• Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    House size and media consumption are going to be big factors here I think. You get four people trying to stream, game, listen to music, whatever it is people these days use phones for, etc; it’s going to really add up. Sure lots of people barely use the internet and are getting sold way more than they need but it’s not uncommon anymore for multiple hd things to be simultaneously happening in one house

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Which supports my point that average bandwidth is not an indicator of overall quality of internet accessible to the public because it can very easily be skewed by household size.

      But people read half of the first paragraph and downvote. I guess it’s on me for not being concise enough.

    • altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Content becomes a lot bigger in size while we get too used to getting it immediately. I could’ve laughed and how I set a PC to torrent overnight in pre-100MB times, but with games liberally crossing 100GB line I can see myself going back to that.

      • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        In my area geetting that higher bandwidth is at least an extra $50/month and I’m being conservative. That’s $600/year just to download games quicker.

        That means that if you’re buying a new massive game once every month and a half you’re paying just as much for bandwidth to download the game as you’re paying for the game itself.

        This is not good value unless you have so much disposable income that you don’t even know what to do with it.