The Truth About Faster Internet: It's Not Worth It (wsj.com) 253
Americans are spending ever more for blazing internet speeds, on the promise that faster is better. Is that really the case? For most people, the answer is no. From a report: The Wall Street Journal studied the internet use of 53 of our journalists across the country, over a period of months, in coordination with researchers at Princeton University and the University of Chicago. Our panelists used only a fraction of their available bandwidth to watch streaming services including Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and YouTube, even simultaneously. Quality didn't improve much with higher speeds. Picture clarity was about the same. Videos didn't launch quicker. Broadband providers such as Comcast, Charter and AT&T are marketing speeds in the range of 250, 500 or even 1,000 megabits a second, often promising that streaming-video bingers will benefit. "Fast speeds for all of your shows," declares one online ad from Comcast. But for a typical household, the benefits of paying for more than 100 megabits a second are marginal at best, according to the researchers. That means many households are paying a premium for services they don't need.
To gauge how much bandwidth, or speed capacity, households need, it helps to look at an extreme scenario. Our users spent an evening streaming up to seven services simultaneously, including on-demand services like Netflix and live-TV services like Sling TV. We monitored the results. Peter Loftus, one of our panelists, lives outside Philadelphia and is a Comcast customer with a speed package of 150 megabits a second. Peter's median usage over 35 viewing minutes was 6.9 Mbps, 5% of the capacity he pays for. For the portion when all seven of his streams were going at once, he averaged 8.1 Mbps. At one point, for one second, Peter reached 65% of his capacity. Did his video launch faster or play more smoothly? Not really. The researchers said that to the extent there were differences in video quality such as picture resolution or the time it took to launch a show, they were marginal.
To gauge how much bandwidth, or speed capacity, households need, it helps to look at an extreme scenario. Our users spent an evening streaming up to seven services simultaneously, including on-demand services like Netflix and live-TV services like Sling TV. We monitored the results. Peter Loftus, one of our panelists, lives outside Philadelphia and is a Comcast customer with a speed package of 150 megabits a second. Peter's median usage over 35 viewing minutes was 6.9 Mbps, 5% of the capacity he pays for. For the portion when all seven of his streams were going at once, he averaged 8.1 Mbps. At one point, for one second, Peter reached 65% of his capacity. Did his video launch faster or play more smoothly? Not really. The researchers said that to the extent there were differences in video quality such as picture resolution or the time it took to launch a show, they were marginal.
Thank you AT&T an Comcast For Your Insight (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure when WSJ started taking telecom monopoly money for astroturfing money, but I'm pretty sure they have no idea what they're talking about. The only time I ever have "unused bandwidth" is when I (and everyone in my neighborhood) am asleep. Otherwise I very much feel the ebb and tide of available bandwidth. I can see my (not 4k) HD netflix quality rise and fall as I sit there. I can watch my downloads slow down. My 11 year old has made it his hobby to test bandwidth 3-4 times a day, because he can't figure it out either.
It's most noticeable when working from home. From screen share sessions to video conferences.
Maybe "most americans" in their mind don't care about video streaming quality or still watch on standard def CRTs with rabbit ears, don't use the computer for anything other than amazon and social media, and never teleconference. But they're cherry picking a pretty unusual sample group, and aren't thinking about the future. At some point companies who are paying millions for expensive downtown offices, and inflated employee salaries are going to realize they could save a lot by embracing technology. And all WSJ will be doing here is slowing down the inevitable, and wasting shareholder profits to prop up an industry that doesn't deserve even the slightest love.
Re:Thank you AT&T an Comcast For Your Insight (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see why you're ticked about getting less-than-advertised speeds if it's not enough to meet your needs though.
I wonder if people who pay extra for faster service get more when it's not the caps but backbone saturation kicking in? In a way it seems like they should, but making customers outbid each other just to get a fraction of what is advertised for the base service level is quite a racket.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast and all the other big ones would love to not have to upgrade their core and just provide current speeds with their yearly price increases. So much easier to be complacent and do nothing but replace dead equipment and collect checks.
The only reason they have to now is to compete with eachother. But if the cattle stop demanding more they can just sit back and enjoy profits.
Re: (Score:3)
No service provider has ever run ads that said "Your lower bandwidth really meets your needs."
Around 2009, during the recession across the Bush and Obama administrations, I saw TV ads from dial-up home Internet providers about saving money by switching from DSL back to dial-up.
