[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] KiltedKen [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Home Internet access is nearly a requirement in my line of work, otherwise I'd be right there with you. Unfortunately Comcast is my only choice of broadband.

0
3

[–] DarkLinkXXXX 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Maybe if people are willing to donate their time a community fiber network could be established? Easier said than done, but the option's there.

0
4

[–] rwbj 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Wonder if they'll drop the 250GB bandwidth caps.

At full capacity 2Gbps you'd run through 250GB in less than 17 minutes.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] rwbj 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Google for a million sources. Even better is when you realize that net neutrality is a complete joke. It makes a very clear exception in absolutely everything (except for explicitly and directly paid prioritization) for "reasonable network manage." It's up to the FCC to not only pursue Comcast, but to refuse their inevitable defense of "reasonable network management." Don't hold your breath on it.

Perhaps this begs the question of what "reasonable network management" means. That was left ambiguous by the FCC and essentially stated to mean any decision that is performed primarily for purposes of network management. And how does the FCC decide what is what? Are there a strict set of rules and guidelines requiring compliance? No, of course not. That'd be reasonable. Instead they decided that they'll simply decide on a case by case basis whether something is or isn't "reasonable network management."

0
0

[–] KiltedKen [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Edit: I misread here and wasn't thinking about the bandwidth caps in terms of monthly bandwidth, for no good reason. My bad. Please ignore this Thanks to /u/rwbj for making things clear!

Wouldn't it be difficult to reach that capacity with most home use? Even with streaming or some severe downloads/sharing I'd think saturation of that line over any given period of time might be difficult. Anyone have some experience with this?

0
1

[–] rwbj 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not really. A console gamer would have a pretty easy time of it. Recently a number of console titles available for download have reached and surpassed 50GB. One patch for a game was about 20GB by itself. And that's on the technology of today.

The reason I mention "technology of today" is this. That's Akamai's latest "State of the Internet" report. The US, once a world leader in telecoms technology, is looking pretty sad. Among other stats only 18% of America has a connection > 15Mbps. That's the bare minimum for streaming prerendered and compressed 4k. The poor state of the internet in the US is inhibiting growth of higher end services. Japan is already experimenting with streaming 8k(!) video and 22.2 channel 3D audio. That sort of stuff is simply not possible in the US, let alone market feasible. And so we're being left behind the rest of the world.

I think the next big jump in entertainment technology is also likely to be virtual reality. Virtual reality is still seeing huge jumps in image fidelity and "presence" going beyond 4k and 60 frames a second. Now the thing is - this requires vastly more bandwidth to actually stream than your aforementioned 4k video. And not only because we're talking 60+ vs 24 frames a second. When you stream a movie it's heavily compressed (as in to actually less than 1% of it's raw size) primarily taking advantage of frame coherence or the fact that between any two frames not all that much changes. In real time rendering, like a game or virtual reality, that isn't possible. You can still compress it but nowhere near to the degree you can compress a movie. And given the US doesn't even have the bandwidth to widely stream compressed 4k videos at 24 frames a second, well I think it should be clear why I'm trying to emphasize "technology of today!"

0
4

[–] KiltedKen [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Google is heading there too. I wonder how much of Google's plan to poke other ISPs is what caused this.

0
6

[–] Clayton 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

0
3

[–] AssuredlyAThrowAway 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Really nice to see Google have such a big impact on the decrepit American internet market.

0
0

[–] Gamerdog6482 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Meanwhile I'm over here with 3.8 Mbps paying $50 a month...thanks Comcast.