Hacker News Reader

Comment by michael_fine | Hacker News Reader

Honest question -- I always see people argue the need for ultra-fast internet, but I'm not sure what the economic benefit of increasing speeds beyond their current rate of improvement, which in most parts of the country seems reasonably sufficient for the vast majority of work, especially given the bottlenecks are quite often in the home. Would it really provide a comparable increase in GDP/utility to say, improving transport and saving people 30min/day in their commute?

View on HN

I feel like every time internet speeds increase I find reasons why I'd want it to be a bit faster. Currently, 4k video adoption is likely being held back by bandwidth speeds: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/01/4k-streaming-bandwidt... - Youtube recommends encoding 60fps 4k video at 53-68 Mbps, which is beyond many people's internet connections. The business potential of technology rarely arises until the mainstream customer can use it.

This study quantifies the gains from a fairly macro perspective: https://www.ericsson.com/news/1550083. 0.3% GDP growth for doubling internet speeds seems reasonable and is not unsubstantial. My guess is doubling internet speeds is cheaper than e.g. adding public transportation to even a small number of cities.

What's the current market penetration of 4K video? I work in the industry and have no need for a 4K device. How many normal people even want, let alone have 4K capabilities?

How long did it take for consumers to go from 480p to 720p to 1080p? 4k+ provides little benefit for the average consumer because TVs aren't quite there yet but with VR/AR on the rise, how long with that remain true?

There are also huge network effects which may cloud the benefits, until suddenly some mass market consumer application makes it blatantly obvious. Youtube and Skype are so successful because a significant portion of the world has access to fast Internet and microphones/cameras to the point where I can talk to my grandparents in rural Russia despite not being able to visit them in person for almost a decade. What if our Internet was fast enough and our displays cheap enough that working remotely or across international offices becomes as simple as installing several wall sized monitors in geographically spread out rooms? The display tech will get there eventually (just look at the stuff Corning is working on), but if there isn't any infrastructure to utilize the tech it will take much longer for mass adoption. It's a chicken and egg loop but while the technology improves, we have to make the positive decision to invest in infrastructure even if the benefits aren't immediately clear.

I see an obvious improvement in clarity going from 1080p to 4k on my 65" TV.

I think the lack of content today isn't due to a lack of purpose, it's a lack of demand because the technology isn't quite there. In the next few years way more people will have 4k TVs and internet connections that can handle streaming 4k video. I already see a lot of people upgrading to bigger TVs as prices fall, where 4K will really matter.

With a fast enough internet, centralized data centers can become something of a past thing. Companies can start in the garage. AWS can become a thing of the past if networks were strong enough and equal everywhere. It may also be much cheaper to make the internet better than to save time on the commute (easing up the commute can only be incremental and only invites even more people into the traffic.) My opinions may be heavily biased since we have no where even come close to follow up other countries on internet speeds (Lebanon.)

All else being equal, the size of an economy seems to be proportional to the size of the networks of people and things that make up the economy. For example, countries with larger populations tend to have larger economies, and countries with better communications and transportation infrastructure tend to have larger economies.

It makes sense. The better and more extensive the networks that make up the economy, the easier it is to meet, transact, collaborate, move physical and digital goods back and forth, teach and learn from others, expand markets, compete, etc.

As people and things become more connected physically and digitally, the networks that make up the economy get larger -- by definition.

If you have a friend in Hong Kong, please ask him the time it takes to download a 1 gig file and also ask him the price he pays for such speeds. I hate it every time when I have to upload my raw and processed photos to cloud using my Fios Internet.

In my mind, this is a question of productivity as well not just about downloading movies or watching 4K. If everything is cloud based, we need the cloud to be faster as well as any interaction between the cloud and us to be as fast as possible.

Geeks love their internet, so it's always on the list. Only half jest.

I understand the idea is, if we build massive pipes, life changing uses of the internet will be invented that cannot even be conceived in today's bandwidth-strangled world.

Hmm, have those predictions of life changing uses been borne out in places like South Korea, with actual superfast internet? (Not sarcasm, genuinely wondering)

I work with 3D imagery data, our customers need to upload gigabytes of data and models. Mining customers in certain regions of the US basically have 56k connections. America's infrastructure makes it impossible to do high tech, high bandwidth work. Maybe people only design and build low bandwidth applications because that's all our weak infrastructure can handle.

If we had better infrastructure, we would take advantage of it, I guarantee you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com