Broadband Users 'Need' At Least 10Mbps To Be Satisfied 280
Mickeycaskill writes: A new report says broadband users need at least 10Mbps speeds to be satisfied with their connection — especially with regards to online video which is now seen as a staple Internet application. Researchers at Ovum measured both objective data such as speed and coverage alongside customer data to give 30 countries a scorecard. Sweden was deemed to have the best broadband, ahead of Romania and Canada, while the UK and US finished joint-eight with Russia. "Ever since broadband services were launched, there has been discussion on what is the definition of broadband and how much speed do consumers really need?" said co-author Michael Philpott. "In 2015, the answer is at least 10Mbps if you wish to receive a good-quality broadband experience, and a significant number of households, even in well-developed broadband countries, are well shy of this mark."
Strange (Score:2)
Speed doesn't matter as much, at least to me, as a connection that works. Between throttling, DPI, traffic "management", lack of ability to connect to peers, and such the problems I experience with my connection have nothing to do with raw speed. As to raw speed... 10Mbps is acceptable for websites but nowhere near enough for game downloads/P2P/etc.
Re:Strange (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with game downloads, p2p I do not because everything is streamed nowadays that is legal...So lets bring back real copies of data, then p2p will be there.
Like the THEMIS Day IR 100m Global Mosaic torrent, at 42GB is streamed? Or the Internet Census 2012 at 569.43GB? Torrents are not just movies - there are some really interesting public domain datasets out there. Try academictorrents.com
Let's think about a game download, you have say 10GB of data for a game...
At 10mbps that will take slightly longer than 2 hours....
At 50mbps it will take 27 minutes....
Are you really gonna sit at your computer waiting 27 minutes to download a game (that you could download overnight) or can you not go outside? How many times a year will you do this, 5 times? How when averaging 5 times over a year can you not just wait overnight?
If I only downloaded my games once it would be 9.05 times per month, every month since 2006, and that's being very generous. That is *just* games, not datasets/video/etc. I *average* 10GB/day through all my various online activities (only counting downloads and not including 2am-8am) a 50mbps connection would save me 47 hours of waiting per month, whether that's active waiting or not that's a LOT of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 10GB per day would include updates but not in the 9.05 games per month over 9 years, the latter is strictly full games downloaded from various platforms (XBLA/GFWL/Steam/etc). Obviously they mostly aren't 10GB games but that's last generation, current generation they mostly exceed 10GB.
Re: Strange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
buy a game on steam and that bastard might be 60gb
Re: (Score:3)
From what I understand, for gaming the latency (RTT) is more important than the speed of the connection.
When you are actually playing that is true (though it does vary by game, some games use a lot more bandwidth than others).
When you are trying to get into the game it's another matter. Many games require you to be fully up to date before you can even connect to the matchmaking servers and many games can download additional content when connecting to a game.
And if you have multiple gamers in the household having more bandwidth tends to reduce the latency spikes when one gamer is in-map while another is downlo
Re: (Score:3)
There are already several games that are WAY above 10 GB, though.
Witcher 3, if my memory serves right, clocks in over 30 GB.
Final Fantasy 14 with Heavensward clocks in over 20 GB.
I -think- Final Fantasy 13 was an insane 40-50 GB, and with FF15 releasing soon I doubt it will be any smaller.
10 GB for a game just doesn't cut it any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
10 Mbits isn't enough (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't stream decent video with 10 Mbits while someone else in your house is trying to play an online game or even web browsing these days.
Worse, I have a 50 Mbit connection with Comcast and you can't stream their Xfinity stuff without buffers and pixelated/blocks showing up. Which I find amusing, that Comcast can't even stream their own shit on their own networks.
I'd say 25Mbits is the least people can use with a mostly usable internet.
And I"m saying Mbits instead of Mbps so people understand we are talking bits, not bytes.
Re:10 Mbits isn't enough (Score:5, Informative)
If you can't stream over 50Mb/s, you're not getting 50Mb/s. BluRay video is between 16 and 32Mb/s.
As always, the cable company is screwing you with "up to" 50Mb/s, rather than the actual advertised speed.
