# Higher high speed internet overrated/unnecessary?



## a_ump (Aug 19, 2014)

I was pondering earlier today about what internet speed i should get as i'm about to move.  Its from suddenlink and speeds offered at 15, 30, and 50mbps down at $35/$45/$55 per month.  I got to thinking, why do we have such outrageous internet speeds now? I remember about 8-10 years ago when i was 13-17 years old that having 2mbps down was AWESOME! and then at 16 i threw in 20 more bucks to get the newly available 10mbps down.  I don't remember any issues watching online tv, playing games, etc.

So i'm curious have gaming and general internet usage requirements really jumped that greatly in the last 6 years? Because i get the feeling that its simply advertisement BS that really doesn't apply usefully in practice.  The only use i can think of for higher internet speeds is for torrents.

Anyone else understand where i'm coming from?

EDIT 1: and to add to it, router ratings are bit of BS imo also. need to have Wifi-N600 for "good" gaming but N900 for "great" gaming.  Hell i gamed on wgr54 linksys as i am sure many of you did with no problem.  I must be missing something lol


----------



## XSI (Aug 19, 2014)

first i'm sorry you have such high prices for low speeds. i pay 15$ for 100/100Mbps for 25$ we can have 500/500mbps or even 1Gbps. ~30$.for my needs 100/100 is ok. 7GB file download in 10-12minutes. if you going for 40-50GB files takes about 2hours. (would love to have it faster) of course for browsing or even youtube 1080p videos its absolutely enough, for gaming bandwith is good but ping just about average.don't forget 4K videos is coming.like everything it depends on your needs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2014)

I wouldn't change it unless it changes the upload.  Then again, there's a whole lot of stuff I would like to be hosting but can't because of my pathetic upload.

@XSI: telecommunications in the USA is a sham.


----------



## Frick (Aug 19, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> @XSI: telecommunications in the USA is a sham.



And you cannot comprehend how much pleasure that gives me.

Anyway 10 is felt. 20something you usually don't notice until you're downloading lots of stuff (and gets used to stream HD videos all the time). What has pushed it is video and piracy, and digital releases of games. If you're streaming HD video you will want speed, especially if you happen to live in a household where several people stream HD movies at the same time. 

I'm not into routers, but the "gaming" thing I think is having a gigabit router built in, and being dual band and having some QoS-stuff to give "gaming" traffic or whatever a higher priority. If it's only you and your mom you'll be fine with basically anything (but stay away from the cheapest stuff, they're usually crap).


----------



## RandomSadness (Aug 19, 2014)

I really hope I could have a better internet connection. Here in my area, there's poor DSL , I barely can reach 6Mps. 8 - 10 years ago , I was at 56Kbps. Fiber optic infrastructures are currently being deployed , can't wait for them to be available.


----------



## andrewsmc (Aug 19, 2014)

IMO, if you are currently happy there is no need to change. I am happy with my 15 down for 50 a month.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 19, 2014)

Less than 15 isn't fast enough for decent HD content, modern compression is helping, but higher is needed still.

Why more/faster? Windows used to come on floppy disks, games used to come on a single CD-ROM. Now we have updates for games as large as games used to be (shame EA!!!), skype, online libraries, and many other things that require more bandwidth.


----------



## alwayssts (Aug 19, 2014)

XSI said:


> first i'm sorry you have such high prices for low speeds. i pay 15$ for 100/100Mbps for 25$ we can have 500/500mbps or even 1Gbps. ~30$.for my needs 100/100 is ok. 7GB file download in 10-12minutes. if you going for 40-50GB files takes about 2hours. (would love to have it faster) of course for browsing or even youtube 1080p videos its absolutely enough, for gaming bandwith is good but ping just about average.don't forget 4K videos is coming.like everything it depends on your needs.



This....this made me cry a little.

I share a lot of OP's price/speed lineage, including the trusty wrt54g and gs.

Around my neck of the woods it's around $60 for 60/10mbps, $80 for 100/10, $100 for 200/20.  Pricing has stayed relatively similar, but speeds have increased on a steady trajectory over the years, with a clear eye on (slow tapering us up, to maximize publicity until) the 2020 goal (which is 'affordable' 1Gbps available to everyone in the US.)  Yeah, the US infrastructure does comparably suck...as FGT90C alluded to, almost every single market is a monopoly.  It's a joke.  I think many of them get by because sure, dsl/phone companies are 'competition' to cable companies, but are they really?

