I am happy the Web exists but the primary communication technique for humans is speech. So it’s infuriating that telephone connections, both cell and landline, have cut back on bandwidth to the extent that quality is that of CB radio. Talking with a friend on two non-cell phones we had to resort to radio operator alphabet to distinguish between "S" and "F".

Bandwidth is stated in frequency, i.e. 5K or 5,000 Hertz, which would mean that frequencies up to 5K can be coded to fit inside the data stream. Given that many of us have at least DSL, with bandwidths of a few hundred K, or cable, at speeds in the millions, why should we have to settle for voice bandwidth of a couple thousand, not even 5K? Because the phone companies can fit even more calls in if they stiff us on quality.

The difference in tone between various consonants, s and f, b and p mainly, are found in the higher frequencies. But high is relative. The highest audible tones are around 20,000, 20K Hz. FM radio was a huge improvement on AM because the higher broadcast frequency allowed larger bandwidth. But even AM could offer frequencies of several thousand Hz. Only in walkie-talkie and airplane radio communication was intelligibility much of a problem.

I estimate typical cellphone bandwidth at about 2K, if you’re lucky. This means that compared to the glitzy Flash ads and porn clogging the fiber optics, the downloaded TV shows and MP3s, your phone call is 1/5 of one percent of your cable’s bandwidth. That’s 0.002 of available channel devoted to the prime communicator, words. This so that the phone company or telecom can fit one more call alongside yours. If you've seen what sound-recorded movie film looks like, note the tiny soundtrack at the edge of the film, which is sufficient to deliver high-quality stereo. This is a graphic example of the relative bandwidth needs of video and sound.

This trend argues that free enterprise does not always yield the best product, especially if unregulated. Sometimes it leads to the best way to exploit the customer instead. In this case, there is no choice, literally. There is no premium high-bandwidth phone service beyond traditional phone companies. And they are essentially doing for themselves what Skype is doing for consumers: shedding the dedicated person-to-person links to replace with packetized Internet-style communication, with its crappy sound. The telecoms are cramming gazillions of calls into the tiny space of barely acceptable voice bandwidth. And then to add insult to injury they charge premiums to pass along text messages, which is as low a bandwidth as voice!

What we learn is what we will put up with, but what if we want a bit more than that?

We can choose brackets for how far it gets by New Year's, or how long it stays above $100. For sure, it will spend a long time in that vicinity. Once up there, what will force it down? We will accomodate, or at least not be surprised at noteworthy price levels.

But another wager might be on which way things tip, when that point is reached.

What I find more and more difficult to hear is any phrase that resembles "our/the world's economy depends on oil". At some time in the future we will assuredly not be burning oil to stay warm; it will be better if we aren't burning the furniture.