[HN Gopher] My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home
___________________________________________________________________
My upgrade to 25 Gbit/s Fiber To The Home
Author : secure
Score : 534 points
Date : 2022-04-23 14:25 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (michael.stapelberg.ch)
(TXT) w3m dump (michael.stapelberg.ch)
| 101008 wrote:
| Stupid question, but if your hard drive cannot write 25Gbit/s _,
| how is it handled?
|
| _ I don 't knwo anything about SSD so maybe 25Gbit/s is easily
| achievable, just talking from my experience of copying from a USB
| Drive to my local disk.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Hard drives don't go anywhere close, but SSD do. What is
| important to understand is that 25 Gbps Internet does not mean
| you copy from a server on Internet to your local SSD at that
| speed, that 25 Gbps is just the connection between your router
| and the ISP. On your side you may have multiple computers, on
| the ISP there are multiple peerings with other networks, you
| may reach and aggregate bandwidth of 25 Gbps but not really a
| point to point one, so your SSD performance is not the top
| factor.
| xmaayy wrote:
| You'd need raid SSD's or a sizeable RAM disk to make sustained
| use of it. Very few SSD's support full 25GB/s
| Bud wrote:
| The fastest internal SSD in a Mac now can write at 3.3GB/sec,
| so it would be able to keep up with 25Gbps connections, barely.
|
| Average SSD write speeds are usually around 1GB/sec these days,
| but most folks could build a RAID of several SSDs and be able
| to keep up with such a connection, as well.
|
| I would also assume that most folks who would bother to install
| 25Gbps, or anything close, probably have a lot of devices in
| their homes to take advantage of it at once.
|
| Personally, I find it very hard to saturate the 1Gbps link I
| have. Most servers won't push more than around 200Mbps out to
| you, and I'm basically never doing 5 tasks at once that are
| that bandwidth-intensive. But it's nice to have some overhead,
| just for fun.
| moondev wrote:
| I believe the transfer will simply be bottlenecked, like
| running a raspberry pi from an sd card.
|
| To fully utilize the connection you can use storage backed by
| memory. For example ESXi allows you to back a vm by a "virtual
| pmem" disk that uses a chunk of your host system dram
| dereknance wrote:
| I would imagine an NVMe SSD would be capable of handling most,
| if not all, of that throughput for sequential reads and writes.
| Youden wrote:
| Modern SSDs can handle it: 25Gbps is ~3GB/s, which you can do
| with a PCIe 3.0 NVMe SSD. PCI 4.0 NVMe SSDs can do 5.1GB/s, or
| ~41Gbps.
| Lammy wrote:
| I've had great results sticking a single Optane NVME drive in
| front of my 8x8GB array of spinning rust via ZFS's built-in
| cache facility. I'm only doing write caching and only using
| 32GiB of my much larger drive (I forget exactly how large lol).
| That was my comfort zone for how much data I'm willing to lose
| if something very bad happens to the NAS during a write, and I
| like giving it a bunch of spare flash space for wear-leveling.
|
| https://www.servethehome.com/exploring-best-zfs-zil-slog-ssd...
| is several years old but still a good read.
| machineleaning wrote:
| I don't get the "lack of use case" comments. There is no use case
| TODAY. But what does having 25Gbit fiber enable to be built
| TOMORROW? Shared photorealistic VR spaces immediately come to
| mind.
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| Exactly, I'm wondering the same thing. Like, who cares "why".
| The same reason Android supports a USB mouse. We build it
| because we can.
|
| Now if they can lower the cost of the network equipment that
| would be ideal.
| gentleman11 wrote:
| When we got fiber, our internet didn't speed up. We just saw a
| monthly rate increase. The providers here throttle it so
| significantly that there isn't any benefit, not even for upload.
| The plans that cost an extra $150 per month have far higher
| limits but that's insane
| judge2020 wrote:
| What provider?
| gentleman11 wrote:
| Shaw in canada. Maybe Telus is better, I'm not sure
| FredPret wrote:
| Ah, Shaw. What a scourge. I wish we could get more
| competition in the market here
| CamJN wrote:
| I'm on telus fibre, it's only fast within telus' local
| network because their peering is SHIT. So unless all you're
| going to do is speedtest all day long telus isn't going to
| help you.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| Nope :(
| mrstone wrote:
| I'm on Telus gigabit fibre, for $69/mo. I've never once had
| issues with throttling, even when I was on Shaw (the
| 300mbps plan). What kind of throttling are you getting and
| in what use cases?
| GaelFG wrote:
| Which country if it not indiscreet ? I know internet access
| quality vary a lot between countries and I'm curious.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Canada us always a safe bet for extraordinarily bad internet
| speed, connection reliability and price. In my experience,
| our ISPs would make Comcast look like saints. (I'm looking at
| you, Bell)
| explaingarlic wrote:
| I'm far from an expert on L3-L2 ISPs and their tech, but they
| usually rent the line from whoever owns it and then sell it
| back to you - then they cap the speed between you and the box.
|
| It's most likely an operational mistake - have you called and
| asked for them to nuke the line and then set it up again?
|
| Or are you saying that you are getting your advertised speeds,
| and those just didn't go up when you "got fiber"?
|
| Don't know which one is more worrying if true, to be honest.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm sure there are a lot of other bottlenecks as well. I have a
| pretty run of the mill mid-tier cable plan for $100/month in
| the US and, assuming it's working like it's supposed to, I've
| pretty much never been on another connection anywhere including
| in company offices that made me go "This is so much faster than
| at home."
| hdhdjdjd wrote:
| [deleted]
| rdevsrex wrote:
| Ok, I knew I wanted to move to Switzerland, but now it's official
| :) Fortunately, my wife is from there, but we always lived in
| other countries. Hot Damn.
| thelittleone wrote:
| Wow... I remember frothing over the 128k ISDN at my office in the
| 90s.
|
| For perspective, an 8k video stream requires ~40-50Mbps[1].
| Theoretically, 25Gbps is sufficient to stream ~500 * 8k streams
| concurrently.
|
| [1] https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Short-
| Cuts...
| LinuxBender wrote:
| 25gb/s is nice. I am envious of locations that have a modern
| local fiber network and more options.
|
| My 2 fiber connections are 500mb/s and each cost $350 to
| activate, $150/mo each not counting the costs for static IP's.
| Trenching it in was $3k. I'm more than happy with 500mb but the
| price could be lower. For my specific use cases it is less about
| bandwidth and more about latency/peering arrangements. I would
| personally be happy splitting as low as 100mb/s across many
| devices with fq_codel or cake and cdg on my little firewalls. I
| can't really complain though. The alternatives here are 4G LTE or
| Starlink.
| andrecarini wrote:
| As someone shopping around for a FTTH offering (to get out of my
| current DOCSIS plan) how can I figure out which routers are
| compatible with the ISP's GPON?
|
| I've had phone calls with them and the support/sales reps have no
| idea. They provide their own router+AP box that takes the fiber
| and spits out WiFi and Ethernet, but how would I go about
| replacing that? Their hardware is obsolete, insecure, outdated
| and just all-around poor! I know I could set it to bridge and
| place my own router in between, but I'd love to just replace
| their box instead.
|
| As far as I could figure out on my own, the best bet would be
| getting a EdgeRouter X SFP and then plugging in a compatible SFP
| module. Is that right? How would one figure out which SFP module
| to buy?
|
| On top of all that: do ISPs run proprietary handshake stuff on
| top of it, where even if the physical connection is correct, the
| ISP refuses working with your box? or is it just like the old
| ADSL days when all you needed was just a PPPoE stack?
| kruptos wrote:
| At my ISP we offer XGSPON/GPON and we have to use our equipment
| for the ONT (In our case Adtran). We have adtran specific
| handshake stuff that we have to manage. Your ISP might offer to
| just use their ONT and put it in bridged mode so you can use
| your own router/ap.
|
| There are ONT SFPs that contain everything you need to connect
| back to the OLT. Maybe you can ask your ISP if that is
| supported?
| JaggerJo wrote:
| Meanwhile in Germany the fastest connection is 100 MBit down.. 20
| up
| cm2187 wrote:
| Not convinced by the use case section. Very few servers will
| allow you a full 25gbit download, let alone anything more than a
| 1gbit (and often less). And if you own the server on the other
| end, that sort of bandwidth comes at a cost.
|
| I think beyond 1gbit, the benefit become super marginal and the
| hardware expensive.
| Salgat wrote:
| Agreed. A 25gbps download will fill an 8TB HDD in 47 minutes,
| so how much are you going to actually utilize that full
| bandwidth? Not that any webhost will ever give you even
| remotely that much bandwidth. I'm on 1gbps fiber and I've never
| saturated my connected. That would require 40 simultaneous 4K
| streams going at the same time in my house.
| quacker wrote:
| I'm wondering: is my storage fast enough to write at 25 Gb/s?
|
| SATA drives max at 6 Gb/s, and probably a bit worse than that
| in practice.
|
| M.2 NVMe SSDs can reach 25+ Gb/s on sequential writes. Maybe
| I could overclock these to squeeze a bit more out too.
| Although, an 8TB M.2 drive will cost over $1k for now.
|
| I suppose there's also RAID. Although, I'm not sure what
| other limits/gotchas I'd run into there.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| If you run a large scale Plex server I could see the 25Gbps
| coming in handy. Most 4K movies (Native Blu-ray rips, not the
| low bitrate renditions you get on streaming services) run about
| 50-100Mbps. That would let you stream to 200+ people at once,
| and have overhead for other things.
| rektide wrote:
| > _I think beyond 1gbit, the benefit become super marginal and
| the hardware expensive_
|
| Is it expensive though? We spend how much of our lives online.
| How much do you think this all-spanning life upgrade costs?
| What is the price of never ever dealing with buffer-bloat? Take
| a guess.
|
| I calculate it as a one time $356 cost plus labor. You might
| have paid more for your wifi system. 128 port 25gbe switches
| are around $20k ($156/port). Transcievers are under $100 and
| you need one on both ends. For a lot of already deployed fiber,
| this is a drop in replacement. This is absurdly cheap. Given
| how cheap this is it's an obvious & enthusiastic heck yes. Who
| wouldnt throw down $356 right now to get 25Gbe for life?
|
| Cost gets a bit more complicated when it comes to the POPs &
| their uplink. Subscribers are going to be way oversubscribed
| even with some fairly expensive 100Gb uplinks. As you get
| further from an exchange the difficulty grows geometrically
| (because pops become.further hops away from the ix). Peering
| needs to be bigger too, as does transit (but ask whether the
| net volume of traffic grows elastically or not), which has
| costs. But I think we need to frame this question a bit better,
| of whether it's "worth" upgrading. Honestly costs are so low it
| doesnt make sense not to; the rest of the world is just milking
| us, bilking us, charging what the market will bear, protecting
| it's profit centers, and this company init7 is doing what makes
| financial sense for the consumer. Donwe need all that? Maybe
| maybe not. Should we settle for less? There's almost no
| financial case when the hardware is so so so very cheap. This
| tech sounds magical but 25Gbe is not exotic, not extreme
| technology; "the future is already here, it's just not evenly
| distributed yet".
| powersnail wrote:
| A significant part of my life is online, indeed, but 99% of
| the time, bandwidth is a nonissue. Latency, very important.
| Bandwidth, not so much. I haven't experienced any bandwidth
| related internet problem in the past ten years, and that's
| moving from apartment to apartment, from hotel to hotel, from
| airport to airport.
|
| Don't get me wrong. I'm very much in favor of this upgrade. I
| just don't think it's going to be an everyday quality-of-life
| improvement for most people. It's more about providing a
| service for people with special needs, and future-proofing
| the infrastructure.
| klabb3 wrote:
| > 99% of the time, bandwidth is a nonissue. Latency, very
| important
|
| Indeed. And I'm speaking as someone who downloads most
| visual media before I watch it, so bandwidth matters to me.
| But not that much. With 100-200 Mbit/s I am good.
|
| Cookie prompts, newsletter pop-ups, scrolljacking and ads
| constitutes the majority of wasted time for me, by a long
| shot. Latency to sites in other parts of the world can
| cause problems sometimes, since number of round trips can
| be quite high with TLS neg + progressively loaded content.
| vetinari wrote:
| The calculation works only if each customer has their own
| fiber.
|
| Unfortunately for most (consumer) FTTH deployments, that's
| not the case. Most of them are GPON, where the initial
| deployment was more effective, as up to 64 of your customers
| share single fiber, but then that means all of them have to
| upgrade all 64 of them at the same time, you cannot do them
| one at the time (see also the speed of XG-PON upgrades).
|
| Additionally, many providers forced use of their CPEs. If you
| can send out SFP module and the customers can put it into
| whatever they want, it is much simpler, as replacing CPEs for
| all the customers on that fiber.
| dahfizz wrote:
| It sounds like you're just taking about cost for the ISP to
| upgrade.
|
| To actually realize your faster speeds, you need to spend
| thousands of dollars yourself on new switches and NICs. And
| then, as mentioned, the benefits are marginal. You would have
| to be streaming 10+ 4K movies at once to even "need" gigabit,
| let alone 25Gbps.
| rektide wrote:
| Wifi 7 is expected to be capable of 30-40Gbps. A dual port
| nic can be had under $200. Currently low/medium port count
| equipment has no demand, but perhaps the wifi7 world or
| pressure like init7 generates can make more visible &
| obvious the market demand. For anyone setting up today, do
| what I did: (used byt plentifully available) 18 port 40Gbps
| infiniband switch for $150, nics for $100.
|
| I semi agree that I dont think we know what this is for.
| Never ever having buffer bloat is a tempting first ask.
