Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
10 Gbps home internet
- Thread starter max2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I totally agree that there is definitely use cases for 1Gb or even 10Gb service, I just don't think that the huge majority of people would ever take advantage of the higher speeds.
That is hardly a difference in price between the two speeds, but for most people in the US, we are not that lucky.
I am fortunate enough to have ISP competition in my area, and I currently pay $40 a month for 200Mbps service. This is with no contract or scheduled price increases.
If I pay an additional $40 a month, I can get Gigabit internet @ $80 a month with a 2 year contract.
If I switch my cellular company to my ISP's, I can save even more, but I am not interested in that.
I could also get 2Gbps speeds for $300 a month.
A few places around the US are cheaper, but most are similar in price or more expensive for lower speeds.
I am unsure how it is in Denmark, but in the US, the ISPs use shady tactics like asking customers "how many devices to you have in your home that connect to the internet" to help them determine what internet speed tier would be right for them.
Sometimes the ISP would ask "do you have Netflix or do other type of streaming", and if the customer answer yes, then the ISP would suggest that they need the Gigabit service.
Definitely a shady and unethical way to get people to sign up for the more expensive tiers, but people fall for it all the time.
I won't knock anyone for paying more of their own money for something they really want. I am sure I spend money on stuff that might cause others to shake their heads.
But, for most people, I just think that they wouldn't notice a difference between 1Gbps (even more so with 10Gbps) and something that is much lower and cheaper.
As many people are looking to trim their budgets and cut back on extra spending, reducing internet speeds might be an easy way to save a few hundred dollars a years, while (for many) not even noticing the reduction in speeds.
One could also save money by consuming less energy and water, but usually with more of a decrease in quality of life when compared to internet, imo.
That is one reason why I think 10Gb service won't be widespread for a long while.
@vertical smile
For comparison, at the moment, I pay $45 (total, no extra fees) for 100Mbps (Centurylink) -- which, I think, is fine. Spectrum (formerly Charter), has 200, 400, and 940 ("Gig") plans from $50 to $110 in my area, but that's a one year contract promo -- and the "standard rate" isn't even stated in the product page fine print. Cox (at my former southwest Phoenix, AZ address) has 150, 500, 940 ("Gig") plans from $70 to $100 on a one year contract -- which seems about expected as I was paying ~$85 with fees for 100Mbps a few years ago.
So, gigabit service is becoming attainable for residents of metro and small urban-ish areas in the U.S. Although, I agree, for most users that level and cost of service is wasteful.
If I could get 99.999% consistent 200Mbps (maybe 400Mbps) performance with a cost no more than $75 total (no tacked on fees, no extended contract), that'd be great. However, probably a fantasy.
For comparison, at the moment, I pay $45 (total, no extra fees) for 100Mbps (Centurylink) -- which, I think, is fine. Spectrum (formerly Charter), has 200, 400, and 940 ("Gig") plans from $50 to $110 in my area, but that's a one year contract promo -- and the "standard rate" isn't even stated in the product page fine print. Cox (at my former southwest Phoenix, AZ address) has 150, 500, 940 ("Gig") plans from $70 to $100 on a one year contract -- which seems about expected as I was paying ~$85 with fees for 100Mbps a few years ago.
So, gigabit service is becoming attainable for residents of metro and small urban-ish areas in the U.S. Although, I agree, for most users that level and cost of service is wasteful.
If I could get 99.999% consistent 200Mbps (maybe 400Mbps) performance with a cost no more than $75 total (no tacked on fees, no extended contract), that'd be great. However, probably a fantasy.
It will eventually come but, with the 1.2 TB data caps, it might not be as useful as it sounds.
I equate it to a race car with a very small gas tank.
It goes fast but you can't take it far
.
We're a looooooooong way from needing 10GB internet connections.
