From: ithinkiam@gmail.com   
      
   J. P. Gilliver  wrote:   
   > On 2026/1/11 18:31:54, Chris wrote:   
   >   
   > []   
   >   
   >> I've said for a long time that 99% of domestic users don't actually need   
   >> anything more that 50Mbps. What they do need is reliable symmetric speeds   
   >> and better latency.   
   >   
   > Well, I'm perfectly happy with my about 40, but there's only one of me,   
   > I'm not a gamer, and if I do download video, there's no point in getting   
   > more than 1080. Very occasionally if I download a _big_ piece of   
   > software, or a full movie, it'd be nice to get them quicker, but that's   
   > on average less than once a week.   
   >>   
   >> Some media or technical people who work remotely from the office may   
   >> require a 200-300Mbps connection, but that's a very small number of people.   
   >>   
   > I can see that maybe also a household with two working parents and two   
   > or three teenagers might need similar. Though only at peak times.   
      
   During COVID we had three adults working in the house, plus a teenager   
   doing school work. On a 35Mbps line. Lots of netflix, youtube, snapchat etc   
   being used. Not one issue.   
      
   4K streaming is also fine.   
      
   The one thing a gamer would benefit from is when new games are released.   
   Those things are huge. Other than that gaming doesn't need high bandwidth,   
   it needs low latency.   
      
   >>   
   >> It's simply marketing.   
   >   
   > It does seem that way. Though arguably it would also make economic sense   
   > to fit maximum capacity for everyone, rather than messing about with   
   > mixed technologies/capacities; but that would involve forward planning,   
   > which neither the companies nor the authorities are much good at.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)