What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How fast would a 20Mb/s connection blow through that 150GB cap? Because that's where most of the country is at currently.
I've never seen a place with a cap like that. Where are you seeing that?
www.dslreports.com, read the current stuff. It has improved slightly, but it's a glacial pace.
Is that stuff accurate? Using Internet in different parts of the country, I'm never running into that at all. If it was common, you'd think that I'd see it somewhere.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
hour. Last night, for example, we saw 54GB download in a single hour on Steam.
I hear some XBox games can be like that.
Again, caps will kill these types of solutions.
We're back to the semi truck driving data around, as long as we can tolerate the latency, it can be significantly cheaper to do physical media.
-
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
hour. Last night, for example, we saw 54GB download in a single hour on Steam.
I hear some XBox games can be like that.
Again, caps will kill these types of solutions.
We're back to the semi truck driving data around, as long as we can tolerate the latency, it can be significantly cheaper to do physical media.
Halo Master Chief Collection had a 20GB day one patch. Glad I didn't buy that one
-
@nadnerB said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
hour. Last night, for example, we saw 54GB download in a single hour on Steam.
I hear some XBox games can be like that.
Again, caps will kill these types of solutions.
We're back to the semi truck driving data around, as long as we can tolerate the latency, it can be significantly cheaper to do physical media.
Halo Master Chief Collection had a 20GB day one patch. Glad I didn't buy that one
Exactly - we're running into bloat problems again. MS is only now, a year after releasing Windows 10, working on enabling Windows 10 to download only the differences needed for future major upgrades. It's been 3-5 GB each time you need to upgrade.
Many companies stopped worrying about bloated software since large, unlimited or nearly unlimited pipes were available to customers, but now seeing these caps, the potential is huge for people to be paying more for a patch than they did for a game ( as already mentioned by Scott).
-
@nadnerB said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
hour. Last night, for example, we saw 54GB download in a single hour on Steam.
I hear some XBox games can be like that.
Again, caps will kill these types of solutions.
We're back to the semi truck driving data around, as long as we can tolerate the latency, it can be significantly cheaper to do physical media.
Halo Master Chief Collection had a 20GB day one patch. Glad I didn't buy that one
The RetroPie I built my brother for Christmas depressed me. The games they came out with before Highspeed internet was widely adopted were so much more complete. Now, companies will release an unfinished game and then sell the fix for it as DLC and people will buy it. It's sad.
-
"Critical Database Servers" + randomly deploying applications to them + no idea how a database works: https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1951752-interference-with-other-sql-databases
-
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nadnerB said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
hour. Last night, for example, we saw 54GB download in a single hour on Steam.
I hear some XBox games can be like that.
Again, caps will kill these types of solutions.
We're back to the semi truck driving data around, as long as we can tolerate the latency, it can be significantly cheaper to do physical media.
Halo Master Chief Collection had a 20GB day one patch. Glad I didn't buy that one
The RetroPie I built my brother for Christmas depressed me. The games they came out with before Highspeed internet was widely adopted were so much more complete. Now, companies will release an unfinished game and then sell the fix for it as DLC and people will buy it. It's sad.
I've never actually seen this, ever. And I have over 2,000 games. What I have found is that they used to sell games that were impossible to finish because they had no way to patch them in the past.
What game have you seen sold where you had to buy DLC to make it work?
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@nadnerB said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
hour. Last night, for example, we saw 54GB download in a single hour on Steam.
I hear some XBox games can be like that.
Again, caps will kill these types of solutions.
We're back to the semi truck driving data around, as long as we can tolerate the latency, it can be significantly cheaper to do physical media.
Halo Master Chief Collection had a 20GB day one patch. Glad I didn't buy that one
Exactly - we're running into bloat problems again. MS is only now, a year after releasing Windows 10, working on enabling Windows 10 to download only the differences needed for future major upgrades. It's been 3-5 GB each time you need to upgrade.
Many companies stopped worrying about bloated software since large, unlimited or nearly unlimited pipes were available to customers, but now seeing these caps, the potential is huge for people to be paying more for a patch than they did for a game ( as already mentioned by Scott).
Except, again, this makes no sense. People may have had "unlimited" before but they were small pipes causes more problems, not less, than today.
If you were using your Internet today like you used to, you'd not be hitting caps and you'd get what you got before... just faster.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
There is no way to compare. We pay $10 for Netflix instead of $100 for Cable. So you decide if we cut costs.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
hour. Last night, for example, we saw 54GB download in a single hour on Steam.
I hear some XBox games can be like that.
Again, caps will kill these types of solutions.
We're back to the semi truck driving data around, as long as we can tolerate the latency, it can be significantly cheaper to do physical media.
Only an issue when: using insane amounts of Internet already and buying loads of expensive games.
We are still seeing huge improvements over the past.
-
Three-day work week this week at the daily grind. Ugh. Four-day weekends FTW!
