Lack of adequate infrastructure has a tendency to slow the adoption or use of new technologies. The classic example is “gridlock” -- too many automobile drivers, not enough roads. This analogy is easily carried over into the communications technology realm, where bandwidth is the keyword: If too many people are attempting to upload and download large amounts of data, and there isn’t enough network capacity, digital gridlock occurs.

The issue of bandwidth came up again last week when Cisco (News - Alert) introduced its umi home videoconferencing system, and Google (News - Alert) announced several new Google TV partnerships.

The umi system works by connecting a camera and special console to the user’s HD television and broadband Internet connection to facilitate “a video communications experience that is so clear, natural and lifelike, that users will see and hear their loved ones, right down to the twinkle in their eyes and the tone of their voices, as if they were in the same room.”

That sounds great, but some industry experts and commentators are predicting that the experience won’t be so wonderful for all users—and there could be even broader implications beyond videoconferencing. Bandwidth is the issue.

“Video, particularly streaming video, takes up far more bandwidth than other Internet applications, such as Web searches and e-mail,” pointed out Forbes blogger Elizabeth Woyke. She cautioned that if systems like umi catch on, broadband Internet service providers such as Comcast (News - Alert) and AT&T might start putting caps on data uploads.

“Widespread adoption of upload usage caps could affect the way many people, not just those with home video conferencing systems, experience the Internet,” Woyke posited. “Heavy users may find their Web connections throttled or be charged for taking up excess bandwidth.”

That sentiment sounds a lot like some of the language used in the net neutrality debate, recently shelved by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which centers around whether or not the government should create regulations preventing broadband providers from creating unfair “tiers” in the availability and pricing of their services.

“Advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g., websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors,” Wikipedia said in its entry on the topic.

In other words, providers might create “artificial scarcity,” forcing subscribers to buy uncompetitive services. Depending on which side of the debate you fall on, that possibility is already a reality or soon will be, or else the whole idea is just a scare tactic to create unnecessary government regulation.

TMCnet’s Rich Tehrani (News - Alert) sees some other reasons to doubt that umi will catch on: it doesn’t compete well enough with existing services like Skype, Apple (News - Alert) Facetime, and Google TV, and is being introduced by a company that doesn’t have a great track record in the consumer market.

Even assuming umi is a “killer device and service,” Tehrani, cautioned, “it is competing for holiday budgets with new video game solutions which bring tremendous full-body interactivity to the home like xBox Kinect. Kids, which do you want this Christmas, a new video game system or a way to see grandma with more clarity than Skype?”

For the time being, all of this debate could be a moot point. Umi is a fairly expensive system: $599 for the equipment, $24.99 for unlimited usage. For many consumers, it’s an unaffordable luxury, especially if they must upgrade their broadband internet connectivity. (Minimum upload speed required is 3.5 Mbps). Gradually, though, if the system really delivers on its promise, the adoption rate will creep up and that will drive down pricing. The question is, will needed infrastructure adjustments be made fast enough to keep up?