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs care not. They will say 1 bit/sec will be fine. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want the advertised speed, pay for it. You'll soon find out how cable companies are able to get the rates they do - $100/month for 50Mbps is stupid cheap. Because a business that wants to get guaranteed 50Mbps will easily pay $1000/month or more.
Consumer broadband works by splitting that among
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can happily stream 1080p youtube over my 12Mb/s connection. Again, if you're unable to stream video over 50Mb/s, you're not getting 50Mb/s.
Re: (Score:2)
when i was first shown the internet, real player was capable of streaming right over a dial-up connection. granted you were getting 320x240 video streams. and this was on a Macintosh classic. but wikipedia denies the dates, saying real player was invented much later. that school had fiber optics to the universities where they could basically do face time with fancy hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
okay, it wasn't mac classics it was color screen. but had floppy drives. so it might have been later on but i do know it was pre 1996.
Re: (Score:2)
okay, it wasn't mac classics it was color screen.
Because Apple at one point made way too many models of Macintosh, there was in fact a Macintosh Color Classic [wikipedia.org] which has the footprint and overall design of a classic but the style of a performa, which is to say it looks like dogshit and had no reason to exist. It was a sad little attempt to recapture the magic of the original and pander to iFanboys which has been all but forgotten in the wake of the success of the machine they should have built at that time to begin with, the iMac.
Re:10 Mbits isn't enough (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are just talking the TCP/IP overhead, it's about 3%. Maybe another 5% for the container if it's an MPEG TS, or very little if it's MP4. So I'd say 3-8% for most implementations over HTTP if it's not doing anything stupid.
Re:10 Mbits isn't enough (Score:4, Informative)
Protocol overhead is roughly 3x that of the data packet due to the OSI onion type design
That's absurd. HTTP overhead for a large download is about 3%, not 3x! So for that 12mbps stream you need about 12.4mbps bandwidth.
Your data packet is wrapped up in 6 different IP envelopes, which is why it gets so bloated.
That doesn't even make any sense. You clearly saw an OSI diagram once but have never actually learned a thing about TCP/IP.
Besides, 1080p can be done reasonably @ 4Mbps, and at near BD quality @ 9Mbps. 12Mbps is PLENTY for either of those if you are not sharing the connection with a lot of other operations (and even if you are, any decent streaming service is adaptive so you will at worst just see a bit lower quality video while the connection is competing with other uses).
Re:10 Mbits isn't enough (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess most people here know the difference. Many here also know that not everyone is careful with their shift key usage. You've probably seen quite a few people talk of millibits per second.
Re:10 Mbits isn't enough (Score:4, Insightful)
If a streaming provider glitches that badly, it means that they don't know how to do video streaming. It isn't rocket science. You ensure that you buffer enough to keep playback going, starting at a bit rate that is lower than your connection's average speed initially so that you can buffer ahead. You then transparently switch to a higher quality stream (if available) after you've built up at least half a minute of buffer. And if you detect that the buffer is shrinking, you begin buffering progressively lower-quality streams until it stops shrinking. If the network performance problem goes away, you can always switch back to the high-quality stream and (if the performance is dramatically better than expected) opportunistically replace chunks of the lower-quality buffered data with higher-quality versions, beginning with the oldest content, in an attempt to avoid the user ever seeing the lower-quality version.
The problem is not the speed of the connection. The problem is pencil pushers at the content providers who try to micromanage the amount of data that they provide, giving you the bare minimum amount of cached data necessary, so that when you stop watching, they won't have wasted any data sending you content that you didn't watch. This approach is ineffective, and results in constant glitches if the network connection speed is variable. Unfortunately, that approach is all too common.
Re: (Score:2)
Never ascribe to the sins of MBAs what is just rotten network quality. Crappy cable, overused segments, ugly routing, aperiodic surges, home network congestion, ugly routers, all these things have a bearing on overall throughput. In DSL, the sins are only slightly different. Fiber means nothing if you're sharing the same backhaul with two dozen Netflix instances.
