[flagged]
The author (me) is English, living in England.
There's still no point in gigabit broadband
21–30 of 90 posts
Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#22I'd take guaranteed 100Mbps without outages over best effort 1Gpbs any time. Unfortunately, it's hard to get this service at reasonable consumer prices, at least in Germany
Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#23I have a 2.5Gbps connection, costs me something around $75/month. I would never consider going less. It is about peak not sustained use for me. If I am downloading something I don't want to sit around and wait for it.
Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#24Think this underestimates quality of life benefits.
Recently went from a 500mbps line + wifi bridge (~ +2ms, 1.5gbps throughput on wifi) to a 1.6gig line with wired 2.5gig and was surprised that it made a noticeable difference in casual browsing. The numbers say it shouldn't but it did
If 30 bucks more saves me time on downloads AND every single click on browsing a bit snappier...that makes sense to me even if I don't care how many concurrent 4K streams the pipe could carry
Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#25I work from home, and in video games. I download multiple 80-100GB builds every single day just to do my job. Virgin's 1.2Gbps connection is barely good enough. The moment they bring 2 or 3Gbps out on their nextfibre service I'll upgrade to it almost no matter the cost. I'm jealous of our European neighbours where you can get domestic 10Gbps connections. But beyond work - the ability to download any game from steam w…
Is that 80-100GB of unique data multiple times per day? Is it encrypted with a different key every time? Sounds very interesting.
Not OP, but modern asymmetric cryptography on the Internet negotiates a new encryption key on every connection.
Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, the Sony servers can barely saturate a 500Mbps pipe.
Steam will near saturate a 1Gb pipe for me. I have downloaded quite a few Linux ISOs from mirrors at 90MB/s.
I think that is more so due to overhead in writing files and most likely also doing some live decompression or some other stuff. After all it does not download single file like iso would be.
Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#27Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#28For a proper distributed internet it seemed like a good idea, but silicon valley has rather scorched the earth, and so it’s not that useful for passively consuming slop and adverts.
Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#29I'd take guaranteed 100Mbps without outages over best effort 1Gpbs any time. Unfortunately, it's hard to get this service at reasonable consumer prices, at least in Germany
The reason why hard minimum speeds are so expensive is that the ISP can't oversubscribe at any point. You are reserving that 100Mbps at every upstream ISP. Even during peak times all ISPs can't touch your reserved bandwidth.
Re: There's still no point in gigabit broadband
#30If the author ever talked to a gamer, they would have learned how ignorant they are. edit: in case it's not clear, when every other new game from major publisher starts at 50GB or 100GB and can sometimes be 300+GB, waiting 2hrs to download it is terrible and horrible for energy use.
The author (me) does play games. I'm on PC, Oculus, and console. The console downloads are limited by the upstream. The VR games are limited by WiFi. I've never noticed the PC games getting close to the max download speed I have.
But, to go to your edit. Is there a significant difference between waiting 90 minutes and 45 minutes? Either way, you set the download going, grab some food, have a bath, whatever, right?