Re: Thank you AT&T an Comcast For Your Insight (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because he doesn't understand just how internetworking works. His 4k stream is going to be variable bit rate, and (at 15mbit, ish) isn't going to consume anywhere near what his maximum data rate is. There are many things that will impact what his video quality ends up being. Like the article says, speeds above 100mbit are basically just a number for most people. The problem comes from ISPs misleading consumers like him about just how much bandwidth they need. I laugh my ass off at service reps who say that you need the fastest possible speed they offer for gaming, when that is (save for the moments where you're downloading, which aren't common) probably one of the least bandwidth intensive applications most people use.
For many ISPs, when you pay extra for more bandwidth, all you're doing is paying more for the privilege of burning through your data cap faster, so that you have the privilege of paying even more later.
Every time people come to me and ask what speed they need, they're usually shocked when my recommendation is often the bottom level tier when the ISP says the total opposite. After they switch, they don't run into problems unless they're using wireless and have shitty building acoustics and/or live in an apartment and are using the very crowded 2.4ghz spectrum.
Re: (Score:3)
The main advantage of a really fast connection is that they are very, very hard to saturate. Even with a heavy download session in progress, your Netflix will keep going at 4k and so will your interactive services like streaming games and video chat.
You can't just add up the bandwidth for all those services to estimate the total needed either. You need a lot of overhead to keep them working well, especially interactive stuff. Traffic shaping helps but it's hard to write rules that work well, and way beyond
I think gamers do benefit (Score:3)
I laugh my ass off at service reps who say that you need the fastest possible speed they offer for gaming
I have Comcast gigabit, and the ping for that (12ms) seems better than it was for my pre-gigabit service, also from Comcast.
My logic here is that with a truly higher tier of service you are going to get better traffic prioritization, so probably for gamers getting a very high end connection would be helpful, in fact it would probably help them more than anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
That kinda depends on what type of connection you have... if you have to wait until everyone is in bed before you can get full speeds, odds are pretty good you have Cable (yay DOCSIS!).
Out here in the boonies with my puny 24mbps DSL, my bandwidth isn't shared - when I want 24mbps, I get 24mbps (destination server notwithstanding, obviously.) The only real crimp in my case is activity in the house subnet(s - I actually have two - a QoS/semi-throttled one for IoT use, the other for people).
Re: (Score:2)
DSL bandwidth is shared, by which I mean oversubscribed usually in your neighborhood remote access point. But if you live in a rural area it probably is less of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
We have little DSLAMs out here that tap into an inter-city fiber line, as opposed to a proper direct connection to a CO (the nearest actual CO is roughly 20-25 miles away from my driveway), which might also affect things.
But yeah, I was too simplistic in a way - on a practical level, I live where there's 14 people per square mile? Pretty sure that It's just me and occasionally one other person (I work from home nearly full-time, the neighbor I refer to does so part-time) on that DSLAM most days.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really sure what you are talking about my DOCSIS modem runs just fine, I usually get a little over my 150 Mbps advertised speed. I have a separate physical lans because damn those HD security cameras can slow everything down. The only DSL available in my area tops out at 24 Mbps and most people on the service are lucky to get 16 Mbps I will say it is cheaper than my connection (more like 70% the price for a tenth of the speed).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe "most americans" in their mind don't care about video streaming quality or still watch on standard def CRTs with rabbit ears, don't use the computer for anything other than amazon and social media, and never teleconference. But they're cherry picking a pretty unusual sample group, and aren't thinking about the future.
While I certainly use my (gigabit fiber) connection to its fullest, I think I'm the outlier. I think it's safe to say that the "usual sample group" is the average american who really just uses it for some streaming video (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc) and social media. Isn't that the normal, average use case? Other than maybe kids who are playing games (really low bandwidth, unless we're talking about streaming gaming services) while also watching Twitch? Maybe if you had three, four or more people, all w
Skype, FaceTime, and Twitch; rise in telecommuting (Score:3)
Do you think most people are doing video teleconferencing from home, outside of telecommuters?
Do video calls on Skype and FaceTime count as "video teleconferencing"? Does broadcasting on Twitch? Even if not, as motor fuel prices rise and more manual labor tasks become automated, I imagine we'll see more people become telecommuters over time. This needs upstream throughput and consistent latency, something that a lot of home Internet plans don't provide much of.
Re: (Score:2)
Do video calls on Skype and FaceTime count as "video teleconferencing"?