Don't take this to say I'm defending telcos and cable providers in any way. I'm saying that it's not necessarily the pencil pushers. They don't ove
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, the network quality might be terrible, but with few exceptions, it usually isn't "the network just went down for half a minute or lon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if you're stuck with streaming not only are you most likely to be watching it at peak times, when congestion is most likely to occur but you could end up seeing an inferior quality version to what you wanted?
That's why i download, my connection is too congested during the day and i don't want to watch tv after midnight, but i can happily download torrents after midnight and watch them in full quality the following day.
Re: (Score:2)
If a streaming provider glitches that badly, it means that they don't know how to do video streaming. It isn't rocket science. You ensure that you buffer enough to keep playback going, starting at a bit rate that is lower than your connection's average speed initially so that you can buffer ahead.
Yes, that is why seeing that bullshit blue bar under the youtube video display makes me livid... but only at google, not at my ISP. They used to buffer whole videos. Now they only bugger them.
Re: (Score:2)
The two are inextricably connected. Part of knowing how to stream video properly is understanding that reliability is not optional. If you can't reliably play video, your customers will leave. Inadequate buffering might save you money in the short term, but it costs you customers in the medium to long term.
Re:10 Mbits isn't enough (Score:4, Informative)
If you have 50Mbs you will not have any problems with decent video while playing a game. If you do, the problems must be somewhere else. Your hardware or network congestion/configuration, or many of you family members is watching porn in 4k 3D without your knowledge.
Netflix bitrate for 4k video is 15.6Mbps. Games are mostly under 0.5Mbps. If you run a game server, you may need more than 0.5Mbps.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix bitrate for 4k video is 15.6Mbps. Games are mostly under 0.5Mbps. If you run a game server, you may need more than 0.5Mbps.
Yes, I would rather say it's the other way around. If there's heavy downloads/streaming you might see lag in the game, but no ordinary game uses any significant bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would rather say it's the other way around. If there's heavy downloads/streaming you might see lag in the game, but no ordinary game uses any significant bandwidth.
Lots of games will chew up a megabit now. But the real problem with gaming while streaming is that a stream doesn't use the same bitrate all the time, and neither does gaming. So if you're at a full-fat part of the stream (lots of motion and whatnot, perhaps, which the codec decided should be preserved) and a lot is happening in the game, then a congested connection can lead to an unsatisfactory experience for all.
I have 6 Mbps peak, but in the evenings I don't even get that reliably, and at that point I ca
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the speed though. I have 12mbps and I stream just fine. So with 50mbps it should survive web browsing just fine if the only factor was bandwidth. There are other factors though. Some streaming services are adaptive, they'll expand to fill the pipe if they can. You may also end up having some IP stream prioritized over another one, since the internet isn't trying very hard to interleave all your packets in a manner that fits your preferences. If you've got a cable company as ISP your line is
Re: (Score:3)
10 Mbps is more than enough for video. Xfinity tv is built on a technology called HLS. Apple, Google, and Netflix also all use this. The top bitrate offered by xfinity.tv is exposed in the HLS manifest. Take an example HLS manifest for mr robot [comcast.net]. Here we see:
#EXT-X-STREAM-INF:PROGRAM-ID=1,BANDWIDTH=205437,CODECS="mp4a.40.5,avc1.4d401f",RESOLUTION=320x180 518139459916_1441222758515_1850000_4/format-hls-track-muxed-bandwidth-205437-repid-200000.m3u8 #EXT-X-STREAM-INF:PROGRAM-ID=1,BANDWIDTH=349312,CODECS="mp4a
Re: (Score:2)
15/2 wasn't enough for Netflix + one online game at the same time
30/5 is doing it fine
I'd like to have something more symmetrical like 30/15 or 50/25 or any sort of fiber to the home that starts at 100/100.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need to stream BD quality. Netflix has this sample video that lets you see the quality and the bitrate. I believe when they reach 1080p, the bitrate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 8000bps.
However, I agree with you that 10Mbit is no longer enough. While my household has three TVs, streaming video from uverse and netflix is also popular, and two streams can easily clash. As I mentioned in that example, you effectively need 10Mbps for a single 1080p stream. But besides the stream, people my my ho
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that unless your video is a 2x2 pixel image at 2fps, then it is Mbps.
