3 ms·
> I would expect our home usage is now well in excess of 1T/month. (I live in the UK.) This should tell you that I have no self-interest in bandwidth caps, espe
by ScottBurson 12y ago
> I would expect our home usage is now well in excess of 1T/month. (I live in the UK.) This should tell you that I have no self-interest in bandwidth caps, especially joke 2-figure ones.
Ah, so you're on the receiving end of the subsidy, in a big way. Wow! That's what, five or six people streaming a full-length movie apiece, every day?
The structure that ISPs seem to like, of a cap with a fairly stiff charge for exceeding it, doesn't appeal to me either. But I don't see what would be wrong with a baseline connection fee plus a modest charge per GB, such that streaming a whole movie would cost on the order of $2.
(Message heavily edited after I realized you agree that the subsidy is unfair.)
- barrkel 12y agoMy GF usually works from home and has video on one screen 10-16 hours a day, and concurrently streams to a tablet for about 2-6 hours a day - some of that is concurrent usage, but she also likes to fall asleep with the tablet on (and plugged in). Netflix HD "best quality" apparently uses 2.3G/hour, as of 2012. If all the streaming was Netflix HD in best quality, she'd be using over 1.5T all by herself. However, it's not all Netflix HD, so her actual usage is lower. And she's also a fan of various talent reality shows, which she sometimes acquires from other sources. Increased bandwidth is similar to increased road capacity. Just like road capacity makes longer and more car trips feasible, increased bandwidth encourages accessing large files remotely and reduces the incentive to cache locally.
- ScottBurson 12y agoGood grief. That's a pretty good argument for metering. I guess people just don't get that it's not the same as TV. Why should they, when it's billed at a flat rate?