Guess who is paying for all that increased nonsense. Hint: It is not the "tech" companies orchestrating its delivery.
It is true this problem is not limited to bandwidth. The same applies to RAM, secondary storage and in some cases CPU. Who pays for the increased nonsense that saps the computer owner's RAM, storage and CPU. Hint: It is not the companies that provide "free" software.
I initially experienced computing on a VAX at a university, before I ever owned a "personal computer". Perhaps it was only the program we were running, but the speed was faster than anything I ever experienced later on a PC. I worked continuously over the years to try to make the PC "user experience" as fast as that VAX "user experience" as possible, for myself only. It has worked quite well.
The web that the "tech" companies want, where websites can and do vary drastically in speed and design,^1 and the one I want are two different things. Under the text-only, no Javascript, no CSS, no DNS system^2 I have designed, all websites are more or less the same speed and they all present information in more or less the same format.
Like the parent comment, I like the web as a concept. However I dislike the "tech" company model for the web. I am not the only one. IMHO, adoption of the "tech" company model for the web, with its steadily increasing nonsense, relies on a world of computing without meaningful, informed choice and without feasible alternative options.
1. Or, as the author cites, one where the practical result is traffic being routed through Google, e.g., AMP.
2. NB. I am not against the use of such facilties. However, due to the way they are commonly used on today's web, and given the lack of user control over their use, eliminating them was necessary to achieve the speed I wanted.
It is true this problem is not limited to bandwidth. The same applies to RAM, secondary storage and in some cases CPU. Who pays for the increased nonsense that saps the computer owner's RAM, storage and CPU. Hint: It is not the companies that provide "free" software.
I initially experienced computing on a VAX at a university, before I ever owned a "personal computer". Perhaps it was only the program we were running, but the speed was faster than anything I ever experienced later on a PC. I worked continuously over the years to try to make the PC "user experience" as fast as that VAX "user experience" as possible, for myself only. It has worked quite well.
The web that the "tech" companies want, where websites can and do vary drastically in speed and design,^1 and the one I want are two different things. Under the text-only, no Javascript, no CSS, no DNS system^2 I have designed, all websites are more or less the same speed and they all present information in more or less the same format.
Like the parent comment, I like the web as a concept. However I dislike the "tech" company model for the web. I am not the only one. IMHO, adoption of the "tech" company model for the web, with its steadily increasing nonsense, relies on a world of computing without meaningful, informed choice and without feasible alternative options.
1. Or, as the author cites, one where the practical result is traffic being routed through Google, e.g., AMP.
2. NB. I am not against the use of such facilties. However, due to the way they are commonly used on today's web, and given the lack of user control over their use, eliminating them was necessary to achieve the speed I wanted.