Canada? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From Ovum website: "NO. 1 TELECOMS RESEARCH PROVIDER" - kinda says it all.
That's still way too slow for a peak speed (Score:4, Interesting)
Most users don't need more than 10 Mbits/s averaged over a week, but most users will swear at their ISP at least once a year unless their connection is nearly an order of magnitude higher than that. I just did a full iCloud backup of a 64 GB iPhone 5 for the first time in a year. Had I used a 10 Mbit/s connection, given how much slower upload usually is, I'd expect to have only around 3 Mbit/s upload speed, which would mean the backup would have taken more than half a weekend. That's barely even usable. Forget being satisfied.
Re: (Score:2)
In my case, I used to use cloud backups, but at some point, I hit the capacity limits of the service. Then, they started offering higher limits at a reasonable price, so I could reenable it, but apparently I forgot to do so. With that said, the reason I did the backup is that in two weeks, I'm going to be getting a new phone. At that point, all that data is going to be coming back down, which means speed will be important again.
Re: (Score:2)
It really is. The one thing I absolutely hate about iOS is that Apple still has not added any automated LAN-based backup capabilities. I can back up my laptop and all my other Mac hardware to my fireproof NAS (and before that, to my Time Capsule's external fireproof HDs) with minimal effort, but it is impossible to back up my iPhone to that NAS except by backing up the phone to my laptop and then backing up my laptop to the NAS. That's tremendously clumsy and amazingly un-Apple-like, not to mention that
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has enterprise tools to deploy/manage/etc iOS that solve what you’re complaining about. I don’t know how feasible they are to set up for home use though.
First post! (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I live in Australia. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it all started with mandatory bicycle helmets (wtf?!?) and rapidly went downhill from there.
Streaming is overrated (Score:3)
Streaming is overrated. I live with 3mps down by choice, mostly because I'm cheap. I download videos from streaming sites and watch them all at once. It's great! No ads, no buffering, no proprietary plugins, I can freely skip around without said buffering, and I can save the video if I like it DRM-free. It doesn't go away when I stop paying for a service. I'm also a heavy gamer, but I get good pings, so 3mbps is good enough. I do my bulk downloads and uploads while I sleep and make sure the internet isn't being hogged while I game. Honestly, I don't have a lot of complaints. My friends and coworkers all think I'm weird. They're right, but I think they're weird for putting up with all this other shit that I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, 3Mbps can be enough -- if you live alone and manage things carefully.
Last year I was at a house with 3Mbps, at least one (and often multiple) teenagers. It wasn't enough. Streaming, downloads, and web browsing would trash the connection and make it unusable for anything else. There were often bizarre arguments about whose "turn" it was to use the Internet.
I put together a router with Shibby's Tomato-USB, with some careful ingress QoS rules. Streaming still sucked, and downloads were a last prior
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if you have lots of patience, 3Mbps is fine. However, I don't have patience when a 10GB file is downloading with that sort of speed. I think the 20-22Mbps I am getting is a more of a sweet spot. I can stream an HD video from netflix, and somebody else can run a network video game or torrent without us slowing down each other.
10Mbps would be more than enough for me (Score:2)
On my ADSL2+ connection I usually somewhere around 8-9mbits downstream depending on exactly what my router last synced at (currently getting 9.1mbits) and that is plenty fine for me even when watching YouTube or other video sites. The biggest problem is the poor quality of my copper line to the exchange (blame that on Telstra here in Australia who own the wires)
paid on both ends (Score:2)
This is why "basic" packages deliver only 4 Mbps (Score:3)
Government regulations and deals with municipalities have resulted in carriers offering "basic" Internet for under $30 per month. These are supposed to provide "broadband" connections for people with low incomes. But the carriers aren't stupid. They cap the speed of these services at about 4 Mbps, knowing that customers won't be satisfied, and will fork over even more of their small incomes for better speeds.