I'm the IT director at a public school, and I'm the network/firewall/everything admin. At any given moment of a school day (pre-Covid, mind you) we had around 1000 students using our wifi simultaneously with Chromebooks, along with 400+ staffers online with wired devices, another 2000 students using wired devices, plus thousands of cell phones, tablets and whatever else using our unsecured guest wifi.
All of this traffic was going out through a 5 GB connection from our ISP.
At best, our Palo Alto firewall was reporting maybe only 2 GB throughput was being used at any moment.
I'm aware of a need for 10 GB connections....but even with all of the traffic generated by our students and staff, we aren't even hitting half of what we are paying for.
I'm the IT director at a public school, and I'm the network/firewall/everything admin. At any given moment of a school day (pre-Covid, mind you) we had around 1000 students using our wifi simultaneously with Chromebooks, along with 400+ staffers online with wired devices, another 2000 students using wired devices, plus thousands of cell phones, tablets and whatever else using our unsecured guest wifi.
All of this traffic was going out through a 5 GB connection from our ISP.
At best, our Palo Alto firewall was reporting maybe only 2 GB throughput was being used at any moment.
I'm aware of a need for 10 GB connections....but even with all of the traffic generated by our students and staff, we aren't even hitting half of what we are paying for.
Sorry, we have already been here.
South Korea introduced inexpensive residential broadband at these speed levels a few years ago. Most of the Southeast Asian countries have FAR better consumer/residential broadband speeds at cheaper prices than what Americans get.
Same with the Scandinavians.
Even here in the USA, four Millennial housemates will effortlessly saturate a 10Gbps broadband connection. I assure you that Generation Y and Generation Z can use all of this up without batting an eye.
The reason why your students didn't saturate your network is because you are blocking the majority of the sites that they would have visited on their devices if their access to the Internet was unfettered: Steam, Epic Game Store, Ubisoft, Blizzard, etc.
I currently have two custom built PCs with pretty mid-range motherboards and they both have 2.5Gbps wired Ethernet ports. My ghetto DSL connection is the bottleneck and the Steam desktop client can easily saturate my entire bandwidth.
South Korea introduced inexpensive residential broadband at these speed levels a few years ago. Most of the Southeast Asian countries have FAR better consumer/residential broadband speeds at cheaper prices than what Americans get.
Same with the Scandinavians.
Even here in the USA, four Millennial housemates will effortlessly saturate a 10Gbps broadband connection. I assure you that Generation Y and Generation Z can use all of this up without batting an eye.
The reason why your students didn't saturate your network is because you are blocking the majority of the sites that they would have visited on their devices if their access to the Internet was unfettered: Steam, Epic Game Store, Ubisoft, Blizzard, etc.
I currently have two custom built PCs with pretty mid-range motherboards and they both have 2.5Gbps wired Ethernet ports. My ghetto DSL connection is the bottleneck and the Steam desktop client can easily saturate my entire bandwidth.
Last edited:
As the IT director, might be handy to use the proper terminology of Gb (gigabit).
If you are using GB correctly (but oddly, in this case)... well, your Palo Alto firewall is reporting that 1.6x the throughput you said is unnecessary, was being used.
Aren't we here already ? "The new record is seriously impressive, transmitting 178 terabits (or 178,000,000 megabits) per second." Unless this is a different fiber optic than the ones being installed world wide.
I am more concerned with ping speed, which I believe is defined as the response speed to your input or how much time it takes to input url until you start receiving feedback. Internet is a bit funny given you can download a full HD film in like 40 sec but still require several seconds to load a webpage.
1400 on Wifi? I am guessing the solution to this more access points? If one AP reaches max clients, it auto connect to the nearest AP with same Wifi SSID?
I am more concerned with ping speed, which I believe is defined as the response speed to your input or how much time it takes to input url until you start receiving feedback. Internet is a bit funny given you can download a full HD film in like 40 sec but still require several seconds to load a webpage.
These are the coolest ethernet cables I have ever seen.