That's a good point, I think as long as there are multiple participants, it is a "conference". I assume those are also in the low single digit Mb/s bandwidth, like WebEx. I'm sure a lot of people broadcast on Twitch, but as a percentage of average internet users, it's probably a tiny fraction of 1%. So I really don't think it qualifies as the "usual sample group". You also make a great point about upstream bandwidth, it is certainly very limited using cable/DSL. And I agree, we'll see more telecommuter
Re: (Score:2)
Looks at the 4 decade trend [zfacts.com], I'm not sure this claim is consistent with the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and when I was a Skype customer I never used the video part except once. The once was underwhelming to say the least. Not quality, just no one wants to be a talking head. Get enough of that with TV.
Re: (Score:3)
True. I telecommute and also watch 1080p netflix. I have a 5600Kbps connection (the netflix 1080p streams top at 5300Kbps) I can do either just fine, not both. 1080p Amazon prime struggles a bit, most of the time it needs 7800Kbps.
So 15Mbps per person should do a household just fine. For 4k (which is a gimmick you don't see most of the time due to screen sizes and viewing distances) you would need 25Mbps per person (17Mbps for the streaming and 7 for other needs) indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds more like your neighborhood node is oversubscribed than anything about your personal internet package.
Re: Thank you AT&T an Comcast For Your Insight (Score:3)
Maybe "most americans" in their mind don't care about video streaming quality or still watch on standard def CRTs with rabbit ears, don't use the computer for anything other than amazon and social media, and never teleconference. But they're cherry picking a pretty unusual sample group, and aren't thinking about the future. At some point companies who are paying millions for expensive downtown offices, and inflated employee salaries are going to realize they could save a lot by embracing technology. And all WSJ will be doing here is slowing down the inevitable, and wasting shareholder profits to prop up an industry that doesn't deserve even the slightest love.
No, there's nothing special about you, you're not an audiophile or videophile with some kind of super sophisticated taste, and CRTs are long gone for everybody but those who simply prefer it for whatever reason.
Bandwidth tests are only useful for determining the capacity limits of your last mile connection, and nothing else. Your poor quality video can be explained by far too many things to list in the time I have, but you bandwidth capacity limit isn't one of them unless you're somewhere below 20mbps. I ca
Re: (Score:2)
DSL ISPs have a tendency to do both as they tend to hold deep rural monopolies and they don't care, so try running through a VPN.
Not always... Out here in the sticks, the Sat providers are starting to loosen up on caps and lower pricing to the point where it's getting at least somewhat competitive to DSL (ViaSat is offering 100mbps w/ 150GB/mo semi-cap plans now, for the same price they used to charge for 25mbps/30GB plans.) For most rural folks, it's just fine (the farm kids can't play twitch-games, but otherwise it works just fine for browsing and movie-streaming - I've even done WebEx w/ VoIP over it... works like a 2-way radio.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This. It may come as a shock to this WSJ "journalist" but the internet is used for more than watching Netflix. Ask anyone who just bought a AAA title on steam if their internet is fast enough while they wait for hours for the download to complete.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe "most Americans" in their mind don't care about video streaming quality or still watch on standard def CRTs with rabbit ears, don't use the computer for anything other than amazon and social media, and never teleconference. But they're cherry picking a pretty unusual sample group...
I humbly suggest you review what is usual and unusual. Their group, a bunch of non-techies watching Netflix, probably matches the vast majority of Americans. They can't tell the difference between a macroblock and a microbrew. People like you and I who even know what a bandwidth test is are the minority.
To be specific, I think you're exactly right: the vast majority of Americans use their computers to watch Netflix, read Twitter/Instagram/Facebook, and never teleconference. At most they might Facetime on th
Comment removed (Score:3)
Households with more than one resident (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I download 24/7, I need more time to watch or watch more than one thing at a time.
If you live alone, you might not feel it. But you may start feeling it once two to four people in your household all try to stream at once.
Re: (Score:3)
Same for me, after upgrading from 40Mbit to 120Mbit the only major difference is downloading steam games, and that happens once or twice a month where the download time has gone down from 'many hours' to 'a few hours'. Still not something I would actively wait for though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
12 Mbps is more than enough for video chat. Your problem is elsewhere.
Re: I agree (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have 250Mb down and my laptop can't keep up. At least it can't with BitTorrent. Stuff that downloads sequentially over HTTPS etc. is fine but because BitTorrent sends random bits of the file it generates loads of random writes, and even with a Samsung SSD (a few years old now) the limit seems to be about 25MB/sec.
Anything over about 10MB/sec random writes and the machine starts to slow down, with anything over 15 being unusable.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I care of a huge speed if I can only use it for 1 week per month?
Depends on your use case. If your only reason for a fat pipe is to download AAA games on Steam then that once a month major speed boost is ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, 90%+ of people would do fine with a 20mbps account for personal use. And unless you've got a dozen devices all streaming Netflix, even a 80 or 100mbps broadband connection is more than enough.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to have 100/30Mbps (down/up) but decided to upgrade to 1Gbps because I am a full-time YouTube content creator and wanted faster uploads. Even at 30Mbps, uploading a multi-GB file can take a while.
Did I get more speed?
Yes... but.
My downloads peak out at around 900Mbps but uploading to YouTube seems to be capped (perhaps by by YT) at around 40Mbps which means little has changed.
Also, although some sites do deliver almost the maxmum download speeds, it seems that most of the time, the rest of the inter
Only looking at one vector bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure for streaming (non 4k video) a slower connection works just fine.
But if you factor in things like system updates for devices, and especially purchasing console games online, suddenly a faster connection is more and more valuable...
Also as people shift to 4k streaming they will unknowingly value the higher data cap of a faster connection.
I have a gigabit connection from Comcast and I wouldn't go lower, in large part because of a variety of updates I have to do regularly for programming tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only looking at one vector bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the author of this article should have tried buying an XBox and tried downloading a few 50+ GB AAA game titles on it. Suddenly, saving $5 a month on that 100 MB Internet connection isn't going to seem like a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
50 GB per 8 hours is 400,000 megabits per 28,800 seconds. So long as your download speed averages 15 Mbps or more, you can start the download, go to bed, and have the game ready next morning.
That is a really long time (Score:2)
you can start the download, go to bed, and have the game ready next morning.
The difference is, on gigabit internet I can start the game (or monstrous patch, far more common) download, go have dinner or a light snack., then play the game the same day...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a data cap and have only 150 Mbps connection it's fine for multiple TVs and a game console right up until a game wants to run an update. I'm not a gamer but my kids are always annoyed by game updates that take an hour or two to update and I don't think a gigabit connection would even help I'm not sure the service would allow it to download at that speed. I can download a gig of software on my pc in 10-15 minutes and I'm not entirely sure it's the connection keeping me from getting it faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure for streaming (non 4k video) a slower connection works just fine.
But if you factor in things like system updates for devices, and especially purchasing console games online, suddenly a faster connection is more and more valuable...
Wouldn't you say those issues are pretty infrequent? I don't mind managing my bandwidth a little if it saves me a little cash.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one would like to be able to download a Linux distro DVD images instantaneously.
Went from AT&T to Google Fiber... Way differen (Score:2)
"I need to log into work can everyone else stop using the internet for a couple of hours"
After:
"Keep on watching the movie or playing games online I need to log into work for a couple of hours"
If only we could get apps to use the bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet is more than streaming video (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is "streaming video" the only thing they seem to care about? Are they saying that when I download a new ~100GB of steam its impossible for me to notice the difference between a 20 minute download and a 3 hour download? Internet speed may not affect all people in all scenarios, but downloading games, driver updates, torrents, whatever are all going to be NOTICEABLY faster on faster internet.
Not just that, but also UPLOADING videos to youtube. My 400mbit download speed is fine for all the things the article mentions, but i'm limited to 25 mbit upload speed because of crappy docsis tehcnology. If we had Fios here i'd be able to get more like 800 mbit uploads (or at least, as fast as youtube will accept from a single client). If you want to share a video you just made, being able to go live with in 5 minutes beats taking 45 minutes.
Back in the early days of cable internet peoples minds were blown by ~3mbit downloads because they were coming off of 56k dialup. Anything that asserts we don't need faster connection speeds will always prove to be hilariously wrong.
Overnight downloads (Score:2)
Are they saying that when I download a new ~100GB of steam its impossible for me to notice the difference between a 20 minute download and a 3 hour download?
I'm pretty sure so. I concede that I didn't read the featured article because my current subscription package lacks The Wall Street Journal. But in general, analysts appear to assume that a large download of an operating system update or purchased game can happen overnight while the subscriber sleeps.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is "streaming video" the only thing they seem to care about?