Re: This is why "basic" packages deliver only 4 Mb (Score:2)
4Mbps with no monthly data caps would be fair enough, the problem I see often is that they also gouge users with tiny GB limits over which you pay quite a bit more. To be fair, I guess they know many ppl would just constantly download and keep those 4Mbps constantly used.
Users need a dedicated ISP to be satisfied (Score:3)
Cable companies have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to Internet access. Making Netflix work well only erodes their main source of revenue. When there are competing providers dedicated only to Internet, they will provide both a good maximum speed and peering/caching infrastructure to ensure this speed is what users experience in practice.
how many simultaneous users? (Score:3)
10 Mbit/s (if it is a real 10, and not an "up to 10") is plenty to stream one video from NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon etc. (unless you are trying for one of the rare 4K streams). But if you have multiple users in the house, you will need to allow for times when they all want something different at the same time.
I'd be happy 99.99% of the time with 40 Mbit/s. If Google fiber ever gets here - I don't think I'd notice whether it was 100Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s more than a couple of times a year.
Re: (Score:3)
10 Mbit/s (if it is a real 10, and not an "up to 10") is plenty to stream one video from NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon etc. (unless you are trying for one of the rare 4K streams). But if you have multiple users in the house, you will need to allow for times when they all want something different at the same time.
I'd be happy 99.99% of the time with 40 Mbit/s. If Google fiber ever gets here - I don't think I'd notice whether it was 100Mbit/s or 1Gbit/s more than a couple of times a year.
Indeed. I have a 1 Gb connection at work and 20 Mb at home. I don't notice any difference between two except when I'm pulling in large quantities of work-related data or, weirdly, when I'm making an SSH connection to Goddady. Probably my fault for placing myself in a position where I need to do the latter.
I hate to say it (Score:2)
"the UK and US finished joint-eight with Russia" (Score:5, Insightful)
So what do these three countries have in common? How about the fact that they are all politically corrupt oligarchies run for the power and profit of the economic/political elite. The proof: the wealth gap (ever expanding) between the rich and everyone else.
Meanwhile, socialist Sweden ranks number one. You know, evil socialism where everyone is enslaved and reduced to pathetic dependency on the state and nothing works because government! Of course Sweden also outranks the US, UK and Russian in health, longevity, education, low poverty, pretty much any measure of quality of life.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3)
It's indeed very interesting, specially to compare USA and Russia. People argued that relatively poor average adoption of broadband has to do with the fact that USA is a huge country with most population centers in the coastal areas, while the middle states are rural with low population density and very high population dispersion. Well, guess what, Russia is in the same boat, only worse. Only 110 million Russians are living in the European Russia, resulting in population density below 30 people per sq km, w
being forced to use AT&T DSL (Score:2)
Strangle Congress (Score:2)
Just wait for 4K/UltraHD streaming (Score:2)
You need somewhere between 20-50Mbps of dedicated bandwidth for a smooth decent quality compressed stream. Netflix requires UltraHD streamers to have 100Mbps broadband.
nonsense (Score:2)
The vast majority of users are never satisfied with any amount of bandwidth for long.
Give them 10 today and they'll be complaining that they don't have 100 as soon as they see someone else that does.
Australian NBN (Score:2)
To be honest I've lost track of who said what due to our stupid revolving door leadership, but I seem to recall a little while ago that the choice was '25Mbit in 5 years' or '100Mbit in 8 years for a lot more cost'.
I was hoping for the 25Mbit choice because it would be fast enough to move the bottleneck elsewhere, but people were scathing and condescending about being so 'backwards' and 'outdated'.
Looks like I was right.
Like they need 640K of memory (Score:3)
All this head-scratching about what users "need" bothers me. It's focusing on the minimum. Which seems to imply that broadband providers can focus on some minimal level of service and then stop investing in infrastructure or really get away with throttling and caps under the guise of limiting you to "what you need".
