• Amju Wolf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    295 months ago

    The funniest (or saddest?) part of all this is that $15 is considered “low”. It’s still pretty high for something so vital (and tbf I’d much rather see a requirement for like 5-10 Mbps at $5 or so; you don’t need much bandwidth for meaningful, very useful service).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      125 months ago

      I not disagreeing but $15 would still put it at one of the cheapest if not the cheapest vital service. I’m not sure you could get any other utility for much lower than that.

      • Amju Wolf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        Sure, but the fixed costs are really low (mostly administrative and one-time installation related stuff which you could potentially just charge for separately) and the ongoing costs per customer are close to zero.

        Also really depends on where you live; I guess for NY it’s a really good deal.

      • Amju Wolf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        I mean, kinda? Sure, there are fixed costs per customer, and it ultimately doesn’t matter if one guy has access to (and uses) a 1Gbps versus 1Mbps service… But when you have millions of customers that you want to serve those speeds to reliably, there’s an insane difference as you need way more expensive equipment and stuff.

        And yeah, more bandwidth has gotten cheaper. But again - for such a critical service, it should be very cheap and minimum speed isn’t really a factor. So if they could make it 1/3 cheaper by cutting the speed to 1/5, that’d be a win for a lot of people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      65 months ago

      I understand the argument but there is far less issues and costs associated with fibre connections which are virtually limitless in terms of speed - theoretical limits apply butbwe are still seeing new equipment at either ends that allow for multiple tbps speeds.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45 months ago

      It’s crazy how many people equate Mbps latency. Broadband companies spread this lie that faster is better.

      You can game lag free and have VoIP calls with zero interruption on 5Mbps.

      Only thing more Mbps helps with is downloading larger files faster.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        You can game lag free and have VoIP calls with zero interruption on 5Mbps.

        Yeah on like… 2-4 devices total lol.

        What if I want to play MariokartDS online with 8 of my friends on the same connection?

        My WEP router advertises 11 Mbps WiFi, I want to use the whole thing.

        ^/s

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          25 months ago

          I see the /s , but I remember hosting 16 people lobbies with 5 Mbps. Its not about bandwidth, but more throughput. Yes, some overhead will cause bandwidth issues, but most of it is THROUGHPUT (ping/ latency).

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            25 months ago

            True, I remember doom running practically smooth on IPX and IPv4.

            I guess it could also depend on the game implementation. Sandbox games end up using a little bit more sending shared world data, but even then as long as you’re not loading a million objects at once, you’ll probably be fine.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        55 months ago

        Still remember playing WoW on under 5Mbps, updating was painful but otherwise playing was fine

      • Phoenixz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Also helps with streaming and many, many other services

        Having said that, though, yeah… 99% of the population doesn’t need more than 10Mbit / person