1400 on Wifi? I am guessing the solution to this more access points? If one AP reaches max clients, it auto connect to the nearest AP with same Wifi SSID?
internet costs are low when compared other utilities. It is just there is NOT any better faster private interweb options out there.
Events of this year have challanged insitiutions:
why goto a theater when there is hdmi 2.1
Why goto the mall when you can wear pajamas, not designer jeans
A prestigus college campus, now a dog park; is their IT department worth the $50K/semester
Schools have no social value. Only served to babysit the demon spawn future front line workers.
Events of this year have challanged insitiutions:
why goto a theater when there is hdmi 2.1
Why goto the mall when you can wear pajamas, not designer jeans
A prestigus college campus, now a dog park; is their IT department worth the $50K/semester
Schools have no social value. Only served to babysit the demon spawn future front line workers.
So your ISP gives you RAM rather than bandwidth?
ram is a male sheep. RAM is a thing in a computer.
GB is where the Packers play.
Since your usage is a key factor in determine the speed you need, why is asking about it "shady"?
The problem I've seen with webpages is not that the orginal page itself is the problem, it is all of the links to other sites to display ads or whatever. I've seen more than 20 links which take 5 seconds for a page to display even with a fast internet. The problem is most often with these slow other websites.
b "bit" and B "Byte" are just units of measurement. So "Byte" can refer to memory or speed, or disk size. 10 GBs is about 8 times faster than 10 Gbs. Typically you'll see GBs used in disk or SSD benchmarks, 1522 MB/s write, 1511 MB/s read, or in disk sizes, 16 TB.
Asking "how many devices you have" has nothing to do with usage. I could have 100 devices in my home that are connected to the internet and never go above the bandwidth of their lowest tier internet.
While streaming Netflix is about usage, just because someone streams Netflix, doesn't mean they need Gigabit service when the ISP's much cheaper, lower speed tiers would even be overkill.
I pihole and adblocker which should block all these external links, its faster but I still think it should be faster for fetching information.
To give you an idea of how far away 10 Gbps is in Australia, most residential customers pay around US$61 a month for a connection that tops out at about 45 Mbps. The great majority signed up to this particular speed tier and it has only just been built and become available to most people in the period 2016-2020.
The average in the US is most likely better, but there are some rural areas that do have 25Mbps yet.
Also, I am sure there are plenty of people in the use that wished they only pay $61 for 45Mbps. It totally depends on where you live here, probably the same in Australia.
Some places here can get Gigabit speeds for $50, while some pay the same price for 3Mbps. I think Most areas have at least 50Mbps speeds though for around $50.
When it comes to comparing average speeds and prices between different countries, I think that the size of the country plays a big part in what is available. Also, population takes in account and how densely the homes are.
I think someone mentioned Korea, New Zealand, and the Nordic countries in comparison to the US, and the fact that the US is so far behind when it comes to average speeds.
The US is so much larger than those other countries with less a less dense population, and upgrading infrastructure isn't nearly as easy nor quick.
The US will probably never have anywhere close to the fastest average internet speeds in the world.
But, there are places in the US that have 10Gb service, and it is always expanding. I remember seeing something about Comcast (the largest ISP in the US), saying that they would testing 10Gbps service for select markets in 2021. I am unsure how much Comcast will charge for 10Gbps, but they currently offer 2Gbps service where I live for $299 a month.
Again, the Scandinavian countries have a similar population density to the USA.
Yes, they are geographically smaller countries but they also have smaller populations. The population distribution is actually pretty similar in most of these countries with the metropolitan areas having the majority of the inhabitants. The number of inhabitants is proportional to the land mass.
Thus the number of inhabitants per square mile/kilometer are pretty comparable whether it be downtown, the suburbs or rural areas when each type of area is compared with other countries' equivalents.
Comparing the size of the USA versus the size of Sweden is invalid in this case.
Something that is relevant that a non-American pointed out is that many foreign governments consider Internet access to be an essential service like electricity or waste disposal.