As for speed, I think there are many things to consider.  Sure, there are 'questionable' things you can do with it, but also, how many people/devices will be using it?   Depending on compression quality/frame rate, a 4k stream could eat a 20-50Mbps itself, and I don't think that's that far off.  That can add up in some peoples' cases, in others not so much.

I think it's simply important to remember how we have scaled from web 1.0/beyond in both devices and bandwidth per device;  use cases (obviously and usually) scales slightly behind the speed curve for practicality reasons, and there are many things that have happened, and have yet to happen.  Just as going from text/pictures to flash/480p divx etc video, to 720p flash (which is still most common), to 1080p mp4, to 48/60fps, to 4k and beyond (with  ever-more increasing bitrates, especially for streaming) has/is occurring, in games we went from 2-4 player matches where often the speed was relatively inconsequential to often twitch instances involving huge amounts of people and a better ping is crucial.   Instead of 'the' computer, many people have multiple computers, including phones, tablets and tvs splitting that connection.  Next month maybe your rich relative will add a refrigerator to self-order milk, in a few years that may be you.

It all matters where you lie on the curve of usage compared to the technology/content available, and what's good-enough to justify that cost.


----------



## Toothless (Aug 19, 2014)

*Do you feel as if you need a faster connection?

Yes? Are you willing to pay for it?                                                                                       No? Then don't worry about it.
                     I
Yes? Then pay more for a faster connection.      No? Then just because you can't pay for a faster connection doesn't mean you'll be left behind. I know of some good ISPs that offer cheap but decent connections.*
*                    I*
*So you paid extra, are you happy?*


_Is it worth it in the end is all you need to ask yourself._


----------



## Frick (Aug 19, 2014)

Steevo said:


> Why more/faster? Windows used to come on floppy disks, games used to come on a single CD-ROM. Now we have updates for games as large as games used to be (shame EA!!!), skype, online libraries, and many other things that require more bandwidth.



And it moves fast! I have apps on my phone that must have at least quadrupled in size the last year. "minor buggfixes" 15MB?


----------



## a_ump (Aug 20, 2014)

thanks for all tye input! all we(me, wife, 1yr old) use it for is netflix hd, general browsing and myself gaming online. i recon the 35mbps should fit the bill. after all i pay 100 now for phone+15mbps adsl2+.

I'm also going to purchase a motorola sb6121 modem and tp link tl-wr1043nd router. i read a few places that seperate can be better than an all in one gateway.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 20, 2014)

Frick said:


> And it moves fast! I have apps on my phone that must have at least quadrupled in size the last year. "minor buggfixes" 15MB?


We still have a PS2, and I have played GTA3 on higher settings on my phone than it can provide, and yes, the game is huge.

Also, I downloaded five albums on a plane while waiting to taxi from the gate after my microSD decided to take shit on me and I lost all my music, so my options were burn through high speed data or have a conversation with the old lady i was sitting next to. I am not interested in knowing about her gay grandson, her birds, and zucchini that she doesn't know what to do with for the 54th year in a row.

So a good connection saved me.



a_ump said:


> thanks for all tye input! all we(me, wife, 1yr old) use it for is netflix hd, general browsing and myself gaming online. i recon the 35mbps should fit the bill. after all i pay 100 now for phone+15mbps adsl2+.
> 
> I'm also going to purchase a motorola sb6121 modem and tp link tl-wr1043nd router. i read a few places that seperate can be better than an all in one gateway.



I have 30X5 and it works great, steam games update quickly, Netflix is all HD content and I can still download and work while using netflix with no issues.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 20, 2014)

Steevo said:


> Less than 15 isn't fast enough for decent HD content, modern compression is helping, but higher is needed still.
> 
> Why more/faster? Windows used to come on floppy disks, games used to come on a single CD-ROM. Now we have updates for games as large as games used to be (shame EA!!!), skype, online libraries, and many other things that require more bandwidth.


For reference, SimCity 2000 came on one CD and it was ~25 MiB.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 20, 2014)

I used to play Civ II and drink coffee into the late hours of the night.


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 20, 2014)

I'm paying 70/mo for 50/3  *le sigh* You lithuanian's are so freakin lucky to have such high speeds for cheap like that.