| Connectivity is more than the sum of throughputs, as your
| figures imply- there's questions of availability too.
|
| Being able to access each other's systems at near local
| speeds sounds quite compelling, could help jumpstart post-
| Big Social computing. You talk about netflix streams, but
| those are heavily compressed with the best offline encoding
| on the planet: if i just want to open Steam Remote Play
| Together & share realtime 4K with a friend, I'd need a lot
| more throughput since I have much much _much_ less
| efficiemt encoding. If i wanted Remote Play Together with 3
| friends, well, that figures goes up. If my family member
| also wants to do the same, now we 're using a lot or maybe
| all the throughput & we're starting to have some contested
| bandwidth, some rising latencies.
|
| The truth is somewhere between. Rationalizing ourselves
| down to what sounds sensible today, to me, is a cruel
| trick, is not just path dependency but an ideology that
| believes only in what we have & can see now, & refuses
| exploration & trying. To me the world & tech is spiritually
| fueled by why not thinking, by deciding to opt for the
| extra thats within reach.
|
| Forgoing a cheap (still less than the price of a nice tv,
| by far), available one-time purchase option that vaults us
| into near-local connevtivity caliber with the world is
| still a lock in my book.
| iso1210 wrote:
| A router with a 25G uplink and a bunch of 10G sfp slots
| will set you back $600
|
| There's benefits to 25G (certainly when transporting 4K
| video around which needs more than a 10G nic), whether
| that's worthwhile for a typical home is likely "no", so
| unless you've got hundereds of employees in an office it
| doesn't feel very useful.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| It's just marketing at this point. It's a best effort service,
| and with the current tech the overselling is becoming crazy.
| Youden wrote:
| I have the same internet provider and package. While 25Gbps is
| indeed basically unattainable to anything other than Init7's
| speedtest server, it's easy to exceed 1Gbps.
|
| Software and driver updates exceed 1Gbps all the time, as do
| game updates/downloads through Steam.
|
| Piracy also works really well. Downloading copyrighted media is
| perfectly legal in Switzerland and I was able to get ~7Gbps
| real-world speeds from Usenet without too much hassle.
|
| It's also really handy for things like backups. As of writing,
| bandwidth to a Hetzner cloud server is ~5Gbps up/down with
| iPerf3.
|
| I do agree that 25Gbps is more overkill/bragging rights than it
| is real utility but I think 10Gbps is an easy sell.
|
| Keep in mind that there is no change at all to the monthly
| price of your internet by choosing these higher speeds. 10Gbps
| has the same monthly and setup costs as 1Gbps, you only have to
| pay a bit extra for hardware capable of dealing with 10Gbps,
| which is pretty affordable.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| Also with init7, very happy with my 1Gbps line. I'd probably
| even take a 300Mbps if it was half the price. Even with
| gigabit LAN I don't saturate the line more than a few seconds
| a day on things like updates, and anything from my RPi NAS
| isn't going to saturate it anyways.
|
| Please note too, piracy is _not_ legal in Switzerland. What
| is illegal is the spying and tracking which would be
| necessary to build a case and prosecute pirates. Technically
| you could still self-incriminate if you documented all of
| your piracy, with proof, and published it online.
| Youden wrote:
| Downloading is legal in Switzerland. For a nice
| authoritative source, here's the Swiss Federal Institute
| for Intellectual Property (part of the Department of
| Justice and Police)[0]: "Downloading copyright-protected
| works for private use is permitted in Switzerland (Art. 19
| CopA)."
|
| The mentioned legal basis is [1].
|
| Note that this applies strictly to downloading though.
| Participating in a torrent swarm (where uploading is also
| happening) is not permitted. That's where the technicality
| you mention comes in: until recently, it was illegal to
| monitor internet users for copyright enforcement purposes,
| which meant it was illegal to monitor a torrent swarm,
| which meant you could somewhat safely seed torrents,
| despite it being illegal.
|
| That loophole was recently removed however.
|
| [0]: https://www.ige.ch/en/intellectual-
| property/counterfeiting-a...
|
| [1]: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/1798_1798_1798
| /en#ar...
| underlines wrote:
| downloading anything since 1997 in Switzerland: BBS, FXP,
| IRC/XDCC then later on gnutella, DC++, torrents and one
| click hosters.
|
| De jure it's not really legal anymore since they updated
| the law... De facto nobody cares as long as you're not
| making a business out of it.
|
| Same goes for the place I live since 2016: Thailand.
|
| Though: Not pirating for professional stuff, only for
| private stuff. I still support software/media by buying
| the things I want to support.
| Youden wrote:
| > De jure it's not really legal anymore since they
| updated the law... De facto nobody cares as long as
| you're not making a business out of it.
|
| My claim was founded on authoritative sources, including
| the law itself. If you want to contradict that claim,
| you'll need to back it up.
| lawl wrote:
| > Very few servers will allow you a full 25gbit download
|
| As TFA mentions, same was the case with 1 gbit. I can confirm,
| I'm on the same ISP and was "early" to have 1gbit/s. Lots of
| servers still only had 100mbit/s links. These days I have zero
| issues saturating my 1gbit link.
|
| Give it time, now that it starts rolling out, costs will come
| down and server links will be upgraded. The usual early adopter
| stuff.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Isn't a lot of content like YouTube served from edge devices at
| your ISP, which is what you're connected to at 25?
| atonse wrote:
| But what's the value there? Even 4K high quality video is
| much less than 100mbps
| Pulcinella wrote:
| Multiple 4K streams become possible. E.g. when the whole
| family comes over for the holiday we can all ignore
| eachother in favor of 4K video streams (which have better
| resolution, color, and cinematography than the real world
| ;) )
| gh02t wrote:
| There aren't many (any?) services that are offering
| Bluray quality 4K HDR streams but even those are only 140
| mbps. I would think 1 gigabit down should cover most
| families handily, especially when you consider most
| streaming services are more like 20 mbps max.
|
| The main argument I see is "if you build it they will
| come" i.e. we won't see higher bitrates until connections
| like these are more common, but for now gigabit has even
| fairly extreme use cases for video streaming pretty well
| covered.
| mvanbaak wrote:
| No it isnt. A lot of movies have vbr, and at scenes where a
| lot is going on, bandwidth can go up to 150mbps.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Well you could build up a buffer during the less
| intensive parts right?
| [deleted]
| rektide wrote:
| why stream on demand if we have the bandwidth to just send
| the whole video in the first 100ms? this might actually
| save power; instead of back & forth back & forth with the
| service, we can transmitnthe whole thing & be done, the
| server can now go serve other people.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| I can't find it right now but I remember reading a paper
| by Cerf? (I'm not great with names) that detailed such a
| concept. If I remember it I will edit and post a link.
| mrkstu wrote:
| Because then you have to cache the whole thing to disk,
| probably SSD, and increase the wear rate there
| unnecessarily...
| charcircuit wrote:
| SSD wear rate is not a concern
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > why stream on demand if we have the bandwidth to just
| send the whole video in the first 100ms?
|
| Probably the best argument would be that many/most?
| people don't watch the whole video.
| bfz wrote:
| Even where the ports are available, 25 Gbit from a single
| address is well into the realms of looking like attack traffic
| in a wide variety of scenarios.
|
| Past even 500 Mbit I'm way more interested in latency
| considerations than raw bandwidth, and practical matters like
| how to use that bandwidth from my laptop (good luck doing 500
| mbit wireless reliably, never mind 25 Gbit!)
| vetinari wrote:
| > good luck doing 500 mbit wireless reliably
|
| Most routers and wifi adapters are crap. Buyers do rarely go
| beyond "wifi 5" or "wifi 6", and do not realize that there's
| much more.
|
| The older Apple Macbook Pros (pre-2019) came with 3x3 MIMO ac
| adapters. If you had capable AP on the other side, you could
| reliably do gigabit with them. The newer ones have only 2x2
| MIMO, just like the rest of the laptop market, so you will
| get only 600-700 Mbps (out of theoretical 866 Mbps).
|
| If you are getting 500 Mbps and there's not a concrete wall
| between your client and the AP, something is quite wrong.
| Misconfigured AP, your client cannot do multiple streams
| (yes, there were adapters like that sold on the market), or
| just older/pre-ac AP or client.
| [deleted]
| im3w1l wrote:
| I have a bandwidth in the low hundreds and it definitely
| feels excessive to me. But changing from wireless to wired
| and getting rid of those occasional latency spikes - very
| noticeable while playing games. A static ip is also something
| I would want.
| voltagex_ wrote:
| I've done 600 megabit down from an iPhone here in Australia
| on 5G, and the latency to Sydney was about 20ms.
|
| I'd still rather have gigabit fibre.
|
| The fastest I ever saw on 4G was 300 megabit down but the
| latency could be 40-80ms.
| bell-cot wrote:
| This +10. For the _vast_ majority of users, having 25Gbit /sec
| home fiber is like having a 250 MPH-capable supercar. Big, bad
| bragging rights. Token-at-best use cases.
| Thaxll wrote:
| Well you need to do some calculation first how much a single
| TCP stream can provide.
| iso1210 wrote:
| It's not 1998 any more, you've got multiple TCP streams,
| things like QUIC and other UDP based protocols, and of course
| good old fashioned window scaling which will go upto an 8gbit
| window, so as long as you've got an rtt under 300ms you'll be
| fine at 25gbit.
| Thaxll wrote:
| I thought window was pretty limited on modern OS?
| kuschku wrote:
| The useful part is that if you download steam games and your
| PS5 is updating at the same time, your video call won't even
| notice it.
|
| The realistic limits are per connection. But with 25Gbps you
| can just have multiple connections open without any of them
| ever affecting any other.
| mlyle wrote:
| > But with 25Gbps you can just have multiple connections open
| without any of them ever affecting any other.
|
| Realistically, this is pretty close to true with 2gbps
| symmetric, too. My provider seems to give me 2.2gbps in
| practice.
|
| PS5 downloads/updates are 500-600mbps in practice. Steam is
| 1.5gbps or so. Most other things-- streaming, video calling,
| etc, are under 40mbps. So, you know-- if I kick off a PS5
| download, and a steam update, and my kids are streaming and
| video calling... And my machines are backing up to the cloud
| at 1.5gbps (other direction)... and I decide to do a big apt-
| get update on a machine, maybe my steam update completes a
| couple seconds later.
|
| Of course, I want even faster... but I'm hard pressed to say
| what would be better.
| ugjka wrote:
| I put my bet that the FAAMNG edge nodes could potentially
| saturate that link unless they get bottlenecked by some disk IO
| judge2020 wrote:
| Your best bet on this is probably Google. I get full gigabit
| upload speed when uploading using Drive for Desktop (previously
| Drive File Stream).
| FpUser wrote:
| You forgetting the case where one hosts their own servers in
| the basement. Assuming that the connection is symmetric and
| offers static IP (which it does in my case but "only" for
| 1GBit/s).
|
| Some time ago PC has revolutionized the world by giving access
| to computer power to general population. This has unleashed a
| tidal wave of creativity and business.
|
| Giving the ability to host own servers to everyone can open up
| endless opportunities as well.
|
| I host some of my own servers and benefit from it greatly.
| ericd wrote:
| Yeah, I think more home connections going symmetric could
| open up big personal computing applications that haven't been
| super practical before, and make a market for easy-to-use
| personal home servers. Even just personal media streaming
| while traveling can benefit greatly from upload being boosted
| past the 10mbit up that's somewhat common among cable ISPs.
| Having a symmetric connection also removes one of the mental
| constraints that we have at the back of our minds.
|
| It's my biggest hope for internet re-decentralization.
| gilbetron wrote:
| AT&T can only do 50Mbps to my house. Three orders of magnitude
| less than this person. "Fortunately" I also have Comcast which
| does a mighty 1.2Gbps. Both suck so much.
|
| But AT&T tells me not to worry, it has fiber rolling into my
| neighborhood. I know it must be true because they've been telling
| me that for the past 5+ years!
| jonnylynchy wrote:
| On behalf of all tech-minded Americans, I would like to say... I
| hate you.
|
| I just got a notice in the mail that my ISP is "upgrading" their
| network so now I can pay $200 USD/month to get a whopping 2gbps,
| which I actually thought was pretty amazing until I read your
| post. So, thanks.
|
| In all seriousness, congrats! You made a good case for why one
| would need that much bandwidth. Also, we need to catch up here.
| :)
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| One thing most people ignore: the prices these days for many
| thing don't have a direct correlation with the cost, but with
| how much people are willing to pay. This is happen especially
| in quasi-monopoly situations, like housing and internet
| services.
|
| For example I have 3 Internet connections at home that I pay ~
| $30 in total, from 150 Mbps to 1 Gbps. I think the 1 Gbps is ~
| $12/month, it is so cheap because there are so many options and
| I can afford to keep all 3 for redundancy (1 is a 4G mobile
| data capped at 200GB/month, it works even when there is a power
| failure in the entire neighborhood).
|
| But if there is no variety of options and no competition, then
| price is high. From what I read, most ISP in USA are squeezing
| as much as they can from their clients, sometimes to ridiculous
| levels.
| mtalantikite wrote:
| Brooklyn here, my building still doesn't have fiber -- I've
| complained to the city for years! I get to pay $75/month for
| 200Mbps down, 10 Mbps up. I've been told fiber is coming for
| almost 15 years.
| neitsab wrote:
| Reading this thread, I am reminded of how cheap telco prices
| are in France: e.g. in 2020, fibre internet plans averaged
| between EUR26 and EUR28.35 (USD 28-30 at current rates) per
| month.[0]
|
| Mobile plans are also on the cheap side, to the point of being
| competitive with many third world countries (for example, I
| wasn't _that_ impressed with prices in Thailand in 2020 for
| comparable plans, only a 1-2EUR difference with what I had at
| home).
