So we're assuming you're getting spot on 25mbps, not lower, which is common. And once those 4 streams are active, and someone needs to do a windows update, or install Office365 for uni, or have the Internet Fridge do an online analysis and re-order of food you're low on? Buffering, dropouts, etc.[/quote]
And? End of the world ensues? AFAIK NOT. Netflix has intelligent adjustment of bandwidth used. It'll drop quality.
I'm on 50mbps now, and if I'm streaming youtube 4k, and someone activates my RING doorbell, I see pings rise from 25ms to over 200ms. Which is just not acceptable for anyone who consumes bandwith in a modern way (xbox live\PSN, Steam OS, etc).[/quote]
You sound like the perfect poster boy for purchasing your own fibre. Everyone else gets an Elantra.
Also the RING doorbell connects to your wifi, not your internet. You have local LAN issues, not WAN ones.
It's not uncommon for someone to be watching youtube, when someone rings the doorbell. It's not a stretch at all. Also, even though I pay for 50mbps, it fluctuates, as you'd expect. So perhaps 50 IS fine, but 35 when it drops is not.[/quote]
It's perfectly fine.
I mean, I use most of the upload the second I leave home and the server has to transcode my media on the fly. I'm really not asking much in the scheme of things, I'm not running a popular website or trying to run a cluster at home or anything.[/quote]
Please calculate how many people in Australia transcode media, how much that adds to the economy and extrapolate relative value of giving them fibre to the home on public dollar.
As someone who rides motorbikes, I'm absolutely 110% serious. Tons of mates on 250cc or smaller bikes have been forced onto the nature strip\stopping lane by trucks that didn't see them. Meanwhile, with my 1.4L of grunt, when I see this happening, I'm fucking out of there. As my father always taught me "On a bike, you're either faster, or in the wrong; there's no "right of way" against a car or a truck" and regardless of law, he's so bloody right![/quote]
So your solution is that the government give every one who needs a motorbike, a 500CC?
I just went with cars, because you'd already made the analogy.[/quote]
I think you radically misunderstood my analogy. You don't need an Audi. You want one.
If your car buying is based on what might happen if you get pinned by a truck, you need to go buy a surplus tank. The Israeli Merkavas are a particular favourite.
You're streaming away on your 5mbps movie (bike) with your 3 friends (20mb). Suddenly, a 15mb task (truck) decides it wants in your bandwidth (lane). You're either fast enough to make this a non issue (More Bandwith). Or you're crushed underneath a truck (buffering).
Or I deal with it.
Haha, well aren't they embarrassed now?
Not in the slightest. They're 100% right, as you're about to prove:
Obesity is the number 1 epidemic (as stupid as that is). More calories were available for cheaper, and bam, we consume them.[/quote]
Not quite. You ever wonder why they take your postcode when you buy stuff? It's to determine where demand is so they can open a new store there.
The economy is demand driven. Not supply-driven.
Cars got cheaper? Bam, families suddenly own more than 1 car.[/quote]
Every young family I know needs more than 25Mbps, because with 2 kids, and 2 parents, that's 4x HD netflix streams per night, while they surf the net.
I'm about to become part of a two-child, two-parent family when baby 2.0 arrives in mid-Jan.
I assure you I won't be upping my bandwidth :)
In addition, 25Mbps can comfortably handle 4 Netflix streams. Netflix HD is 5Mbps.
Supply CREATES demand. Humans consume, it'll just take time.
What you're talking about is called "Say's Law". Almost every economist has rejected this formulation since the 1960s.
Using your car analogy, everyone thinks the Elantra is fine, until you're stuck next to a merging truck. Your Audi drops a gear, and you're out safe and free. Meanwhile the Elantra driver is crushed to death beneath a road train with no acceleration.
You can't actually be serious?
Just like 25mbps is fine for high def netflix, but what if you want to quickly jump between previews? Every preview has a few seconds buffer time.
Then you buy fibre.
Just like if you don't want too many ads or different programming, you jump off Free To Air and get Netflix or Cable.
This is something we get to do once. We do it for our kids. We do it for THEIR kids (most likely!)
Money can NOT be a consideration unless its going to bankrupt the entire country!
Or we create a white elephant because our kids want high-speed mobility, not low-latency fixed speeds.
This should have been the case with whatever plan came to be. Having it turn into what it is now means it goes from a infrastructure project to a money making one, more than likely leading to stupid decisions to save few dollars to look better on their balance sheet at the end of the quarter.[/quote]
Do we really want a government infrastructure project of that magnitude to lose us money?
As far as people only buying lower speed plans. That's in part their fault, is it not?[/quote]
Maybe. But most likely it's because they don't need faster, or can't afford it. Frankly, if you've been using ADSL for Netflix, and a bit of email + browsing, and have no need beyond that, the 12Mbps plan will cost you more, for roughly the same.
So why bother upgrading beyond that?
I have 30Mbps cable. An extra $15/m gets me 100Mbps. I don't need it. I drive an Audi so you know I can afford an extra $15/m - I just don't need it. If you average out my use from 7pm to 2am, I'd guess it'd be around the 10Mbps mark.
12mb was only supposed to be available for a phone only service, at least what I recall reading at some stage.[/quote]
Incorrect. You do not need even 1Mbps for a household phone service. 100Kbps low latency is more than enough.
Yet all the budget providers offer this as their entry level plan at super cheap prices on an overly congested network. Half the providers don't even offer a 50mb plan, and as i stated above, no one in their right mind is going to pay for a 100mb plan when they can't get anywhere near that speed.[/quote]
What would be the point of offering faster plans given that the best provider out there provisions 3Mbps of CVC per user, irrespective of connection speed?
Just because of those two things you're essentially forcing the user onto lower speed plans. Then you wonder why no one takes up the 100mb option or why almost no one is on a 50mb plan? [/quote]
Look, I suspect one day we will have oodles of bandwidth delivered via geosync satellites. It won't be fast latency-wise, but there'll be enough bandwidth to run phones, internet, etc.
That's when we solve the natural disaster problem, but for now, I can't think of any solution that is better than another on any significant number of points.
Thing is, it's only the last couple of cyclones / near misses of cyclones that we have lost the phone line. I've lived with cyclonic summers for about three decades now, and it was always the comfort of knowing the landline would survive when nothing else did . That's not the case today.
Yeah well... NBNs v1, v2 removed the phone line completely. v3 re-uses it but plugs it into a powered node at street level which is not impervious to water.