Really, I know I said I'd stop, but 20 Mbps, as you said, is *20 megabits* per *second*, or 20 chicken nuggets per box, not 1 for 20 boxes. If that were the case, wouldn't 1Mbps then further reduce to .1Mbps for 10 seconds or something? Either way, you're creating 20 tunnels to 20 different end points through the one big tunnel. You're making 20 connections ti the same end point or user instead of 1 connection. If you were the only cars on the road sure, but these 20 cars can negatively impact the rest of the drivers on the road, or people on the tower.
I will really ignore this thread now, but I just felt obligated in some way to clarify this, for historians when the thread gets locked.
That didn't offer much clarity. It actually did the opposite. If I understand your nuggets analogy, you're claiming 20 people using the tethering would be similar to the inefficiency of carrying 20 boxes rather than one box. In this explanation, the box is a second because the highway made less sense to you? The highway's width was equivalent of a second in the prior analogy. The length of the highway was the timeline. That's why 20Mbps means 20 lanes wide where 1Mbps for 20 seconds means 20 lengths long. In your new analogy, there is an "infinite" row of nugget boxes. Each box can hold 20 nuggets, which represent 1Mbps each. If that's the intent, here's where it's a bit off:
The phone ultimately has one outgoing data stream. This is the aggregate stream. It's similar to how the router works. It will receive the packet from each of the 20 people using the phone and forward the data out. Packets aren't infinite in size. Whether I pass 20 packets or 20 people pass 1 packet each, the phone would treat it as 20 outgoing packets. The overhead is mostly negligible. The bottle neck will be AT the phone rather than after the phone.
No, it wouldn't reduce to anything. If you're drawing 1Mbps, you're drawing 1Mbps. It won't reduce. If 10 people are collectively drawing 1Mbps, then each are essentially drawing 0.1Mbps, yes. If you were attempting to say each wanted to draw the 20Mbps instantly, then yes each would extend out. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with what you were saying in terms of trucks versus cars. That's simply claiming "more people could potentially use more data." I'm not sure that was ever a debate. He had suggested someone might setup a kiosk. If they did, that wouldn't increase the bandwidth. It creates an unrealistic scenario where people would pay to get less than dialup access where the Verizon customer would be paying ~$100/mo to provide that internet rather than providing the same access by purchasing internet at less than half the cost and installing a wifi router. It was a silly point to begin with. Your argument, using incorrect telecommunications explanations, didn't make it any stronger.
If you'd like to clarify, the same offer I provided i7 applies to you. You're free to send me a message. However, you're better off remaining with the highway analogy or using actual telecommunications terms than trying to create a new analogy. The nuggets were far less clear =/
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram