Working from home contributes, but another big contributor is the Nintendo Switch and Steam. Both of them are constantly pulling down big game updates. If you have a PS5 or Xbox, it would be a similar situation if you own a decent sized game library.
1TB isn't what it used to be...
Most of the time, you aren't even playing the games actively, so you won't even notice the ~6h delay after patch release.
That's a very disingenuous interpretation of parent's suggestion.
My reading of their comment was that a) there's 1/3 of every day that's not covered by this quota / throttling allowance, and so b) it's easy to configure your game store download manager to pull game _patches_ during that window.
I guess AAA games are around the 50GB these days? If you're buying dozens of these each months, you may have some larger self-control issues to contend with.
Keep in mind we're talking about people using a nominally beta internet service that's got a minimum average ~50ms latency, at any point in talking to one of a thousand satellites.
People that are using Starlink tend to be here because there's no options, or really really really poor options (eg. geostationary satellite - which is what I was on previously, with its 150GB / month limit, 600ms latency, etc). Some appreciation for the fact these pipes are finite and shared is expected and assumed, much more so than urban internet users with nice fat terrestrial connections.
GP said you can schedule game updates for the 1/3 of each day that you're not metered.
P incorrectly translated that to 'when you buy a game you have to wait a day to play it'.
So, as I already argued, these are not the same thing -- purchase & download of a game (impulse) vs regular patches (easily scheduled out of hours), and for a new game it's entirely up to you if you want to pull that down immediately (a modest percentage of 1TB).
Maybe on Fiber but if I was using a satellite service idk, I might understand the difference.
Having lived in a rural home with WiMAX the idea of having 1TB caps with high speed sounds like something you don't get to complain about.
Until now Starlink was advertising speeds as 50–200 Mbps. On the low side that is competitive with VDSL2 FTTC. On the high side, that's faster than the packages most users take out on FTTP*
* In the UK, anyway, by far most FTTP users take out entry level packages. These packages often coincide with FTTC speed tiers; if they don't, 100 or 150Mbps is the highest entry level tier.
My friend who moved to a rural farm has been raving about how life-changing Starlink has been for him and he only lives 20 minutes outside a town with 40k people and 1.5hrs from a city with 4 million.
And we allegedly live in a country where gov subsidies justify the exorbitant ISP prices and allegedly rural people benefit from that... Where a free market wouldnt. Allegedly.
It's also interesting (but disappointing!) Canada's been let down by the telecoms regulator in an entirely different way. In the UK, BT was beginning to roll out fibre, but that was cancelled in favour of privatisation in 1984. Here we are nearly four decades later, and only now is FTTP being rolled out in earnest.
1TB is pretty modest for a household.
> The average property connected to the Openreach network used around 3,000GB of data in 2020, or around 9GB per day
More recently, that's doubled to 0.5 TB/month[1].
Still, the point I should have made is: is using twice or thrice the (presumably) median unreasonable? Not necessarily.
Of course, deprioritisation after a certain amount isn't unreasonable either, provided there is succificent truth in advertising.
[1] https://advanced-television.com/2022/10/13/study-uk-homes-us...