That's a nice speed. The price is very aggressive, much more so than Google Fiber's $60/month.
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
Service providers "overselling" ? - move over here to Denmark, the price difference between a 100 Mbps and a 1,000 Mbps fiber connection is USD 2.75/month ... 
This stems from the oligopolistic behavior from Comcast, and how Comcast took advantage of customers for decades, basically because they could.
Starting in the 90's and through out the 2000's, Comcast started to buy up smaller cable companies that were in their service areas. After that, they often became the sole source for cable TV, and then ISP for much of their service areas.
This lead to ever increasing pricing, and decreasing service quality. Their customer service suffered as well. Sometimes taking many hours on the phone just to reach someone about an outage or problem.
With no competition, the customers had no where else to turn. (Evil Company)
This started to change about 15 years ago, as fiber companies, such as FiOS, started to invade areas that were long held by the Comcast oligopoly, giving competition for the first time for many customers. This lead to lower pricing, better quality service, and a lot better customer service from Comcast.
I mentioned before on the thread that for almost 15 years, I switched back and forth between Comcast and FiOS, once FiOS started to become available in my area, and I have seen a huge change for the better in both companies, but mainly Comcast.
Comcast has become a lot better company to deal with. This wasn't because Comcast had a change of heart and started caring about the customers, but it had to do with Comcast's bottom line and an increase subscriber loss due to increase competition.
But, this doesn't mean that Comcast is now an angelic company. Just look at the areas that Comcast is still the only ISP available, their service tends to not be as good, and their prices tend to be higher.
Also, there are some areas that Comcast enforces a data cap on their customers, charging $10 per every 50GB one goes over 1.2TB in a month period.
Wanna guess if there is competition in the areas were there are data caps?
Oh, I totally get it from the ISP's point of view, they are a business and they have shareholders. But that is not how it should work, imo.
I am not an advocate for excessive regulation from the government, but in the case of ISPs, I think that is more of a public utility in today's society, and there should be more regulation on ISPs from the government when it comes to expansions of newer technologies.
I think the ISPs of today is like the phone companies from 40+ years ago, in terms of their importance and being a necessity to live.
You already see the US government stepping in with the expansion of LTE and 5G services, plus when it comes to the T-Mobile and Sprint merger, putting in requirements for rural areas. (although, not sure how much this is actually working)
Having ISPs declared and treated like utilities or at least increase regulation might be the way to go to make sure that coverage becomes a priority and that quality becomes a requirement, and not just a byproduct for the few areas that are lucky to have more than one ISP.
Especially as fiber service expansion has seem to have stalled, this and 5G @home services are not looking like our only hope.
My argument isn’t about stopping the advancement of tech, it’s that no one will need 10GBPS broadband for years in the home, even in the workplace it has limited use, some networks still run on 100mbps in offices. It’s a case of heres the speeds, now use it! And most will be scratching there heads on how to actually use it to its fullest.
Yeah, this is pretty much my thoughts as well.
Another thought on this point.
It isn't just the rural people that you have to drive a few miles to see their closest neighbor that is stuck with low broadband speeds, but also random homes and neighborhoods within major metropolitan areas that sometimes have no options for high speed internet.
I live in in the suburbs of the Washington DC/Philadelphia/Baltimore area, and I personally know many people that only have access to DSL. This is in the headquarters of the Comcast empire, and there is people that have to deal with speeds lower than 1Mbps.
At my old home, I was able to get 3000Mbps service from two different ISPs. Now, 3 miles away, I only have access to one ISP that still offers very fast speeds, up to 3000Mbps. On the same street I live one, not too far away, there are homes that DSL is their only option.
This, imo, is a huge problem, and I would like to see expansion of existing services take priority over the advancement of new technologies like 10Gigabit+ services. Not saying both can't happen, but like you said, there is little incentive for ISPs to expand.
Two simultaneous streams of H264 4K video is about 64 Mbps, so I'd say somewhere between 50 and 100 Mbps is a reasonable minimum for most households.
I think that is a good answer as a minimum for common uses cases.
The problem with giving a good answer to this question is that it would totally depend on the amount of people using the internet.
Maybe a better way, per active user, such as 25Mbps (downstream) per person in a home. This would allow for most streaming modern streaming content.
I guess the downside of saying 25Mbps would be for large families (6+ members), that calculation could be an overestimate except for the rare situations that everyone is streaming 4K content at once.
I guess another issue is defining "reasonable", as it is very subjective.
Personally, I think a reasonable minimum speed would be enough for the typical 4k streaming.
Someone may think that 1080p or less would be reasonable, and I can understand why.
Others might think in terms of burst downloads or uploads.
Being able to download updates and DLC for videogames for example. Personally, it wouldn't impact my life if I had to wait longer for the DLC of the games I play, but others, this might be more of a priority than streaming.
As more and more people become content creators, upload speeds are becoming more of a necessity for those people.
Anyways, I agree with @Arctic Moose that speed minimums for most households would probably start around 50Mbps, but I could definitely get by with less.