----------



## XSI (Aug 20, 2014)

trust me guys i've started with 33,6kbps dial-up. 1MB costed few $. later we got deals like 0:00-06 AM free download for 10$ month. i was sleeping 2-4 hours for whole month to download my music, because i got a lot of disconnects and speeds were 1,5-3,8KB/s. 70MB mix was downloaded in 1 night. movie hm...yeah sure would take 8days or more. so i know what a slow internet is! we had a very quick speed up from 2mbps--10--20---50--300--1Gbit in just few years most of the city(capital) has optic fibre      

p.s i dont even have a shower at home


----------



## P4-630 (Aug 20, 2014)

We are paying 43 Euros/Month for 50/50 fiber internet, tv, and home phone.


----------



## m0nt3 (Aug 20, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> I'm paying 70/mo for 50/3  *le sigh* You lithuanian's are so freakin lucky to have such high speeds for cheap like that.



I am paying $69.99 (after taxes) for 20/2 and it didn't even come with lube!, 50/5 would cost me $89.99, thanks time warner!


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 20, 2014)

i pay like $54 a month for 40/40mbit fiber and i do like 45~50mbit both ways with my Asus RT-N56U Router.


----------



## newconroer (Aug 20, 2014)

a_ump said:


> So i'm curious have gaming and general internet usage requirements really jumped that greatly in the last 6 years? Because i get the feeling that its simply advertisement BS that really doesn't apply usefully in practice.  The only use i can think of for higher internet speeds is for torrents.



Piracy. It's the number one reason for your average consumer to require high download speeds.
Second source would be legitimate high content downloads, such as game clients through steam.
The third (which is considerably far behind) is retail to home services, like streaming video.

At this stage, a strong 20mb downlink with an actual downstream of 15mb is plenty.
But hey, bigger is better, faster is better right! :0


----------



## Disparia (Aug 20, 2014)

20Mb/2Mb: Kids are watching Netflix or they're both on their tablets. Wife and I are gaming (MMO) and there's possibly a Hulu show playing. Worst case scenario is there's an update and we're both downloading, though that doesn't hamper other activities all that much (and I haven't even bothered with QoS).

However, we are thinking about jumping to 90/10, for the 10Mb. Been meaning for the longest time to cancel my webhost and just host from home.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 20, 2014)

Few months ago I went from 3/.768 mb DSL to 60/5 mb cable. While I didn't have any issues gaming while someone else was browsing the web on the DSL, I can say the connection speed increase is very nice, especially when DLing large files. I did have to get a wireless AC compliant router, but that wasn't too expensive.


----------



## Exceededgoku (Aug 20, 2014)

RandomSadness said:


> I really hope I could have a better internet connection. Here in my area, there's poor DSL , I barely can reach 6Mps. 8 - 10 years ago , I was at 56Kbps. Fiber optic infrastructures are currently being deployed , can't wait for them to be available.


Poor you!

I have 2MB internet and it's NOT possible to get any higher.

Only solution is to pay for a leased line, at £50,000 (~80,000$) then £1200.00 (2000$) per month line rental (I don't own it...).

Sucks ass, I can't watch HD youtube. And well you can imagine the quality of digital downloads and online gaming for me. I gave up trying to play BF4 online due to lag and latency. Just not possible to be competitive.

Shame of it all is that I use a VERY powerful pfSense router that could easily handle a couple of gigabit internet speeds/transfers and a gaming PC with 6xSSDs in RAID0.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 20, 2014)

3 types of dsl-atm-dsl,ipdsl,vdsl


----------



## newconroer (Aug 20, 2014)

Jizzler said:


> 20Mb/2Mb: Kids are watching Netflix or they're both on their tablets. Wife and I are gaming (MMO) and there's possibly a Hulu show playing. Worst case scenario is there's an update and we're both downloading, though that doesn't hamper other activities all that much (and I haven't even bothered with QoS).
> 
> However, we are thinking about jumping to 90/10, for the 10Mb. Been meaning for the longest time to cancel my webhost and just host from home.


It's a shame that often only commercial premises and businesses can have a similar down/up ratio. I wonder if they do it just to force regular consumers to buy into more expensive packages. But surely the overhead and network resources for a 20/20 is easier for them to maintain than one that's 90/10?


