Re: Bandwidth v Capacity [Early Internet Report when Vint was at Stanford (and DARPA PI)]
vinton cerf via Internet-history <[email protected]> Sun, 31 May 2026 05:29:55 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.culture.internet.history |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAAFtm_UnKbNjQathvg=gXYw12uLehiaZ7M7B79RSCD9YYSUG9g@mail.gmail.com> |
Rant received; thanks for the tutorial. v On Sat, May 30, 2026 at 11:55 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, that's a very nice slice of history. It leads me to one of my hobby > horses: when did the solecism of using "bandwidth" to mean "capacity" first > arise? This is something that should annoy every physicist, or anyone who > has read Shannon's foundational paper [1]. Unfortunately, it's become > firmly established in the Internet community and beyond. And it matters > because it quite often creates confusion, particularly in media reports. > > * Bandwidth is measured in herz (cycles per second) and is the frequency > range that a communication channel can transmit. > > * Capacity is measured in bits per second and is the amount of binary > information that a communication channel can transmit. > > There is no fixed relationship between the two (which is more or less the > main point of Shannon's paper). Anyone who ever heard the startup screeches > of a modem should know this. > > To illustrate the issue, page 1 of Vint's report says: > > "During the months of December (1975) and January (1976), we undertook > extensive and detailed timing measurements of the ELF VDH behavior to > ascertain the degree to which VDH performance affected total TCP > bandwidth and delay." > > That (and the other 14 occurrences of "bandwidth") should be "capacity." > > Page 8 says: > > "The actual > line utilization is about 20% in each direction, assuming a nominal 50 > kbits/second available full-duplex capacity between ELF and the IMP." > > That's correct usage. > > My favourite sentence is on page 45: > > "Many of the experiments have been > frustrating, owing to a bug of some kind in UCL's buffer allocation scheme > causing them to crash irrevocably when attempting to achieve high > bandwidth." > > If only they had tried to achieve high capacity! > > So, my question is: when did this inaccurate use of "bandwidth" to mean > "capacity" first arise? It was clearly well established by 1975. > > I looked in Donald Davies's book [2], and it only uses "capacity" (I would > expect no less of him). Baran in 1964 [3] used "capacity" correctly many > times. He also used "bandwidth" correctly once [5] and debatably a second > time [6]. > > Pierce [4] in 1961 was completely clear on the difference between > bandwidth and capacity (and he learned directly from Shannon). > > Regards/Ngā mihi > Brian Carpenter > > [1] C. E. Shannon, "Communication in the Presence of Noise," Proceedings > of the IRE, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 10-21, Jan. 1949 > [2] D. W. Davies, D. L. A. Barber, W. L. Price & C. M. Solomonides, > "Computer Networks and their Protocols," Wiley, 1979 > [3] P. Baran, "On Distributed Communications Networks," IEEE Transactions > on Communication Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, 1964, pp. 1-9 > [4] J. R. Pierce, "Symbols, Signals and Noise," Harper, 1961 > > [5] "In a conventional circuit-switched system each of the > tandem links requires matched transmission bandwidths. > In order to make fullest use of a digital link, the post- > error-removal data rate would have to vary, as it is a > function of noise level." > > [6] "Most importantly, standardized data blocks permit > many simultaneous users, each with widely different band- > width requirements to economically share a broad-band > network made up of varied data rate links." > > On 30-May-26 15:13, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: > > While poking around on DTIC, I found this interesting early report on > the Internet while Vint was still at Stanford and Jon Postel was still at > SRI (How many of you knew that? :-))The period of performance is Nov > 15,1975 to Feb 15 1976. > > https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA024823.pdf > > You can find a little bit more info by using the contract number in dtic. > > Happy Reading,barbara > -- > Internet-history mailing list > [email protected] > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > - > Unsubscribe: > https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list [email protected] https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history - Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history