Well, for those who want fast internet at home and on the road anyway. Very small size, very easy setup, fast log-on and way better speeds that I get either at home or via the phone on the road. And for no extra monthly cost either
-- Edited by Tony LEE on Thursday 9th of June 2022 08:49:56 AM
-- Edited by Tony LEE on Thursday 9th of June 2022 08:51:31 AM
Mike Harding said
12:45 PM Jun 9, 2022
As is expected, the latency is high but that probably won't matter to most older people most of the time.
Last time I looked Starlink was about $800 setup and $130 month.
86GTS said
07:18 PM Jun 10, 2022
Why would I need fast internet speeds?
I've been retired for 12 years & have lots of time on my hands.
dorian said
04:30 AM Jun 11, 2022
86GTS wrote:
Why would I need fast internet speeds? I've been retired for 12 years & have lots of time on my hands.
If you like to watch streamed video content, then slow Internet will result in lots of "buffering" delays. The alternative would be to download the content and play it offline, but that may not always be possible.
Are We Lost said
05:29 AM Jun 11, 2022
It isn't black and white as you suggest. Slow internet that causes buffering is really slow in today's terms, assuming you don't expect high definition.
But 250Mbps as in the posted image is much much faster than any video would require. In fact probably more than 10 times faster than needed for the highest definition video. A person who is a basic PC user has no need of such speed, and often the rest of the equipment could not keep up. If you are into movie downloads or have other large amounts of data to transfer, it would be nice.
I think the main benefit is for people who live in marginal areas or blackspots, or who absolutely must have access wherever they are, both subject to justifying the cost.
So I come close to agreeing with 86GTS, for grey nomads, who needs it?
86GTS said
05:49 AM Jun 11, 2022
dorian wrote:
86GTS wrote:
Why would I need fast internet speeds? I've been retired for 12 years & have lots of time on my hands.
If you like to watch streamed video content, then slow Internet will result in lots of "buffering" delays. The alternative would be to download the content and play it offline, but that may not always be possible.
You're right, but I don't watch any streamed content.
I watch very little TV except for the ABC News once per day.
There's so much crap on TV these days, who'd want to watch it?
I don't even own a mobile phone, my wife does.
dorian said
06:00 AM Jun 11, 2022
I detest ads, so I watch streamed movies instead. However, my Internet connection is not the best, so I do have to put up with buffering problems.
Well, for those who want fast internet at home and on the road anyway. Very small size, very easy setup, fast log-on and way better speeds that I get either at home or via the phone on the road. And for no extra monthly cost either
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GJRbe9Qkb2QkggJH7
-- Edited by Tony LEE on Thursday 9th of June 2022 08:49:56 AM
-- Edited by Tony LEE on Thursday 9th of June 2022 08:51:31 AM
As is expected, the latency is high but that probably won't matter to most older people most of the time.
Last time I looked Starlink was about $800 setup and $130 month.
I've been retired for 12 years & have lots of time on my hands.
If you like to watch streamed video content, then slow Internet will result in lots of "buffering" delays. The alternative would be to download the content and play it offline, but that may not always be possible.
It isn't black and white as you suggest. Slow internet that causes buffering is really slow in today's terms, assuming you don't expect high definition.
But 250Mbps as in the posted image is much much faster than any video would require. In fact probably more than 10 times faster than needed for the highest definition video. A person who is a basic PC user has no need of such speed, and often the rest of the equipment could not keep up. If you are into movie downloads or have other large amounts of data to transfer, it would be nice.
I think the main benefit is for people who live in marginal areas or blackspots, or who absolutely must have access wherever they are, both subject to justifying the cost.
So I come close to agreeing with 86GTS, for grey nomads, who needs it?
You're right, but I don't watch any streamed content.
I watch very little TV except for the ABC News once per day.
There's so much crap on TV these days, who'd want to watch it?
I don't even own a mobile phone, my wife does.