Because its a survey of WSJ journalists who don't actually use their home internet connection for anything else that actually consumes bandwidth, and its in Netflix's best interest to optimize what they need. So yeah, a sample group that's not representative of ANYONE here.
I wanted a slower speed... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a typical user... (Score:3)
We're using "gigabit" Fios now, which is actually close to 900 Mbps in both directions, and it rocks. Even mundane tasks like sending or downloading a large file (we're buying a house) are SO much easier.
When we started the house search, I told my wife "no fiber, no sale." She agreed instantly, since she and her mother can do anything they want online without me complaining that they're interrupting my work...
Re: (Score:3)
Your case illustrates the central problem with this article. They weren't seeing impacts because the services they are connecting to always throttle. You're measuring performance by how fast much more dedicated servers at work can send you data.
I think the article is largely true in a fuzzy sense because services are dragging the system now. I'd personally prefer my Netflix to always send the whole show as fast as it can and in the maximum resolution and quality I can view (4K). That way, I'd have fewer tim
Pay more for less? Why? (Score:2)
I logged into to Version just now. The numbers in this post are current as of 11:16 am on 8/20/2019.
With no contract/term-agreement,I am currently paying $79.99/month for FiOS "Gigabit" connectivity. It is rated for up to 940/880 Mbps.
For +$27, I can get connectivity rated for 400/400 Mbps.
For +$17, I can get connectivity rated for 400/400 Mbps.
For +$17, I can get connectivity rated for 150/150 Mbps.
For +$7, I can get connectivity rated for 100/100 Mbps.
For +7$, I can get connectivity rated for 75/75 Mbps.
Pay a fortune for meager bandwidth, peasants! (Score:2)
WSJ is wrong, Gig is the answer (Score:5, Interesting)
I own and run a small ISP in Southern California - and I can tell you Gig speeds low latency fixes an awful lot of stuff. Everything just works. Support calls go away, everyone is just happy..
I have an RRD graph that begs to differ (Score:2)
Paywalled so I can't read the article but I have an RRD graph that, at least based on the summary, shows they're full of shit.
Although I suppose the fact that I have an RRD graph makes me not "most people" :)
Not about faster speed (Score:5, Interesting)
The faster speed service isn't necessarily a waste of money, because the higher tiers of service usually come with higher data caps, or no caps at all. And similar studies of use have shown that the number of "power users" blowing through their data caps is roughly doubling every year.
Re:Not about faster speed (Score:5, Insightful)
The faster speed service isn't necessarily a waste of money, because the higher tiers of service usually come with higher data caps, or no caps at all. And similar studies of use have shown that the number of "power users" blowing through their data caps is roughly doubling every year.
Sure but the point of the article is that most people aren't power users. No kidding, if they were, we'd have to change the definition. And if you're not a power user, don't pay for a package that only a power user needs.
I think this is a subset of the American mindset. I may need a SUV or pickup truck two or three times a year. Most days, TBH, a Smart Car would be just fine. And yet many Americans buy the ginormous SUV or truck anyway because bigger is better. And, to be less snarky, because people perceive downside of having a too small car every now and again as larger than the downside of driving a too big vehicle most the time.
Streaming is not the only use for the Internet. (Score:2)
Re: Streaming is not the only use for the Internet (Score:2)
You have explained succinctly why I no longer play video games.
Basic error in premise: Garabe in Garbage out (Score:2)
The problem isn't the speed of the broadband. The problem is the lack of proper infrastructure inside the house. Your effective speed is the speed of the slowest component. For most people, this is the wifi router which is A HUB which SHARES bandwidth across all devices.
What do devices do that realize they have limited bandwidth? They downscale the transmission. If the entire house was wired for 10G full duplex Ethernet all devices were compatible, the results would be very different.
This is a lack of educ
Re: (Score:2)
Most people have 802.11n or even 802.11ac WiFi routers. They are more than fast enough to stream a couple Netflix in parallel, unless you are way too far or if there is too much congestion.
If you can connect your main TV to wired Ethernet (100 Mbps is more than enough, not even sure Smart TVs have GigE) that's of course more reliable and will offload your WiFi for other uses. There would be no benefit in using 10Gbps Ethernet at all. Your modem's Ethernet port is likely limited to 1 Gbps anyways. There is a
Re: Basic error in premise: Garabe in Garbage out (Score:2)
Oh, really? My single device is saturating my personal router so much that it can't reach the 25 Mb/s my ISP is providing?
