While my original point was that applications are written to reduce this overhead, the same is true for content. Hence the usage of the MP3 format (or a plethora of other formats) as opposed to the more raw WAV format. Just because you have content to provide doesn’t mean it has to take up ridiculous amounts of space/bandwidth.

One more example, then I’ll stop ranting… [sorry! ;)] If I have some graphic intensive content that uses bitmap image data to display all my buttons, I have the option to use true sized images, reduced size (for lower resolution/quality) images, or super sized images (for higher resolution/quality). As the source images get bigger and bigger, the difference in ‘quality’ becomes less and less noticeable, but the difference in data size becomes more and more of an issue. If I have created efficient content, it can look just as good and still be less cumbersome than some alternatives.

I guess my ultimate point is that bigger is not necessarily better. (some one else hinted that more content – not bigger – would be a more suitable case to make.)

At no time did anyone say “build bulkier programming just to make downloads slower/more laggy, so that ISP will be incented to build better networks”. At least not me.

I’m afraid you’re confusing the size of an app – to this thing called “content”. If you ask my friend Om (or Stacy or Liz) they’ll tell you that video and audio and text (collectively called content) are not only the bulk of what humans create, but how they interact, participate and engage – WITH.

So NO – the world is NOT focused on the apps – but the content and THAT will benefit from1G connections.

And then there’s this thing called stability, responsiveness and user experience – in general.

:-)

Well, as an ameteur prgrammer myself, I usually strive to make applications as light as possible. And that covers application/data file size as well as RAM and processing power. Your saying that developers need to build bulkier programming just to make downloads slower/more laggy, so that ISP will be incented to build better networks? If I can get the job done and deliver a product efficiently and quickly to a customer, does it really have to be big? If I can create a better compression algorithm (not saying I actually can, mind you) to make my big program transfer faster, then why is that a problem for you?

Um…really. What about the physical access needed to tap a wire, versus the often omnidirectional broadcast of wireless signals? Irrelevant to security?

“longest distance communications that mankind has ever performed”

Well, yes, I agree that we have yet to string wires up into space, so duh. I wouldn’t choose a wireless career if there was NEVER a scenario where wireless was appropriate. I just said I’m not so stubborn that I think it’s every situation. You, apparently, are.

“As for capacity: Give me the spectrum, and I’ll give you all the capacity you want.”

Well, isn’t that just the point of it, though? Wireless spectrum is a limited resource, and they’re just not making any more. They are, on the other hand, making more fiber and copper.

“The only constraints on the capabilities of wireless are political and economic. Period.”

…and physics, and the occasional existence of better alternatives, oh, and Hartley and Shannon’s law. But you knew that, I mean, I do and I’m not even an engineer.