The problem with this argument is that the blanket purchase only provides giant imagined future capacity for the smallest users. If they will actually need this quality of a router in 5-8 years, then the big users will definitely need even bigger ones. But apparently the state is OK with the biggest users not having that much breathing room. So why do the smaller ones need it?
The first thing that comes to my mind is that in 5-8 years, as the State of west Virginia starts to run out of headroom in the larger locations, they can selectively upgrade that 5% or so that require something larger, while leaving the other 95% on the previous iteration.
Also - one thing I've learned about networking sites (real world experience, two companies that went from a dozen to 500+) is that once you are able to satisfy one person with sufficient pipe - that same bandwidth is usually sufficient for the 20-50 people. The reality is that need for bandwidth is very bursty.
And in 5-8 years, there will be more powerful equipment available at lower prices for that 5% of infrastructure. And you still have 1100 5-8 year old routers at all your locations that might not be capable of running whatever physical layer link we're using 5-8 years from now.
Future proofing is one thing. This is like buying a 747 for a route that serves a dozen passengers a flight to prepare them for the future.
> The first thing that comes to my mind is that in 5-8 years ... they can selectively upgrade that 5% or so that require something larger, while leaving the other 95% on the previous iteration.
In other words, they'll be in the exact same position that they were evidently trying to avoid from the start.
