3 ms·

Maybe this will force sites to stop wasting bandwidth and stem the bloat. You should not need a gigabit connection (which I do not even have in all of my home L

Maybe this will force sites to stop wasting bandwidth and stem the bloat. You should not need a gigabit connection (which I do not even have in all of my home LAN) to browse the Internet. Edit: downvoters, please explain why I need 125MB/s (that's 3 full installations of Windows 95 every second) for normal browsing.

wmf 1y ago
You don't need gigabit but resource constraints have never reined in bloat in the past and they won't now.
- userbinator 1y ago
  Apparently you've never heard of the demoscene.
  - wmf 1y ago
    Yeah, constraints are good for art. I was thinking of the commercial world.
dartharva 1y ago
It's not about what you may or may not need, it's about how much the telecom company is giving back in exchange of being granted a natural monopoly in their covered regions. This rescinding of regulation will only promote rent-seeking and enshittification.
93po 1y ago
why do you need a car that can do 65MPH? just take the backroads and chat with a friend or something while you drive, 30 MPH is plenty to get anyone anywhere. people made do with horses that did about 5 MPH for over a hundred years and they got around just fine. 30 MPH is, like, at least twice as fast as the horse
nobody9999 1y ago
>Maybe this will force sites to stop wasting bandwidth and stem the bloat. You should not need a gigabit connection (which I do not even have in all of my home LAN) to browse the Internet. Nope. You don't. But why should I have to pay Google/AWS/Azure/Cloudflare/Digital Ocean/etc./etc./etc. to host my small business/vanity/family chat/photo sharing site, or YouTube to host my barbecue sauce unboxing videos, when symmetrical (okay, 300 up/down would likely be plenty for most of that, but once there's fiber, Gb/sec seems good to me)? I have no interest in propping up huge companies with hosting fees because other huge companies have no competition. All that said, I get your point. But my use case is not your use case. Do you get mine? Edit: Clarified prose.

wmf 1y ago

You don't need gigabit but resource constraints have never reined in bloat in the past and they won't now.

userbinator 1y ago
Apparently you've never heard of the demoscene.
- wmf 1y ago
  Yeah, constraints are good for art. I was thinking of the commercial world.

dartharva 1y ago

It's not about what you may or may not need, it's about how much the telecom company is giving back in exchange of being granted a natural monopoly in their covered regions. This rescinding of regulation will only promote rent-seeking and enshittification.

93po 1y ago

why do you need a car that can do 65MPH? just take the backroads and chat with a friend or something while you drive, 30 MPH is plenty to get anyone anywhere. people made do with horses that did about 5 MPH for over a hundred years and they got around just fine. 30 MPH is, like, at least twice as fast as the horse

nobody9999 1y ago

>Maybe this will force sites to stop wasting bandwidth and stem the bloat. You should not need a gigabit connection (which I do not even have in all of my home LAN) to browse the Internet. Nope. You don't. But why should I have to pay Google/AWS/Azure/Cloudflare/Digital Ocean/etc./etc./etc. to host my small business/vanity/family chat/photo sharing site, or YouTube to host my barbecue sauce unboxing videos, when symmetrical (okay, 300 up/down would likely be plenty for most of that, but once there's fiber, Gb/sec seems good to me)? I have no interest in propping up huge companies with hosting fees because other huge companies have no competition. All that said, I get your point. But my use case is not your use case. Do you get mine? Edit: Clarified prose.