A few weeks ago, Comcast's Executive Vice President David L. Cohen wrote a letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer, regarding an upcoming Innovation Summit. The letter was full of praise for the history of American technological innovation, tracing back to Philadelphia's own Benjamin Franklin.
However, Mr. Cohen soon turns from lauding this technological advancement to explaining how it's largely useless-at least, useless when it goes beyond what Comcast is able to provide. To understand the reasoning behind this, a quick computer primer is in order.
The Internet (and all connected devices that work with data) is dependent on bandwidth, or howmuch information something is capable of handling. Computers communicate in a binary language of 1s and 0s, otherwise known as bits. A kilobit is a thousand bits, so a system that processes 1 Kbps, can handle one thousand bits per second (ps). The more bits per second, the more data something can use. This can result in everything from better audio and video, faster transferring of information, more reliable communication, and so on. More bits is generally a good thing.
Well...apparently not so much for Comcast. Cohen's assertion that "most U.S. homes have routers that can't support the speed already available to the home." You see, the current hotness in data connectivity is fidning an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that can provide true gigabit (one billion bits) service, such as is being done through Google's Fiber Optic network, rolling out in certain U.S. markets. However, Comcast remains convinced their service (measured in the megabit, or one million bit range), is good enough.
A quick Google Shopping search for "gigabit router" returns numerous options for under $200. If you're fine with refurbished items, you can spend less than $30. While it's true these are not suitable for business use, the average Internet home user can easily take advantage of a wider pipeline. Cohen's other rebuttal to gigabit benefits that websites can't handle that speed anyways may be true for some sites, but it won't true for all of them forever. Besides, how many people do you know limit themselves to using one website at a time? The very idea!
Tech bloggers are quick to point out that this is Comcast's attempt to pull focus off their abysmal customer service ratings, and to detract from the buzz around Google's efforts to install a faster Information Superhighway. However, Comcast not only has their facts backwards (consumers' hardware is an opportunity for Comcast to escalate their offerings in equipment leases, not a reason to step back from developing them), they are shooing themselves in the foot by not preparing for the future.
Even if they can't fully utilize it, technical people do not want to be limited by a company. Nothing drives a person crazier to hear some stranger tell them why they don't want what they think they want. To hear such an argument from someone advocating renewed focus in American technology development can only be seen as a water salesman talking about how "some" is better than "more".
It's bad business, short-sighted, and will work against Comcast once fiber networks move beyond being a Google test pilot, and the new benchmark all ISPs will need to jump on board with, or risk being left behind in 1 Mbps land...the speed that future generations will pity the same way as we pity dial-up today.
Blog Topic #3
No comments:
Post a Comment