|
| This is getting to the point that I find myself often
| suggesting fellows from border countries open a line in France,
| just so that they can enjoy the "European roaming data
| envelope" that comes with most plans (i.e. several gigabytes
| are free to use from anywhere in Europe, and you can make calls
| and texts to other EU countries when abroad...) after realizing
| how expensive and suckish mobile plans are in their country
| (Belgium in this instance).
|
| [0] https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/French-news/Best-
| and...
| ornornor wrote:
| > enjoy the "European roaming data envelope"
|
| Which provider would you recommend? I remember taking a look
| a while back and the most viable option was Free, but 15.99
| EUR a month for when I need roaming 3-4 times a year seemed a
| bit excessive at 180.- per year.
| gadrev wrote:
| On the other hand, try making 10-15k/month in europe in a
| regular tech job, esp. with little experience (0-3yr).
|
| It's orders of magnitude more uncommon than doing so in the
| USA.
|
| So bring all the hate :)
| avh02 wrote:
| It's hard to do, but at least I can get fired and not worry
| about health insurance.
| nicoburns wrote:
| That's all very well if you have a tech job. If you have a
| low paid job you're utterly screwed in the US. I'd rather
| make less so my fellow citizens can live a decent life too.
| kbenson wrote:
| There are other ISPs in the states that are much more
| competitive (I work at one). Unfortunately, if you're not in a
| fairly dense area, the chances they can deliver to you is
| minimal, since building your own network is expensive.
|
| For example, we offer $40 service, and if you're in our
| historical areas that's 1Gbit symmetrical, and if you're in
| newer areas we've turned up in the last year that's 10Gbit
| symmetrical.
|
| We're expanding (as I expect most ISPs that can undercut the
| major players that much are), but it requires actually
| stringing fiber through neighborhoods on poles, so it takes a
| while (but that can be scaled...).
|
| If you don't have telephone poles, it's much harder/more
| expensive to build out an area, so often those are skipped (at
| least initially) as areas cheaper to deliver to are
| prioritized. The is unfortunately a lot of new development, as
| they'll build neighborhood with underground utilities and pre-
| wire AT&T and Comcast, making it hard for others to deliver to
| the area without a lot of cost and work (trenching).
| hedora wrote:
| I have a sometimes 12mbit connection, but there's a Fiber POP
| about 1 mile down the road. There are phone poles (with fiber
| on them) between here and there. What does it cost to string
| fiber on poles, and what are the hopes of getting right of
| way? Alternatively, is there some way to pay / force the
| telco to build out FTTH?
|
| Some people a few miles away have a fiber POP at the end of
| their shared driveway, and are trying to decide if they
| should pay the extra couple hundred per house to go from
| 1GBit to 25GBit symmetric to the houses.
| kbenson wrote:
| In the US I believe anyone can use the pole space as long
| as it's not taken, but I'm not an expert. I do know you
| have to fill out engineering documents per-pole to explain
| the load and propose (pay for?) fixing the load bearing
| attached cables.
|
| At the ISP I work for, I believe we spec out the cabling we
| need to a neighborhood and then order a special bundle with
| breakouts at specific locations along the length to serve
| locations, and then string that along the poles. I'm not
| sure why we wouldn't serve a house with one of those, but
| those go back to a central point in a neighborhood, and
| it's possible the backhaul from the central office to that
| central point in the neighborhood passes houses that aren't
| served. Where to build is all about ease of wiring an area
| and housi g density. It's all about cost per houses passed.
| The good news is that maybe your area is slated to get
| fiber since it goes by there, and it's just a matter of the
| lower hanging fruit being picked first.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| With a best effort connection Id rather have a well oiled
| setup, without cgnat, a good cpe, sensible throttling etc and
| 100mbps than whatever huge amount of gbps.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| It's easy to get all the above and fast internet without much
| trouble. An old PC with OPNsense can do that.
| 300bps wrote:
| I'm a tech-minded American that pays $65 per month for a 1 Gbps
| up and down line that I am completely satisfied with.
|
| Until recently I paid $35 per month for a 300 Mbps line because
| I couldn't justify the jump to 1 Gbps.
|
| Then I had to upload some local Hyper-V servers to AWS to
| convert them to AMIs and figured what the heck I'd upgrade the
| line.
|
| I would have no interest in upgrading beyond 1 Gbps right now
| though. There are too many infrastructure components that need
| to be upgraded to attain that and I don't have a use case for
| it.
| docdeek wrote:
| In a large French city with 10gb/s fibre connection at 50 euros
| a month (internet, TV, fixed line phone). More than enough for
| two people working from home + family.
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| I'm in a rural city in Thailand, fiber 2Gbps is $50 / mo. And
| this is just for normie. Like unimpressive.
| downrightmike wrote:
| USA requires more raw materials to provide services. United
| States is about 19 times bigger than Thailand. Thailand is
| approximately 513,120 sq km, while United States is
| approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 1,816%
| larger than Thailand. And then there is the duopoly of ISPs
| where they carve out huge chunks and agree not to compete.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Let's consider Gross National Product of each county
| adjusted for population size:
|
| gnpUSD = {'USA': 21,650,000,000,000, 'THA':
| 491,910,000,000} #4th quarter 2021
|
| pop = {'USA': 329,000,000, 'THA': 70,000,000} #as of 2021
|
| gnp['USA'] // pop['USA'] 65805
|
| gnp['THA'] // pop['THA'] 7027
|
| Seems more like a distribution of resources issue... so why
| not jack up taxes on the wealthiest 1% and use it to pay
| for things like high-speed fiber in all the rural areas?
| Doubtless this would lead to economic growth?
| lazide wrote:
| It isn't a 'tax the 1%' issue, it's a corruption and
| market capture issue in the US that we refuse to
| acknowledge.
|
| Throwing more money at it usually makes that kind of
| problem WORSE not better.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| FDR's Rural Electricity Cooperatives did a lot to
| electrify much of the midwest and rural south, along with
| the creation of the TVA. I doubt anyone would want to
| rely on the current major providers, Comcast etc., who
| have such a bad track record, to accomplish this.
| Municipal broadband sounds like a better option:
|
| > "The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, enacted on May
| 20, 1936, provided federal loans for the installation of
| electrical distribution systems to serve isolated rural
| areas of the United States. The funding was channeled
| through cooperative electric power companies, hundreds of
| which still exist today. (wiki)"
| rstat1 wrote:
| There are fair few places in the US where the local power
| company also owns a fiber network and provides
| (relatively speaking) super cheap gigabit or multi-
| gigabit internet service
|
| However there are just as many places where the state's
| government was bought off to ban such networks because
| the majors are afraid of actual competition.
| lazide wrote:
| Don't forget the existing providers have already received
| massive funds to 'improve rural broadband' in the same
| vein as that act. Hundred of billions of dollars if I
| remember correctly.
|
| It's mostly been ineffective.
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| I know. It's several factors, density, history of infra of
| telecom companies etc.
| pirate787 wrote:
| I live in a metro area in the US and thousands of homes in
| my community do not have land-based broadband options. The
| US incumbents have totally failed and it isn't because
| there's a lot of desert in the West and Alaska. I'm sick of
| this argument which doesn't explain why city dwellers in
| most places in America have the worst internet in the
| developed world.
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| I live in the middle of nowhere USA. I'm about 1,000 feet
| off the road (that only random farms are on, about 20
| miles from the small city we're near).
|
| My local ISP trenched fiber to my house for free and
| provides gig internet for $80/month.
|
| The funny thing is my previous house was in town and I
| had to settle for 100Mbit for the same price. ISPs are
| all sorts of messed up.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's all about what it costs to upgrade - if a rural ISP
| has to upgrade copper infrastructure for whatever reason
| they'll fiber it.
|
| In the city it's often just as easy to let what is
| working continue "working" - a major rollout takes a lot
| of money.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Yep engineering the new network, pulling permits, hiring
| the contractor, buying new equipment/lines all cost
| $$$$$$
| dahfizz wrote:
| I live in a not-very-metro area in the usa and get
| gigabit fiber for $65/mo.
| kelnos wrote:
| Yup, I live in San Francisco proper, and my only choice
| is Comcast cable. Looks like the current promo pricing
| for 1200Mbps is around $70/mo, but I can't quickly find
| what the normal price is. And I assume the uplink is
| something abysmal like 25Mbps.
|
| (I'm on Comcast's Business service, $250/mo for 1000/35
| [long dumb story why]. Most of the time I see under 600
| down when checking on speed test sites, and real-world
| speeds downloading large files rarely exceeds 250. I
| expect real-world speeds on the non-business service are
| even worse.)
|
| It's pretty embarrassing that this is the state of
| things.
| rpearl wrote:
| Most of San Francisco can be served by Wave (cable).
| Sonic also has a large presence in San Francisco as well.
|
| Over in Oakland I am paying $40/mo to Sonic for 10Gbps
| (though I only have equipment to route at 1Gbps at the
| moment)
| jasondclinton wrote:
| I'm also in SF Bay Area and I just had 3 Gbps symmetric
| fiber installed by Comcast. This is their $299/mo
| "Gigabit Pro" option. I posted about it on Reddit here: h
| ttps://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast_Xfinity/comments/tkmv9y/u
| pd...
|
| There's a benchmark posted there showing that the speed
| is really as advertised.
| themitigating wrote:
| I'm in Jersey City and have fios, 1gbit for $70 a month
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Sheer size isn't what you should compare. Population
| density is much more relevant. Granted, Thailand still
| comes out ahead, but by far less than your size comparison
| (33.6/km^2 vs 132/km^2)
| geoka9 wrote:
| I'm in a top 10 most expensive city in the world (Canada) and
| the best I can get for $50 is 80 Mbps (and even that is only
| available as a promotion that you can't get by simply going
| to the ISP's website and buying a plan).
| zht wrote:
| I'm in the suburbs of the most expensive city in the world
| and I get 1gbps for $70 CAD
| AndyPa32 wrote:
| I live in Germany. Enjoying 10 Mbit/s downstrean and 1
| Mbit/s upstream. For 30 Euros per month. 80 would be like
| heaven for me.
| Tepix wrote:
| Well, elsewhere in Germany you can get 2.5GBit/s fiber...
| Matthias247 wrote:
| I'm in Vancouver and paying about 55 CAD plus taxes for
| 300Mbps. So it's possible to get a bit more for similar
| money. The downside of that is however those are not
| available as regular offers, and you constantly have to
| deal with ISPs and rention programs to keep the price down.
| Even had various events where the ISP randomly increased
| the price inside one month, until I gave them a call and
| ask to fix it again.
|
| This price randomness never occured to me in germany, and
| just booking a fixed low price on a website was so much
| more convenient.
| jagger27 wrote:
| I'm within 2km of Parliament and can't get fibre. It's
| disgusting.
| gautamcgoel wrote:
| Is this Toronto?
| bpye wrote:
| I'm in Vancouver, BC and paying 80$/mo for 1Gbps symmetric.
| I could get 2.5Gbps but it would be about twice the cost -
| and I would have to get something that can do 2.5G link
| speed on an SFP+, not many devices can.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Have you looked at smaller ISPs?
|
| I live in rural BC and I'm was able to get 80Mb for $35
| using a no-name internet only provider with no contract.
|
| If I went with one of the big cable companies I would be
| paying at least double for the same thing
| goatsi wrote:
| How is your internet provisioned? Is the no-name ISP
| building their own infrastructure or are they using the
| network of a larger one?
| wombat-man wrote:
| I use a local provider in NYC, and I used one in Seattle.
| I think both of them had some kind of point to point
| connection on the roof.
| FractalParadigm wrote:
| I've looked at the smaller ISPs in my area and they're
| terrible as far as pricing goes. Both the "major" options
| are still using Rogers' last-mile infrastructure, they
| offer poorer customer service (because of the previous
| point), charge the same or more money for the same level
| of service and offer no real incentive to switch. Having
| talked to some techs at TekSavvy, none of the smaller
| ISPs can offer anything interesting like synchronous
| speeds over coax/DOCSIS because they have little/no
| control over how the last-mile infrastructure is run. For
| that same reason they can't offer anything faster than 1G
| down either. It all feels like smoke and mirrors, and the
| CRTC seems to have a vested interest in keeping internet
| prices sky-high.
| momirlan wrote:
| i signed up with one of the small ISPs in rural Canada.
| month after, they were bought by Rogers... :-(
| underlines wrote:
| I'm Swiss and had Init7.
|
| Moved to Thailand (BKK) in 2016 and was so disappointed by a
| very new condominium in the center, which didn't even allowed
| for FTTH lines.
|
| Real Estate Developers usually make contracts within their
| Condos, to force the whole building to use only one provider.
| vijucat wrote:
| But is that within the city / country, or to outside the
| country, too? International bandwidth can be completely
| mediocre compared to local bandwidth. What I do is change the
| Server in speedtest.net to one in New York / wherever I have
| business in and test it out (from Hong Kong).
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| I work remotely with american friends for years, video
| meeting has always been smooth (I never test traceroute
| though)
| barbacoa wrote:
| How affordable is $50 in rural Thailand compared to the USA?
