Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

voidsrus t1_iu1x9u3 wrote

  1. most US ISPs are shit, and provide a shit level of service which most people probably don't consider as reliable as an on-prem gaming device
  2. recession -> people spending less money -> people spending less money on their shitternet and wind up with even worse service
  3. graphics cards are affordable again
209

GhostalMedia t1_iu25xt4 wrote

It ain’t just the US with shit ISPs.

42

qtx t1_iu3j8re wrote

It's mostly Anglosphere countries that have the worst ISPs.

2

marvbinks t1_iu3tea5 wrote

It's almost like those countries prioritise profits over anything else....

9

bootselectric t1_iu48z43 wrote

European cell service is ass, at least the MVNO’s that provide prepaid sims.

−2

Zagrebian t1_iu26oq0 wrote

What percentage of US households have fiber?

20

chuck138 t1_iu27axn wrote

I've been waiting for over a decade and I've lived in decent sized cities for most of it. Some have even had fiber but due to building contracts I've never been offered the service.

22

Roboticpoultry t1_iu2sno5 wrote

My college apartment building got fiber just as I was moving out and my current building doesn’t want to pay for it. That said, we still have more than enough bandwidth for what we need

5

chuck138 t1_iu2zfwc wrote

Yeah I have been paying for the fastest consumer speeds since I've had a full time job and I've never had an issue except for upload speeds.

But I also know I'm paying a premium price for very outdated technology that is run by corporations who have zero interest in improving their services or their customer relations. All of which I have no choice in because they've virtually eliminated all competition.

5

goingtotallinn t1_iu3bg9i wrote

Hey what's the fastest consumer speeds you can get and how much it about costs for you? I live in small town in Finland and we can get 10Gbps fiber for 100€/month (100€ = $99.67)

2

inverimus t1_iu4jk4m wrote

I don't live in a small town in the US and pay ~$80 a month for 800 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up. I could pay $110 for 1200 down/20 up and that is the highest available.

3

jbman42 t1_iu5l3pg wrote

Bruh, i live in the middle of nowhere in South America and I've had fiber for several years, now

3

Some-Reputation-7653 t1_iu61xkh wrote

Could you be more specific? I’m curious - what country/region; who is your ISP? What kind of speeds

1

jbman42 t1_iu7y8kw wrote

Brazilian northern coast, in a moderately sized city of about 400k inhabitants. Local ISP called Proxxima. My plan is for a 100Mbps fiber connection, costs about $20 monthly. I only actually tested speeds once, and got around 90Mbps download, and 40Mbps upload. I get about 120ms latency when playing games on American servers (completely bearable to me), doesn't matter if it's west or east coast. Never had such a stable connection before, and uptime should be around 97%. I literally don't see the need for better speeds, though I guess I could reduce latency if I lived closer to big urban centers.

2

Some-Reputation-7653 t1_iu88ft5 wrote

Nice!
Standard of living there sounds pretty good - I’ve a friend who moved to Colombia and he keeps telling me to come over…

1

Lunafreya_NoxF t1_iu6svzc wrote

Same thing here. Also, no data caps. That seems pretty common for the guys up top.

1

8Bitz0 t1_iu28hpk wrote

According to BroadbandNow (April 2022), 43% of U.S. residents have fiber-optic internet available.

According to Jon Brodkin - Ars Technica (September 2019), Over 30% of U.S. residents have fiber-optic available

11

qtx t1_iu3jngz wrote

Those are very tricky articles, they're talking about fiber backbones mostly and not the bit from the backbone to your house, which is the important thing.

The number of people that actually have access to fiber right now is a whole lot lower.

8

slow_connection t1_iu29lad wrote

I'm sure it's low, but that's not super relevant. Stadia works fine on cable, and 99% of users will never benefit from 200mb service in the foreseeable future.

Stadia needs reliability, not raw bandwidth. Good cable can provide that, Comcast just isn't good cable.

4

ErikPanic t1_iu283gp wrote

Good question. Safe bet it's under 10% and that's me being generous.

I want fiber. But I've never lived anywhere that offers it. 1200down/45up cable is the best that's offered to me, and that shit's $135/month with the "unlimited data" option that you have to dig to even find.

2

ShinySpoon t1_iu2iy61 wrote

43%

1

ErikPanic t1_iu2lr1v wrote

That's shockingly high. I'm pretty suspicious of how that percentage was calculated.

4

ShinySpoon t1_iu2sx1m wrote

So you give “a safe bet” with zero sources and I give you a source that you’re “suspicious” of. I guess just wild ass guesses are your preferred data sources? Ok, good luck.

1

geekynerdynerd t1_iu5juqj wrote

You should be. The article appears to be using the FCC's data, which is notoriously misleading, and according to a footnote, they (the FCC) are including any ISP which uses fiber at some point in the connection. So fiber means not just Fiber to the Premises(FTTP) but also Fiber to The Node (FTTN), Fiber to the Street(FTTS), Fiber to the Distribution Point (FTTDP), etc etc.

The fiber connection could be two to three city blocks away, not being offered to you at all, and still count under that measure.

The real number is completely unknown at the moment, as the FCC has basically operated under an honor system when it comes to coverage information for the last 20 years or so, and only began the process of changing that about a year or two ago.

