Social Bandwidth, Historical Progression of
Some disorganized thoughts on the bandwidth* involved in human communication. As history unfolds, we have continually expanded our social bandwidth (for interpersonal communication) over distance:
But it is most likely the advent of synchronous communication (starting with the telephone), rather than sheer bandwidth, which was most responsible for quickening the pace of social change. Synchronicity also increases the time obligation and social burden of communication:
But one thing which seems apparent now is that the bandwidth required for meaningful social interaction is quite low. This actually pleases mobile phone carriers: they never expected SMS to be popular, but they are happy with their enormous profit margins (bit-for-bit, roughly 10,000x the margin on voice calls. Yes, ten thousand times). It also confuses them: if people don't need high bandwidth to communicate, and communication is the nearly exclusive use of mobile phones, why would they pay for high-bandwidth media services? Thus their conundrum. The bandwidth needs of communication haven't changed significantly since the 19th century, but the available bandwidth in increasing. What's to be done with it? Mobile carriers are going to have to figure out how to carry new traffic over their networks to prevent themselves from becoming a commodity service. But I digress.
Synchronicity, immediacy, and throughput: today we have to ability to select the best medium for our purposes. We can micro-customize our social interactions to a degree unthinkable 20 years ago. What's my purpose in saying this? I'm not sure. But it is interesting to consider the interrelationship of these three qualities, and the varied social demands they create.
One other point worth mentioning. In general, synchronous, immediate contact has the highest social obligation. But this is already changing. Face-to-face conversations today may be cut short by a mobile phone, and if the call is urgent, may put an abrupt end to the meeting. This rather novel phenomenon of being socially trumped by a non-present party is becoming increasingly socially acceptable.
Further thoughts later on the digitization of personal space and time.
*"Bandwidth" is defined loosely here as a multiple of speed and communicative throughput potential. I know that makes CS people cringe.
| post/mail |
| telegraph |
| telephone (now portable) |
| internet (now semi-portable) |
| [future?] |
But it is most likely the advent of synchronous communication (starting with the telephone), rather than sheer bandwidth, which was most responsible for quickening the pace of social change. Synchronicity also increases the time obligation and social burden of communication:
| Stratification of depth of contact | Synchronicity | Time burden/Social obligation |
|---|---|---|
| post/SMS/email (one-way text) | asynchronous | minimal |
| voicemail (one-way voice) | asynchronous | minimal |
| IM (two-way text) | semi-synchronous | low |
| telephone (two-way voice) | synchronous | moderate |
| videophone/webcam (sound+sight) | synchronous | moderate/heavy |
| VR (future progression?) | synchronous | moderate/heavy |
| "real" F2F contact | synchronous | heavy |
But one thing which seems apparent now is that the bandwidth required for meaningful social interaction is quite low. This actually pleases mobile phone carriers: they never expected SMS to be popular, but they are happy with their enormous profit margins (bit-for-bit, roughly 10,000x the margin on voice calls. Yes, ten thousand times). It also confuses them: if people don't need high bandwidth to communicate, and communication is the nearly exclusive use of mobile phones, why would they pay for high-bandwidth media services? Thus their conundrum. The bandwidth needs of communication haven't changed significantly since the 19th century, but the available bandwidth in increasing. What's to be done with it? Mobile carriers are going to have to figure out how to carry new traffic over their networks to prevent themselves from becoming a commodity service. But I digress.
Synchronicity, immediacy, and throughput: today we have to ability to select the best medium for our purposes. We can micro-customize our social interactions to a degree unthinkable 20 years ago. What's my purpose in saying this? I'm not sure. But it is interesting to consider the interrelationship of these three qualities, and the varied social demands they create.
One other point worth mentioning. In general, synchronous, immediate contact has the highest social obligation. But this is already changing. Face-to-face conversations today may be cut short by a mobile phone, and if the call is urgent, may put an abrupt end to the meeting. This rather novel phenomenon of being socially trumped by a non-present party is becoming increasingly socially acceptable.
Further thoughts later on the digitization of personal space and time.
*"Bandwidth" is defined loosely here as a multiple of speed and communicative throughput potential. I know that makes CS people cringe.
posted by Andrew at 8:16 AM
<< Home