Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

10 Gbps home internet

max2 said:
When do you think 10 Gbps home internet will become more available/standard ?
Click to expand...

It has been available since at least 2018 in a growing number of places:

bahnhof.se

Bahnhof - Internet med sekretess

Sveriges bästa bredband. Blixtsnabbt, stabilt, driftsäkert.
bahnhof.se bahnhof.se

Cost is currently about US$50 per month.

Commercial customer may also be able to get ten times that through the same ISP, i.e. up to 100 Gbps, so there is really no technical reason they couldn't offer this to residential customers as well.

Here's a Google translation of the press release:

bahnhof-se.translate.goog

Bahnhof lanserar 10 000 Mbit/s till privatpersoner för 298 kr/mån - Bahnhof

Bahnhof lanserar 10 000 Mbit/s till privatpersoner för 298 kr/mån
bahnhof-se.translate.goog bahnhof-se.translate.goog
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: max2
Juicy Box said:
Maybe if you are talking to an ISP sales person when they are trying to upsell you on Gigabit service, but otherwise, multiple 4K streams so not come close to 1Gbps, and would be a drop in the bucket for 10Gbps.

How bout you think of it this way, this is how many simultaneous Netflix streams you can get from 1Gbps service:
Over 600 480p streams
Over 250 1080p streams
Over 50 4K HDR streams

This is what it would be for 10Gbps:
Over 6000 simultaneous 480p streams
Over 2500 simultaneous 1080p streams
Over 500 simultaneous 4K HDR streams

Do you know anyone that streams 500 different devices at the same time?


I know "lots" is a relative and subjective term, but when replying to a post about the lack of use cases for 10Gbps service in a residential setting, I can only assume you are saying that 10Gbps can be useful in the near future.


I have no doubt that more bandwidth will be utilized in the future, but I think that too often techies overestimate how much we will use and how soon in the future those higher speeds will be needed.

Over the past 10 years, ISPs in my area have been pushing 1Gbit service, with a bunch of lies to sell it.

They ask questions like, "do you have multiple people in your home that stream movies at the same time?", or "how many devices to you have connected to the internet at the same time?", as if either one of them have much to do with 1Gbps service.

One of my favorite questions was always "does anyone in your home play video games online?", as if this alone means that you need 1Gbit service.

Interesing note: You can actually play WoW using a dial up connection in 2022. The latency is horrible, but it is still playable.

I know people that were paying for Gigabit service that used it for only 1080p Netflix streams and to get on apps like Facebook.

IMO, 1Gbps service is overkill for most families, and probably will still be for a long time to come.


If it is Netflix, you can get this done with about 50Mbps service. The high end of Netflix 4K HDR streams maxes out at 17.5 Mbps, but most 4K HDR is variable bitrate and much lower than that.

Now, if you are talking about some other services, such as ATV+, you will need more bandthwidth, but not anywhere close to 1Gbps or 10Gbps.
Click to expand...



VideoFreek said:
Sorry, the math just doesn't work for me with this scenario. 4K streams run at about 14 GB/hr or so at most, so even if a household was streaming five 4K movies simultaneously, the bandwidth required would be under 200 Mbps...well within current broadband capability. My point was that I just don't see the need for so much broadband capacity for a typical household.


Right, but I was talking about broadband speed, not internal networks. I completely understand why one would want a 10 Gbps internal network if one routinely moves large files around, say between clients and a NAS or server. I suppose the equivalent broadband need would be if one routinely moves large files to and from the cloud, but I don't think this is a real use case for most households.
Click to expand...

  • Yes the math does not work out but I was just trying to get the idea closer to why higher speeds are wanted
  • Speeds tend to vary around the day so starting with 1Gbps will drop to 700Mbps is better than starting with 100Mbps and dropping to 70mbps
  • Prices are reasonable for 1Gbps at around $100 especially if split between household members
  • Yes MOST households that are not hyperactive online do not need it, but those who are surely do
  • My understanding an internet connection has specific speed but you can split it between up/down how ever you want so an ideal line would be 500mbps UP/ 500mbps DL = 1Gbps total
  • ISP put more demand on DL because people buy the "faster" and have no idea about upload and honestly most people download than upload
  • I noticed that the problem is online services limit download speeds, I have 200-300mbps but I hardly download anything from anywhere and get more than 150mbps. So yes you will not see a server giving the full 1Gbps at least in my case
  • People are using more multimedia and moving them back and forth, and online HDD backup is a thing. with 1Gbps connection it will take about 4 hours to upload(backup) your 2TB HDD to the cloud (can be daily or weekly or monthly intervals). So yeah, there is a use for it. Also people are using their computers as servers like Plex , NextCloud, and such. Also include the new trend of working from home for people passing around bigger files.
  • We should push ISP to provide better service even for future proof reasons instead of saying 100mbps is enough as we still have places where the max you get is 25-50mbps
@Juicy Box

