Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

That’s true of every large game I play these days as well.

Obviously there may be game developers that remain stupid and I suggest that’s an issue to take up with them rather 
than an
issue that is relevant to this debate.

Owen


> On May 31, 2022, at 08:06 , Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
>
> "However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 3.5” floppies at one point."
>
>
> But you can still get incremental Windows Updates and don't have to redownload Windows any time something changes.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>
> From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>
> To: "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 1:26:39 AM
> Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
>
>
> > I agree that it probably doesn't change much for the ISP's (my rural ISP installing fiber apparently disagrees 
> > tho). The thing is that if you're talking about downloads, the game manufacturers will just fill to whatever 
> > available capacity the pipes will give so it probably won't ever get better.
>
> I don’t think game manufacturers expand their games based on available download bandwidth. I think that games have 
> gotten richer and the graphics environments and capabilities have improved and content more expansive to a point 
> where yes, games are several BluRays worth of download now instead of being shipped on multiple discs.
>
> However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 3.5” floppies at one point.
>
> However, yes, a download will fill whatever bandwidth is available for as long as the download takes. If you’ve got 
> 1Gpbs, the download will take significantly less time than if you have 100Mbps.
>
> > Maybe there a Next Big Thing that will be an even bigger bandwidth eater than video. But I get the bigger 
> > limitation these days for a lot of people is latency rather than bandwidth. That of course is harder to deal with.
>
> Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
>
> Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem, but it does actually help some in that it reduces the duration of 
> things other customers do to cause congestion which increases latency.
>
> Owen