3 ms·

So there's a need for it, it's just that you don't have a need for it. I'm happy with my 1gbps connection where I can download a 50GB game in less than 10 minu

by Jonnax 6y ago

So there's a need for it, it's just that you don't have a need for it. I'm happy with my 1gbps connection where I can download a 50GB game in less than 10 minutes.

guenthert 6y ago
I know that there is use for it ("any space will be filled"). A buddy of mine has two teenage boys -- 'nough said. I just don't see that as explaining the market for 100Mbps+ connections to the home and such routers. Your use case reminds me of the (mystical?) fellow who allegedly complained that his new graphics card didn't allow him to play his favorite 3D FPS game and watch a movie simultaneously.
- fomine3 6y ago
  Another point is that old wireless tech is inefficient so it reduces your smartphone's battery life. Faster connection able to work faster, so the device can go to sleep state early, even when streaming Netflix.
- pirocks 6y ago
  I do this. I watch Netflix and play video games at the same time. So I guess my point is this is a use case which exists. My GPU handles it just fine though.
- Jonnax 6y ago
  I have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly I think you're a bit out of touch with how people use the internet today. I've got two monitors. I've played an MMORPG before where I have a YouTube video playing on the other monitor. This has been possible for probably 10 years. Also yes. People live in homes with other people either as a family or house/flat sharing. Who all use the internet at the same time. What if they all want to watch 4k video in their room? Whilst their consoles (Nintendo Switch, PS5 or Xbox Series X) are downloading games/updates. If they want to maintain 4k streaming, they're going to need a fast download speed. Google Stadia, Amazon Luna, Nvidia GeforceNow are game streaming applications, they require good throughput in addition to low latency. Low latency requires an uncongested connection. What if they work on photos and videos in the cloud? They can load them up faster to work on. Rather than requiring a signifant local storage. Especially if they have symmetric upload speeds. 100Mbps+ is clearly beneficial. You're conflating your lack of need for fast internet with everyone else not needing it.

by Jonnax 6y ago

So there's a need for it, it's just that you don't have a need for it. I'm happy with my 1gbps connection where I can download a 50GB game in less than 10 minutes.

guenthert 6y ago

I know that there is use for it ("any space will be filled"). A buddy of mine has two teenage boys -- 'nough said. I just don't see that as explaining the market for 100Mbps+ connections to the home and such routers. Your use case reminds me of the (mystical?) fellow who allegedly complained that his new graphics card didn't allow him to play his favorite 3D FPS game and watch a movie simultaneously.

fomine3 6y ago
Another point is that old wireless tech is inefficient so it reduces your smartphone's battery life. Faster connection able to work faster, so the device can go to sleep state early, even when streaming Netflix.
pirocks 6y ago
I do this. I watch Netflix and play video games at the same time. So I guess my point is this is a use case which exists. My GPU handles it just fine though.
Jonnax 6y ago
I have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly I think you're a bit out of touch with how people use the internet today. I've got two monitors. I've played an MMORPG before where I have a YouTube video playing on the other monitor. This has been possible for probably 10 years. Also yes. People live in homes with other people either as a family or house/flat sharing. Who all use the internet at the same time. What if they all want to watch 4k video in their room? Whilst their consoles (Nintendo Switch, PS5 or Xbox Series X) are downloading games/updates. If they want to maintain 4k streaming, they're going to need a fast download speed. Google Stadia, Amazon Luna, Nvidia GeforceNow are game streaming applications, they require good throughput in addition to low latency. Low latency requires an uncongested connection. What if they work on photos and videos in the cloud? They can load them up faster to work on. Rather than requiring a signifant local storage. Especially if they have symmetric upload speeds. 100Mbps+ is clearly beneficial. You're conflating your lack of need for fast internet with everyone else not needing it.