IMHO, providers should be focusing on some (ultimately arbitrary, yes) number that better represents the growth curve of usage and speeds. Infrastructure investment in networks should be continual until actual consumption trends show a flat line and throttling and capping looks like a wasted investment because it doesn't return any value because the network has the headspace to accommodate what everyone wants to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Insert free advert for MLB.TV .. (Score:3)
It must be some kind of magic mbps that's faster then the old fashioned kind. I wonder how MLB.TV would cope with the average terrestrial football watching audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Wha? Your comment makes no sense. What does individual bandwidth to someone's home have to do with aggregate streaming of any particular content? (Hint: nothing)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I live in an area with 50Mb/s connections available. I pay for 12, because it's plenty for everything I do. I don't really see any reason to have a faster connection frankly. I'm sure with higher quality video streaming that goal will move, but your assertion that 100Mb/s should be the standard is very off for today.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
One can exaggerate to make a point, but this is getting ridiculous.
How in the world is 2.5 gigabits too slow. There are barely any services in the internet which can saturate that kind of bandwidth.
Re: (Score:3)
Bittorrent.
Only with many, many popular torrents, and then you run into the problem that you need very fast disks to keep up with the 600MB/sec read+write. I work with a lot of systems that transfer a lot of data, and the trick is balancing all the hardware so it can all keep up with the speeds.
At my work, we're just installing a 100Gbps connection to the Internet, and all that means is that we now have to upgrade everything else to be able to take advantage of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
anything less than 50Mbps is starting to become pretty worthless
It would take a family of 10 simultaneously watching different HD Netflix streams to saturate a 50Mbps connection. At a certain point (according to the article, that point is around 10Mb) it becomes "impossible" to actually consume that much bandwidth. A 10-20 Mb service with proper QoS to account for gaming and other latency sensitive activities and a well thought out update regime to cover game updates should take care of 99% of the average user's internet needs.
I realize that 10Mb doesn't fit with cons
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It was half arse-pulling and half knowing how to type into google.
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+average+broadband+speed&oq=us+average+broadband+speed&aqs=chrome..69i57.6984j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com] Both of those come up with around 10Mb (using nice round numbers). My original comment was related to someone saying 50Mb was becoming pretty much useless, so I went with that.
Re:10 Mbps (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the size of household. At my place in the late afternoon, there may be three video streams be running into different rooms, and I guess that's ok even with 12Mbps, but 30Mbps is better specially considering you need something closer to 10Mbps for a single decent quality 1080p stream.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Which means that the US is not a developed area. But 100Mbps is too high I think, that's standard ethernet speed and if you need more than that at home then you're probably running a pr0n server.
At some point these start to be bragging numbers, where people claim they want more just to have larger numbers. Similar to audiophiles ("I can hear the difference") and high end gamers ("better gibbing experience"). Especially true for people who take that fat pipe and then shove it all onto basic wi-fi.
Re:10 Mbps (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means that the US is not a developed area. But 100Mbps is too high I think, that's standard ethernet speed and if you need more than that at home then you're probably running a pr0n server.
Spoken like someone who has never used a 100Mbps internet connection.
I'm fortunate to live somewhere where I do have 100Mbps (down)[0], and it is invaluable. I run two VoIP phone lines, digital video streaming from a variety of services, we play online games, and as I work from home, I can checkout large code trees from SCM in reasonable amounts of time, and sling around multi-gigabyte VMs between home and work (I tend to prefer to generate and validate the VMs locally, and then upload them to their destination server when the need arises). And best of all, I can do all of these at the same time -- I'd have to push things really hard to see any degradation when my wife is watching Netflix or someone is talking on the phone.
The only bad thing is how asymmetrical the upload speed is -- it's only 6Mbps. That I conceivably can saturate pretty easily. Fortunately, in our typical use cases our upload needs tend to be fairly asymmetric as well -- the only two major areas where our network gets impacted is when I'm moving those VMs around between home and internal deployment servers, or when we're watching video via Slingbox from outside the network. It impacts work much more than pleasure. Not much I can do about it unfortunately, without going for some crazy priced business class connection that my employer won't pay for.
Then again, I have over 20 devices on our network (via GigE and 802.11ac). We're pretty heavy users, but with nary a pr0n server in sight.