Playing videogames is actually a good reason. Currently games are easily 50-100GB and have constant updates and DLC in the 30-40GB file size so yeah...1Gbps can be of use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2
MacBH928 said:
  • My understanding an internet connection has specific speed but you can split it between up/down how ever you want so an ideal line would be 500mbps UP/ 500mbps DL = 1Gbps total
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live, but that's not how internet speed is calculated. Generally when people say "1Gbps" they mean download speed. I never seen an internet service provider that allows a person to customize the upload and download speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2
jav6454 said:
100Gb/s? I fail to see the value of having such connection right now. As is, that exceeds even the write/read speeds of RAID SSDs. The bottleneck will be the server.
Click to expand...

Which is probably why they aren’t currently offering it to residential customers. It isn’t (currently) intended to be used by a single person on one device, but many people using many devices concurrently, or potentially millions of external users connecting to your local servers.

(If Facebook or YouTube were connected through a measly 100 Gb/s connection both services would immediately grind to a screeching halt.)

JustAnExpat said:
True. See https://www.pcworld.com/article/612...gigabit-fiber-internet-a-cautionary-tale.html
Click to expand...

Not quite sure if it can be considered a “hidden cost”. Shouldn’t anyone seriously considering multi-Gbps connections understand that they need equipment that supports it?

Besides, what’s with the 19” unit beef? Surely anyone who needs this has a closet or a garage to mount it in, or a desk to hide it under. (Personally, I just embrace it, and mount it in a wall-hanging rack.)

JustAnExpat said:
Everyone would have to use a wired connection.
Click to expand...

No, only the network infrastructure needs to support it for many concurrent Wi-Fi users to enjoy higher speeds.

Of course, wired has many benefits as well, there’s a good reason I have at least two Ethernet jacks in every room of the house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2
Arctic Moose said:
Which is probably why they aren’t currently offering it to residential customers. It isn’t (currently) intended to be used by a single person on one device, but many people using many devices concurrently, or potentially millions of external users connecting to your local servers.

(If Facebook or YouTube were connected through a measly 100 Gb/s connection both services would immediately grind to a screeching halt.)
Click to expand...
Well, the only way to achieve said speeds is through a fiber optic and expensive duplexing equipment. So yeah, it makes sense on the enterprise/datacenter front. Home users? I don't see 1Gb/s even being saturated within the next 10 years. Many of the interfaces in our computers are on even ground with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pezimak
JustAnExpat said:
I don't know where you live, but that's not how internet speed is calculated. Generally when people say "1Gbps" they mean download speed. I never seen an internet service provider that allows a person to customize the upload and download speed.
Click to expand...

They do not give you the customization option, but they can choose to release it as such. So if they have 1Gbps connection , they can release a plan that is 900DL/100UL or 500Mbps/500Mbps . At least thats what I was told, the connection has a specific bandwidth you can choose how to set it up, I am guess for servers its the opposite as 100DL/900UP since servers sends data and do not receive except text requests.
 
MacBH928 said:
Playing videogames is actually a good reason. Currently games are easily 50-100GB and have constant updates and DLC in the 30-40GB file size so yeah...1Gbps can be of use.
Click to expand...
Please see your own post for why 1Gbps and higher service will not make a difference for most gaming DLC servers:
MacBH928 said:
I noticed that the problem is online services limit download speeds, I have 200-300mbps but I hardly download anything from anywhere and get more than 150mbps. So yes you will not see a server giving the full 1Gbps at least in my case
Click to expand...

Server limitations aside, if ISPs were considering download content when asking about "online games", then they would say that Gigabit and 10Gigabit services might be worth it, but they say (in my experience) "online video games", and use terms and language that is closer to latency.

There are examples of how a extremely fast connection, such as 10Gbps, could result in faster latency in games due to hosting, giving the user a slight advantage, but this isn't to what the ISPs talk about when I talk to them. It sounds more like lag spikes, or more like the higher the speed tier, the less lag spike you will have, well, according to them.

But, for the scenario that it is totally about DLC and it is for the few gaming servers that do not have limited download speeds, using the Comcast prices I listed above for new customers, it is $40 a month for 300Mbps service, and $80 for Gigabit. That is about $500 a year more for the Gigabit service to download DLC slightly faster. When you factor in server limitations, it makes it a lot less worth it, at least for just gaming.

I did say there are definitely use cases for Gigabit services as well as 10Gbps service, but I still don't think video games would be a good example.

