@ivanb What you describe would mean that the majority of advanced country citizens will be incapable of streaming HD or UHD video in the coming years. I don't think that this is accurate.
Also, there is a ton of work that needs to be done on p2p selection based upon bandwidth, latency and reliability instead of merely random connections from differing ASes. I don't need to connect from LA to Tokyo to grab the next block.
So yes, for wealthy people in the right locations the ISP will make it work - and sure if you can pay $60 a month it will be ok. For people in some areas it will sometimes work and sometimes not - or they'll have to buffer the video a lot. That's what happens now, and it will happen more and more for people trying to use 4k streams in the first years. I've visited people who have perfectly functional subscriber servers to live streaming video services and others who find it to be a joke.
I agree, big upgrades are on the way, and locally we are deploying 10gbit backbone into our LAN because it is just getting affordable for us - we edit video. I am biased to less wealthy or remote locations - so its a different viewpoint to someone who lives mostly in urban environments. Much of the world gets their videos from p2p and even DVDs on the corner - you know, the 3rd world. They are often 5-8 years behind before they see full access to good technology infrastructure. I just seek that we don't use the "everyone" fallacy - when its really quite different everywhere.
HD streaming does work, i said that - and in coming years better will work reliably in developed nations. I didn't say it doesn't, but i was explaining that quoting the full speed vs the real averge throughput matters. HD streaming only works because h.264 and h.265 compress it so amazingly well.