Yaz
---
[0] - A strange thing seems to have happened recently. Earlier this year, my ISP cancelled offering 100Mbps service, but grandfathered in anyone who was already a customer. Their new highest tier offering at the time was only 60Mbps (for the same price as 100Mbps used to be, at that). Since then, however, they've introduced a new 120Mbps service. I've run multiple speed tests through a few different services, and I seem to be maxing out downloading at 120Mbps as of late. Still only 6Mbps up unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
I run two VoIP phone lines
Amazing. You do realise you don't need more than 128Kbits/sec for that, don't you?
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing. You do realise you don't need more than 128Kbits/sec for that, don't you?
You do realize I listed of at least five OTHER things that I use on top of that?
VoIP can be sensitive to jitter, and it's not that hard to add transmission latency when you're also piling a whole lot of other, higher bandwidth streams through the pipe, like video, or putting large VMs into the cloud, the quality can easily suffer.
But please, go ahead and try to watch Netflix while a family member is on a VoIP call on your ISDN line. I look forward to hearing how well that works out for you.
Yaz
Just wait for UltraHD streaming. (Score:2)
I disagree. I recall hearing that an UltraHD stream of decent quality requires 20-50Mbps. Netflix is already offering a pilot UltraHD service, but the specifically require that you have 100Mbps connection.
So I personally think, one way or another the geekdom and nerddom will move onto 100Mbps broadband eventually. At the same time, I fail to see a genuine "must have" application for the gigabit broadband in most homes.
Re: (Score:2)
But 100Mbps is too high I think, that's standard ethernet speed
No. "standard" ethernet speed is 10Mbps. On fat yellow coax.
Re: (Score:3)
10 Mbps is frankly pathetic. 100 Mbit connections should be the minimum...
I don't understand, I have a 10Mbps connection, that's 100Mbits per 10 seconds. What is the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on your usage. Netflix 4k claims 7GB/hour, or about 16Mbps ("normal" HD is less than half that).
Re: (Score:2)
People have unrealistic expectations for what they need. It leads to organizations buying enough bandwidth that every user could have 100Mbit to the public Internet if their WAN backbone could support all of that, it's simply not necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
4K can be streamed it in under 16Mbps no problem. I have seen great looking 4K @ 11Mbps, and that's with 448Kbps 7.1 audio and HDR. And with some of the latest/upcoming HEVC encoders, it looks like ~8Mbps 4K is very doable.
Problem is 4K isn't nearly as important as 10 bit color and HDR - I'd take 1080p 10bit Rec.2020 w/ HDR over basic 4K any day. Anyway, the point is if you have at least 15Mbps you will be able to do high end 4K streaming, no problem. And you can eke by with less.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not how TCP/IP (or adaptive streaming) on a shared network works. Come back when you learn a bit more about it, and don't feel the need to be an AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who had upgraded from 15mbs to 20mbs. I can still say less than 10mbs is good enough for a lot of people. 1 mbs is still enough for browsing and low resolution video. 10mbs you can stream high resolution video. 20mbs is so more people in your household and browse and watch streaming high res video.
Having the later. 15mbs did work, but but we got a few mid-stream buffering during peak usage. So for the price difference adding an additional 5mbs was considered worth it.
In my Area which is rural,
Re: (Score:3)
No, I think they mean you need to get 10. Which means, at least around here, that you need to pay for at least 50.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>
Even TB transfers can be rsync'd while you are asleep...
I always fuck up the options when I try to do that while asleep.
Re: (Score:2)
The improving video codecs will be offset by higher resolutions, 4K, 8K etc...
I would much prefer to rsync data at night, but most of the commercial services don't offer that option and force you to stream, so you end up with much higher bandwidth usage at peak times and virtually nothing at night.
Re: (Score:2)
With HTTP latency is the biggest killer. As you are actually getting small bits of info, but if it takes a while to connect to the data then it feels everything is slow.
Re: (Score:3)
You can get reliable 5 Mb/s... if you pay for it. What you actually are paying for is a shared channel that has a theoretical maximum capacity of 20 Mb/s.
Reliable guaranteed minimum speeds are much more expensive than shared bandwidth. You get what you pay for.