I think I'm getting ripped off for 70 bucks a month.

Maybe because they doubled our population where I live.

Edit: Not sure why Manila is used, but I don't live there. 

I pay for 100/100 no data caps (tbh data caps seems like an american thing unless you run 4g)

Usually get 120 mpbs down and 110 mbps up. Normally my response time is 4 ms.

I still don’t believe in streaming game services, didn’t believe in them when OnLive was announced, didn’t believe in them when OnLive was launched and didn’t believe in them OnLive was closed.

200mbit/s down, 12 mbit/s up.

edit: 

added pic:

40Mbps download, 30ish in upload

83 down and up.

I'm supposed to get 400mbps download but over wifi I get like 100-150 mbps. So either way I'd be good to go.

https://www.speedtest.net/result/8126173332.png

My apartment is pretty old so only DSL for me here. I could switch to mediacom, but they want 80 a month for their internet, and I'm not paying that.

100/10 at the moment, but in a few months I'll be back to Australia where 10/1 is acceptable... Not looking forward to that.

Bandwidth means absolute shit for realtime applications. I can already hear the people with their 400mbps LTE modems complain about issues because of the lag spikes. And even your super 1Gbps fiber will not help you if you're using wifi.
The latency for streamed games is not at all comparable to the latency we have with locally played online games. Latency in streamed games affects input delay and as such effectively doubles your latency while playing. Short and smaller spikes will not be noticeable on local games because the game is using prediction, that is not possible when streaming video.

But while this sounds very dire I'm hopeful for its success due to 2 factors. Latency will improve significantly in the decades to come and the vast majority of gamers don't give 2 shits about quality or high fidelity.