4 ms·

It would be interesting to see a plot of website size vs average bandwidth over time. I do wonder if perhaps a 10MB page size on a modern connection is any wors

It would be interesting to see a plot of website size vs average bandwidth over time. I do wonder if perhaps a 10MB page size on a modern connection is any worse than a 10k page size on a dial up modem. This is obviously a simplification that ignores bandwith prices, the wide spread in connection speeds, latency, etc. The flip side is that these pages often do a lot more (and often for user benefit) than old websites. Everyone hates ad filled news websites, but we've always had ad/popup issues, and users do increasingly demand interactivity on pages and high quality imagery, which take a lot of bandwidth.

mumblemumble 5y ago
Might be worth looking at median rather than average. Or even some target percentile. My impression is that the bandwidth available to the top quartile of users has increased at a much faster rate than the bandwidth available to the third and fourth quartiles. For example, last year I moved to a new neighborhood with a different (and wider) of internet service providers. My effective (as measured by actual, not advertised, speed) increased by two orders of magnitude at the same time that my monthly Internet service bill dropped by ~15%. It was a particularly noticeable change for me because it made the difference between me having a pleasant experience using my company's product from home, and my company's product being simply unusable from my home. (But don't mention that to our front-end developers or they'll just get in a huff about the modern web and people needing to get with the times. As if the lack of fiber in my [urban] neighborhood were somehow a choice that I made for myself.)
- Wohlf 5y ago
  The key is density. I live near a large coastal city and have 500Mbps-1Gbps fiber internet, my family lives in a very small town in the Midwest and can get a 50Mbps-300Mbps cable internet, but people who live in deep rural areas have limited options.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    The reality is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as urban vs rural. I moved 2 miles, from a denser area to a less dense (but still urban) neighborhood. Also the newer neighborhood has a much lower median household income. Still. Two orders of magnitude faster. Not exaggerating.
mfer 5y ago
I wouldn't look at the average or even the median. I would look at the 90%. In cities and for many tech workers it's easy to get really fast Internet connections. What about rural locations? For example, 90% of the US is rural. What about suburb or low income locations? What about countries that do not have the infrastructure investment of the west? As more things move online only or mostly online it's important to not look at the experience for those with the top speeds but those who are near the bottom. Especially for those who are on the bottom end of speeds and bandwidth limits.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mumblemumble 5y ago

Might be worth looking at median rather than average. Or even some target percentile. My impression is that the bandwidth available to the top quartile of users has increased at a much faster rate than the bandwidth available to the third and fourth quartiles. For example, last year I moved to a new neighborhood with a different (and wider) of internet service providers. My effective (as measured by actual, not advertised, speed) increased by two orders of magnitude at the same time that my monthly Internet service bill dropped by ~15%. It was a particularly noticeable change for me because it made the difference between me having a pleasant experience using my company's product from home, and my company's product being simply unusable from my home. (But don't mention that to our front-end developers or they'll just get in a huff about the modern web and people needing to get with the times. As if the lack of fiber in my [urban] neighborhood were somehow a choice that I made for myself.)

Wohlf 5y ago
The key is density. I live near a large coastal city and have 500Mbps-1Gbps fiber internet, my family lives in a very small town in the Midwest and can get a 50Mbps-300Mbps cable internet, but people who live in deep rural areas have limited options.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  The reality is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as urban vs rural. I moved 2 miles, from a denser area to a less dense (but still urban) neighborhood. Also the newer neighborhood has a much lower median household income. Still. Two orders of magnitude faster. Not exaggerating.

mfer 5y ago

I wouldn't look at the average or even the median. I would look at the 90%. In cities and for many tech workers it's easy to get really fast Internet connections. What about rural locations? For example, 90% of the US is rural. What about suburb or low income locations? What about countries that do not have the infrastructure investment of the west? As more things move online only or mostly online it's important to not look at the experience for those with the top speeds but those who are near the bottom. Especially for those who are on the bottom end of speeds and bandwidth limits.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]