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| $50 is about 1 week of 3 meals consumption per day (lower
| middle class)
| KMnO4 wrote:
| So a bit under $2.50/meal. That's very comparable to
| lower/lower-middle in the USA.
| wonderbore wrote:
| $2.50/meal prepared outside, not from ingredients like in
| the US. You can easily get a meal for 40 baht across
| Thailand ($1.20)
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| The funny thing about rice with something, most of the
| time you want to add an fried egg too (more likely like +
| 10 bath charge). Crispy Pork is about 10 bath more
| expensive than the other. I think 40 bath is like 5 years
| ago pricing. You can still get it somewhere. 50-60 bath
| is more standard now.
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| In capital city, I'd say it's about $4-5/meal (including
| drink) in daily basis. For those who eat lots of things,
| $7/meal makes them full.
|
| ---
|
| footnote here: official income record of thai
| people/businesses does not really reflect reality. Lots
| of entities are kind of off-system.
| wonderbore wrote:
| Where do you spend 120 baht a meal? That's a restaurant
| meal, not the average meal. I don't spend more than 60
| baht in Bangkok. At $7 (250 baht) you're talking about a
| night out (maybe except alcohol), way off of the "average
| meal".
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| (including drink) .. if you eat rice something with water
| everyday, it's quite a tight lifestyle.
| underlines wrote:
| I worked in BKK since 2016 and office staff usually goes
| to the cheapo restaurants (which I frequented too), so
| 40-80 baht is completely common also for white collar
| workers. But meat, vegetable and oil quality is really
| shady in that price range.
|
| I prefer to order grab of around 120-200 baht from a
| "healthy" place or going for restaurants within Central
| 200-400 baht per meal.
| zaroth wrote:
| Where did you get that number?
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| A decade of data set from my experience and network. Not
| from govt.
| adventured wrote:
| The US has around ~10-12 times the disposable median income
| of Thailand (2019 figures), and ~10 times the GDP per
| capita of Thailand (2022 IMF estimates).
|
| It's like a typical consumer in the US spending $500+ per
| month for broadband. Even worse if you consider the rural
| income factor. Absolutely insane.
|
| For a fraction of that you can get 1gbps from Comcast and
| you'll never utilize most of it in 99% of consumer
| situations.
|
| I'm in a small quasi rural 'city' in the US, hours away
| from any consequential city, and I can get 1.2gbps from
| Comcast for 15-20% of the income adjusted rate in question
| referenced for Thailand.
|
| It seems common to forget how astoundingly high US median
| income, disposable income, and GDP per capita figures are
| compared to the rest of the world. The latest 2022
| estimates are pegging US GDP per capita at nearly double
| that of France and Japan. To match up on median disposable
| income figures, you have to use hyper affluent countries
| like Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway as
| references. Then people come on HN and proclaim how they're
| paying _only_ $20 per month for Internet access, in a
| country with 1 /10-1/5 the median disposable income of the
| US. The US is more expensive than it should be for Internet
| access (better telecom competition would go a long ways
| toward fixing that), however the reality is US income
| figures are also a lot higher than most of the developed
| world.
| fractalb wrote:
| I'm just wondering how good of a measure it is comparing
| the median incomes of different countries. If a there is
| a country A with 10x median income of some other country
| B , then the people of country A are really 10x more
| affluent than that of country B? especially if they pay
| 10x for everything?
| Retric wrote:
| That's not a reasonable comparison for Thailand food
| prices as food isn't disposable income. World bank says
| GDP per capita PPP was 18,232$ in 2020 down from 19,233$
| in 2019. Of course that's not evenly distributed, but
| rural vs urban incomes mean costs are higher in cities
| than median income suggests. https://data.worldbank.org/i
| ndicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat...
|
| Where your number comes into play is for people pricing
| Netflix subscriptions.
| adventured wrote:
| GDP PPP per capita is an extraordinarily low quality
| metric.
|
| You end up with absurd examples where Botswana is
| comparable to China; Russia is comparable to Greece;
| Puerto Rico is comparable to Spain, ahead of Portugal,
| and just a bit lower than Japan; Kazakhstan is just a bit
| behind Latvia and Slovakia; Taiwan is far ahead of
| Finland, France, UK, New Zealand.
| csomar wrote:
| Both Nominal and PPP are out of whack if you are looking
| to learn about conditions on the ground. GDP measures the
| production of a certain country (and it's a very bad
| metric at that). Some countries are wealthy because its
| people make money from foreign sources. This is usually
| displayed by a high and chronic trade deficit.
|
| That means you can have two countries with comparable GDP
| per-capita, where one of them have a more affluent
| population and able to pay higher prices.
| Retric wrote:
| It's just a question of what you're trying to use these
| numbers for.
|
| Imputed rent for example is one of those things that's
| kind of silly on the face of it but makes various
| comparisons more reasonable. On the other hand it can
| also imply a great deal of economic activity that isn't
| actually happening.
|
| PPP is the same sort of calculation. If rents crash
| because a great deal of housing was built it can make GDP
| comparisons kind of meaningless. The country has more
| tangible wealth, people are better off, yet GDP falls.
| That's not what you want the number to represent.
| kingcharles wrote:
| In my home in downtown Chicago I have two wired options.
| 1.5Mbps for $60/month from AT&T, or $71,000 install plus
| $800 a month for 2Gbps from Comcast.
|
| I went with 5G from T-Mobile for $50 a month.
| duxup wrote:
| I get upgrade offers all the time.
|
| But it doesn't matter because it isn't actually offered in my
| area / the local telco can't even notify the right people...
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't think they do any longer but Verizon used to send me
| FIOS flyers on a fairly regular basis and when I went to
| their site it looked as if it wasn't actually available at my
| address (where I get Comcast).
|
| Also amusingly, both Comcast and Verizon have the very old
| (as in multiple decades) name for the street I live on as my
| address. It's only somewhat wrong (the name used to have a
| North on it)--but it is still wrong.
| kingcharles wrote:
| AT&T called me. They said their technical guys think they might
| be able to upgrade the connection to my building from 1.5Mbps
| to 3Mbps if I want to sign-up with them. I'm in downtown
| Chicago.
| lettergram wrote:
| Most cities >100k in the Midwest can get fiber for
| $55-$200/month at speeds 1-10Gb/s.
|
| Where I'm at it's $80/month for a 5gb/s. If you want that in a
| major city, >1m people; good luck.
|
| Corruption, regulation and development costs are just too high.
|
| Rather sad to be honest.
| zhdc1 wrote:
| I had 10gb internet on what was essentially a shared connection
| when I lived in Zurich.
|
| That, along with a surplus server I literally housed in my shoe
| closet, gave me the firepower I needed to prototype out something
| that led to two research grants which now employ myself and a new
| PhD student.
|
| We discount technological investments like this as being "too
| much" and "unpractical", but we forget that, even if it only one
| person in a hundred or a thousand take advantage of them, the
| impact can be enough to launch careers or start businesses with
| sizeable positive externalities.
| darthrupert wrote:
| Many interesting things happen at the limit of what's currently
| possible. That's why extreme efficiency of computer hardware
| and software will always be important.
| qwertox wrote:
| These are the comments which should reach politicians.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| What did you do with 10Gb that you could not have done with 1Gb
| or 300Mbit?
| azeirah wrote:
| Please do tell us about your work!
| 101008 wrote:
| Being from a third world country, I completely agree with you
| on how technological investment can change lives. Even a low
| speed connection in a rural zone can achieve wonderful things.
|
| But I really wonder what was your prototype that needed that
| speed connection and that wouldn't work with something slower.
| Can you share, at least vaguely, what was your work?
| loudthing wrote:
| I've never heard someone call their own country a "third
| world country". Out of curiosity, which country are you
| referring to?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Not the person you are asking, but in Eastern Europe we
| also call our countries "third world"; I learned in the
| middle school about economic development and classification
| by that, it was nothing to be ashamed of. Even today being
| in EU we are considered second class citizens, not a
| problem with me.
| wara23arish wrote:
| Grew up in a third world country (middle east)
|
| That is the official terminology used in school books
| required by the official curriculum.
| ggpsv wrote:
| This is term is commonly misused as it originally referred
| to countries beyond the Cold War's NATO/USSR denominations.
| Today the parent likely refers to a country in the global
| south or a "developing" nation.
|
| I'm from what used to be a third-world country in the
| strict sense of term, I'd now refer to my country as a
| country in the global south.
| rayiner wrote:
| What's the "global south?"
| tptacek wrote:
| Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. HTH.
| rayiner wrote:
| Is it south of some reference point (here in Maryland it
| looks like I'm south of Turkey and around the same as
| Beijing). Is Australia excluded? Or is it just a
| euphemism for developing nation.
| ggpsv wrote:
| There is not as it does not refer to a geographical
| designation. I wouldn't say it is a euphemism, but closer
| to what people actually refer to when they misuse the
| term "third-world".
|
| The closest geographical designation was the Brandt line
| drawn in the 80s showing a north and south divide in
| terms of global wealth distribution [0].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global
| _South#...
| rayiner wrote:
| Third world is inaccurate, but what's wrong with
| "developing world." Also: did I call it about China and
| Australia or did I call it?
| ggpsv wrote:
| Like I mentioned in my top-most comment, "developing
| nation" is what people typically refer to. As to your
| comment, I was pointing out that "global south" is not a
| euphemism for "developing nation". I'd say it is the
| other way around and in a misguided way. This is because
| the global south/north designation intentionally
| distances itself from terminology such as "developing
| nation".
|
| I understand if this comes across as pedantry but the
| global north and south terminology does a better job at
| leveling the playing field when talking about wealth and
| progress disparities.
|
| As per your other question, Australia is part of the
| global north, China is part of the global south in the
| global north and south groupings.
| tptacek wrote:
| I don't know, I just Googled it. I've definitely heard
| the term before, though.
| monocasa wrote:
| It's basically a way to say 'third world' without the
| baggage of cold war politics embedded in it.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| I think you have successfully illustrated the failure of
| "global south" as a replacement term.
|
| I'm not against replacing "third world", but something
| with the word "south" is ambiguous and counterintuitive.
| ggpsv wrote:
| It isn't as much as a replacement term, but you make a
| fair point that is doesn't translate well. It is both
| jargon and a loaded concept, which can be confusing when
| taken literally and without understanding what it aims to
| represent.
| thfuran wrote:
| >I'd now refer to my country as a country in the global
| south
|
| Meaning what, in the southern hemisphere and not
| Australia or new Zealand?
| ggpsv wrote:
| It isn't a geographical denomination, but rather
| socioeconomic and political. Most of the countries in the
| global south denomination are actually in the northern
| hemisphere.
| thfuran wrote:
| That seems like bad jargon.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Most people's mental map has basically all of Africa in
| the southern hemisphere, but geographically that is far
| from the case.
|
| We have 195 countries in the world and only 33 of those
| are entirely on the southern hemisphere.
|
| Here is one example of an illustrative map:
|
| https://i.redd.it/w2tv9dda1xzy.png
| indigomm wrote:
| It's an outdated term. I recommend reading Hans Rosling's
| book Factfulness where he addresses a lot of common
| misconceptions. If anything, it's fun to take the tests and
| compare where you are against the rest of the world.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Being from a third world country, I completely agree with
| you on how technological investment can change lives.
|
| Being from a soon north korea 2.0 to be (russia,) I can say
| it was my surprise to see Internet being so bad across the
| developed countries when I was travelling in the previous
| decade. Canada - ridiculously expensive traffic, Germany - no
| comments, UK - sometimes good, sometimes 128kbps DSL, USA -
| 20mbps DocSis everywhere
|
| India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, much of Africa had FTTH
| as the dominant way of home Internet connection for a while.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| A lot of it is down to those countries being early adopters
| of telecom infrastructure. It meant when a lot of other
| countries were wiring up internet for the first time, they
| weren't faced with the prospect of having to piggyback
| existing and aged infrastructure. eg in some cases they
| could leapfrog copper almost entirely and jump straight to
| fibre.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| >in some cases they could leapfrog copper almost entirely
| and jump straight to fibre.
|
| I visited Nepal several years back. They were going
| straight to wireless. All of the villages in the
| mountains had a solar panel on their roof that they used
| to charge their cellphones and there was a cell tower on
| the ridges.
|
| It was surreal to see villagers use Facebook but have no
| road access to the main city.
| Sakos wrote:
| Politicians in "old world" countries explicitly decided
| to stick to existing copper infrastructure instead of
| rolling out something better. These countries like to
| pretend corruption isn't an issue for them, but then you
| have asinine decisions like this.
| moistly wrote:
| In Canada it is down to our telecom oligopoly, which our
| government protects by (a) refusing foreign competition
| and (b) installing industry heads to run the consumer
| protection regulator, i.e. allowing the oligopoly to
| capture the regulatory body.
|
| In actual fact, our telcos were heavily subsidized during
| their formative years, granting them a monopoly, rights
| of way, and helping to pay for their infrastructure. In
| return for a guaranteed profit margin, we had extreme
| control over their pricing structure and guarantees of
| service quality and coverage.
|
| Then we allowed them to be privatized and deregulated, in
| exchange for which we get fucked. Which is, as far as
| I've ever been able to tell, the inevitable outcome of
| converting public services to private.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| This one and the plain difference in the size.
|
| It is easier to upgrade _everything_ in some Blatic
| states than in some US cities.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Yeam, but there is also masive difference in wealth. And
| then you can't use size as enxcuse in a comparison with
| India
| drdaeman wrote:
| Same as banking. Inventors and early adopters get stuck
| with "works well enough" old systems and all their
| deficiencies and limitations. Late newcomers roll out
| newest and greatest solutions.
| larusso wrote:
| As a German I weep and cry. 25Gbit/s seems so so far off.