MacBH928 said:
Speeds tend to vary around the day so starting with 1Gbps will drop to 700Mbps is better than starting with 100Mbps and dropping to 70mbps
Click to expand...
This might not be true for all Cable companies, but Comcast over provisions their speeds by 20%. This is true for both download and upload. It is the reason I mention I get a little over 40Mbps upload speed for a tier that is promised only 35Mbps. If with Comcast, and you pay for 100Mbps service, you are actually provisioned 120Mbps service for downloads. So, with the drops, should keep you around 100Mbps.

You are still stuck with the horrible 5Mbps upload though, with the over provisioned speed, gives you a tiny extra 1Mbps.

That said, Comcast's current lowest priced tier is 300Mbps @$40 a month in my area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose
MacBH928 said:
  • Yes the math does not work out but I was just trying to get the idea closer to why higher speeds are wanted
  • Speeds tend to vary around the day so starting with 1Gbps will drop to 700Mbps is better than starting with 100Mbps and dropping to 70mbps
  • Prices are reasonable for 1Gbps at around $100 especially if split between household members
  • Yes MOST households that are not hyperactive online do not need it, but those who are surely do
  • My understanding an internet connection has specific speed but you can split it between up/down how ever you want so an ideal line would be 500mbps UP/ 500mbps DL = 1Gbps total
  • ISP put more demand on DL because people buy the "faster" and have no idea about upload and honestly most people download than upload
  • I noticed that the problem is online services limit download speeds, I have 200-300mbps but I hardly download anything from anywhere and get more than 150mbps. So yes you will not see a server giving the full 1Gbps at least in my case
  • People are using more multimedia and moving them back and forth, and online HDD backup is a thing. with 1Gbps connection it will take about 4 hours to upload(backup) your 2TB HDD to the cloud (can be daily or weekly or monthly intervals). So yeah, there is a use for it. Also people are using their computers as servers like Plex , NextCloud, and such. Also include the new trend of working from home for people passing around bigger files.
  • We should push ISP to provide better service even for future proof reasons instead of saying 100mbps is enough as we still have places where the max you get is 25-50mbps
Click to expand...
The question was when 10Gbps was going to be the standard for home internet. My response was why that will not happen anytime soon.

MacBH928 said:
We should push ISP to provide better service even for future proof reasons instead of saying 100mbps is enough as we still have places where the max you get is 25-50mbps
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you here, with the exception of saying that a general average increase to 10Gbps is what is needed.

I think ISPs should be pushed to provide better service in the locations that there is limited options and speed.

The areas that readily have Gigabit service will most likely be the first ones that will have 10Gigabit service. The areas that have limited service, 3-25Mbps, will most likely stay that way, being left behind, while the rest of the world goes to crazy high speeds that are unneeded by most.
 
HDFan said:
Depends.



Prices have been dropping from the enterprise level and there are models priced for home use, although somewhat pricey.




For downloading there are a few sites that will hit the gigabit speed now, such as Apple software updates. They would benefit with 10GbE.



Intranet transfers.

See Post #60.
Click to expand...

You haven’t stated a use case, only a want with very little reason as to why. Please expand on why you think you need 10GB internet access speed at your home. Let’s not forget the only devices capable of taking any advantage of that speed are those with 10GB Ethernet ports and cables supporting those speeds. How many Apple computers do people have with 10GB Ethernet ports with cables connecting it all together supporting those speeds, that require updating from Apple updates so often they need 10GB internet speeds?
 
MacBH928 said:
  • Yes the math does not work out but I was just trying to get the idea closer to why higher speeds are wanted
  • Speeds tend to vary around the day so starting with 1Gbps will drop to 700Mbps is better than starting with 100Mbps and dropping to 70mbps
  • Prices are reasonable for 1Gbps at around $100 especially if split between household members
  • Yes MOST households that are not hyperactive online do not need it, but those who are surely do
  • My understanding an internet connection has specific speed but you can split it between up/down how ever you want so an ideal line would be 500mbps UP/ 500mbps DL = 1Gbps total
  • ISP put more demand on DL because people buy the "faster" and have no idea about upload and honestly most people download than upload
  • I noticed that the problem is online services limit download speeds, I have 200-300mbps but I hardly download anything from anywhere and get more than 150mbps. So yes you will not see a server giving the full 1Gbps at least in my case
  • People are using more multimedia and moving them back and forth, and online HDD backup is a thing. with 1Gbps connection it will take about 4 hours to upload(backup) your 2TB HDD to the cloud (can be daily or weekly or monthly intervals). So yeah, there is a use for it. Also people are using their computers as servers like Plex , NextCloud, and such. Also include the new trend of working from home for people passing around bigger files.
  • We should push ISP to provide better service even for future proof reasons instead of saying 100mbps is enough as we still have places where the max you get is 25-50mbps
@Juicy Box

Playing videogames is actually a good reason. Currently games are easily 50-100GB and have constant updates and DLC in the 30-40GB file size so yeah...1Gbps can be of use.
Click to expand...

