[e2e] evolution of bandwidth as a term

grenville armitage garmitage at swin.edu.au
Fri Oct 3 03:46:55 PDT 2003

Sam Manthorpe wrote:
> But really, how many competent enginners/scientists/academics
> that are concerned with e-m spectrums *and* networking
> are confused by the dual use of the word bandwidth?

It isn't the "competent" practitioners we should worry about. As
Darren recently noted, the conflation of frequency spectrum
and information capacity by regulators, lawyers and public policy
practitioners is more troublesome. Now we can, as a community, do
something to edumacate the policy practitioners. It would help by
being far more careful in throwing around the term "bandwidth".
Real bandwidth (the spectrum sort) has all sorts of tangible and
financial implications and regulatory history associated with it.
Trying to explain why "bits per second" type of bandwidth doesn't
(and shouldn't) have the same scarcity, regulatory and financial
implications as the "Hz" type bandwidth is a pain in the neck.

Grenville Armitage
I come from a LAN downunder.

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list