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 20, 2014)

I'm torn here, because the US is a special case.  Of the contiguous 48, there are huge tracts of land where the population density declines to functionally zero (looking at you Iowa).  Likewise, the internet service there sucks hard.  Alternatively, densely packed areas generally have access to decent speed internet.  It's a function of ISPs not having much competition, and a complete lack of investment into infrastructure that "isn't necessary."


In my time I've been on a 28.8 phone line, and experienced the AOL massive disconnect policy of traffic management.  I've seen cheap high speed connections in Germany, in the small town of Luebeck.  I've also seen decently priced 100/20 cable lines in areas surrounding decent sized cities.

The only rhyme and reason to the internet being as expensive as it is in the US is that nobody is investing in it.  The telecoms are happy to offer faster plans, but instead of adding capacity they price faster plans so that fewer people pay for them.  So you've got an idea, Charter is my provider.  Their plans are:
104.99: 100/20
69.99: 50/15
39.99: 30/10
19.99: 10/10

The prices change if you bundle with other crap, but the price for decent TV service (Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, FX, and a few others) and basic internet is about the same as the upper tier internet packages.  That's before the "deal" rates stop applying, and your bill can nearly double for no apparent reason.



Edit:

To the OP, faster is better until you reach a minimum quality level.  That minimum quality is dictated by how much data is being pumped through, and how acceptable variable rates are.  If you've got a lot of devices then pay more to get better service.  If it's just a few devices save the money, and know that any large downloads may take a while.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Aug 20, 2014)

I was used to 65/5 internet. Now I'm on 3/1 and it hurts to try and watch YouTube above 480p.


----------



## n0tiert (Aug 20, 2014)

25/5 Mbit IPTV, National Phone Flat 34 Euro

If I watch HD IPTV , the Line still has enough juice to download and play BF4


----------



## v12dock (Aug 20, 2014)

The only reason I upgraded my connect we to increase my bandwidth cap. I was using a 50/5 with 350gb per month but I reached the cap in 13 days. Fortunately my ISP was able upgrade me to 150/20 with 2TB per month for an extra $10 per month. Unfortunately my ISP is having massive issues with speeds during the day. The only reason I think they are offering it so cheap is because they are building fiber 300/300 in my area.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 20, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm torn here, because the US is a special case.  Of the contiguous 48, there are huge tracts of land where the population density declines to functionally zero (looking at you Iowa).


 Yep, Iowa is barren............. unlike Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, and a few other states.


----------



## xvi (Aug 20, 2014)

From a WISP standpoint, point to multipoint shots typically do considerably less upload than what they can do download. Uploads also take airtime that could be used for downloads. WISPs typically limit upload to minimize the impact to the network. We allow symmetrical speeds because we're occasionally stupid.


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 21, 2014)

KS is flat yet they have google fiber


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 21, 2014)

Steevo said:


> Yep, Iowa is barren............. unlike Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, and a few other states.
> 
> View attachment 58585
> View attachment 58584



Not sure if being sarcastic...


At any rate, I spent a good chunk of life in the Midwest.  North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa were all functionally barren with minor exceptions.  As the southwest isn't somewhere I have a lot of experience with, I failed to include it in my commentary.  Either way, the point still stands.  Vast tracts of the US are functionally devoid of population.  Getting a telecom to lay ten miles of copper cable so that farmer Bill can have cheap high speed internet isn't going to happen, because profits are the key goal.

ISPs exist as companies, so seeking profit isn't unreasonable.  What is unreasonable is that whenever government finally steps in the ISPs cry foul, and try and stop them from building infrastructure.  What we really need is an FCC that does something beyond fining broadcast networks for their use of "improper" language.  What we actually get is an ineffectual relic from the age of black and white TV.


----------



## Chitz (Aug 21, 2014)

currently i am using fastest modem available here with most expensive plan there is , my speeds are around 200KB/sec 300ping and 20gb data limit , simply not enough for my work , doing that  20gb plan again and again it all comes down to 180$ month i would legitimately pay even more if there was anything faster better , but well NO


----------



## Steevo (Aug 21, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Not sure if being sarcastic...
> 
> 
> At any rate, I spent a good chunk of life in the Midwest.  North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa were all functionally barren with minor exceptions.  As the southwest isn't somewhere I have a lot of experience with, I failed to include it in my commentary.  Either way, the point still stands.  Vast tracts of the US are functionally devoid of population.  Getting a telecom to lay ten miles of copper cable so that farmer Bill can have cheap high speed internet isn't going to happen, because profits are the key goal.
> ...


