It’s also about latency.
But the thing people miss is that this is mandating projects for future infrastructure projects. Whatever we set at a baseline is what we will standardize on for the next generation. People donut understand these are leading values for project acceptability not minimum standards of throughout as they are being presented. Massive difference.
It’s not about whether you can make it work today, it’s about what kind of projects are acceptable speed for tomorrow and whether we can call it broadband when it’s not.
Just look at gaming. When it came on a CD people complained that gaming would never work on a t1 line, and 1.5 mbit was supposed to support at 25 person office (1999). Then 10 mbit was mind blowing with bonded DSL and you could support everything. Now we are having an argument about 100 and 300, but the same logic applies. What works for today isn’t the standard we should be applying to qualify infrastructure minimums for buildout (which is what this is).
I mean imagine when games at 2-3TB each (it’s coming) and drives are 50GB. It’s not a question of throughput, as you said it becomes a question of time to complete — aka productivity — and that means waiting around for stuff to finish while you download. That’s what broadband standards are working against — what we think is acceptable to be installing today — not whether you can max the link with your current mix of devices and two 4k TVs.
Good point.
Wireless is a convenience feature but it gets treated like it should act exactly like a direct wire does.
What I'm trying to say is that many of these devices regular people have don't even have the capability to receive 1Gbit/s streams. It's great for us nerds or people who (also) work from home and need blazing fast connections to work servers etc, but as of 2023, it's overkill for many regular people.
Datacaps should be illegal though.