Here in the USA, broadband Internet access is considered a pay-to-play privilege. Right now, many inhabitants in Northeast USA are staring at looming highly restrictive broadband quotas because the service providers will see gross margins erode with higher usage.
Yes, they are geographically smaller countries but they also have smaller populations. The population distribution is actually pretty similar in most of these countries with the metropolitan areas having the majority of the inhabitants. The number of inhabitants is proportional to the land mass.
Thus the number of inhabitants per square mile/kilometer are pretty comparable whether it be downtown, the suburbs or rural areas when each type of area is compared with other countries' equivalents.
Comparing the size of the USA versus the size of Sweden is invalid in this case.
Something that is relevant that a non-American pointed out is that many foreign governments consider Internet access to be an essential service like electricity or waste disposal.
Here in the USA, broadband Internet access is considered a pay-to-play privilege. Right now, many inhabitants in Northeast USA are staring at looming highly restrictive broadband quotas because the service providers will see gross margins erode with higher usage.
Last edited:
the US already had an effective voice telephone network built up and running. Lots of this equipment was hardened for a 40+ year life span. The government itself had invested to insure the phone wires went everywhere. Like every farm house in the middle of no where.
Along the same lines also the US has a strong well regulated radio and TV network. Ever city had many TV radio stations. Many houses still have working radio's and TV. There still is content, say local news, that is not in the interweb.
The US population is older than some countries.
Along the same lines also the US has a strong well regulated radio and TV network. Ever city had many TV radio stations. Many houses still have working radio's and TV. There still is content, say local news, that is not in the interweb.
The US population is older than some countries.
Last edited:
No one will need 10 GBPS internet for years. I mean we have 5G on phones now that can exceed 1GB, why? What’s the point? What is your phone going to do with it? If you use cellular internet access at home it may possibly make sense. And they are in discussions and setting up standards for 6G right now… with ludicrous terrabyte speeds being discussed. I think we need to settle on the current standard and concentrate on installing fibre optics to every building, that’s far far more important then the speeds being put in them, because you aren’t going exceed the speed of light of the laser beams going up,and down the optical cables.
You can have 10 gigabit switches I think, but they aren’t really for home use, you’d probably be hard pushed to find them in the backbone infrastructure of the internet even.
At present weather it’s 20mbps or 10 gigabit your browsing experience will be exactly the same. And if people say you need it for downloading, downloading what exactly? What as a consumer are you downloading every day that needs 10GBPS of speeds? And are you going to get a 10GBPS Ethernet ports on your computer? Can you even buy Ethernet cables that can run at 10GBPS? Forget WiFi as that’s no where near 10GBPS. If you don’t have 10GBPS enabled equipment then again it’s utterly pointless.
You can have 10 gigabit switches I think, but they aren’t really for home use, you’d probably be hard pushed to find them in the backbone infrastructure of the internet even.
At present weather it’s 20mbps or 10 gigabit your browsing experience will be exactly the same. And if people say you need it for downloading, downloading what exactly? What as a consumer are you downloading every day that needs 10GBPS of speeds? And are you going to get a 10GBPS Ethernet ports on your computer? Can you even buy Ethernet cables that can run at 10GBPS? Forget WiFi as that’s no where near 10GBPS. If you don’t have 10GBPS enabled equipment then again it’s utterly pointless.
Last edited:
LUS Fiber Deploys 10 Gig Internet Connection
This increase in Internet speed is in response to the demand for LUS Fiber Internet services by its many thousands of customers. The upgrade is consistent with
www.telecompetitor.com
20 Gbps and 50 Gbps here we come!
Not that we need it.
Last edited:
I too struggle with this. I mean 10 Gbps is technically fascinating and all, but what is a realistic use case for such speed in a typical household? A 4K movie file would download in under a minute, but so what? Is a 10-minute download time really a killer? I can imagine commercial users (e.g., video production houses slinging around massive files between locations) benefiting from this, but households--not so much. Happy to hear perspectives from others if I'm missing something.