A bit, and just continued commentary about the millions of dollars we the US taxpayers have given to telecoms to provide last mile service, and then when it comes down to it, they provide shoddy service. 

Phone lines are fine for DSL use even long distances, we solved the issues with them long ago, and it comes down to replacing the load coils in the line with modern versions and or moving the line to digital and using the spectrum available, however asking a telco to do this is like asking the Pope to give satan a handjob and enjoy it. It breaks their whole ideas of being a telco down to merely providing a data service and not meeting the industry standards of the bloated rotten whale carcass it is. 

Also considering the number and distance to fiber backbone for even remote areas of the US there is no reason other than self implemented "standards" that restrict users that rural people shouldn't have at last 5Mb service.


----------



## xvi (Aug 21, 2014)

Currently paying Frontier $30 a month (I think?) for 1.5/384 DSL service. We begged them for more (a technician physically came out and told us the modem would negotiate at 3Mbps, confirmed by our current modem), but they insist that's the most our system is provisioned for, despite their field tech saying the link was capable of more and the sales guy more than happy to sell it to us.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 21, 2014)

XSI said:


> first i'm sorry you have such high prices for low speeds. i pay 15$ for 100/100Mbps for 25$ we can have 500/500mbps or even 1Gbps. ~30$.for my needs 100/100 is ok. 7GB file download in 10-12minutes. if you going for 40-50GB files takes about 2hours. (would love to have it faster) of course for browsing or even youtube 1080p videos its absolutely enough, for gaming bandwith is good but ping just about average.don't forget 4K videos is coming.like everything it depends on your needs.


Holy shit that's cheap. I'm paying $92 a month for 50/2 lol


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 21, 2014)

All you guys are talking about 50mbs for like $30 and I'm here with 10/1(closer to 5/1 most days) for $56.73 a month   I say go for the 30mbs down option, give you the speed when you need it, and won't make you frustrated if multiple people in your home are streaming/skyping


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 22, 2014)

Att uverse is moving away from pots



Steevo said:


> A bit, and just continued commentary about the millions of dollars we the US taxpayers have given to telecoms to provide last mile service, and then when it comes down to it, they provide shoddy service.
> 
> Phone lines are fine for DSL use even long distances, we solved the issues with them long ago, and it comes down to replacing the load coils in the line with modern versions and or moving the line to digital and using the spectrum available, however asking a telco to do this is like asking the Pope to give satan a handjob and enjoy it. It breaks their whole ideas of being a telco down to merely providing a data service and not meeting the industry standards of the bloated rotten whale carcass it is.
> 
> Also considering the number and distance to fiber backbone for even remote areas of the US there is no reason other than self implemented "standards" that restrict users that rural people shouldn't have at last 5Mb service.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 22, 2014)

a_ump said:


> *Higher high speed internet overrated/unnecessary?*




I dunno.... Is it LOLOL


----------



## Jetster (Aug 22, 2014)

Exactly. No its not. We are finally at a point where you don't have to play the waiting game


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 22, 2014)

brandonwh64 said:


> I dunno.... Is it LOLOL



Considering you work for an ISP, I think they need the bandwidth. 


fullinfusion said:


> Holy shit that's cheap. I'm paying $92 a month for 50/2 lol


That's about what I pay for this.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 23, 2014)

To a few posts with low internet speed, the FCC apparently made a definition of 4mbps down is minimum for broadband.  So i wonder if your internet is advertised as broadband but you don't get that if there's something legal you can do about it.  

Also is it foreigners to the US that have bandwidth caps? I've lived mainly in WV and OH and i've never once ran into a company that had a bandwidth cap.


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 24, 2014)

What part of WV and OH you lived in?


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 24, 2014)

a_ump said:


> To a few posts with low internet speed, the FCC apparently made a definition of 4mbps down is minimum for broadband.  So i wonder if your internet is advertised as broadband but you don't get that if there's something legal you can do about it.
> 
> Also is it foreigners to the US that have bandwidth caps? I've lived mainly in WV and OH and i've never once ran into a company that had a bandwidth cap.


