When is bandwidth not bandwidth?

khendar

Just wondering could someone explain why Photobucket (and I'm going to guess a number of other image/file hosting sites) decided to skew the meaning of the term bandwidth ?

Everywhere else in the world, bandwidth means the speed or rate of data transfer a communication channel is capable of, or perhaps a range of frequencies that can carry a signal in a transmission medium.

Only on Photobucket and these other sites does bandwidth equate to a monthly download limit. Why didn't these sites just use the term "quota" or "download limit" or something similar to denote their restrictions rather than confusing non-technical users with incorrect terminology. It gets tiresome explaining to users why Photobucket's use of the term is wrong.

</rant>

Weedpacket

Well, megabytes/month has the same dimensions as bits/second - same as kilometres/hour has the same dimensions as metres/second.

You said it yourself:

khendar wrote:
...rate of data transfer a communication channel is capable of

So like you're capable of moving only so many megabytes through this particular channel in a month.

khendar

Whilst technically I suppose thats accurate, its still a bastardisation of the term. The download limit imposed by the group is not a physical limitation of the data channel, its an artificial limit imposed by the admins. We're not talking speed, we're talking quantity. A fine distinction perhaps, but one which I think is important to make. I'm sick of seeing commonplace terms misused, as it just causes confusion and wastes time as I explain to people the difference between bandwidth and "bandwidth"

Weedpacket

No, we're not talking quantity, we're talking quantity over a period of time, and the reasons for the limitation don't come into the definition, do they?

But don't mind me, I'm the pedantic one that sniggers at "ATM machine" and "knots per hour" and "quantum leap" to describe something presumably big and significant and "It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs".

Jason_Batten

Would you guys like to come over for a coffee, you both clearly need to get out more 😉

khendar

Weedpacket wrote:
"It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs".

Heh. I've seen a thread on a Star Wars forum justifying that line (I was looking for something else I swear). Apparently the Kessel run goes through a dangerous and/or crowded area of space, with lots of obstacles to be avoided. Therefore a run through this area would require some clever navigating to get through without zig-zagging around too much. Hence...ok I'll shut up now....