How ubiquitous do Gb networks need to be? May 7, 2007

I’m hardly anti-progress (and I am no fan of Qwest) but it seems to me that there’s a lot of Sturm und Drang in the IEEE’s white paper about Gb networks and why we have to have them RIGHT NOW or risk getting creamed in some kind of global thumb-wrestling match.

The paper starts off well: high-quality video conferencing, OK (although the low-def stuff seems fine to me; do I need to see nose hairs?), but the authors lose me when they start talking about the transformative economic potential of digital home entertainment and the great importance of having 100 HD channels. Then it transpires that what they’re really talking about is how everyone needs to be exchanging video files. I’m sure there will be a Great New Paradigm soon, and it may even require Gb networks, but I don’t think ubiquitous HD YouTube is it. Then they talk about telemedicine. Telemedicine might be truly revolutionary. I know I sound like an incredible cynic, but I believe that for a long time it will only be revolutionary for the people who can afford a certain level of care.

I looked up the Grant County initiative the paper mentioned, which seemed to have little to do with Gb networks. What that initiative did that was valuable was to provide inexpensive triple-play to a rural area. Hey, I’m all for that.

Discussion questions:

1) Is there more value in promoting universal access than in Gb networks?

2) I have some concern that making telecommuting easier/faster/cheaper is going to lead to a drop in urban population densities–in other words, if you can live in a cabin by a river in the middle of Montana and still make a high-tech living, that’s what you’ll choose. Could this be the next great paradigm shift, and if so, what impact will it have on the environment?

3) Are ubiquitous Gb networks exciting because they will make ordinary people’s lives happier, healthier and more fruitful? Or are they exciting because they’ll make Disney shareholders richer?

Now, for “Flash Journalism.” I like the way Flash is used in online news stories, for the most part. It’s not hard to imagine that it will eventually be improved on, however. I clicked on several of the links at the end of the story. The first was to multimedia at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (which I’m partial to, because it clothed and fed me as a child). The link produced a “Unfortunately we are unable to locate the page you have requested” message. They let me down! Next, I clicked on one of Naka Nathaniel’s productions for the New York Times. This one turned out to be a perfect subject for a Flash feature, a discussion of the job of the man who is the chief lighting engineer for public buildings in Paris. (Wow!) These two experiences typify my feelings about Flash. It often enriches my understanding of a story, but Flash content can also be clunky or badly managed.