Bandwidth and latency also depends a lot on how far away you are from the server with respect to router hops. The further, distance wise, you are from a server, the much more likely that you won't get your maximum download speed for people with more than 100Mbps download. Only occasionally will I realize a my full download speed on a single download.

What the high speed internet is helpful for is when my wife if watching HD streaming video while I'm working and downloading stuff. If you can't saturate your download, your latency isn't going to get that much worse when the internet is "being used", even if my network usage is using 80Mbps out of 119Mbps. The same occurs with upload, but in reality, consumers tend to use a lot more download than upload.

Lastly, Comcast used to have a "bandwidth cap" but first they stopped enforcing it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 25, 2014)

The equipment on the other end must be able to sync with your connection speed too


----------



## Guitar (Aug 30, 2014)

$45 for this.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 31, 2014)

Guitarrassdeamor said:


> $45 for this.



Do you have tv svc?


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2014)

I wish i could even get the damn optic connection. Instead i'm stuck with max 8/1. Which means uploading a short 1080p video made with a phone takes freakin ages to upload. With optics i'd have 10/10 connection as minimum, now that would be much more bearable.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 31, 2014)

RejZoR said:


> I wish i could even get the damn optic connection. Instead i'm stuck with max 8/1. Which means uploading a short 1080p video made with a phone takes freakin ages to upload. With optics i'd have 10/10 connection as minimum, now that would be much more bearable.



Fiber to the premesis for Att/Verizon is in certain neighborhoods built within last 10 years. Fttp homes are PON-Passive Optical network which use ONT- Optical Network Terminal- which are bigger than regular phone boxes near the power meter of the home. These homes normally have cat 5 running from it to attic or a network/telephone panel in a closet in a home with cat 5 going to telephone/ethernet jacks in the home. If you have a home built in those areas, you better have outdoor grade cat5 ethernet and 2 rg6 grade coax home runs going from where the power and phone box is to a network smart panel. Each room I'd suggest 2-4 ethernet jacks with 2 outdoor grade cat5 lines and 2 rg6 coax lines in each jack in each room where you might have tv/desktop computers/wifi routers/switches running and all routed to the same network smart panel in the home. Same applies to Areas that are fiber to the node-copper to the home. Older homes tend to need home runs ran.


----------



## Guitar (Aug 31, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Do you have tv svc?


Internet only.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 31, 2014)

Id take a look at the orange coax line by the phonebox/power meter of your home and see if there is a splitter there or up in your attic.

Any non terminated coax can pick up rf, if they are  hooked into a splitter along with your modem that rf can affect the signal integrity and make you drop speed. Iirc comcast hsia profiles are 25/50 and probably more than that. you could be with in their threshold of 25 meg and they wouldnt care.

If you find splitters id replace them with high frequency barrels and tighten them with 7/16 wrenches to make your line straight dedicated from the orange line to the tv jack where your modem is. Id replace the tv jack with high freq tv jack too. When we use coax in a home its gotta be rg6 and change all crimp on f connectors or connectors that are not seated properly.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Aug 31, 2014)

paid 30 usd for 90/90 mbps, tv and ip phone. think this is what they can offer for home use. i dont know if they have more speed but fornow, seems ok for my needs


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 31, 2014)

night.fox said:


> paid 30 usd for 90/90 mbps, tv and ip phone. think this is what they can offer for home use. i dont know if they have more speed but fornow, seems ok for my needs


 6Mbps is plenty for gaming/Data Transfer.


----------



## newconroer (Aug 31, 2014)

I noticed people started comparing their monthly costs for varying service levels. For some perspective from European side of things(and keep in mind this is outside of the UK) - several countries offer symmetrical(is that what they call it?) 1Gbps or '1000/1000Mbit' services for as little as 25 Euros, which is $32 and £20.
Assuming you could get a good connection sync and have little overhead, 1Gbps down would be roughly 7.5GB/m and 450 GB/h. That's almost half a terabyte in an hour!

You may not NEED to, but being able to download ten copies of Wolfenstein : New Order from Steam in an hour is impressive. Maybe more impressive yet, is downloading one copy of it in six minutes.

Insane.

EDIT: Article here about increasing speeds discovered over copper for those areas that won't get full fibre.

http://www.itp.net/598992-bell-labs-claims-10gbps-over-copper-telephone-line


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2014)

Copper is no problem. It's the range that's killing the speeds. You can already get very high speeds from copper lines, but you have to basically live next door to a connection station.


