Post #4284797

2026-07-30 20:05 UTC

@mhoye@cosocial.ca I used to feel slightly paranoid when chat/video services would ask, "How was the video/audio quality?" I'm now completely convinced this is used as a metric to throttle bandwidth on future calls when a sufficient number of participants register the call as "good" quality. The users would literally _tune_ the bandwidth over time to the lowest bearable quality. I don't even _feel_ crazy for thinking this anymore. Everything is awful.

Replies (4)

@tessarakt@mastodon.social 2026-07-30 20:39

@401matthall@mastodon.xyz @mhoye@cosocial.ca This is how the IT departments of big corporations handle tickets and manage IT service contractors ... 🤷‍♂️

Open ##4284798
@fullywoolly@mastodon.social 2026-07-31 04:30

@401matthall@mastodon.xyz @mhoye@cosocial.ca jokes on them. I only rate it when it sucks which is most of the time. But now I'll be sure to give lower ratings.

Open ##4284800
@SteveClough@metalhead.club 2026-07-31 08:57

@401matthall@mastodon.xyz @mhoye@cosocial.ca I am always tempted by Teams, which does it more than others, to say "I had to talk and see my co-workers! It was appaling" But I don't.

Open ##4284802
@casandro@f-ckendehoelle.de 2026-08-01 15:20

@401matthall@mastodon.xyz @mhoye@cosocial.ca Well I work at a company which does VoIP and might put in those screens in the future. (that's a different team) We certainly don't want to skimp on bandwidth. However visibility of voice problems is terrible, typically. There are some companies who will charge you _lots_ of money for some bad software that condenses quality into a few meaningless numbers, so such screens can provide at least _some_ visibility into the problem.

Open ##4334127