| And I live in a major city. I only get 150Mbit VDSL at the
| moment. I have no cable connection so one of these to get
| the theoretical 1Gbit/s download is out of the question.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| The maximum speed available at my London address is 35
| mbps download and 5.5 mbps upload. It hasn't changed in
| the seven years I've been living here. The best mobile
| connection I get is two bars of 3G unless it rains.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| My previous address was stuck at 8 mbps dowload and 0.25
| mbps upload and it will not be upgraded anytime soon
| because every corner of that street is listed /
| protected. I literally moved just because of that. Not I
| won't rent anything without fiber.
|
| We are still creating newbuilds in cities without fiber.
| In other news, someone fucked up construction and left an
| entire complex of brand new apartment blocks with 7 mbps
| internet
|
| https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/03/mistake-
| leaves...
| larusso wrote:
| Oh boy I feel for you. Is it because of the house/street
| or a general issue in London?
| barnabee wrote:
| I have 1gbps fibre in central London and generally see
| >750mbps in real link speed, 900 on a good day.
|
| At my previous flat 150mbps was the fastest available. So
| it varies a lot in London on where exactly you are.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| It's not typical for London. Not that extreme anyway. I
| think our postcode is among 2% or 3% left without a fiber
| connection. Many others have 100 mbps or so (I try not to
| look what they really get :)
| 83457 wrote:
| wow. that's ridiculous
| kayoone wrote:
| Gigabit internet is quite widely available through
| different cable providers in Germany nowadays. Also the
| country side seems to be moving up, the very rural place
| where I grew up (and where my mom still lives) had a max
| of 2Mbps DSL for the last 20(!) years and now the whole
| area is being upgraded to fibre and will enjoy 10/1Gbps
| by the end of the year!
| larusso wrote:
| I moved into a newly build house in 2014 and was shocked
| to learn that all the houses only had basic copper
| telephone lines and Sat-TV. The whole field was empty and
| they had to do the groundwork for the copper cables
| anyway. I was shocked when the Telekom person, who
| connected my then 16MBit/s ADSL contract I had to move
| with, told me that the next TAL (connection point;
| Teilnehmer Anschluss Leitung, I don't know the correct
| English term) was 5km out and that I will only able to
| receive 10MBit/s max. Netflix HD was blurry and browsing
| while streaming impossible. I hear news that it gets
| better and that rural places finally get faster speeds
| but as long as I live where I live now I'm bound to VDSL
| or find enough neighbors who would be willing to ship in
| to get a Fibre connection.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| What a pain in the arse!
|
| Just fyi as I know you aren't a native speaker, it's
| 'chip in', if you were native I'd assume a typo, probably
| is for you too, but it's a phrase easy to mishear and
| when I was learning a second language I appreciated these
| corrections.
| larusso wrote:
| Argh yes I'm not a native speaker but in this case it was
| a typo ;) Thanks
| Sakos wrote:
| Still quite expensive though, especially compared to
| almost every other country out there. It's insanity.
| krzyk wrote:
| We have similar situation in Poland. I live in rural
| area, but quite close to bigger city and enjoy 1Gbps for
| the last 4 or 5 years.
|
| I wonder how the upgrade might look considering that
| 10Gbps hardware is quite expensive (and house cabling
| might need upgrading) and 2.5Gbps/5Gbps is quite new and
| hard to find router or laptop dock/hub supporting it.
| pph wrote:
| The drawback is that cable it is a shared medium, so it
| can be quite bad when demand is high (in the evening) and
| the upload bandwidth usually is very low.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Interesting. In populous areas of the US they use HFC so
| the cable to your house only services a few buildings,
| with the neighborhood having a fiber optic back-haul that
| is shared, but much faster
| danieldk wrote:
| Lived in Germany for 5 years and cable internet was
| generally terrible. We had 200/20MBit. But the actual
| upstream would often be 1MBit. Downstream was better but
| at many times not great. There would also be regular
| outages, that would take hours to solve. The only
| alternative was VDSL with a maximum downstream of 50MBit.
|
| We moved back to NL and have 1GBit fiber, and there has
| been a short outage once in three years. I know that
| there are a still a lot of addresses without fiber, but
| when I last checked the stats, about 50% of the addresses
| has the possibility to get a fiber subscription. Heck,
| even my parents who live in a small rural town have
| fiber.
| sschueller wrote:
| Technically Switzerland is a third world country according to
| the original definition.
| cromulent wrote:
| And Finland may soon be moving from third world to first
| world.
| nix23 wrote:
| You could also say what you meant.
|
| >>The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to
| define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO
| or the Warsaw Pact.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
| arcade79 wrote:
| That's what he said.
| zhdc1 wrote:
| > Can you share, at least vaguely, what was your work?
|
| We work with gis/satellite data. Nothing groundbreaking
| technically, but we aggregate it into products that are
| useful for social science researchers who aren't comfortable
| with or don't have the computing resources to use this data
| by themselves.
| antihero wrote:
| What exactly about gis/satellite data required such an
| insane uplink?
| randomluck040 wrote:
| I can think of two things. Large time series data for
| large areas with a lot of attributes like temperature or
| other atmospheric data or a huge amount of point clouds
| or comparable 3D Data.
| zhdc1 wrote:
| SAR and multispectral imagery. It's not difficult to work
| with when you're only dealing a small and well defined
| regions, but the bandwidth and storage requirement
| definitely increase once you start doing daily global
| composites.
|
| We've actually moved everything into a data center with a
| 1gb connection. The trade of being that we have several
| orders of magnitude more storage and computing capacity.
| randomluck040 wrote:
| It's crazy because among friends I'm the only one working
| with geodata (remote sensing, too) and the last few days
| I keep stumbling upon people who already do some work in
| the same area and are probably much more advanced than I
| am. Good luck with your endeavour!
| arcade79 wrote:
| What exactly is insane about it?
|
| I was surprised when my parents had 1Gbit in 2009. I was
| delighted when I could get 500Mbit in 2013. I'm slightly
| miffed that I don't even get 1Gbit in 2022. I literally
| _laugh_ at providers attempting to convince me to get
| whatever with 10 or 20Mbit uplink speeds, in 2022l Yes,
| they exist.
|
| Anyhow. What's insane about a 10Gbit uplink? I wired up
| my apartment for 1Gbit in 2001. I've been frustrated
| about home network speeds for 21 years. I do not
| understand why you consider 10Gbit insane.
| Tepix wrote:
| Consider me drooling.
|
| I'm currently on 1000/50 cable internet, which is already quite
| nice. Telekom is laying fibre but it's not clear yet whether or
| not they will stop short of this house. Also i suspect it will be
| a while before they offer better than 1000/500 service.
| jotm wrote:
| I hate asymmetric connections. You get gigabit download but
| something stupid like 20-100 Mbps upload? Just why... Upload
| speed matters just as much as download these days.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| In the case of older versions of DOCSIS (cable) [1] didn't
| allow as many upload slots as download slots. However DOCSIS
| 4 does allow such connections.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Throughput
| geerlingguy wrote:
| DOCSIS 3.1 can still use some improvements to eke out a lot
| more upload bandwidth too.
| dale_glass wrote:
| Because you have a single copper pair/coax cable with a
| finite bandwidth on it, and making a choice about how to
| split it.
|
| Eg, your tech and cable can support 40 Mbps. If you split
| that 20/20, your users will have trouble watching 4K video
| that wants 25 Mbps. Change that to 35/5, and for most people
| it'll actually work better.
|
| This issue goes away eventually as you either get a fiber for
| each direction, or you can just push terabits through fiber
| anyway, so there's plenty capacity to be symmetric without
| any compromises.
| petra wrote:
| Why isn't the splitting dynamic, according to need?
| dale_glass wrote:
| Well, that exceeds my knowledge, but my guess is that
| it'd be very tricky to accomplish.
|
| You have one cable, a given frequency may go in one
| direction or in another. Both sides have to agree on what
| it's being used for. You'd need a communication channel
| between the ISP side and the client side to constantly
| negotiate, and that negotiation would take some time, so
| such a mechanism would have some latency to it, with
| possibly weird effects on things like online games. You
| could get weird behaviors where some particular pattern
| of traffic would result in the connection readjusting
| itself just wrong on a regular basis and result in hordes
| of angry gamers.
|
| I think it's reasonable to guess that ISPs targeting
| consumers have no interest in monitoring and
| troubleshooting such a thing when they can just set a
| fixed split and be done with it (and ask the customer to
| upgrade to a bigger plan if it's not good enough), and
| ISPs targeting enterprises have no need for it.
|
| Edit: And there's the issue of how you sell such a thing.
| It's a system that readjusts itself automatically based
| on some arcane magic and may work differently from one
| day to another. How do you make any reliable promises
| about it?
| jotm wrote:
| Oh yeah, missed the "cable" part. But I've seen the same
| thing with fiber in the UK and Germany. So the ISPs
| upgraded to fiber but kept the old (very) asymmetric
| speeds... I mean, at least have it be something more
| reasonable like 1000/500 :)
|
| But I'm spoiled, growing up the only ISP in town spoonfed
| everyone higher and higher speeds even though no one asked
| for it. They're laying fiber to villages seemingly just
| 'cause. People are choosing 4G over fiber because it's
| cheaper (even though data is limited), go figure.
|
| Well, actually there was a bit of government initiative
| (with no funding or enforcement) to boost the IT sector.
| The US would benefit much more heh.
| sologoub wrote:
| Swiss 26 Gbit/s symmetrical... while in US getting 1Gbit/s down
| is a minor miracle and anything resembling that up is downright
| impossible. My area in a major VHCOL metro area has a wonderful
| choice of 1 cable provider and maybe 2 fixed cell providers (may
| be because they can't tell you if the tower will give you a
| decent speed until you unpack and install the system).
|
| How US gets so little for so much spent is really beyond me.
|
| So excited that at least somewhere sanity and quality prevail!!!
| mardifoufs wrote:
| The US has one of the fastest average internet speed in the
| world. It beats pretty much every other western country, with
| only Denmark and Monaco being ahead.
|
| https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed
| Tepix wrote:
| Umm.. no
| mardifoufs wrote:
| You can also just check the source I've linked?
| agilob wrote:
| What is the use case for this? How are you doing to utilise it?
| According to fast.com I have 29Mbps and I see no reason why I
| would need to go faster now. And to be said, I'm WFH all the
| time, I have a homelab and we stream movies, not once since
| pandemic started I had a thought I might need faster broadband.
| My home router has SFP port.
| AviationAtom wrote:
| I have a few different comments that came to mind from this post.
|
| The first one being ADSL/xDSL. ADSL is still very much alive in
| rural America. My sister pays about $50/mo for 6 Mbps ADSL.
|
| Having worked as a telephone tech, I can tell you that many
| people would be pretty surprised by the speeds that DSL is
| capable of. With a a new/good condition cable, and a VDSL2, or
| the like modem, even without bonding, you can exceed 100 Mbps.
| With a shorter line, and bonding, you can go well beyond that.
|
| The mention of PPPoE is interesting, because I recall having to
| use proprietary dialer software back in the day, before Windows
| and Linux baked in PPPoE, and home routers really weren't a
| thing. One would think PPPoE has gone by the wayside, but the
| aforementioned sister is forced to use it with Frontier. Trying
| to disable all the routing functions on the ISP-provided router,
| and get creds to setup PPPoE on a customer provided router, is
| somewhat of a pain.
|
| You'd think we moved passed it all with fiber, but I can
| personally say that AT&T does not work this way. They actually
| use 802.1x authentication on their network, where their gateway
| they force you to use has the certificates built in. It really
| then comes down to being only able to set up a 1:1 NAT with a
| public IP, but then your traffic is still routed through their
| gateway, not a true network bridge.
|
| Having AT&T even set generic PTR records for the /64 they assign
| you is unheard of, let alone getting them to delegate to you.
| It's a fact of life in the US, where few ISPs can actually
| operate in the broadband market, short of the megacorps.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Where I receive live an ADSL line maxes out at 6/0.75Mbps and
| it's painfully slow, especially if you need to upload anything.
| It's frustrating seeing everyone else with higher speeds when
| my location will probably never get broadband in my lifetime
| ignoring something like starlink.
| 404mm wrote:
| Firstly ... 25Gbit symmetrical ... WOW.
|
| Secondly - as a person living my whole life in IT - both passion
| and professionally - I have no idea what would 25Gbit be good
| for. I'm currently paying about $80 for symmetrical 1Gbit fiber
| and have the option to upgrade to 5Gbit for about $180 but it
| seems so pointless.
|
| Here is the reasoning behind my grumpy opinion:
|
| 1. Living in a home with Cat5 throughout so the best I can do is
| to route 1Gbit. Running cables in multilevel (American) homes is
| a major PITA.
|
| 2. My Wi-Fi (802.11ax) is heavily affected by homes around me so
| only one AP can run with 80MHz channel width and the rest is
| 20-40MHz. Throughput ends up being somewhere between
| 150Mbit-500Mbit, depending on where you are.
|
| 3. I have a few smaller servers running ..stuff. The trouble is
| not about server performance or bandwidth.. it's about
| reliability. Running any business on consumer line (in the USA)
| is just signing up for trouble. (Eg. "Is your line down because
| your modem received a fault firmware? No worries, the tech is
| going to be there within next 4 days to check your cables...").
|
| 4. Things like game downloads on PS5 .. yes, they are amazingly
| fast (even on 1Gbit. They install faster from internet than from
| the built-in BD-ROM). But many games need to also "install"
| (whatever that means on PS5) and that takes 2x the time of
| download anyway. I can live with that once a month.
|
| 5. Big fan of streaming services, however many providers limit
| bitrate on their side so I am still watching the sometimes blurry
| 4k ...