Re: (Score:3)
For most people, this is the wifi router which is A HUB which SHARES bandwidth across all devices.
Allow me to be pedantic and lecture a bit.
A hub is a very specific term for a piece of network gear which no one has made since the late '90s. A hub is a half-duplex device where only one unit can be transmitting at a time (and that data is transmitted to all receivers). Network switches made hubs obsolete many, many years ago.
Any router you buy today will behave like a switch: if you plug in two devices to different ports, they will be able to transmit simultaneously. Problem is, and you've got a point her
Realized this some time ago (Score:2)
In the past few years I started monitoring my peak bandwidth used, which almost exclusively occurs when watching streaming video from Netflix. At the times I measured the number from the article (under 7Mbps) appears about right for 1080. We only have a single TV and otherwise maybe stream a bit of Youtube/etc. to our phones or laptops/desktops. Even then we're rarely doing more than one of any of those (TV/phone/laptop) at a time. On the occasions when I work from home Skype voice calls don't add signif
If all you do is watch YouTube... (Score:2)
But computer usage models do change.
For example, I have an Oculus Quest and I heard you can stream your PC VR games into it. I decided to give it a try, and quickly found out that my perfectly functional but a bit outdated 300 Mbps wifi router won't cut it for streaming VR inside my home.
I bought a 5 Ghz 1.3 Gbps one, then I connected the PC via 1 Gbps Ethernet cable to it and with that, I could h
Indeed (Score:3)
Browsing, where the page collects all its javascript, ads, trackers and whatnot from a dozen different sites are just as slow as before.
The only differences I noticed with my 1Gig fiber are the movies and TV series I download with uTorrent, they only need seconds and that's with the VPN.
I also now can download full Bluray discs instead of compressed Yts ones.
25 Mb/s (Score:2)
I pay for 25 Mb/s. My ISP (UVerse monopoly) can't deliver that with any consistency, so why the hell would I pay for more?
Last mile only (Score:3)
When you get a faster connection from your ISP, that's your last mile only. It does nothing to improve your ISP's peering, which is usually the bottleneck. It also does nothing to improve the servers your getting the content from and their connection. Any connection is only as fast as the slowest link and improving anything that's not the slowest link is wasted money.
I would accept a 10/2 connection... (Score:2)
Not thinking forward (Score:2)
When higher speeds become typical it enables the creation of services that weren't feasible before and can now take advantage of them.
Great! Smaller bills for everyone! (Score:2)
It sure is a good thing that the only thing people use the internet for is streaming video and not downloading software or operating system updates or backing up your files to a cloud server or any of the other fifty thousand things it could be used for. More speed might help in those scenarios, but since it's only streaming video, we're fine!
Nonsense (Score:2)
Ive seen 50 mbps easily become congested by various high bandwidth uses. this seems to be written by the big media companies which own a lot of the cable systems that want people to stream and pay for every viewing rather than to download and own permenantly movies and other things. If you are downloading, the speed benefit is indisputable. Your file is finished downloading much faster. Also pushing this is cable companies that don't want competition from municipal fiber which can provide gigabit speeds for
If you want high-quality, avoid the Internet (Score:2)
OTA transmissions have a regulated bandwidth. Everybody who cord-cuts instantly notices the quality improvement. Cable and satellite services have no such regulation; they'll give you 6 Mbps for sports, but talking heads get cut down until people complain. Actually, every show gets its bandwidth cut until people complain, then they go back up 5%. But Over-The-Air, saddled by ancient regulations, is always good.
Your other source for high-quality video is at your local library, where Blu-Rays are free.
Bu
Duh?! but what about UPLOAD?! (Score:2)
My wife and I work from home on occasion - VPN & video/audio conferencing at times. In the evening we have as many as 3 "netflix" streams running on HD devices (TV, and iPads). While I'm sure we rarely use much of the 175Mb/s down from Comcast -- the one place I know get's exceed is UPLOAD !!!!
I would love to pay less and move down to the "75" tier - but the Upload drops to 4Mb/s. I'm at 175/6 right now. If they had 75/6 I'd switch ! 6 really isn't enough.
I've used LTE at times to get faster u
I'd make a trade, that much is for sure. (Score:2)
I don't get *that* much out of my higher speed. Would I trade my current 500/13-ish service for 100/50? In a heartbeat. Is my current 500/13-ish worth the $10/month more I spend over a 150/10-ish plan from my local effective monopoly? Yes, just barely, but enough yes that I pay it.
