GLOBAL CHALLENGES

Internet vs. Sneakernet: The No-Tech, Low-Tech Option

Joe Maglitta | Date: 06-19-09 | Comments

Sometimes the smartest technology path may be the one not taken. A low-tech, no-tech approach that cuts costs, saves energy and frees precious resources for truly high-payoff technology initiatives?

Table of Contents:

Internet vs. Sneakernet: The No-Tech, Low-Tech Option

Question: What�s the fastest way to send 500 gigabytes 15 miles across a crowded urban area:

a) carrier pigeon

b) sneakernet (physically carrying the disc)

c) commercial parcel carrier

d) Internet with fiber or DSL connection

Duh, you say. Obviously, D.

Not so fast.

Low-tech Magazine (motto: Doubts about technology) makes a pretty interesting case that in varying circumstances, the real correct answer is anything but D. Consider the case for Sneakernet:

Fibre transfers 500 gigabytes in just 24 hours (12 hours of uploading, 12 hours of downloading). Since our hiker only walks ten hours a day, he is only faster than the fibre connection if the distance is less than 25 kilometres or 15.5 miles (50 kilometres or 30 miles divided by 2).

If our hiker boards a plane and flies with a speed of 1,000 kilometres an hour (620 miles per hour) to his destination, then he is faster than the fibre connection as long as the distance is less than 10,000 kilometres or 6,200 miles. (He loses 4 hours waiting in the airport.) This means that, finally, the Internet connection scores better than any other means of transport but only when the data has to be sent to the other side of the world.

Their surprising conclusions:

If you fill up a freight train, a cargo ship or a large plane with hard disks, then of course even the fastest Internet connection crumbles to nothing compared to the sneakernet, whatever the distance. � Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

I won�t spoil your fun and give away the other computations. OK, I will tell you that the authors conclude that sending 2 gigabytes of information for 125 miles is faster via carrier pigeon (as in the old super-geek gag) bearing a microSD card than by a fast broadband connection. You�ll find their ciphering here.

Trained pigeon availability notwithstanding, this little bit of math showboating raises a really interesting, very important question:

Could one important but neglected path to smarter technology be the road not taken? A low-tech, no-tech approach that cuts costs, saves energy and frees precious resources for truly high-payoff technology initiatives?

To a Boy with a Hammer, The World�s a Nail

We�ve all been conditioned, especially in or around IT, to reflexively grab a technology solution for every problem. It�s what we do. In many cases this makes sense: Since the days of stone-scraping hominids, smart use of technology has propelled progress. But at a time when the developed and developing worlds are struggling with new, painful realities of diminished resources, it seems like a pretty good time to wonder if, in some cases anyway, technologically low isn�t a good way to go.

The real advantage of low-tech/no-tech? It saves money for initiatives that really could benefit from smart use of technology. After all, no company or organization, no matter how wealthy, can afford to do ALL the technology projects it wants to do. Like families and individuals, especially in tough times, organizations must redouble efforts to spend where it makes most impact. That means making difficult but necessary choices. The good news is that, like it or not, we�ve had to get better at making those choices over these last couple of rocky years. Maybe it�s time to dig deeper and ask a new set of tough questions as a routine part of our planning.

We�re not talking here about "chindogu," the Japanese art of purposely creating clever but ridiculous inventions and technologies. We�re talking about smarter technology budgeting, in the big sense: leveraging technology where it has greatest impact, and seeking simpler perhaps nontechnical solutions that free finite resources for truly tech-worthy efforts.

That holds true for organizations and in our personal lives as well. A quick personal example �

White-Hot Techno Lust

For many years I�ve secretly wanted one of those slick electronic whiteboards, the kind that lets you print, store and e-mail your markings. Not a must-have, but a good tool, I thought, for a scrawling, sprawling knowledge worker like me. The price, you�ve guessed, was problematic: roughly $3,000.

So when I saw this new whiteboard paint for around $20, I was psyched. Tape off an area, brush on any wall and BAM�in two days, dry-erase heaven. Maybe I�d turn my entire office into one big erasable situation room (watch it Wolf Blitzer, I�m coming for you) and still have enough money left over for some nice sweet, fruit-scented markers. If I want electronic copies, I can snap and circ a perfectly good image with my cell phone.

OK, it sounds like a silly example. After all, who really needs a whiteboard with integral disk storage and wireless technology? (Answer: Almost no one.) In truth, I felt a little embarrassed for wanting such a costly optional luxury. It was another reminder of tech-lust�s seductive powers in our private and public lives.

I quickly got over my shame, and my wife and I started playing a little game: thinking of things done better and more cheaply without fancy technology. (I know what you�re thinking: pretty stupid for someone who�s made a nice living from the tech industry. But stay with me here; low-tech actually will help tech suppliers.) We quickly came up with a bunch, including:
- Clotheslines instead of big electric dryers
- A nice simple wooden pencil instead of a $300 pen input device (OK, I also wanted one of those)
- Board games instead of Xbox
- Acoustic guitar instead of Guitar Hero
- Old fashioned toothbrush vs. WaterPik
You get the idea. Have fun making your own list.

Next: Gum-Chomping Fun Kids, Not Luddites >>