Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

michael.stapelberg.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 522 posts

Re: My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

#51

Post by CraigJPerry »

explaingarlic wrote: post #27

I'm really unsure as to whether it's worth investing whatsoever in consumer grade fiber connections. My speeds are advertised as 1Gbits down and 100Mbits up. On speed tests, I get much higher downloads (~1.5Gbits per second). This might be because it's not capped properly, and I live in a place that they're still building houses in (I imagine that our "box" is not yet saturated). However, I rarely max that speed out…

I think you can now put 800 gigabit per second today, via commercially available kit, down a single strand of fibre installed back in the early 1980s.

Copper or radio connections just don’t seem like as worthwhile an investment to me. I’m not saying it makes sense to have an 800gbit connection to a residential property but from a longevity, cost per mile, use of less rare materials, reduced rf interference or whatever, fibre just seems a better proposition to me.

Re: My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

#52

Post by Existenceblinks »

downrightmike wrote: post #47
Existenceblinks wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a rural city in Thailand, fiber 2Gbps is $50 / mo. And this is just for normie. Like unimpressive.

USA requires more raw materials to provide services. United States is about 19 times bigger than Thailand. Thailand is approximately 513,120 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 1,816% larger than Thailand. And then there is the duopoly of ISPs where they carve out huge chunks and agree not to compete.

I know. It's several factors, density, history of infra of telecom companies etc.

Re: My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

#53

Post by pirate787 »

downrightmike wrote: post #47
Existenceblinks wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a rural city in Thailand, fiber 2Gbps is $50 / mo. And this is just for normie. Like unimpressive.

USA requires more raw materials to provide services. United States is about 19 times bigger than Thailand. Thailand is approximately 513,120 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 1,816% larger than Thailand. And then there is the duopoly of ISPs where they carve out huge chunks and agree not to compete.

I live in a metro area in the US and thousands of homes in my community do not have land-based broadband options. The US incumbents have totally failed and it isn't because there's a lot of desert in the West and Alaska. I'm sick of this argument which doesn't explain why city dwellers in most places in America have the worst internet in the developed world.

Re: My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

#54

Post by vijucat »

Existenceblinks wrote: post #36
jonnylynchy wrote: post #7

On behalf of all tech-minded Americans, I would like to say... I hate you. I just got a notice in the mail that my ISP is "upgrading" their network so now I can pay $200 USD/month to get a whopping 2gbps, which I actually thought was pretty amazing until I read your post. So, thanks. In all seriousness, congrats! You made a good case for why one would need that much bandwidth. Also, we need to catch up here. :)

I'm in a rural city in Thailand, fiber 2Gbps is $50 / mo. And this is just for normie. Like unimpressive.

But is that within the city / country, or to outside the country, too? International bandwidth can be completely mediocre compared to local bandwidth. What I do is change the Server in speedtest.net to one in New York / wherever I have business in and test it out (from Hong Kong).

Re: My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

#55

Post by bell-cot »

cm2187 wrote: post #5

Not convinced by the use case section. Very few servers will allow you a full 25gbit download, let alone anything more than a 1gbit (and often less). And if you own the server on the other end, that sort of bandwidth comes at a cost. I think beyond 1gbit, the benefit become super marginal and the hardware expensive.

This +10. For the vast majority of users, having 25Gbit/sec home fiber is like having a 250 MPH-capable supercar. Big, bad bragging rights. Token-at-best use cases.

Re: My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

#56

Post by Thaxll »

cm2187 wrote: post #5

Not convinced by the use case section. Very few servers will allow you a full 25gbit download, let alone anything more than a 1gbit (and often less). And if you own the server on the other end, that sort of bandwidth comes at a cost. I think beyond 1gbit, the benefit become super marginal and the hardware expensive.

Well you need to do some calculation first how much a single TCP stream can provide.

Re: My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

#57

Post by _Algernon_ »

downrightmike wrote: post #47
Existenceblinks wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a rural city in Thailand, fiber 2Gbps is $50 / mo. And this is just for normie. Like unimpressive.

USA requires more raw materials to provide services. United States is about 19 times bigger than Thailand. Thailand is approximately 513,120 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 1,816% larger than Thailand. And then there is the duopoly of ISPs where they carve out huge chunks and agree not to compete.

Sheer size isn't what you should compare. Population density is much more relevant. Granted, Thailand still comes out ahead, but by far less than your size comparison (33.6/km^2 vs 132/km^2)

Re: My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home

#58

Post by dahfizz »

pirate787 wrote: post #53
downrightmike wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA requires more raw materials to provide services. United States is about 19 times bigger than Thailand. Thailand is approximately 513,120 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 1,816% larger than Thailand. And then there is the duopoly of ISPs where they carve out huge chunks and agree not to compete.

I live in a metro area in the US and thousands of homes in my community do not have land-based broadband options. The US incumbents have totally failed and it isn't because there's a lot of desert in the West and Alaska. I'm sick of this argument which doesn't explain why city dwellers in most places in America have the worst internet in the developed world.

I live in a not-very-metro area in the usa and get gigabit fiber for $65/mo.
Post reply on HN