Your video game description is only applicable to a tiny tiny percentage of PC gamers with 10GB Ethernet ports on there computers. Not a single solitary games console would touch a 10GB connection speed, they would struggle to approach 1GBPS.
You want ISP’s to provide you with better service? Sure and you can pay the increased cost that would be involved in upgrading the entire backbone to support 10GB speeds to every house. Because it’s a global network, not everywhere can support those speeds on mass.
 
Last edited:
jav6454 said:
100Gb/s? I fail to see the value of having such connection right now. As is, that exceeds even the write/read speeds of RAID SSDs.
Click to expand...

SSD's are much faster than that. They are rated in GB/s not Gb/s (gigabytes vs gigabits). My boot drive (non-RAID) SSD runs ~48000 Gb/s. Low end SSDs can be 700 Gbs, 7 times faster. Fast hard disks can be 8*150=1200 Mb/s or more, over 10 times faster.

Pezimak said:
Please expand on why you think you need 10GB internet access speed at your home.
Click to expand...

Cloud backups. My backups to the cloud take months to complete since my internet isn't symmetrical - just 40 Mbps upload. A backup that now takes me months would take just days. I backup ~55 TB of data. Just migrated to a new computer and the inherit backups are projected to take months due to slow upload speeds. 13 hours with 10Gb, 5 days with 10 Gb, vs 4 months 20 days at 40 Mbs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Silencio, max2 and Arctic Moose
HDFan said:
SSD's are much faster than that. They are rated in GB/s not Gb/s (gigabytes vs gigabits). My boot drive (non-RAID) SSD runs ~48000 Gb/s. Low end SSDs can be 700 Gbs, 7 times faster. Fast hard disks can be 8*150=1200 Mb/s or more, over 10 times faster.



Cloud backups. My backups to the cloud take months to complete since my internet isn't symmetrical - just 40 Mbps upload. A backup that now takes me months would take just days. I backup ~55 TB of data. Just migrated to a new computer and the inherit backups are projected to take months due to slow upload speeds. 13 hours with 10Gb, 5 days with 10 Gb, vs 4 months 20 days at 40 Mbs.
Click to expand...

You do know you can get symmetrical broadband right now? Why don’t you pay for that? And have a gigabit upload.

Also, what exactly do you have that justifies 55 terrabytes of data? Do you have millions of photos and months of 4K video? Your use case is most definitely unique I’d say, it may warrant a 10GB upload speed, but it’s hardly a common theme and reason to have it for most.
Most in this thread seem to want fibre for their homes, not for business use.
 
1Gbs is not uncommon now. We have 400Mb here and in my son's flat it genuinely works at 1.7Gb but in practice, you can't tell the difference unless you need to download a huge update.
Latency is much more noticeable.
You rarely get the advertised speed in my experience and it's typically about half what is advertised at best.
But that means if you are on say, a 500Mb service and you get upgrade to 1Gb you will see a speed boos but it will still only be close to 500Mbps.
The speed is always going to be limited by the slowest link. If you are connecting by ethernet and you are using Cat 5 ethernet cables because you haven't changed them for a few years, then you'll never get more than 100Mbps no matter what service you are paying for.
On Wifi you might still be using WEP or WPA1 protocols in which case you'll never get past 54Mbps, and even if you have all the best and latest equipment, it will still drop off very considerably when you are a couple of rooms away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pezimak and max2
Ruggy said:
1Gbs is not uncommon now. We have 400Mb here and in my son's flat it genuinely works at 1.7Gb but in practice, you can't tell the difference unless you need to download a huge update.
Latency is much more noticeable.
You rarely get the advertised speed in my experience and it's typically about half what is advertised at best.
But that means if you are on say, a 500Mb service and you get upgrade to 1Gb you will see a speed boos but it will still only be close to 500Mbps.
The speed is always going to be limited by the slowest link. If you are connecting by ethernet and you are using Cat 5 ethernet cables because you haven't changed them for a few years, then you'll never get more than 100Mbps no matter what service you are paying for.
On Wifi you might still be using WEP or WPA1 protocols in which case you'll never get past 54Mbps, and even if you have all the best and latest equipment, it will still drop off very considerably when you are a couple of rooms away.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by "You rarely get the advertised speed in my experience and it's typically about half what is advertised at best." On a 1 Gbps connection we get 930 Mbps down/up when wired. WiFi is something completely different, when using proper WiFi 5-6 capable access points we get 600-700 Mbps down/up, WiFi will typically give 60% of the wired speed when you have proper coverage.

