[w0utert]

Oh I believe you can ‘stream’ stuff at 2 fps over a 500 kbps line alright, the ‘not serious’ part is how anyone could find that acceptable. Even if all you have is 500 kbps...

If you would use your 2fps streaming browser to read, say, hacker news, every scroll operation would be hideously slow and pull in another ~60KB per second, even though the page data itself is only a few KB and never changes. Your ‘streaming solution’ only makes sense if the total amount of data to fetch for the page itself outweighs the total amount of data for all the frames you need to stream while you are using the page. Which is probably almost never, unless you always look at static single-page applications which continuously pull in data on the backend without presenting anything new at the front end. Highly unlikely.

[graderjs]

Your logic is sound, just some experience seems to be missing.

> the ‘not serious’ part is how anyone could find that acceptable

I guess you don't have a beeline on what everyone finds acceptable. That's normal, you can only share your perspective not everybody's.

> every scroll operation would be hideously slow

I guess you haven't experienced it because what you describe is not how it works.

The two frames per second is not streaming a 60 frame per second source down to you at two frames per second it's capturing two frames per second from the source and sending them to you because that's what your bandwidth will permit.

> Your ‘streaming solution’ only makes sense if... Highly unlikely.

Only if the goal is a reduction in bandwidth used viewing the page. There are many other goals were streaming the browser makes a helluvalotta sense.

I get you had this focus on bandwidth because i think it's the main obvious focus of this thread but there's an expanded context in which these things operate. I'm sure you'd appreciate that if you'd experience it.