|
| Back to original question and with genuine curiosity - what is
| 25Gbit for???
| linsomniac wrote:
| My understanding is that cat-5e, for short runs (45m) you'd
| find in a house, can do 10gig. I'm still running 6a for all my
| new runs, but probably didn't need to.
| divbzero wrote:
| My initial grumpy reaction was the same. Then again a quarter
| century ago I probably would have thought: "Would I ever really
| need more than 56k? Takes only a few minutes to download all of
| _Les Miserables_ during which I could read maybe 4 or 5 pages."
| whazor wrote:
| In my opinion, 5gbit would be an useful upgrade (probably not
| worth that amount of money). In practice 1gbit is normally the
| limit of downloading in my experience. However, with multiple
| devices doing updates, downloads, streams actually having 5gbit
| and limiting each device to 1gbit ensures a high speed all
| time. Especially with roommates/family.
| amonedude wrote:
| Bluecobra wrote:
| > Back to original question and with genuine curiosity - what
| is 25Gbit for???
|
| From a switch perspective, it makes more sense to carve out 4x
| 25G ports vs 4x 10G ports if you have 100G switches. In a
| single rack unit you can fit ~32 100G ports, which can then be
| broken out to 128x 25G ports. That's more port density than a
| 1U 48 port 25 switch/line card.
| peter303 wrote:
| I suspect the metaverse will be a bandwith hog. This matters
| where you centralize or distribute the world model; ditto for
| the rendering.
| Sakos wrote:
| > Back to original question and with genuine curiosity - what
| is 25Gbit for???
|
| What a pointless question. I wish people would stop worrying
| about this instead of simply making it possible, so we can
| figure out what to do with it.
| 404mm wrote:
| ... but that's what I'm asking. What can I do with it? As I
| mentioned above, I have 1Gig and can go up to 5Gig. What can
| I do with it??
| Sakos wrote:
| Maybe you can't, but somebody will find a use for it.
| Everybody should have access to it and I'm tired of the
| excuses made for not improving this infrastructure "but
| nobody needs it!!!!".
| [deleted]
| hasty wrote:
| On point #1, you can probably do 10Gbps (assuming it's actually
| Cat5e), as long as it's under 50m or so. If it's just a run
| inside your house, it's likely well within range.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Yep, you beat me to this comment. I ran cat 5e through my
| house in 2009 and didn't bother with cat 6 because no cable
| runs would be that long. I assumed there would be 10Gb
| consumer switches by now, but I haven't seen any yet.
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| What I've heard is that 10Gb over copper struggles with
| heat and power consumption, though it is technically
| possible.
| tinco wrote:
| There are consumer 10gbit switches now, though they are on
| the pricy side at around $400. I bought 3 of them for our
| datacenter and 2 of them broke within 2 years, so I
| definitely regret buying consumer grade for our operations
| but professional gear was ridiculously expensive then.
| Upgraded to ubiquity now, hopefully it's more reliable,
| though I guess it's on the prosumer side if you ask your
| average net admin.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Well, when I say consumer, I mean unmanaged and less than
| $100 for 4-8 ports. I assumed that when gigabit over UTP
| was formalized in 1999, I wouldn't have to wait a quarter
| century to upgrade, but here we are. And to be fair,
| gigabit still basically does what I need.
| bombcar wrote:
| The power usage on 10GB copper is nuts so most of the
| cheapest switches come with SPF cages.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Nope, it does not work at 10 Gbps; just 5Gbps for short runs
| (30m) and 2.5Gbps for 100m. I never tried for very short runs
| (1-5m), but it does not work for 50m at 10 Gbps.
| 404mm wrote:
| Yes, it's 5E. I thought that cat5e maxes out at 2.5GBit.
| Honestly, none of my devices would benefit from 2.5Gbit in a
| significantly way. I run some cloud backups in the night and
| it's ok if it takes extra 5 minutes.
| gsich wrote:
| You can try, depending on length 10Gbit are achievable.
| zrail wrote:
| I've been able to get 10G over a shoddy 100ft cat5e run.
| Give it a shot! It's fun!
| jmbwell wrote:
| Cat5 can be capable of multi-gigabit over runs less than a
| couple hundred feet. Don't count yourself out yet.
| nix23 wrote:
| >$80 for symmetrical 1Gbit fiber and have
|
| Init7:
|
| 1/1 Gbit/sec CHF 64.75
|
| 25/25 Gbit/sec CHF 64.75
|
| It's the same price if available.
| skoskie wrote:
| Answering for myself, backups. My SO and I both WFH. We
| generate a lot of data, personally and professionally. Most of
| that backs up to a local server, which then backs up to two
| off-sites. That server also backs itself up (plex, etc.).
|
| I have to schedule it all to run at night because it will
| saturate the network during the day otherwise.
|
| I have 1Gb/40Mb @ $100 internet for reference.
| virtuallynathan wrote:
| Have you tried >1GbE Over your cat5? I've done 10GbE over short
| runs (100-150ft), and 5GbE or 2.5 should work over longer
| runs...
|
| Wifi6E is around the corner for >1GbE wifi.
| dylan604 wrote:
| 25 users of 1Gbps service? Obviously, a simplification, but
| something along those lines is how they tend to be advertised
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| The only purpose of 25 Gbit/s at home that I can genuinely see
| is "because I can".
|
| Going above 1 Gbit/s can have (very limited) practical sense
| because you can hit that with e.g. Steam downloads, changing a
| 5 minute wait into a 3 minute wait. You can also basically stop
| caring about QoS on your uplink once you're at 1 Gbit/s with
| one human user, or anywhere past 1 Gbps with more than one
| human user.
|
| For running cables, seriously consider fiber. The hardware
| isn't as expensive as it used to be, and it solves a lot of
| problems: You can (based on common sense, not sure of your
| building code) stick fiber in power conduits since its non
| conductive, you don't have to worry about potential differences
| etc., it's thinner (easier to hide/more wife-compatible) and
| once in place, you will be able to use the same fiber for
| higher speeds just by swapping the SFP's at the ends.
| petters wrote:
| Yeah, Steam takes much longer "preallocating space" than
| actually downloading everything for me, so a faster line does
| not help much there.
| kbenson wrote:
| > Living in a home with Cat5 throughout so the best I can do is
| to route 1Gbit.
|
| Having your uplink faster than all your individual ports in a
| network helps prevent any one port from being able to saturate
| your network.
|
| I work at an ISP that within the last year started selling
| 10Gbit symmetric, and we all sorta know there's not a huge use
| for it - yet. It's not really an issue for use to justify
| though, we don't charge any extra for it, it's all $40/mo and
| if you're in a new area we're building you get 10Gbit instead
| of the old 1Gbit at that price.
| 404mm wrote:
| That's nice!! $40/mo? That does not sound like US price.
| bitbckt wrote:
| That's what I pay for 10Gb in the US. I think I'm a
| customer of the ISP the GP is referring to.
| thfuran wrote:
| I can get 6 Mbps for $40 here. Good stuff.
| 404mm wrote:
| Lol and I'm sorry. I'd almost rather go with starlink at
| that point.
| kbenson wrote:
| It is. Sonic in northern California. More places soon, but
| scaling out physical infrastructure build has its own
| learning curve and often larger lead times. :)
| davidcsally wrote:
| Just got hooked up in Oakland and loving it! Paying $70
| less per month vs Comcast
| 404mm wrote:
| Dang! Good for you guys!! I'm in TX and ATT+Frontier have
| a firm grab on the infrastructure here. Charter is trying
| but still cannot compete with symmetric fiber.
| kbenson wrote:
| I'm not sure, but I get the feeling that independent ISPs
| are having a bit of a resurgence, so maybe you'll be
| lucky and someone will look to serve your area. Or you
| can try it yourself. :)
|
| I imagine it's easier now than it used to be to find some
| areas with good beauty and above ground infra (poles)
| that have space, and make a business plan and point at
| others that are doing it successfully as justification.
|
| Or maybe we'll be there in a few years. At the rate we
| want to expand it's not impossible. :)
| benguillet wrote:
| Please come to the Peninsula (with fiber, Millbrae).
| Tired of my only options being Comcast or VDSL at max
| 20mbps :/
| kbenson wrote:
| I'm not sure the exact areas we're building and planning,
| but it's possible we're coming soon. As I understand it
| we hit most of the low hanging fruit in the bay area
| already (above ground infra, aka poles), so we're trying
| to use advancements in trenching and hitting some
| slightly less dense areas than we previously targeted to
| be able to serve new areas at the price point we've set.
| dougmwne wrote:
| There's a 10 Gbit cable going in on my street for $60/month
| in Florida. Some interesting things happening in internet
| infrastructure these days.
| jwong_ wrote:
| I would love for this to happen on my street in
| Florida...
|
| I think it's way too rural at this point however, given
| that I am technically in unincorporated area.
| [deleted]
| e40 wrote:
| Getting 10G symmetrical May 1. I won't be able to use it all,
| though. Using a router that has a 10G port, but the stuff it
| does with packets means there's a limit I've heard of around
| 3G, but we'll see. Speed test is the first thing I'll be done
| once it's installed.
|
| EDIT: USA, CA here. sonic.net. $40/mo with 3 free months.
| They'll pay up to $200 termination charges. Not affiliated with
| them.
| omegalulw wrote:
| What about 8K, 16K, etc video streaming? Not much content today
| but I expect them to become mainstream eventually.
| Klasiaster wrote:
| The speed aside there are multiple other positive aspects
| mentioned that serve as a role model for larger providers,
| sadly...
| agsamek wrote:
| We have 500mbps for 50 people in the office in Poland (EU) and it
| seems fine. Ping under <1ms does the real job (this is a
| commercial connection). People don't watch movies but download
| Linux and other software on regular basis. We also do offline
| backups and this is the biggest bandwidth usage.
|
| Our servers are 1Gbps and the bandwidth is rarely the biggest
| bottleneck.
|
| I have 200/20 in my own office and the biggest problem is that it
| works unreliably with Microsoft Teams and Google very often.
|
| PS5 seems to have a 1Gbps interface.
|
| I wonder if 25Gbit has _any_ impact and what is the real
| stability of it in the Switzerland and the connection to major
| DCs and services. Entire Internet just doesn 't feel stable
| enough to use that bandwidth but maybe this is a problem here in
| Poland.
|
| Do you encounter problems with Teams or Meets in your countries?
| quercusa wrote:
| > _fiber7 costs only 65 CHF per month and comes with a symmetric
| 1 Gbit /s connection._
|
| 65 CHF = US $67.89
| denysvitali wrote:
| You have to consider Swiss salaries / cost of living in
| Switzerland too...
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Comparison data point: I pay 75.48 USD per month (including
| taxes) for Verizon FIOS gigabit fiber in NYC.
| sschueller wrote:
| In Zurich city a law was passed to pull fiber into every home.
| The fiber is serviced by the electric and partially the largest
| phone company. Any provider can use the network and therefore
| the fees a low.
|
| If you live outside the city you may not be so lucky and spend
| 100+ on maybe 500mbit internet.
|
| Init7 is also currently in a legal fight with swisscom because
| swisscom wants (has already started) to pull some alternative
| fiber that doesn't directly connect the customer to the pop
| therefore preventing competitors offering faster service than
| swisscom. The small cost savings that swisscom has is a huge
| problem for future upgrades and requires power in underground
| shafts. Not very green when you could pull the fibers directly.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I saw this, and immediately went to check if my ISP does
| something similar.
|
| Lo and behold, I can get a 10G line, and in a little while,
| probably 20G.
|
| Then I realized that I don't even come close to saturating the 2G
| I currently have. Cables are limited to 1Gbit, and the wifi
| doesn't go higher than 500Mbit.
| louwrentius wrote:
| At 25 Gbit/s your computer may likely not be able to keep up,
| unless you have NVME based SSD. We are talking about 3GB/s+ which
| my 24-drive NAS (old) can't get beyond 2.6 GB/s with ZFS.
|
| Absolute madness. But this kind of bandwidth isn't meant for a
| single machine.
| dx034 wrote:
| In the end it's just an arms race with basically no use cases.
| You could call it future proofing but the switches will have to
| be replaced before such speeds could realistically be used
| (8k/16k video or sth like that?)
|
| Having fiber without pon is great, means no new infrastructure
| for decades. But anything above 10gbits will be too much to use
| realistically, even for smaller companies.
| kbenson wrote:
| Well, the use case is multiple people doing things at the
| same location that add up to more than 1Gbit. For example,
| think of the connection on a switch with mostly 1Gbit ports
| but one or two 10Gbit or 25Gbit ports for the uplink.
| Switches such as this will also have a backplane capable of
| doing more than 1Gbit.
|
| Individually no one person/port can use more than a gigabit
| and can't saturate the switch in this case, but combined they
| could utilize far more.
| thejosh wrote:
| My first internet, and my internet for up until my teenage years
| until ~2005 was 14.8kbps, we couldn't get faster than that for
| some reason.
|
| When we got 2Mbit I was AMAZED. The entire internet now actually
| semi-worked.
|
| Now in 2022 I have gigabit (down, 50Mbit up) internet, with WiFi6
| on my devices it's amazing (I'm hardwired for my desktop).
|
| Aussie Broadband here in Australia is my current ISP, and they
| are amazing. FTTP was a major upgrade.
|
| But the thing which hurts where I am (Perth, AU) is the latency
| to everything, not the download speeds :).
| mdb31 wrote:
| 25Gb/s is just overkill for residential use. It's really cool
| that's it's available, but I fail to see a use case over my
| 500Mb/s home connection. Even for the servers that I manage and
| that are bandwidth-heavy, 10Gb/s is way overprovisioned for now.