Interesting Post (Score:2)
They installed the service a few weeks ago, and I've been on the
My nick says otherwise (Score:2)
Upstream bandwidth (Score:2)
It depends on the application (Score:2)
Arguably a connection speed above 20 Mbps won't make much difference to video or audio streaming, unless you have to support multiple streams. But it does make a big difference if you're running your own file server.
I have AT&T GigaFiber, with symmetric 1 Gbps speeds. When I remotely mount the disks connected to my home server, it's almost as responsive as being connected locally. For my work, it's worth every penny.
I've also noticed a huge jump in the responsiveness of my security system when I remo
With higher speeds comes larger data caps (Score:2)
Which can make it worthwhile, if one finds they exceed the lower amount.
But beyond that, yeah.... I agree.
Which is easier? (Score:2)
Selling people on a number for which marginal changes no practical effect or selling them on price and service?
Asymmetric (Score:5, Insightful)
Is our down fast enough now that we can start to move some bandwidth back to achieving a less-drastic asymmetric ratio?
I'd take 150/150 over 250/50 any day. We're in the era now where people are uploading 4k videos from home. Getting more up to 10Mbps down so you can even /see/ quality video is a historical notion - one in which sacrificing symmetry was a necessary evil.
Re:Bigger, faster, better, more - no! (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just the content...
You could have a personal OC-198 straight to the Internet with full peering, but if the streaming service/server cluster that you're getting your movie from is sharing a single skinny network connection with too many simultaneous users, you're still going to get buffering, like it or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Bigger, faster, better, more - no! (Score:3)
One thing the article doesn't talk about, is data caps. Comcast is my mother's ISP and we got her a 4K cool setup. Since she has MS, she over watches TV, since mobility cab be hard for her. The faster packages have 2TB caps not one, and with 4K she ran over the 1TB caps.
Also peering isn't much of an issue these days since CDNs usually place highly viewed content within the ISPs network. I know Netflix has custom 7U caching servers ISPs can place in their network for free (effectively cutting their peering c
Re:Bigger, faster, better, more - no! (Score:4, Interesting)
"the streaming service/server cluster that you're getting your movie from is sharing a single skinny network connection with too many simultaneous users"
Purely a business decision. I doubt Neflix and others have upstream connections anyone would consider 'skinny', nor do they have 'a' connection, but have a a fabric of connections to various peers. This is networking 101 unless you subscribe to the 'big company incompetence' theory of why nothing works as well as you want it to.
"Or if the ISP you are using oversubscribes"
Different problem, and also a business decision. This is driven by subscriber behavior - when they leave more than your business model can tolerate, you change. Unless your PHY is inadequate, and modern cable systems have no such problems. DSL is a different PHY with substantial limitations compared to cable tech, and, well, wireless has limitations also. But this is not about the streaming provider, save for the interconnects your ISP has provisioned. And some do try to cheat on this, usually trying to leverage their shared subscribers into subsidies from the content providers.
It's all business.
Re: (Score:3)
Netflix will give the ISPs free caching servers to place inside their own networks. I imagine much Netflix content is not served by Netflix or even a CDN directly, but rather by a server inside the ISP's network.
Re: Bigger, faster, better, more - no! (Score:3)
Re:Bigger, faster, better, more - no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that streaming services are being Balkanized, it makes sense to go back to torrents. Since it makes sense, people inevitably will. And torrents are definitely improved by a fat pipe.
This study isn't an accurate representation of how real people do and will use the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
"but if the streaming service/server cluster that you're getting your movie from is sharing a single skinny network connection"
Like Hulu, Netflix, HBO, YouTube, etc? That is where 99% of streaming originates and I'd bet money none have "a single skinny network connection"
High motion sometimes makes a difference (Score:4, Informative)
And a bigger screen or higher definition, doesn't make the programmes any better, either.
With one exception: YouTube's policy against high motion (48, 50, 60 fps) at resolutions smaller than 720p. The server converts all streams at low definition (144p, 240p) or standard or enhanced definition (360p, 480p) down to 30 fps or less. For some ball/puck sports and video games, frame rates below 50-60 fps make it harder for the viewer to follow the action.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not following the puck at 240p no matter the frame rate. If I want more, I go get more. But then again I loathe YT and avoid it at all costs, even free.