You say: "it will still drop off very considerably when you are a couple of rooms away." - again related to WiFi, yes if you don't have sufficient access points and a longer distance or wall(s) in between your (sole?) WiFi access point then the speed will drop. If you don't use proper WiFi equipment then a 1 Gbps internet connection will do you no good.

Poor equipment = poor output.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2
HDFan said:
SSD's are much faster than that. They are rated in GB/s not Gb/s (gigabytes vs gigabits). My boot drive (non-RAID) SSD runs ~48000 Gb/s. Low end SSDs can be 700 Gbs, 7 times faster. Fast hard disks can be 8*150=1200 Mb/s or more, over 10 times faster.
Click to expand...
That's sequential speeds which you never see in real life unless transferring big files. Stick to QD1 4K speeds as those are more indicative of what actually goes down.
 
Pezimak said:
Your video game description is only applicable to a tiny tiny percentage of PC gamers with 10GB Ethernet ports on there computers. Not a single solitary games console would touch a 10GB connection speed, they would struggle to approach 1GBPS.
You want ISP’s to provide you with better service? Sure and you can pay the increased cost that would be involved in upgrading the entire backbone to support 10GB speeds to every house. Because it’s a global network, not everywhere can support those speeds on mass.
Click to expand...

I apologies I have been speaking about 1Gbps all this time, didn't pay attention its 10Gbps...but I say if you can get it why not!? Lets not stop advancement of tech!

Juicy Box said:
Please see your own post for why 1Gbps and higher service will not make a difference for most gaming DLC servers:


Server limitations aside, if ISPs were considering download content when asking about "online games", then they would say that Gigabit and 10Gigabit services might be worth it, but they say (in my experience) "online video games", and use terms and language that is closer to latency.

There are examples of how a extremely fast connection, such as 10Gbps, could result in faster latency in games due to hosting, giving the user a slight advantage, but this isn't to what the ISPs talk about when I talk to them. It sounds more like lag spikes, or more like the higher the speed tier, the less lag spike you will have, well, according to them.

But, for the scenario that it is totally about DLC and it is for the few gaming servers that do not have limited download speeds, using the Comcast prices I listed above for new customers, it is $40 a month for 300Mbps service, and $80 for Gigabit. That is about $500 a year more for the Gigabit service to download DLC slightly faster. When you factor in server limitations, it makes it a lot less worth it, at least for just gaming.

I did say there are definitely use cases for Gigabit services as well as 10Gbps service, but I still don't think video games would be a good example.


This might not be true for all Cable companies, but Comcast over provisions their speeds by 20%. This is true for both download and upload. It is the reason I mention I get a little over 40Mbps upload speed for a tier that is promised only 35Mbps. If with Comcast, and you pay for 100Mbps service, you are actually provisioned 120Mbps service for downloads. So, with the drops, should keep you around 100Mbps.

You are still stuck with the horrible 5Mbps upload though, with the over provisioned speed, gives you a tiny extra 1Mbps.

That said, Comcast's current lowest priced tier is 300Mbps @$40 a month in my area.
Click to expand...

-I know and I agree about upselling on the idea of "online gaming" I think you can stream complete games like Amazon Luna and Stadi at 50-100Mbps but honestly I think even the employee does not know what he is saying he is just repeating what he was trained to say, but then again, online gaming comes with an a game that has regular updates in GBs you can only imagine how the future would be so better get ready for it.

-I agree the extra speeds are unnecessary currently but one would enjoy it if he can afford it, Although its $50/M extra but again if its for a household with multiple members it very worth while if the are heavy internet users.

-I am surprised about Comcast services, from what I read online everyone hates them and refer to them as an evil company so giving more speeds than advertised is the last expectations I had from them.

Juicy Box said:
The areas that readily have Gigabit service will most likely be the first ones that will have 10Gigabit service. The areas that have limited service, 3-25Mbps, will most likely stay that way, being left behind, while the rest of the world goes to crazy high speeds that are unneeded by most.
Click to expand...

I can only agree with ISPs here. Rural and far away areas are known to have worse services because its not worth installing an infrastructure to support such low number of people. Same reason why they do have big stores or malls. Sure its nice to have 1Gbps in the middle of the Nevada desert just not really feasible. Maybe Musk satelites or some new cell tech. can fix that but yeah I do not see any one pulling underground wires every where around the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back