|
| WiFi goes up to 1Gb/s, if you're lucky. Sure, some WiFi-6 APs
| have a 2.5Gb/s connector, but that's not what you want or need,
| unless you're a high-density enterprise. WiFi-6E will possibly
| improve that a bit, but it will take WiFi-8 to get anywhere close
| to saturation.
|
| Wired, you can do 10Gb/s for server systems, which are, amongst
| other things very loud and not very suitable for placement
| anywhere near humans. 2.5Gb/s support is spotty, and 1Gb/s still
| the only thing that works reliably.
|
| So, exactly which residential application requires 25Gb/s is not
| very clear. Yes, it's cool, but not very useful, and faulting
| manufacturers (especially in times of crippling supply-chain
| limitations) for not fully supporting it is questionable.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| >but I fail to see a use case over my 500Mb/s home connection.
|
| The last time I thought I have not enough BW on my 50Mbps
| connection I learned what it's just my T440 is not enough to
| decode h265 extremely compressed stream over an SFTP streaming
| over WiFi, which gave around 20 Mbps at best. After
| toying|fighting around with wireless settings I found the main
| culprit was my Intel 7260 (or whatever) WNIC, not the CPU,
| Internet connection BW or the server throughput (10Gbit,
| despite being an IIS instance).
|
| YMMV
| thfuran wrote:
| Wired, you can do 10Gb/s for server systems, which are, amongst
| other things very loud and not very suitable for placement
| anywhere near humans.
|
| My 10gbaset switch is all of 23 dB when the fan kicks on and I
| have other switches with sfp+ that don't even have a fan.
| Lammy wrote:
| 25Gb NICs are getting into the affordable range, but SFP28
| modules are still very pricey in comparison. I'm a big fan of
| the Mellanox CX4 LX cards for their low power draw (11w max).
| OEM cards come cheap and can be crossflashed to generic
| Mellanox firmware.
|
| The bigger issue with 25G is that it's well into the range
| where any OS's default TCP settings won't provide anywhere near
| line speed, and once you solve that it can expose other non-
| network bottlenecks. I have dual-SFP28 cards in both my
| workstation and NAS, both connected to the network via a10G
| Mikrotik switch and directly to each other via a 25G point-to-
| point link. Now after all that tuning I have a fast network but
| run into the SAS bus bottleneck for any file transfers
| exceeding the size of my app take write cache :p
| _joel wrote:
| 640K Ought to be enough for anyone ;)
|
| Granted, it's beyond the definition of overkill (but I wouldn't
| mind it!)
| sschueller wrote:
| The init7 CEO said they will offer 100gbit symmetrical in 2-3
| years as the SFP modules become more mainstream.
| [deleted]
| oynqr wrote:
| In what world is 10GbE only available for servers?
| mdb31 wrote:
| Without drowning in fan noise? This world... Sure, I guess
| you can get a Mac Studio, or some other 'workstation' class
| PC, but your switch will still need to be within a few meters
| of that endpoint, and it's not going to be very green nor
| silent.
|
| 2.5Gb/s can easily be done with a lot of laptops and
| workstations these days; 10 Gb/s isn't quite there yet (and
| 25, 40 and 100Gb/s are definitely in the server-only fiber-
| or-DAC-only realm)
| ericd wrote:
| If you have a PCI-e slot, there are reasonably priced,
| passively cooled NICs. Here's an RJ45 one: https://www.bhph
| otovideo.com/c/product/1344847-REG/asus_90ig...
|
| There are a few quiet 10 GbE switches, the passive Mikrotik
| ones others are mentioning, but this one is a quiet
| actively cooled one if you want RJ45:
| https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/qsw-1208-8c (Lots of
| combo RJ45/SFP+ ports)
| dale_glass wrote:
| Mikrotik makes a whole bunch of 10G hardware. The 8 port
| ones are fanless and have a heatsink on the back, and the
| 16 port model has a fan that only gets switched on when
| needed. I have one sitting behind me and it's been off all
| day.
|
| It's also easy to open and replace the fan with something
| less noisy. Just remove a few screws, it's a standard size
| with a normal connector on it.
|
| There's also big external heatsink so you could rig up a
| big, slow, fan to help it out a bit.
|
| If you want to be green by the way, use fiber/DAC. The 10G
| copper SFP+ modules are power hungry, and Mikrotik
| recommends not placing them next to each other. Also the
| extra power draw is likely to result in fan use if you have
| a lot of them.
| ericd wrote:
| I have the Mikrotik 8 port, but the spacing requirement
| kind of sucks. If you want RJ45, I'd go with this one:
| https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/qsw-1208-8c
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| If you want RJ45, they also have a switch with 10G RJ45
| ports built in:
| https://mikrotik.com/product/crs312_4c_8xg_rm
| ericd wrote:
| Oh awesome, and pretty well priced! Know what the noise
| level is like? The QNAP is designed to be in a home
| office rather than a server closet, so it's inaudible.
| But my mikrotiks are passively cooled, so even better.
| miahi wrote:
| I had issues with 10G copper SFP+ modules even when there
| was only one installed in the switch (Mikrotik
| CRS305-1G-4S+IN), the other modules installed being
| DAC/fiber. I got random disconnects I could not attribute
| until I checked the switch logs - the module was shutting
| down because it was reaching >90C when the ambient temp
| was 26C. I had to add a fan.
| vetinari wrote:
| Not all transceivers are created equal; some need more
| power (and then dissipate the heat), some are satisfied
| with less. Some can do only 30m distance, others will run
| over 80m distance.
|
| The Mikrotik ones (S+RJ10) are based on Marvel chip and
| they are the more power hungry / run over 30m only
| variety. On the other hand, they can negotiate 2.5G or 5G
| if necessary and support a proprietary protocol to tell
| the switch about it, so you will that in SFP+ properties.
|
| As I have written in the sibling comment, I have good
| experience with BCM84891-based transceivers. CRS305 can
| handle two (still not next to each other, obviously).
| vetinari wrote:
| > but your switch will still need to be within a few meters
| of that endpoint, and it's not going to be very green nor
| silent.
|
| Mikrotik CRS305 (4xSFP+) and CRS309 (8xSFP+) are both
| passively cooled. They are pretty much silent :) though the
| blue led takes some tape to be less shiny.
|
| > 10 Gb/s isn't quite there yet
|
| If you really, really need RJ45, look into BCM84891-based
| transceivers. They still get hot, but not as much as others
| (according to datasheet, takes 1.6W at 30m and 2W at 80m).
| I also managed to get stable 10g over 20m Cat5e with them.
| wereHamster wrote:
| 25GB/s is overkill, and 640K ought to be enough for anyone.
| Those quotes age well.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| When he was asked about that Gates said he never told that,
| because never ever nobody could assume what $somenumber is
| enough memory for anything.
|
| "Everybody believes quotes on Internet" - Abrahamo Lincolni
| wombat-man wrote:
| definitely overkill for now. But looks like author had fun
| setting everything up so why not?
| adventured wrote:
| 1 Gbit/s is pretty close to still being overkill. 25 Gbit/s
| is laughable overkill and appears very likely to remain that
| way for the coming decade.
|
| Consumers around the globe have had increasingly common
| access to 1 Gbit/s for a decade and there still aren't any
| other great, common use cases for it beyond very high quality
| video streaming.
|
| It didn't take very long for computer use to need more than
| 640K by comparison. In the computer realm those edges were
| being constantly pushed at that time. Such is not the case
| with bleeding edge consumer broadband speeds today.
| thfuran wrote:
| 1 Gbps is slow. Even recent wifi can plausibly exceed 1
| gpbs to a client. Pretty much any modern HDD (let alone
| ssd) can read or write faster. USB 3.1 is an order of
| magnitude faster and display port 2.0 tops out at about an
| order of magnitude faster than that. It doesn't really make
| sense to leave the main physical network interface so far
| in the dust, let alone claim it's overkill.
| dale_glass wrote:
| 1 Gbps is laughably slow. It doesn't even keep up with hard
| disks. Network attached storage is crippled by 1 Gbps
| networking. It's ancient. I remember doing an assignment in
| 2005 to design a network on a budget, deciding to "splurge"
| on gigabit, and finding it very much affordable. That was
| 17 years ago, and yet consumer networking barely budged
| since then.
|
| 10 Gbps is still below the 7 GB/s that a single NVMe on
| PCIe 4 (which is readily available) can achieve.
|
| 25 Gbps is still below that.
|
| I'd say 100 Gbps is where the current practical maximum is
| more or less. You'd have a hard time writing or uploading
| data that fast on anything resembling consumer hardware.
| imtringued wrote:
| you mean 640GB of RAM ought to be enough for anyone. 640k
| wasn't cutting edge at the time, it was meant for personal
| computers.
| dontcare007 wrote:
| I live outside Atlanta and pay $100/mth for <50M...
| raverbashing wrote:
| It's crazy that at this speeds (and I mean, it's not a new thing)
| your internal infrastructure can be the bottleneck
|
| You have 100Mbit internet? Cool, your 54Mbit only WLAN devices
| are now the bottleneck.
|
| But now it's your 10GB ethernet that's the limit.
| dale_glass wrote:
| You easily run into problems even before that.
|
| I just upgraded to 10GB networking in my house and the old
| desktop I have hanging around mostly for guest use tops out at
| around 6 Gbps. The CPU just can't handle more than that.
| Granted, it's a 10 year old, cheap CPU with integrated video,
| so it was never much good. But still, it works just fine for
| web browsing.
|
| And of course hard disks get 200MB/s on the very rare occasion,
| and often a good amount less than that. Even SSDs are limited
| by SATA's maximum of 6 Gbps, so make a plan for upgrading
| everything to NVMEs.
| jnwatson wrote:
| " The init7 engineer met me in front of the building and
| explained "Hey! You wrote my window manager!""
|
| That's so cool. Very cool he got to participate in the upgrade
| process.
|
| I had 1G up/down through FIOS (Verizon FTTH) but eventually
| downgraded to 500M because I was saving perhaps 10s a day for 50
| bucks a month.
|
| There has to be a server at the other end willing to give you
| data that fast.
| patte wrote:
| We were honored to have him and he was actually of real help ;)
| kfrzcode wrote:
| Here I am 3 months after move in and $5500 later and Charter
| STILL hasn't installed my 1 gb cable.
| ec109685 wrote:
| In the linked blog post to init7 (translated), it says this:
| "Backhaul means the return of the data to the backbone, i.e. to
| the connecting area of the network. The backbone connects the
| various subnets. Each Fiber7 pop is newly connected with at least
| 100Gbit/sec backhaul capacity, which corresponds to 10 to 50
| times over-provision"
|
| Is that a normal over provisioning rate for an internet
| connection? It seems like each pop can only support four people
| at maximum speed before bandwidth would drop.
|
| https://blog.init7.net/de/neue-infrastruktur/
| Bluecobra wrote:
| I'm sure if they are a decent ISP and observe constant
| congestion on an uplink they would just upgrade it (e.g. create
| a port channel with two 100G links).
| secure wrote:
| It's not just normal, init7 is doing better than many big
| players in this regard.
|
| For comparison: init7 POPs used to be connected with 10 Gbit/s
| "only", so even 10 people maxing out their Gigabit line would
| saturate the uplink. This turned out to never be a problem over
| the years, I would always get maximum speed. The average usage
| is very low, in part also because transfers complete so
| quickly.
| farzher wrote:
| in California the fastest internet available to me is 50Mb/s. and
| it constantly spikes to 1000ms pings.
|
| i saw a dude living miles off-grid in Sweeden with a fiber
| connection routed to his tiny house in the woods ...
| jotm wrote:
| Damn, that's impressive. Technically I could get 2Gbps with the
| two providers running their own fiber in the neighborhood. But I
| don't even fully use one gigabit connection, running a torrent
| client is about the only thing that can do it. Any ideas welcome
| :D
|
| Curious thing, the ISPs don't oversell even though they easily
| could. I get exactly what I pay for, speed is never below
| ~940Mbps (down or up), and uptime has been stellar.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Yeah; there really aren't any great use cases I can think of
| for more than 1 gbps to the home at the moment. A 4k stream
| runs ~25 mbps, a 100 GB game download will tend to cap out
| before saturating the connection and still take ~15 minutes
| (hardly a wasted evening if you have to wait for it). At 2
| Gbps, if you actually saturated the connection downloading
| something, you'd better have an SDD, since you'll be
| downloading faster than a HDD can write. More bandwidth may be
| -nice-, for the few services that can take advantage of it (I'm
| not sure PSN, Steam, etc, even will), but it's hardly a game
| changer for home use. Even the backup/transfer cases he lists
| I'd hope are transferring diffs, which would likely make the
| speed increase unnoticeable.
|
| But, of course, I'd still love 25 gbps fiber to the home _just
| because_.
| dale_glass wrote:
| How about remote work?
|
| Back when covid19 started, we all went home, the office
| closed, and then we had a server failure. And I spent
| multiple days downloading stuff to back it up before
| reinstalling the machine, because there was not enough spare
| storage inside the office.
|
| If you work with VM disk images even 1 Gbps starts feeling a
| tad sluggish.
| FullyFunctional wrote:
| That was a delightful write up. My first _personal_ Internet
| connection was in France and was a dial-up 56kb/s modem
| connection (I could saturate it! :) Just before moving from
| Denmark to USA I had dirt cheap 1 Gb/s cable network so I was
| floored to find that not only not generally available in Silicon
| Valley, but also generally much more expensive and less reliable.
