3 ms·

The answer is gaming

• ColinWright 6y ago
  No. Just, no. Maybe "Gaming" suits some people, but not everyone.
  • formerly_proven 6y ago
    Ultra-charitable interpretation: Perhaps they meant to use gaming voice communications instead of video conferences, because those voice comms work pretty well and video is 99.8 % unnecessary anyway.
    • mikewarot 6y ago
      <because those voice comms work pretty well and video is 99.8 % unnecessary anyway. <sarcasm> Imagine if there were a publicly available system that could switch connections directly between the end users, without the need for computers, or anything wireless? It could send uLaw companded audio in a 8,000 samples per second, to cover the 3 KHz bandwidth of human speech, with almost no latency. You could even hook circuits directly up to the end user equipment to avoid any need to share the audio channel. Because the bandwidth was dedicated on a switched channel, there would be no drop-outs or packet loss! What an amazing improvement over cellphones and Bluetooth that would be. </sarcasm>