1

Catzillaneo t1_iu28bvz wrote

Well its not me lol, though our speeds have gotten a lot better if we dont go over the cap.

1

goldencrisp t1_iu2desv wrote

Internet options were a factor in us buying our home recently. Luckily we were able to get fiber.

1

monacelli t1_iu3casi wrote

Same thing when we bought our house a few years ago. It's a shame Verizon isn't really rolling out FIOS anymore.. I wish everybody had access to an ISP like this. It's fast as fuck and they never hassle me about how much or what I download.

1

rabbit994 t1_iu2pqh5 wrote

It's not the wire to the household, it's the wifi to the device. Anyone living in shared area where frequencies are jammed to all hell is going to have latency issues. Since Stadia made more sense for casuals, they were probably more likely to be in area where wifi is very congested.

1

FrostyTheHippo t1_iu33vut wrote

It's funny. I actually got AT&T Fiber like 6 months ago, but they force you to use their terrible all in one unit. I'm a fairly tech savvy guy, but for the life of me the best I could do is run my dedicated router in parallel. There is no way to get that BGW-320 unit to just act like a modem.

The speeds were good when they worked, but the signal was so fucking unstable. My wife and I work from home and the internet would go out long enough to get disconnected from meetings like 5 times/day.

So yeah, went back to Spectrum. Got a great deal for $30/month for 500mbps down for 2 years. Don't miss fiber at all since I can use my own fuckin hardware again.

1

Feniksrises t1_iu3oszb wrote

I think the real question is: do you have a data cap?

1

el_f3n1x187 t1_iu2f1mf wrote

> most US ISPs are shit

WOrldwide ISPs are a bunch of assholes with the service they provide and the amount of money they collect.

14

hm___ t1_iu60y2l wrote

I want ISPs like the swiss they got at least one with actually decent priced 10gigabit fiber connections for private persons yes 10gbps not 1gbps

2

abuilderofworlds t1_iu277lp wrote

Also, people who can afford ultra-high speed internet can also afford PCs and brand new gaming consoles

3

Blom-w1-o t1_iu2eec6 wrote

Number 1 here.

100mb download but none of the streaming services work for me unless I use windows and even then it's occasionally choppy.

3

nucflashevent t1_iu2va1y wrote

In all fairness, for these kind of services to work you need internet service that very few places in the world are able to provide.

It isn't just raw bandwidth, it's also latency.

2

Eudaimonics t1_iu4wk3p wrote

Also isn’t crypto waaay down? Probably less people buying graphic cards for mining.

2

voidsrus t1_iu4yod2 wrote

yep that's the main reason GPU prices are back down, btc/ethereum can't be efficiently mined by GPUs any more and the prices are also tanked, so there's a glut of used GPUs on the market

1

tjtj4444 t1_iu5gru9 wrote

  1. Cloud gaming has a high cost for the provider (server HW, internet, electricity and more) so not an obvious cash grab.
2

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_iu4zrns wrote

No. The one and only reason is...

Microsoft and Sony own this space because they have the games to play via internet streaming.

Google and GeForce Now do not have any games of their own, so why bother?

1

JimJalinsky t1_iu5dm7v wrote

Ignore the downvotes, you are right. Stadia had a limited catalogue and was streaming only. Xbox's Game Pass subscription gives you PC, Console, and streaming with a far better catalogue than Stadia ever had. Stadia never made profit, while Xbox just revealed how profitable Game Pass is. That's why Nvidia just lowered the price, they're having a hard time competing.

2

roboninja t1_iu55p9f wrote

That's not how Stadia or Geforce Now work. They offer plenty of games from lots of publishers. Your "one and only reason" makes little sense.

1

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_iu5bqm5 wrote

No. You don't get it.

Stadia just had to REFUND those games and service fees to people, because the users couldn't use those games anywhere else. It was only for use...on Stadia. And the selection was piss poor. :P

Do you see the problem now?

Why would anyone buy a game to play just on their cloud service? Either you own the game or you do not. Stadia should have partnered with Steam or Xbox or PS etc.

Or included the games as part of their subscription, as Xbox Cloud Gaming does. You can then play these games on your PC or console or on the cloud. It then becomes an option, to be used based on the device you have on hand.

2

Paperdiego t1_iu2a2c8 wrote

US isn't in a recession, and consumer spending is still very high.

−8

AREssshhhk t1_iu5y62w wrote

Not where I’m at (major city in US)

0

Paperdiego t1_iu5y8jc wrote

Where are you? No major city in the US is inna recession right now. Data released two days ago shows growth in every metropolitan area of the US.

1

AREssshhhk t1_iu61oyd wrote

I’m in Chicago where cheap rent is $1500 a month. I see a lot of people cutting way down on their spending because the basics like food, energy, transportation, energy, insurance, rent, etc has gotten crazy expensive and keeps going up fast

1

Paperdiego t1_iu624iy wrote

Sorry for your situation. Data certainly shows inflation up, which sucks. Consumer spending needs to go down in order for inflation to ease. There is no data backing up a recession, infact all the data is the opposite. Consumer spending is still very high, which helps explain why prices haven't dropped. Employment is at historical lows as well. The market just keeps hiring people, so people have money to spend.

1

AREssshhhk t1_iu638gb wrote

We’ll see in a few months. I happen to believe it’s all going to come crashing down soon

1