101–110 of 432 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The technical reason is that by restricting upload speed they can offer a higher download speed, and that is what most users care about.
This is nonsense. Fiber cables are always capable of the same speed in both directions at once. The actual reason is so they can sell you an overpriced "business" plan if you need upload speeds from the current decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The technical reason is that by restricting upload speed they can offer a higher download speed, and that is what most users care about.
This is nonsense. Fiber cables are always capable of the same speed in both directions at once. The actual reason is so they can sell you an overpriced "business" plan if you need upload speeds from the current decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The costs for your ISP are fixed whether they serve you 1MB or 1TB. That's only true in a very abstract sense. If everybody went from using 1MB/day to 1TB/day there would be massive congestion issues and costs would increase as ISPs rush to install higher-bandwidth equipment. Put a different way: It is cheaper to construct a network where all subscribers consume only 1MB/day than a network where all subscribers con…
Well it should be true in the concrete sense. If they can't consistently serve you at 100mpbs or whatever else then they shouldn't advertise it. "But everyone else is using it at the same time so too bad" wouldn't work as an excuse in any other industry.
If you want to know how much more expensive the connection would be if you expect to use the full bandwidth 24/7, just look at the cost you pay for transit in a datacenter. It is multiples of the cost home consumers pay at a per-bit level.
Most users are best served by being told the speeds they will usually get if they stay within average usage patterns, because that is what most people do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically roads should also have caps and/or tolls, so this take is strange. This is partly why gas and excise tax is a thing…
What is ironic about you're opinion disagreeing with the status quo in some countries?
This partly why gas tax is even a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that speed should be symmetrical. We are continuing to push the boundaries are content going out.
A huge portion of people don't need a massive upstream. This sounds more expensive for basically no benefit (for most)
This is nice, but with increased speed, they should also require ISPs do not impose a data cap to be considered broadband.
Assuming that for most consumers the end price averages to be the same, the benefit of metered is it puts an incentive on the data provider to make their speeds as high as possible. Higher speeds will result in more bandwidth usage (i.e. Youtube/Netflix will default to a higher data rate), which will result in more profit for the company. The desires of the customer and the desires of the provider are the same - faster and more stable internet leads to better customer experience and more profit.
One of the issues I see with fixed-speed-unlimited-data options is that providers are incentivized to oversell the fixed speed bandwidth, leading to "up to 100mbps" type connections where it's a theoretical max, not the average. Under this model the desires of the customer are misaligned with the desires of the provider. The provider wants the customer to use as little data as possible - the less they use the more they can sell plans on the same infrastructure. This can be addressed with rules and regulations, but I prefer a situation where I know both the customer and provider have aligned desires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what gets me. Is there a technical reason why symmetrical connections would be more expensive than asymm?
The technical reason is that by restricting upload speed they can offer a higher download speed, and that is what most users care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently went from 300mbps to 2gbps, and one big difference is game update time. In the past, I would sometimes go to play a game with my friends and it would require a 10 gig update, and we would have to play a different game because it would take too long to update. Now I can update in under a minute and we can play.
To me that's more about the company making too many large updates. And when they do have a large updated it should be up to the user to decide when to get it. Downloading it over night should be an option, and not required to play. I've seem games that demanded the update in order to play, which is really annoying and I don't think it should be that way.