> I have to wonder if it’s worth it. In the last decade bandwidth has increased > and prices for networking have gone down much faster than CPU speeds. 10 > years ago having 1 Mbps at home was the highest-end broadband you could get. > Now you routinely get 100x that. CPU has increased, but nowhere near that. > This makes compression less desirable, to the point that people did not > complain much when browser vendors removed compression following the CRIME > attacks. True, the rise of mobile brought back limited bandwidth, but is this > really an issue? > I don't think using bandwidth as a factor is a good idea.
On other lists I still see the occasional quip about suffering a low bandwidth connection. It used to be folks in some European countries, but most recently I seem to recall South American. (I think we're seeing the shift because South American countries are going places American and Europeans have already been with respect to infrastructure). In the rural US, I understand low bandwidth is the norm. Those folks can't get companies like Verizon or Comcast to service them due to population density. Its just not profitable for the providers to update the infrastructure. Also see https://www.google.com/search?q=rural+us+high+speed+internet. Ironically, Steve Marquess of the OpenSSL Foundation is one of those affected by provider's decision based on profitability. Jeff _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
