That's pretty wild.

I have 1.5/900 fibre to my house, and I bring a 2.5 line from the modem to my home office where a 2.5 switch delivers it to my workstation, laptop, and unraid NAS. But those devices are all themselves just gigE I think, and I've yet to come up against a download (even a torrent) that seems like it would have really benefitted from having the entire theoretical 1.5 pipe available.

▲

rhplus 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

10Gbps is enough bandwidth for 500 concurrent Netflix streams in 4K/UHD (15Mbps) AND 500 concurrent video calls (4Mbps).

Home users don’t need more bandwidth to improve their internet experiences, they need lower latency, less congestion and less loss.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/prepare-net...

▲

wpm 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Home users only do video calls and watch Netflix?

More and more regular people are getting network storage appliances. More and more people have laptops with SSDs that can write at 4 or 5 GB/s. Why shouldn't they get to use all of it?

▲

rhplus 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I should have said most home users. My point is that more bandwidth at this point probably won’t affect 99.999% of home users.

What’s described in the post is the tech equivalent of supe-ing up a sports car and then driving it in rush hour traffic. It’s fun to geek out doing it, but practically in everyday use the difference will be negligible. Even with large file uploads and downloads, there’s a good chance that services won’t reach those throughputs end to end.

What’s telling is that the post shows screenshots and charts from artificial speed tests. No videos of the Dropbox client chugging away with throttled uploads.

	▲	baby_souffle 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I should have said most home users. My point is that more bandwidth at this point probably won’t affect 99.999% of home users. 640k should be enough for everybody... DSL should be enough for everybody... If you build it, they will come.

▲

afavour 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To quote the previous post:

> I've yet to come up against a download (even a torrent) that seems like it would have really benefitted from having the entire theoretical 1.5 pipe available.

There are many things along the way that would get in the way of a home user downloading something from the internet that would hit that 5GB/s speed. It's not that people should be "banned" from it or something, more that the investment cost isn't worth it.

▲

fmajid 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I regularly saturate my 1G home and 1G office connection syncing ~6GB files between the two. It's also nice to be able to download a 100G or so game quickly. Remote backups to cloud storage also benefit from fast upload speeds (and more importantly, restores).

▲

mlyle 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We have a 5gbps pipe; routinely download games from Steam at >3gbps; when I had to reinitialize my cloud backup it was >4gbps. All of this without impacting anyone else on the pipe.

Yah, our P95 bandwidth is just a few megabits per second. But it's not that expensive and routinely saves me a few minutes here and there.

10gbps on the LAN is more broadly useful. Pegging it for a file share is a daily occurrence.

	▲	ProfessorLayton 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Also storage has gotten super expensive lately, and rather than upgrading my machines/consoles I've been offloading games and downloading them as needed and now am routinely downloading dozens of GB just to play a game. My gaming time is limited so the faster the better.

▲

loeg 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How much $ extra are you willing to pay for the extremely occasional transfer at rates higher than gigabit? 2x? 3x?

▲

sandworm101 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Those ssds are very likely cached and so cannot keep that pace for more than a quick burst of a few gigs.

▲

kobalsky 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Netflix streams in 4K/UHD (15Mbps)

proper 4k, like the one you watch from a blu-ray, will have peaks of 150mbps.

the 4k we see on streaming services is awfully overcompressed.

and yeah, you can see the difference, it's day and night.

▲

denkmoon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

4k 15mbps is arse. Try 100mbps and you’re getting close to decent quality.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

zamadatix 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I regularly hit 4.7 gbps on a 5 Gbps line pulling files (usenet is usually faster than torrent, but the latter can be equally as fast depending on the torrent & how good the client software is). It's great to just grab an entire movie series in 4k Blu Ray remux quality in 5 minutes and go. No real need to plan ahead for anything.

	▲	HDBaseT an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, Usenet is crazy quick. I've saturated 10Gbps on Usenet before, pretty easily. Torrents (as you mention) can be equally as fast. Well seeded, private tracker torrents can easily download at above 1Gbps (depending on piece size, etc).

▲

throwforfeds 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And here I am sitting in Brooklyn and haven't had one apartment that has had fiber as an option. I get to pay Spectrum $90/month for "400/20" and in reality get 100/10.

	▲	fuomag9 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I was paying 21.9€ per month to TIM for a 10/2Gbit connection Welcome to Italy :D

▲

IshKebab 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah I foolishly paid for 500 Mb/s but the only things I ever get over even 200 Mb/s for in the UK are Steam downloads (and speed tests). Everything else seems to be roughly throttled at that rate.

	▲	mikepurvis 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Telus gave me a good price and I'd already invested in a Unifi gateway that could accept the ONT directly, so that was fun to play with.