Re: (Score:2)
If I want more [than 240p30 for my hockey], I go get more.
Would you be willing to move to another city if that's the only way to get more peak or sustained* bandwidth on a home Internet plan?
* I'm including monthly caps in sustained bandwidth.
Re:Bigger, faster, better, more - no! (Score:5, Interesting)
TFS noted:
Quality didn't improve much with higher speeds
Prompting petes_PoV to sneer:
And a bigger screen or higher definition, doesn't make the programmes any better, either.
They are still the same old (yes: mostly repeats) crap. The same tedious "comedies". The same predictable scripts. The same formulaic dramas. The same dull celebrity chat. The same adverts occasionally interrupted by some sports action.
Either you're exclusively referring to network broadcast TV, or your experience with modern "television" programming (which is to say, "broadcast TV, non-broadcast networks, and streaming services of all kinds") is more than trivially out of date.
This is widely ballyhooed as the Golden Age of TV programming - and there's a reason for that: with so many competitors for viewer eyeballs, TV producers have had to step up their game across the board. The programs of today are, for the most part, better cast, better written, and higher budgeted, and they routinely feature top-notch production values that, until this century, you'd tend only to find in movies, and hardly ever in TV shows.
Do they still illustrate Sturgeon's Law? They're products of human endeavor, so of course they do. But the best productions, be they series, miniseries, or one-offs, reward their viewers' investment of time with storytelling of a quality that in earlier decades happened only rarely - but that is now routinely to be expected.
In particular, the rise of the miniseries as an alternative to self-contained feature films is an unalloyed boon to the art of long-form, audiovisual storytelling. It's no longer necessary or desireable to make the kinds of compromises that makers of theatrical films have so long been pilloried for, especially in regards to adaptations of major novels - and I regard that as a Very Good Thing, indeed. Streaming services and premium "cable" channels have progressively done away with per-episode time restrictions, as well, which allows each episode to enjoy the appropriate runtime to tell its particular portion of the story without padding or compressing it. (If it takes 42 minutes - which is the standard length of a commercial broadcast TV "1-hour" episode, sans commercials - well then, groovy. If it takes an hour and 8 minutes, then it gets 68 minutes, and that's also copacetic.) Both practices result in a significantly-enhanced viewer experience.
As for being "mostly repeats," the fact is that, if you spent every hour of every day watching modern television, you could easily fill them all with high-quality, new-to-you programs of your preferred genres, never be forced to re-watch the same episode of any of them, and never get around to more than a fraction of what's currently available.
Unless you strictly confine your viewing to commercial broadcast TV, that is.
If the medium is not to your taste, by all means, feel free to avoid it. But don't criticize the current version for the sins of an earlier era. And do not, under any circumstances, assume that all modern television is like latter-day commercial broadcast TV. Because it's definitely not ...
Re: (Score:2)
I'll argue the exact opposite. There's better television from the streaming services than at any time in the history of network television. If you're stuck watching CSI reruns and Fox and Friends for some reason, I do feel for you. There's so much good television on nowadays, a person doesn't have enough hours in a day to watch it all.
Re: (Score:2)
The hard part is sorting the wheat from the chaff... wait'll there are several hundred streaming services rather than just Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime primarily.
Strap in for a bumpy ride
Re:Bigger, faster, better, more - no! (Score:4)
It does for documentaries and nature content. You can tell the difference between SD, HD, and UHD. For everything else, not so much. Old B&W Twilight Zones are just as enjoyable at SD as they are at HD.
Re: (Score:3)
It does for documentaries and nature content.
Sports are much better in higher resolution. Try watching a hockey game in SD and you'll be hating life.
Personally, I find any resolution below 1080 too low these days. Even 720 has too much pixelation for me. On the other end, I can't see pixels at 4k with a reasonable field-of-view. If I had something more immersive, perhaps I'd want more pixels. I'm far from bleeding edge.
Re: (Score:3)
Sports are much better in higher resolution. Try watching a hockey game in SD and you'll be hating life.
Not just hockey but baseball suffers from the same specter. Watch one game in HD and there is no going back.
Re: The real issue for non-journelists (Score:4, Informative)
1080i is absolutely better quality than DVD. DVD is 480p with half the frame rate. So they both provide the same frame rate, but 1080i has about 5x the pixels.
Re: Bandwidth is not everything. (Score:2)
But that has to do with the network hardware, not the service plan. You would probably get similar latency and stability no matter which package you signed up for.