-
@thanksajdotcom said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Three-day work week this week at the daily grind. Ugh. Four-day weekends FTW!
Yeah, today - Thursday is gonna be a looooong stretch.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
There is no way to compare. We pay $10 for Netflix instead of $100 for Cable. So you decide if we cut costs.
But your options are also significantly less too. Not saying you care, perhaps cable offered you nothing you wanted. I would like 8 or so channels on cable, I definitely don't want ESPN. Getting rid of ESPN alone could save me $30+ a month, what they charge the cable provider to provide it to me. This is a case where I'm paying for the rich to have something cheaper... lol
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
There is no way to compare. We pay $10 for Netflix instead of $100 for Cable. So you decide if we cut costs.
But your options are also significantly less too. Not saying you care, perhaps cable offered you nothing you wanted. I would like 8 or so channels on cable, I definitely don't want ESPN. Getting rid of ESPN alone could save me $30+ a month, what they charge the cable provider to provide it to me. This is a case where I'm paying for the rich to have something cheaper... lol
Well, I've never seen any cable channel worth having. So to me I'm getting 1000x the value for 10% of the price.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
There is no way to compare. We pay $10 for Netflix instead of $100 for Cable. So you decide if we cut costs.
But your options are also significantly less too. Not saying you care, perhaps cable offered you nothing you wanted. I would like 8 or so channels on cable, I definitely don't want ESPN. Getting rid of ESPN alone could save me $30+ a month, what they charge the cable provider to provide it to me. This is a case where I'm paying for the rich to have something cheaper... lol
Well, I've never seen any cable channel worth having. So to me I'm getting 1000x the value for 10% of the price.
We each found our own value - it's what makes this pretty subjective.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
There is no way to compare. We pay $10 for Netflix instead of $100 for Cable. So you decide if we cut costs.
But your options are also significantly less too. Not saying you care, perhaps cable offered you nothing you wanted. I would like 8 or so channels on cable, I definitely don't want ESPN. Getting rid of ESPN alone could save me $30+ a month, what they charge the cable provider to provide it to me. This is a case where I'm paying for the rich to have something cheaper... lol
Well, I've never seen any cable channel worth having. So to me I'm getting 1000x the value for 10% of the price.
I have to agree with this. Streaming services are the death of traditional cable. Pay for the channels you want and you have them accessible from any device. Done.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
There is no way to compare. We pay $10 for Netflix instead of $100 for Cable. So you decide if we cut costs.
But your options are also significantly less too. Not saying you care, perhaps cable offered you nothing you wanted. I would like 8 or so channels on cable, I definitely don't want ESPN. Getting rid of ESPN alone could save me $30+ a month, what they charge the cable provider to provide it to me. This is a case where I'm paying for the rich to have something cheaper... lol
Well, I've never seen any cable channel worth having. So to me I'm getting 1000x the value for 10% of the price.
I have to agree with this. Streaming services are the death of traditional cable. Pay for the channels you want and you have them accessible from any device. Done.
But a lot aren't available. For example, HGTV, if you want that, you have to find a streaming service that provides it. Sure PS Vue does and Sling TV, but both of them require the $20+ package to do so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing up for cable, I'm just saying that IF you want some of that content, it's not super cheap.
Toss in the fact that you loose functions like DVR with Sling (though I hear they are working on it) and the DVR feature of PS Vue is kinda crap - ok it's real crap compared to cable or TIVO.
now there's an idea - Tivo for streaming services.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thanksajdotcom said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
There is no way to compare. We pay $10 for Netflix instead of $100 for Cable. So you decide if we cut costs.
But your options are also significantly less too. Not saying you care, perhaps cable offered you nothing you wanted. I would like 8 or so channels on cable, I definitely don't want ESPN. Getting rid of ESPN alone could save me $30+ a month, what they charge the cable provider to provide it to me. This is a case where I'm paying for the rich to have something cheaper... lol
Well, I've never seen any cable channel worth having. So to me I'm getting 1000x the value for 10% of the price.
I have to agree with this. Streaming services are the death of traditional cable. Pay for the channels you want and you have them accessible from any device. Done.
But a lot aren't available. For example, HGTV, if you want that, you have to find a streaming service that provides it. Sure PS Vue does and Sling TV, but both of them require the $20+ package to do so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing up for cable, I'm just saying that IF you want some of that content, it's not super cheap.
Toss in the fact that you loose functions like DVR with Sling (though I hear they are working on it) and the DVR feature of PS Vue is kinda crap - ok it's real crap compared to cable or TIVO.
now there's an idea - Tivo for streaming services.
Streaming services are already TiVO'd for you. Needing a DVR for your DVR is pretty weird as a concept.
-
HGTV is crap streaming. Oh but wait, it's the same crap on cable. Neither does what you expect and neither is useful.
