3 ms·
I wouldn't mind latency being thrown into the typical Mbps marketing jargon, at least it will get some attention (which has sorely been lacking). If we can ope
by ihsw2 8y ago
I wouldn't mind latency being thrown into the typical Mbps marketing jargon, at least it will get some attention (which has sorely been lacking).
If we can open up these rules while radically increasing enforcement of quality of service then this might be a good thing. It might be good to replace "up to 75Mbps" with "guaranteed 50-75Mbps and 5-15ms ping to nearest public internet junction, 95% of the time during peak hours." I'm sure some folks might even sign onto world-beating five-nines performance guarantees too.
But this is probably just a dream and we'll see the ugly product differentiation you're describing.
- dkersten 8y ago> It might be good to replace "up to 75Mbps" with "guaranteed 50-75Mbps and 5-15ms ping to nearest public internet junction, 95% of the time during peak hours. Hell yeah. I would happily pay extra for a decent service that advertised it’s minimum speeds instead of its maximum because in reality, the theoretical maximum speed of my connection is really not a useful metric unless I’m hitting it 99% of the time. I have a fast connection but I still typically get a good 50 Mb/s less than advertised (which luckily still leaves me with 200 Mb/s or so) making the advertised amount completely inconsequential and useless. Telling me the lowest I should expect, on the other hand, is actually helpful and allows me to do some rudimentary capacity planning to see if it’s suitable for me or not.
- tekknik 8y agonote that this isn’t a problem with dsl lines. AT&T charges me for 50mbps down and 10mbps up. 100% of the time for the 5+ years they have exceeded these speeds (i have a traffic monitor running constantly to verify speeds)