----------



## newconroer (Aug 31, 2014)

True, though think they're trying to address that issue. Maybe the article in particular wasn't a good example.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 31, 2014)

RejZoR said:


> Copper is no problem. It's the range that's killing the speeds. You can already get very high speeds from copper lines, but you have to basically live next door to a connection station.



...and when they keep bumping speeds like this, they're making each node handle fewer clients opening the way for more channels to be dedicated to individual clients. I have a feeling that HFC isn't going anywhere any time soon as it can easily handle 300Mbps or more downstream with current 8 channel DOCSIS 3.0 modems. Also, Comcast offers 505Mbit/100Mbit which is FTTP, but it costs 400 USD a month IIRC and you get locked into a contract for 3 or 4 years.


----------



## newconroer (Aug 31, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> ...and when they keep bumping speeds like this, they're making each node handle fewer clients opening the way for more channels to be dedicated to individual clients. I have a feeling that HFC isn't going anywhere any time soon as it can easily handle 300Mbps or more downstream with current 8 channel DOCSIS 3.0 modems. Also, Comcast offers 505Mbit/100Mbit which is FTTP, but it costs 400 USD a month IIRC and you get locked into a contract for 3 or 4 years.


That's crazy price for FFTP. Surely that's not the cost in dense residential areas?


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 1, 2014)

newconroer said:


> That's crazy price for FFTP. Surely that's not the cost in dense residential areas?


No, there is only one plan with their FTTP though. It's something I would like to have (as it is available in my area,) however the cost is incredibly prohibitive. I think 125 USD a month would be reasonable for a service like that, not 400.
http://www.comcast.com/505


			
				Comcast said:
			
		

> Get the fastest Internet in your house for $399.95 a month.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Atts Rates stay the same whether fttp or fttn, over copper youre pretty limited on speed range- 1.5 goes the furthest on single pair, 24 goes the shortest on single pair, if youre at 3000 ft on single hsia youre best off with 12 when tvs are on it too. bonded at 3000+ ft can obtain 18, 45 meg on bonded goes up to only 1200 ft (if the line is perfect with the balance being perfect without a bridgetap). fiber can reach 1Gbit-10+Gbit if the rgs support it, but the connection from the ont is 2pair ethernet(white green 1,2;white orange 3,6) or 4 pair ethernet.

ive seen bonded reach 5471 ft loop on both pairs and have 18megs with no trouble.




Aquinus said:


> ...and when they keep bumping speeds like this, they're making each node handle fewer clients opening the way for more channels to be dedicated to individual clients. I have a feeling that HFC isn't going anywhere any time soon as it can easily handle 300Mbps or more downstream with current 8 channel DOCSIS 3.0 modems. Also, Comcast offers 505Mbit/100Mbit which is FTTP, but it costs 400 USD a month IIRC and you get locked into a contract for 3 or 4 years.


----------



## newconroer (Sep 1, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> No, there is only one plan with their FTTP though. It's something I would like to have (as it is available in my area,) however the cost is incredibly prohibitive. I think 125 USD a month would be reasonable for a service like that, not 400.
> http://www.comcast.com/505


I wonder how competitive that is versus other ISPs around the country or whether Americans realize how cheap Europeans get even faster service.
I remember having Comcast 'cable' back in the day and the best that did was like 768kb/s haha.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 1, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Atts Rates stay the same whether fttp or fttn, over copper youre pretty limited on speed range- 1.5 goes the furthest on single pair, 24 goes the shortest on single pair, if youre at 3000 ft on single hsia youre best off with 12 when tvs are on it too. bonded at 3000+ ft can obtain 18, 45 meg on bonded goes up to only 1200 ft (if the line is perfect with the balance being perfect without a bridgetap). fiber can reach 1Gbit-10+Gbit if the rgs support it, but the connection from the ont is 2pair ethernet(white green 1,2;white orange 3,6) or 4 pair ethernet.
> 
> ive seen bonded reach 5471 ft loop on both pairs and have 18megs with no trouble.



