that we should invest in
ensuring a medium level of access is available to all.
All of these issues are immensely important to SaaS vendors – your market is
everywhere – in the US with fantastic speed and bandwidth, in New Zealand with
moderate speed and bandwidth and in the third world where connectivity is dicey
at best. There are two commandments you must adhere to;
- Build it as lightweight as possible
- Build in offline access
So is 250Gb a problem? Well we can make it a problem, but we can always make
things a problem – let's concentrate more on ensuring that everyone everywhere
can do what matters online – communicate, collaborate and transact.
Ben, your argument is like going back in progress. There are many people who don’t want to use iPods and want to listen through their Laptop and other streaming devices. If storing locally is the idea, why do we need cloud computing. People were happy using desktop and desktop apps without even having internet connection. The argument is like saying that I am living under communism with limited freedom and I am fine. When one can have freedom why live under a limited freedom regime. If the technology is not there, I will agree with your arguments. When there is infrastructure in place and when the issue is regressive attitude of the companies involved, then it is just not fine. It is like going back in progress. What we need is an approach by these companies to move forward.
It’s all so relative. The US may appear broadband-rich compared to NZ. But look at South Korea or Japan (which offers gigabit broadband), and we feel like pariahs here in the US.
I am at the level where you are: productivity apps mostly. Krish is ahead of us. A few years from now we’ll all be wondering how we ever lived without hi-res Internet video:-)
New technologies always generate new demands.
Very true Zoli. We all lived happily under dial-up with intermittent connection drops. Now I can’t even imagine how I lived under dial-up. I take my photographs in RAW mode (~ 10+ MB per photo) and I literally take hundreds of it every month (well, with digital SLRs who cares
). I subscribe to netflix and stream movies from there and watch my TV shows on Hulu. There is no way I (or for that matter many others especially in the west coast) can live with a 10GB or 40 GB cap. 250 GB is ok for today but not enough for tomorrow. Thatz why I mentioned in my article that Time Warner cripples me and Comcast suffocates me. I now have to think twice before I stream a movie from Netflix. Plus, Comcast doesn’t give an option to see usage as calculated from their side. If I overshoot twice, I will be banned for 1 year. This is definitely not the way for technology to progress.
Guys – I guess we need to step back from this and look at data as a scarce resource (which in a lot of ways it is). Comcast’s move is intended to stop outlier use of that resource.
I guess the point is that Krish’s use – while perhaps a natural use-case in years to come – is currently out of the norm. I think it’s fair to allow the ISPs some leniency until the infrastructure catches up.
I also think we’re trying to do stuff down the pipes that is still an inefficient use – given a couple of years I believe that 260Gb of data will fit within a much smaller amount – vive la compression!
Guys, this just looks to me the same type of consumerism that grows in every market.
Do you need 6 liter V8 cars? Do you need a 52″ TV? Do you need to stream content? The answer is no (and yes). Need, no you don’t, do you choose and feel like its a ‘need’, for Krish apparently yes.
I also think you are blending consumer behavior with business behavior. If you are a business using SF.com, no way in hell do you go close to 250GB.
“blending consumer behavior with business behavior” -yes, absolutely… we even have a trendy label for it: the consumerization of the enterprise.
Btw, a long time ago I heard a lecture from SAP’s Hasso Plattner – Mr. Enterprise himself – and he was all over the importance of video as part of the next generation iof enterprise software.
@TheUnreasonableMen,
Even though Cloud Avenue’s main focus is on business, we do write about topics related to consumers too. My post was aimed at the consumers. Also, FYI, the comcast cap is only on consumer plans and not business plans. Sorry, if I was not clear on that.
Granted, video is nice, and with the advent of Teleprence, enterprise media, sightspeed etc it should grow and hence datacaps will go up
I still think you guys live at the edge ..of the bell curve. 250gb is a lot, it really really is. think about notebooks 5 years ago coming out with 1gb HDD.
@The unreasonablemen
I don’t know where you live but all these cable companies in US were offering unlimited broadband for all these years. They are going back in time now and it is regressive. There is a difference between not having the necessary infrastructure and, hence, asking people to wait for it & having the infrastructure and taking a step in the reverse direction. I would sympathize with the former but not the latter.
Also, the argument that many parts of the world are alive even with a cap of 10 GB and hence we should not whine about 250 GB is like arguing that we cannot demand super fast train to travel from two nearby cities just because many people still travel similar distances by bullock carts in other parts of the world. This is not an argument at all for me.
Hope I drove home my argument with the above example.