On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:34:10AM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home? I
Residential broadband is asymmetric, so it's typically more like 6/100 MBit/s, though VDSL and FTTH are also making (slow) progress. Even with that slow upstream telecommuting suddenly becomes useful. There are virtual environments like OpenQwaq which will needly plenty of uncongested/good QoS upstream for video and audio to work. There are plenty of P2P protocols (Skype, Tor, I2P, Bitcoin, distributed searches like YaCy, etc.) which absolutely require bandwidth, especially if you run several of them at the same time. You will increasingly see anonymizing traffic picking up as geolocation and censorship increase.
understand the necessity of internet access and agree everyone has a right to it. But that necessity can be perfectly fulfilled with a stable
It definitely reduces need for moving human bodies in metal boxes back and forth, and reduces road wear and carbon dioxide emissions.
internet connection of a reasonable speed (say low to mid range DSL speed tops).
I don't regard simultaneously streaming 6 channels of TV and downloading
Cable providers have an incentive to move to streaming video, as it saves bandwidth.
the latest movie torrent in 2 minutes as a basic necessity, let alone essential.
I can think of many constructive uses for symmetric 100 MBit/s and higher residential. Of course you won't see the demand until you offer uncrippled upstream.