If I take a walk in my neighborhood, I'll see nodes a lot closer than that. I don't know about where you live, but nodes are relatively plentiful and they're never very far away and if you keep walking down the road, it isn't long until you find another one. So the simple fact is if there are fewer customers per node you can uses more channels per node to offer that extra speed and since the infrastructure is already there, it's a relatively cheap investment versus running FTTP where the only real benefit is reducing latency due to copper by ~8ms or so (at least for me). As I said earlier though, 119Mbit down is more than enough and 11mbit up is fine. I should also note that my service hasn't slowed down all year, it's been excellent, which is a rare thing to say about Comcast.



newconroer said:


> I wonder how competitive that is versus other ISPs around the country or whether Americans realize how cheap Europeans get even faster service.
> I remember having Comcast 'cable' back in the day and the best that did was like 768kb/s haha.


I think that they're just trying to discourage it and they're only doing it when DOCSIS 3.0 isn't enough. People with money want the best, so they make them pay for it. It's not like many people actually need that (505Mbit fiber that is).

Also I don't remember having less than 5mbit down with Comcast, even a decade ago. Maybe it was just the plan I was on, I'm sure they had a cheap economy plan at the time that was like that though. 768k sounds a lot more like DSL than cable at the time.


----------



## Seany1212 (Sep 1, 2014)

I live in a high population density area of the UK and recently upgraded my connection to 10/100 Mbps for about $50 from 10/60 Mbps. While there is an alternate package available of 15/152 Mbps (Virgin Media) available it doesn't seem justified for the extra $20 cost. 

In response to OP's question i think high speed internet is overrated or unnecessary only when you're not maximizing the bandwidth you already receive, going up from 10/60 to 10/100 was only due to it being a free upgrade and showed no noticeable difference when i'm just browsing/watching youtube videos/online gaming/etc. (not having to wait for buffering when streaming video is great but becomes kind of pointless when the whole video caches faster than you can watch it.) and you only really notice a difference when it comes to downloading sizable files such as steam updates/games.

I think in time as data demand grows people will probably be laughing at 100 Mbps connections while they're streaming their 4K video on their 10 Gbps connections but whether it's overrated having that bandwidth available comes down to the individual and their needs, if you get by just fine on 2 Mbps right now then higher speeds are probably unnecessary and overrated but you're always going to get those who wave an e-peen at the fact they have 1 Gbps connection and probably only use it to it's maximum less than 10% of their day.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 1, 2014)

Seany1212 said:


> I think in time as data demand grows people will probably be laughing at 100 Mbps connections while they're streaming their 4K video on their 10 Gbps connections but whether it's overrated having that bandwidth available comes down to the individual and their needs, if you get by just fine on 2 Mbps right now then higher speeds are probably unnecessary and overrated but you're always going to get those who wave an e-peen at the fact they have 1 Gbps connection and probably only use it to it's maximum less than 10% of their day.



You can stream 1080p over 100Mbps, I think you can even get away with 30Mbps for 1080p Netflix, but in reality, not many applications (including video) will require more. 10Gbps on copper (Cat6) exists and you can get a NIC that does it, the problem with getting it to become mainstream is that there is no need for it. I suspect it will take another decade until we start seeing 100Mbit being typical and 1Gbps being affordable, at least here in the US of A. I could be wrong but I don't see 10Gbps becoming normal for a home network anytime soon. Honestly, with respect to responsiveness and getting stuff done, my in-law's 28Mbit Comcast connection isn't any "faster" (latency wise) than my 119Mbit Comcast connection and even if the round trip latency was less than 14ms, it still wouldn't make much difference.

All in all, I don't see a huge push so I don't think it will improve that quickly. It hasn't in the past and I doubt it will now, at least in my region.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 3, 2014)

More important is also connection limit. Many offer ridiculous speeds for tiny prices just until you realize there is a fine print in terms of "fair use" terms. Monthly bandwidth, lower priority over day and other similar nonsense. I might only have 10/1 connection now, but it's truly unconditionally unlimited. I can download and upload at those speeds 24/7, 365 days a year. There is no problem offering 100Mbit connections for tiny price if over 50% of the time you don't really get what it says on your package card.


----------



## JUSTIN1982 (Sep 9, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I wouldn't change it unless it changes the upload.  Then again, there's a whole lot of stuff I would like to be hosting but can't because of my pathetic upload.
> 
> @XSI: telecommunications in the USA is a sham.


what part iof iowa


----------

