[Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] USB3 or HDMI ethernet? - Are wires dead?
woody77 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 14:03:37 EDT 2016
My experiences with users and installers for internet-connected services is
that unless it's in the modem/router, immediately next to the modem/router,
the wire is dead. For a small apartment dweller who's on cable, with a
smart tv, that means that they _can_ wire the tv to the modem (since it's
probably also their cable box), and that might be easier than dealing with
wifi credentials. But pretty much all other use-cases are wifi.
My personal view is that if it doesn't move, it should have a wire (because
it needs one anyway). TVs, media-players, cameras, thermostats. If it
needs data, and it doesn't run on batteries, we should provide both power
and data over the same cable. But then I don't _ever_ want to set another
clock. Run an ntpd service within the home, and call it done.
Free.fr in Paris used ethernet over powerline with their Freeboxes, to get
service from the entry-point to the TV. AT&T is doing the same with their
service, as is BT. I'm using a pair of those here to get ethernet out to
the office above the garage (with an AP out there). It's only about
100Mbps, but better than wifi extenders by a long shot.
Un-bloated power-line-to-AP units would be awesome. As would power-line to
POE adapters for small electronics. Although you have the same difficulty
with on-boarding there that you do with wifi.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99 at gmail.com>
> > On 18 Apr, 2016, at 17:50, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> > But it asks a question - if basic wifi-only + compute has fallen so low,
> is ethernet dead?
> Among the serious PC gaming community, it’s widely recognised that wired
> links (both LAN and WAN) have much lower latency and packet loss than
> wireless ones. In competitive multiplayer games, this is a serious matter,
> especially when “competitive multiplayer” is ascended to “eSports”.
> That community is one that obsesses about scan and poll frequencies on
> their keyboards and mice, refresh rates and display latencies on their
> monitors, and all that jazz. You won’t convince them to switch to Wifi for
> their main battlestation, *even if* the present bloat problems are fixed.
> They’ll tolerate it for a laptop on which they do their homework, that’s
> However it is also true that for a certain type of low-end user,
> “wireless” operation is “simpler” and “neater”, no matter what form it
> takes. They hardly even notice any performance problems that come with it,
> or accept them as a fact of life with "newfangled technological
> - Jonathan Morton
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cerowrt-devel