|
Ignoarints posted:edit: Also everybody is worried but I have a much more pessimistic view. They were already "working together" in the sense of mutual inflation of costs. Could it get worse? Of course, but it's already been happening. No one cares about uplink unless you have a server at home (which is the one thing Google Fiber explicitly prohibits).
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Not even true. Uploading YouTube videos, for example, backing up your personal data to an online service (extremely popular now, and I'd do it if I had amazing upload), online gaming, streaming, etc. Online gaming is perfectly fine with low speeds. And you especially don't need 100mbit speeds for it. computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Right, that's why my 12mb/768k DSL package was such an awesome deal. It's better than what I have, so yes?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:I have 1.5mb up in vancouver and streaming a game like League is agonizing and essentially impossible, even at low quality And that's a very edge case scenario. Online backups are also edge case but after the initial backup they're very low intensive for bandwidth, especially if you just do daily backups overnight. It also helps that the biggest files that an average person works with (movies, music, etc) are being moved to streaming services.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Caged posted:Even if you can't think of an immediate use for higher upstream bandwidth, or think that streaming video is an edge case, why would you almost rally against it? I never rallied against it, I said little to no people would notice if it was there or not.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Caged posted:I just think it's a bit short sighted to not pay attention to upload speeds because nothing uses it today, it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. If nobody really uploads then have a higher contention on the upstream, but don't cap it at 2Mbps or anything daft like that. And over time speeds *are* increasing, they just don't need to be equal to download speeds (again, from most people's perspective). e: A situation where working from home is effective is in itself an edge case scenario as well, though (less edge case than video game streaming but still).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
psydude posted:WFH is becoming huge in major metropolitan areas, so I wouldn't call it an "edge case". It's becoming huge for a certain subset of white collar workers that don't need to actually interact with stuff in the office and who can adequately separate their work and home thinking. And even with that in mind, there's a large amount of stuff which does not need a very fast connection to do. Basically everything but video conferencing (like, professional video conferencing not Skype) and uploading large (think gigabyte sized) files could be done with existing connections, and lots of people don't deal with those things on a regular basis.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Yip Yips posted:First you said the only people that care about upload are those hosting servers. Then when people provided half a dozen other examples you claim they don't count for whatever reasons. Please just stop. People provided at most 3 other examples, 2 of which are definitely edge cases and one of which is incredibly low bandwidth in the long term.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Diviance posted:Not like they put all that much effort into it as it is. The US actually has a greater >10Mbit penetration rate than Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
psydude posted:Europe is a pretty broad generalization. Are we talking about Spain, where most people still haven't heard of the internet? Or Sweden, where 100mbps is as cheap as DSL? More than Sweden too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
GokieKS posted:That report not really broadband penetration rate. "Average speed person from country X gets from Akamai" is not the same thing as "Percentage of country X population has access to broadband faster than Y". There's a bit of correlation, but hardly an actual accurate study of broadband speed availability.  At the very least it's telling you that most people don't actually care about faster internet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
GokieKS posted:No, that's not the same thing. Using an extreme example for illustration purposes: in country A, 100% of the population has access to 100Mbps, but 90% of that population chooses to only get 10Mbps service for whatever reason. In country B, only 10% of the country has access to 100Mbps, and all of them take advantage, whereas the rest of the country only has access to 10Mbps. All else (CDN location, peering, statistical deviations in sampling, etc.) being equal, both countries would show up the same on a list like this, but country A actually has vastly superior broadband penetration and infrastructure. So again, at the very least it shows you that people don't care about fast internet as much as you think they do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Diviance posted:Most people only user the internet for things like Facebook and email, so there is quite a significant disparity in usage between the types of people who use the internet. Where is your proof that they are overselling their infrastructure? Hard data, not anecdotes please. It makes perfect sense to tailor your infrastructure around the needs of the 99% rather than the 1%.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Diviance posted:I was thinking of something else with the overselling, relating to their peering arrangements. My bad on that. It's not like they're not offering faster internet. My cable company offers 15Mbit as the lowest offer, and goes up to at least 50Mbit, and I think even 100 if I wanted it. And again, no one cares that they're "overcharging" because most people don't use faster than 10Mbit internet. Right now the only usage case you need for 50Mbit is if you're streaming 5 1080p Netflix connections simultaneously, which I'm going to tell you right now is not a standard usage case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
psydude posted:Are people in here seriously suggesting that people wouldn't want a faster internet connection for less money? Most people use their internet connection to check email, look at Facebook, and stream music and HD/UHD video. See that last one on there? People are getting tired of paying $100/mo for television. That's the driving force. It's also the reason why Comcast has an incentive to throttle or engage in anticompetitive practices with regards to services like Netflix, which compete directly with them not only in the service arena (offering on-demand streaming television on the cheap instead of scheduled programming), but in the content arena (NBC's programming has completely tanked since Comcast bought it, and many of their writers are jumping ship to companies like Netflix and HBO). Assuming that Sweden has a higher buildout of faster internet than the US, the data doesn't back you up. More people are using faster internet in the US. It will probably become more of an issue, but again it's a gradual thing that companies are adjusting to as time goes on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Except the fact they have bandwidth caps. Because of a ruling that said that if a user can't download until literally the heat death of the universe you can't market it as "unlimited" internet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Streaming services like netflix and amazon will eat through some data. Especially netflix at the high quality setting or even worse, UHD. Also video games now are 30-50gb downloads. Talk to the people who downloaded 50gb's of halo and had to redownload it cause of a bug. Yeah, and what I'm saying is that in the "unlimited internet" days they would treat it about the same (i.e., unless you're really obnoxious about it they won't care).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:The point is low caps can be anti competitive. If i get to 90% of my usage they start calling me and popping up messages in my browser session reminding me of it, at 300gb they charge me $10 extra per 50gb. Key word is "can be".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
Don Lapre posted:You don't understand. They are literally doing this, right now, where i live. That's not related to net neutrality though, especially the Comcast phone stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 01:26
|
|