We had dialup, then we had crappy 256K “broadband,” then we had good 2 Mbps, then 4, then 8. Now we have wireless 3G “up to 21 Mbps,” and then 4G, and soon we’ll have 10G. Do we need it?

The clear answer is no.

I wondered whether anyone else in the world had a similar opinion, so I googled “why do we need broadband.”

In the first ten results came up a 2014 article from ISPreview that echoed what I said: “Do We Really Need ‘Superfast’ Broadband?”

Keith Oddy has some really valid points there. He asks, “Do we really need 1Mbps, 10Mbps, 100Mbps or even 1000Mbps (1Gbps) of Internet download and upload speed to enjoy the online world? ... How much Internet speed is really enough?”

Fact is, 256K is not enough; 512 is. And now we have... as advertised, 35 times that with 3G, and we’re on to 4G on phones.

Let me bring in a silly but telling analogy: I get a hundred kilos of rice for the price of one kilo. I’ll take it, won’t I? Yes, I will. But I can’t eat that much in six months. But I’ll still take it. And it’ll get spoilt with maggots and what-not.

Now a better analogy: I have to pay for the hundred kilos — only a little more than for one kilo. I’ll still take it.

And now a good analogy: I go 40 kmph on the highway, and with the signals, I reach my friend’s house in 30 minutes. I do 80 kmph, and with the signals, I get there in 35 minutes. What have I achieved by pumping up the gas and endangering the other drivers? Five minutes.

There’s a Vodafone ad that, as far as I can see, displays how an Indian guy loses a white girl because a video is buffering — and that the solution is 4G.

I had no problems with buffering even on a 2G wireless network.

Gaming is a different ball-game, if you’ll pardon the bad pun. “One thing we feel is underplayed are the benefits which superfast 4G networks bring to those who enjoy playing their favourite games online.”

But gaming apart, there is no need for superfast broadband. End.

Tags : Broadband, Broadband Speed, Vodafone