Trend: Less energy is consumed when fast broadband reduces the frequency of travel and commuting.
Excerpts from Peter Cochrane's Blog reminds us why fast broadband can offset travel.
After degrading the broadband definition to much less than 2Mbps, and endlessly wondering why people would want more, and what would they do with it, governments, regulators, telcos, cable cos and ISPs are starting to realise the Japanese and Koreans got it right. A dedicated 100Mbps service is a minimal specification and 1,000Mbps looks like a more realistic target for a vibrant 21st century economy.
Are there any other choices? As far as I can see the only other options are a reduced GDP at a national level followed by a rapid slide down the global economic scale of productivity.
Beyond the creation of new industries and the transformation of the old, internet communication is about the only technology that allows us to offset travel and the associated burning of a lot of oil. But in this regard, we need big screens, hi-fi sound, telepresence technologies and more to make it work. And this we have, except we don't have the bandwidth necessary to get the level of realism of connection and communication to make it really work.
Hopefully the GDP threat will tip the balance where all previous logic, technology, economic and futurism arguments have failed. Fingers, wires and fibres crossed that we can catch up in time - the leaders in the field are way ahead and stealing more than a march!
We need to reduce energy consuming activities — super-fast broadband encourages more telecomuting, teleconferencing, and online education.