There are plenty of people in the US getting by with DSL speeds, sometimes lower than 1.5Mbps.
Until a couple of years ago, the best broadband we could get was about half a megabit. Despite neighbours (within metres and using the same physical provider) getting 300 Mbps or more. It was painful. But when using my phone, we could get at least 10, sometimes more, Mbps and, when you are used to such an awful broadband, that seemed like luxury!
assuming its true that you need 4.5Mbps to stream 1080p, its even less than that to stream 720P. video is the heaviest of things to do online, everything else like text and images are less heavy.
idk how old you are, there was a time when internet speed was 0.25 Mbps (DSL) and this was considered fast, fast enough to load videos online(also unmetered time usage, before that you had to pay per minute like a phone call). Prior to that internet speed was like 56.6 kbps which would take 10min to download an mp3 song but in reality it was closer to 30-40 min...for one song.
I clearly remember when I finally got 1Mbps and thought this is some seriously fast speed finally!
why your neighbours get a faster internet? on what basis they choose to provide faster speed here and not there.
We never really found out. I plotted a map of our estate and used speeds available from a BT checker. They were all over the place. Most were ordinary copper speeds of around 30, but a few were around 300. And another few, including us, were so low as to be unusable. BT used terms superfast and ultrafast. (Those we talked to confirmed the speeds were about right.)
I sent that map to the politicians who were already putting pressure on BT to improve coverage. Within a few months, we had FTTP across the entire estate
The fibre installers implied the old cable was in poor condition.
Prior to that, the standard coverage maps kept promising higher speed by some date - then that claim disappeared. Otherwise I'd have started campaigning sooner.
I have only recently upgraded my broadband connection, but I'm pretty pleased with it. I pay £60 a month, excluding VAT, for 1Gbps down and 50Mbps up. Based on my research, this is the fastest internet I can get in that price range in England.
Now I need to hope 5G mobile broadband is rolled out here to get decent speeds when I'm out and about.
Now I need to hope 5G mobile broadband is rolled out here to get decent speeds when I'm out and about.
Happy I'm not living in England with these prices ... here in Denmark fiber 1 Gbps up/down = EUR 40/month.
On the other hand we have a 2nd home on a remote Greek island and we needed permanent internet. We could choose between max 25 Mbps over the fixed telephone line or a 4G connection 50/10 Mbps with max 300 GB/month ... the (English
) company Vodafone last month offered this option for EUR 18.95/month, so it seems that you are better off pricewice on a remote Greek island compared to a rural English town....
Yeah. I'm on a Vodafone reseller (Lebara) and get unlimited everything for £25.Happy I'm not living in England with these prices ... here in Denmark fiber 1 Gbps up/down = EUR 40/month.
On the other hand we have a 2nd home on a remote Greek island and we needed permanent internet. We could choose between max 25 Mbps over the fixed telephone line or a 4G connection 50/10 Mbps with max 300 GB/month ... the (English
Where is the biggest bottle neck of being able to utilize those transfer rates? Read/write speeds of SSD‘s have lifted one of the bottle necks that traditionally has been it… if its not the drives anymore, then where are things being slowed down now? The only problem with SSD is the pricing… they still have a long way to go to get the higher capacity drives in the right price range to be attractive option in devices such as NAS/SAN - as comparatively between the more traditional HDD the SSD equipped device of the exact same is miles apart in costs… and IMHO, not justifiable.
10 Gbps are already available in several cities of my country (Italy).
Anyway the vast majority runs at 100 Mbps.
Personally, my home broadband connection runs effectively at 80 Mbps/20 Mbps (up to 100 Mbps/20 Mbps).
As you can see below, at my address it's available only the FTTC (with this ISP up to 200 Mbps/30 Mbps).
Others ISP offer 1 Gbps/5 Gbps/10 Gbps around Italy.
Regarding your question, 10 Gbps could be a standard maybe in 2030 (at least for Italy).
You can max out a 10 Gbps connection to a NAS with hard disks. Don't necessarily need SSDs.
Sweet! I pay almost that much just to remove the data quota on my Comcast plan.
Oh, I agree… but at same time no one wants to have a desktop NAS solution turn your home office into a room that sounds like a server room, either… the NAS that runs a a bank of SSD’s is virtually silent comparatively.
Because they offer a 30-day rolling contract so when I stay in the house for most of a month I can move to a really cheap contract of £5 a month but when I am away I can upgrade to unlimited everything for a single month at £25.
They are not as cheap as HDDs but they have come a long way. Their prices were completely ridiculous a just few years ago. You get get like 1TB HDD for $60 but on SSD 250GB would be like $150+ .
storage is one place I do not want it to get cheaper. Its total destruction if the storage dies. we want it to be the highest quality possible. Dead storage devices are horror stories.
I thought US has unmetered plans for cheap prices , I think Sonic has like 10Gbps already for $60 unmetered. Not all USA but you get the idea.