Re: Even Epic Knows Their Client Sucks

JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

On 18/06/2025 12:17, Xocyll wrote:

Virgin also ended up backing down as I presume they realised that peeing
customers, current or future, off is not a good thing to do and that's
especially true now social media is all the rage. The also quickly
backed down after they introduced traffic shaping in peak hours have
advertised it as unlimited downloads. What's the point of paying for a
fast connection if you download a game and that connection is crippled
before the download is even finished.

>

Over here in socialist Canuckistan, they excuse that kind of thing by
saying that "unlimited" means a "reasonable amount."

>
Where I believe they slipped up was if you saw "Unlimited Downloads" in
the advertising blurb you might expect there are some limits on it but
these were so restrictive that a "reasonable amount" wasn't even in the
same city. It was also that the throttling wasn't just minor it would
turn a connection into to being useless expect for a bit of light browsing.

In the UK now ISP's still employ some traffic shaping but that's based
around trying to prioritise 'time sensitive' traffic. I don't think any
of them throttle the speed if you use it too much.

There's exactly what I was saying, prioritizing streaming movies and
gaming over everything else because those are the time sensitive ones.

You can wait another couple seconds for the page to load after all, or
another 5 mins for the driver bundle (or whatever) to download, but a
movie that's staggering along buffering every minute is not enjoyable,
nor is a huge ping in a, perhaps, pvp game.  Not much fun in a non pvp
game either.

The UK over all has a much better infrastructure than North America;
Gigabit everywhere isn't it?   Meanwhile in rural parts of the USA
people are still on dialup cause the ISPs don't want to run cable or
fibre optics into a small community.

Course it helps that the UK has a higher population than Canada but a
much smaller area (via google)  UK 93,723 square miles, Canada 3,511,023
sq mi - counting the land only.    69 mil people vs 40mil, but we have
37.4x the landmass.

Rural in the UK is like the distance to the suburbs in NA.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr