Quote:
Originally Posted by Skie
I think marketing will like the ability to say even their lowest speed is faster than BT's fastest speed.
|
It does kinda make the middle tier redundant though, except for legacy customers, doesn't it?
"Hmm what speed do I need/want/can I afford?"
1) I'm penny pinching, so I'll have to 'make do' with a speed faster than any other ISP. I'll take the 100Mbps.
2) I want 10Gbe already. Sign me up for 300 of your shiniest epeens, and hurry up with DOCSIS 3.1 will you? There's a good chap.
3).... Um?.... I'm lily livered and can't decide. I mean 100 megs is obviously far too slow for web browsing and email, and I don't want / can't afford 300 megs, so I'll take 200Mbps?
It seems so... un-necessary with the speeds being so high already. They'd be better with an 'all in' and a 'budget' range surely? As I said I'd gladly pay an extra tenner or so a month if they'd actually fix the bloody network already.
EDIT: @Kushan While extra speed is always welcome from a downloading and streaming POV (good 1080p, 2k and 4k are surprisingly hungry, and extra bandwidth leads to further innovation at the consumer end), I do agree that with 3.1 they'd be better served focusing on those things. "Oh gee my 500 megs down 30 megs up (LOL) connection is running at 20% rated speed due to congestion, and my ping is in four digits again" isn't much to shout about. I'd much prefer 100/100 or other good symmetrical connection (I shan't be greedy and cite gigabit+) with decent ping and no bufferbloat. Thing is not many people actually want to pay for it. Short of starting up a small community project with custom blown fibre (eg Gigaclear) there's only so much you can do with a legacy cable network overnight.