5 ms·

I like this idea, but I see two potential problems: 1. It might route too many people to where the network is fast, thus making the network not fast anymore an

by biztos 6y ago

I like this idea, but I see two potential problems: 1. It might route too many people to where the network is fast, thus making the network not fast anymore and wasting a lot of people's time as they "go." 2. It might also route a bunch of "digital nomads" to my local art café where they will hog the tables, like Waze did with commuter traffic to my residential street. How do you avoid those two problems? Or at least the first one, which is a problem for your target users?

renewiltord 6y ago
Make your internet slow at #2. Presumably you don't want an army of people all on the Internet at your art cafe anyway. As for #1, there are physical capacity limits you are likely to first exhaust. Only so many people will fit.
- biztos 6y ago
  Actually two of my cafés have a "no computers in the evening" rule, one also has a "no computers on the terrace" rule. Now that I think about it more, with fast mobile data I don't think network speed is going to be much of a factor for places like that. For #1, if you have ten people all on Zoom meetings at the same time, isn't that going to kill your fast-for-a-café bandwidth?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Even on sub-par infrastructure, a business-class connection should never be slower than 100/100mbps, and 10 people on zoom wouldn't be a problem. So the question becomes whether the infrastructure is garbage.
    - dylz 6y ago
      This depends heavily on type of connection. 100/100 should be bare minimum, yes, but for example Comcast coaxial business-class is still like 5-10mbit up.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        And that's garbage. They need to replace some filters and other pieces so that more frequencies can be allocated to upload.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    > For #1, if you have ten people all on Zoom meetings at the same time, isn't that going to kill your fast-for-a-café bandwidth? Not unless they all start at the same time. If they start a little staggered from each other, there will be time to boot the first person out for trying to do a video call in a cafe around other humans before the next one starts. Working in a cafe is completely reasonable, and wouldn't disturb other people. Taking a call is ridiculous.
    - beisner 6y ago
      Eh, from a noise level there’s no difference with having an in-person meeting at a cafe, which happens all the time and is not bothersome (depending on the cafe).
      - JoshTriplett 6y ago
        There's a noticeable difference between an in-person meeting and a call. Most people are a lot louder in the latter.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Ten people can be handled by symmetric 20 Mbps. That's not that high. And you're not going to have ten people on video calls in a space that can only get 20 Mbps.
samzer 6y ago
For the 1st, a critical mass has to be reached in order for it to become a problem. Even if it does and slows it down, then the places where the speeds are fast will become attractive for the same people. This is just a hypothesis, it will be interesting to see the dynamics created by such service. W.r.t 2nd, Yep!
vmception 6y ago
"support local businesses but don't give them business"

by biztos 6y ago

renewiltord 6y ago

Make your internet slow at #2. Presumably you don't want an army of people all on the Internet at your art cafe anyway. As for #1, there are physical capacity limits you are likely to first exhaust. Only so many people will fit.

biztos 6y ago
Actually two of my cafés have a "no computers in the evening" rule, one also has a "no computers on the terrace" rule. Now that I think about it more, with fast mobile data I don't think network speed is going to be much of a factor for places like that. For #1, if you have ten people all on Zoom meetings at the same time, isn't that going to kill your fast-for-a-café bandwidth?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Even on sub-par infrastructure, a business-class connection should never be slower than 100/100mbps, and 10 people on zoom wouldn't be a problem. So the question becomes whether the infrastructure is garbage.
  - dylz 6y ago
    This depends heavily on type of connection. 100/100 should be bare minimum, yes, but for example Comcast coaxial business-class is still like 5-10mbit up.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      And that's garbage. They need to replace some filters and other pieces so that more frequencies can be allocated to upload.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  > For #1, if you have ten people all on Zoom meetings at the same time, isn't that going to kill your fast-for-a-café bandwidth? Not unless they all start at the same time. If they start a little staggered from each other, there will be time to boot the first person out for trying to do a video call in a cafe around other humans before the next one starts. Working in a cafe is completely reasonable, and wouldn't disturb other people. Taking a call is ridiculous.
  - beisner 6y ago
    Eh, from a noise level there’s no difference with having an in-person meeting at a cafe, which happens all the time and is not bothersome (depending on the cafe).
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      There's a noticeable difference between an in-person meeting and a call. Most people are a lot louder in the latter.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Ten people can be handled by symmetric 20 Mbps. That's not that high. And you're not going to have ten people on video calls in a space that can only get 20 Mbps.

samzer 6y ago

For the 1st, a critical mass has to be reached in order for it to become a problem. Even if it does and slows it down, then the places where the speeds are fast will become attractive for the same people. This is just a hypothesis, it will be interesting to see the dynamics created by such service. W.r.t 2nd, Yep!

vmception 6y ago

"support local businesses but don't give them business"