[LINK] World's biggest luddite strikes again! / Content is ha
Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:59:59 +1000 (EST)
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Tony Barry wrote:
> At 11:29 AM +1000 27/10/01, Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:
> >If your time is worth nothing, or you have a lot of it on your hands, then
> >a 56k modem may be justifiable; but if you use the Internet interactively
> >for more than say 6 hours a month on a 56k modem, and your time is worth
> >$10/hour, then the extra cost of broadband (say $50) is offset by the
> >extra speed and associated time saving.
> But this assumes you sit there are twiddle your thumbs while you wait
> for pages to load. I do other things eg -
Not at all; twiddling your thumbs would reduce the effectiveness of the
faster medium rather than accentuate it. Downloading other pages in the
background will actually accentuate the speed differences between the
Basically, if you are using your link to 100% capacity for x% of the time,
where x > 0, you *will* benefit from a higher-bandwidth link. If you never
use your link to capacity, there is no point going faster; and if
sometimes you *do*, then a simple equation to describe the financial side
N = time saved * rate per unit time - extra cost + K
where K is some constant that you try to put a dollar value on, perhaps
including 'annoyance' or 'convenience' or any other way that you measure
your network access that does NOT have a directly-measurable cost.
If N > 0, get a larger link.