| In _Silicon_ Valley! (Yes, in SF there are more options today,
| but in the original Silicon Valley in the south bay, options are
| very poor and I refuse to ever again deal with Comcast).
|
| My current provider (Sail Internet) provides a symmetric
| connection so I have experimented with cloud backup. The
| difference between my internal network (10G and some 100G) and
| the external (< 1G) is pretty sad.
|
| ADD: I'm so sick of hearing ("why do you need that" or "what's
| the point"). There are plenty of applications TODAY, but even if
| you don't have any, new ones will manifest themselves once the
| technology is available - it's the way technology works (who
| would have imagined that daily video conference would be a part
| of life?).
| jdrc wrote:
| high upload speeds is what will bring the decentralization we are
| looking for
| zahma wrote:
| No %#*^ing way is he saturating a 25gbit connection to download a
| PS5 game -- not on Sony's EMEA servers anyway. He'd download the
| largest PS5 game out there (Borderlands at 50GB) in a minute
| anyway -- probably before he could reach the full 25gbit. On a
| gigabit connection, he could download Borderlands in under 7
| minutes. If that's too long too wait, then having a faster
| connection isn't this guy's problem.
|
| The only use case I can think of would be bit torrent where lots
| of peers housed in server farms could lead to full saturation.
| I've seen download speeds at 150MB/s. That's still a measly
| 1.2Gbit. But even when you're talking about downloading remuxed
| 2160p files (~50-75GB) or the occasional collection (~100-200GB),
| I don't see the need since it takes time to connect to the swarm
| and saturate those connections. Unless of course you want to seed
| it to the whole world.
|
| Cool to have such big pipes, and I'm glad Switzerland is doing
| some good for science and proving to other ISPs that there's
| profit to be had in avoiding rate limiting, but this is so wildly
| unnecessary.
| jeff18 wrote:
| The PS5 only has a 1gig Ethernet port anyway.
|
| AT&T fiber recently rolled out 5 gigs in San Francisco and as
| far as I can tell, Steam is the only service that can saturate
| it. That's after buying a 10 gig $100 network card and a $200
| router which only has 2 10 gig ports.
|
| It's going to be a few years before >1 gig internet is commonly
| supported.
| jshier wrote:
| Borderlands at 50GB isn't the largest PS5 game. I don't know
| what is but Horizon Forbidden West was ~90GB.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| The last spiderman was something around 200gb, and I think
| call of duty is even larger, but i don't play that.
|
| Their point still stands though: the download servers
| bandwidth usually throttles below gigabit, so it's gonna be
| hard to saturate that line today
| user- wrote:
| > The last spiderman was something around 200gb
|
| That is not true at all? Spider man was like 70gb , miles
| morales was like 40gb
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| i could definitely be wrong, I thought i made that clear
| from my phrasing. A cursory google does seem like it was
| closer to my number then yours though.
| Call of Duty Black Ops Cold War Cross gen bundle /
| Ultimate edition - 283.5 GB minimum Spider-Man
| Miles Morales Ultimate Edition - 170.5 GB minimum
| Hitman 3 - 105.1 GB minimum Destiny 2 - 101.1 GB
| minimum The Last of Us 2 - 93.37 GB minimum
| calcifer wrote:
| Those are uncompressed sizes, not download.
| oriolid wrote:
| Installed or download size? IDK about PS5, but many Steam
| games seem to do some decompressing during installation.
| scandinavian wrote:
| I have it installed and it's 105 gb, like there are
| plenty of sources on google that claims. You picked the
| only one saying higher.
|
| https://gamerant.com/ps5-biggest-game-file-sizes-gb/
|
| Here's the offical site also saying 105 gb:
|
| https://direct.playstation.com/en-us/games/game/marvels-
| spid...
|
| Also it's two games, Miles Morales and the remake of the
| PS4 version of Spider-Man.
| thfuran wrote:
| >On a gigabit connection, he could download Borderlands in
| under 7 minutes. If that's too long too wait, then having a
| faster connection isn't this guy's problem
|
| Why should he have to wait several minutes?
| mulmen wrote:
| I believe Microsoft uses (used?) Bit Torrent for Windows
| updates. Can the Xbox do something similar?
|
| Assuming Sony uses similar technology are the PS5 downloads
| strangled by weak residential connections? Maybe specifically
| in your area?
| yokoprime wrote:
| I have 1000/1000 fiber i my Oslo apartment. Pointless most of the
| time, especially since i only run gigabit network.
| martini333 wrote:
| 25 Gb/s to the internet providers speedtest server is kinda cute.
| But most CDN's limit is much, much lower.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| That's fine. No one said you need to use it all up in one
| connection.
| Aragorn2331 wrote:
| Another guy with the same connection ^^
| https://henschel.network/dual-stack-router-with-ubuntu-20-04...
| https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/515d9bf5-2c10-4555-90ef-1...
| https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/7de2e830-7737-4330-90d1-4...
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| Latency means he will probably need at least 50 TCP streams to
| saturate this connection, how fast something blinks doesn't
| matter if protocols doesn't allow continuous blinking.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| Hmm... I just downgraded my Internet because I did not feel like
| paying the cable fees/taxes (I do not watch cable or sports) and
| they came bundled with the higher speed. (You can now guess who
| my provider might be.)
|
| My guaranteed speed is just 50Mbit/s, and despite being a
| software engineer and streaming movies, I did not notice a
| difference. My son has to wait longer for his steam downloads
| sometimes.
|
| 25GBit/s is impressive, though, and if I could get it here
| without strings attached I'd probably go for it, too.
|
| BTW. My first experience was a dial-up model with 9600 baud, so
| maybe my expectations are just lower :)
| k8sToGo wrote:
| My experience with fast internet has been that most CDNs are just
| not routed well and are quite slow (especially Microsoft). Only a
| few good ones allow me to saturate my Gbit internet. Not sure
| what I would do with 25 Gbit though.
|
| What I do enjoy is that rsync.net is using the same ISP so I can
| max out my upload to them.
| jotm wrote:
| Many servers specifically throttle single connections, which is
| why there's stuff like JDownloader and browser add-ons that
| download the same file in several parts over multiple
| connections
| k8sToGo wrote:
| I use aria2 and often it works. But I can't do that if the
| download is happening inside an application (e.g. MS Flight
| Simulator).
| jagger27 wrote:
| This is so depressing to read. I can't imagine an ISP like this
| existing in Canada.
| whinvik wrote:
| In neigbouring Germany, we had a lady from Deutsch Telekom asking
| us today if they should build a 250 Mbps line to our building!
| dx034 wrote:
| Telekom is cancer, especially their peering. 250mbits sounds
| fine though, I haven't upgraded from that yet, there are way
| too few instances where it restricts me to pay anything more.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Canada here. 500 Mbps is like $80/month lol.
| mrstone wrote:
| It's all pretty negotiable. I pay $69/mo for gigabit fibre
| through Telus.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Where? I pay 60$ for mildly spotty 120mbps and that was very
| good deal a year ago. It's pretty sad considering I live in
| Montreal. I know western Canada has way better internet/data
| prices though
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Telus fibre not available where I live only Shaw. And it's
| not bad all considered, just expensive compared to the rest
| of the world.
| gaudat wrote:
| Holy shit how do I move to your place?
| mastax wrote:
| Does anyone have a good primer about optical networking links?
| Single and multimode fiber, connectors, transcievers, etc. When
| and why you would choose different technologies, how much they
| cost, etc. I'm realizing that I have a large hole in my knowledge
| there. Google is full of mid-tier SEO garbage as usual.
| explaingarlic wrote:
| I'm really unsure as to whether it's worth investing whatsoever
| in consumer grade fiber connections.
|
| My speeds are advertised as 1Gbits down and 100Mbits up. On speed
| tests, I get much higher downloads (~1.5Gbits per second). This
| might be because it's not capped properly, and I live in a place
| that they're still building houses in (I imagine that our "box"
| is not yet saturated).
|
| However, I rarely max that speed out in any download. Video games
| on Steam max out at maybe 65 megabytes per second. wget commands
| go from between 10 megabytes per second to maybe 40 max.
|
| The thing is, I know that the speed tests are legit, because I
| can do several of these things at once and none of them lose any
| speed.
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| I think you can now put 800 gigabit per second today, via
| commercially available kit, down a single strand of fibre
| installed back in the early 1980s.
|
| Copper or radio connections just don't seem like as worthwhile
| an investment to me. I'm not saying it makes sense to have an
| 800gbit connection to a residential property but from a
| longevity, cost per mile, use of less rare materials, reduced
| rf interference or whatever, fibre just seems a better
| proposition to me.
| theideaofcoffee wrote:
| The current commercial state-of-the-art is quite a bit
| higher, 25.6Tbps or thereabouts using a full 40 channel/color
| DWDM and 400g modules. But yes, copper or RF is IMO a non-
| starter for any new deployments.
| Bluecobra wrote:
| That's the beauty of single mode fiber, you can use the same
| pair for something as slow as 10 Mbps to 800 Gbps. Makes a
| lot more sense from a data center perspective too, since you
| can continue to reuse the existing cable plant and just need
| to upgrade your NICs, transceivers, and switches.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| I think it has to do with the routing and peering. I can get
| full speed on Steam, Origin, but not from Microsoft, for
| example.
| msarchet wrote:
| I have gotten 800+ downloading games onto my xbox
| selectodude wrote:
| Microsoft's CDN is awful. I'm in Chicago so my fiber
| connection literally terminates at an Akamai and Cloudflare
| edge. Steam, Apple, et al I routinely pull 100+ megabytes per
| second. Microsoft, I'm lucky if I get a third of that.
| explaingarlic wrote:
| Yeah, maybe. My connectivity feels pretty intermittent to
| some ASNs, but I don't know if that's what changes between a
| good peering connection and a bad one.
| 2ion wrote:
| What's impressive to me here is not the capacity but the price
| for the capacity. At allegedly 777 CHF per year this is a steal
| so far removed from my reality it's obscene.
| tonfa wrote:
| And Init7 is solid quality (and probably the perfect ISP for
| people who like to have fun with their network), but not
| exactly cheap for Zurich. You can get like 10Gb/s for half the
| price with other ISPs.
| Bluecobra wrote:
| If you make the assumption that they are using 100G switches or
| line cards with 32 ports, those ports can be broken out to 128x
| 25G ports. That comes out to ~$100,000 USD in revenue per 1U
| per year. Not too shabby.
| sylware wrote:
| With a simple and lean signaling p2p protocol, with sufficient
| nodes at that speed (and support of diffserv), popular live
| streamers with a few thousands of viewers could part from
| twitch/youtube and similar.
|
| For broadcast, namely the scale above (for instance a public TV
| channel), if I recall properly, IPv6 has many broadcast IPs...
| just need the IAPs of a "telecommunication zone" (state, country,
| etc) to manage to work together at that level. I think IPv6
| multicast is "too much" for IAPs to handle though (the whole
| "subscription"/"unsubscription" propagation for domestic users,
| not limited to CDNs only).
| fetzu wrote:
| Cool read !
|
| Moved into a new apartment which (unbeknownst to me at first)
| also has the capability of 25 Gbps with init7, unfortunately that
| was before getting a locked-in into a 1 (or is it 2?) year
| contract with my current provider (1000/100 Mbps, so I can't
| really complain). Looking forward to having that contract expire
| and upgrading though, but then the issue is going to be how to
| distribute all that bandwidth properly over the house (most
| devices I use are still 1 Gbps OOTB) :).
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I'm in the US, and I could upgrade from 1 Gbps ($50/month) to 10
| Gbps for $200/month. These are symmetrical speeds. That's because
| of fiber was built out as a community project, rather than
| waiting for the existing ISP duopoly (who were paid millions of
| dollars by the federal government, to do exactly this, but
| didn't).
|
| The reason I haven't, isn't that more isn't better, it is that
| equipment costs and hassle to deliver 10 Gbps around the
| residence is a giant PITA as the article kind of demonstrates. If
| 2.5 Gbps ethernet equipment becomes more common and cost-
| effective, I'd definitely consider the 10 Gbps offering but until
| then, it isn't worth $1K or more to get prepared.
| Linda703 wrote:
| xyst wrote:
| This is impressive. If everybody had data center like speeds to
| their home. Decentralization might actually work.
| mmaunder wrote:
| The challenge with anything above a gig is the LAN. 10gig+
| switches and SFP modules are expensive for consumers. So is the
| client hardware. We use thunderbolt 3 on our macs with ATTO
| Thunderlink to get 40Gbps locally and they're kinda the only
| option and their hardware is bulky, expensive and their software
| sucks.
|
| Also config on Mac is awkward.
|
| There's also some weirdness when you upgrade to that speed into a
| backbone with sub 10ms latency where, for example, Teamspeak's
| servers kept booting us because a security mechanism thought we
| were doing something naughty. We had to use a VPN to connect to
| add back latency.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I just upgraded some of my home network to 10 Gbps; it was way
| cheaper than I thought:
|
| - 3 NICs with SPF+ at ~ $45 a piece
|
| - 1 switch with 4 SFP+ and 1 RJ45@1Gbps: $140
|
| - 1 switch with 2 SFP+ and 8 x RJ45@1Gbps: $100
|
| - ~ $100 for all the DACs and AOCs
|
| So I have the backbone and 3 computers @ 10 Gbps and a number
| of other devices left at 1 Gbps, all for $500. This is just
| because I have many devices connected and some longer optic
| cables instead of DACs, otherwise it would be just half of
| that. But yes, going to 25 Gbps is a different game, probably
| 5x the price or more.
| moondev wrote:
| An alternative to the Thunderlink is a TB3 -> PCIe expansion
| box. Then you can use whatever card you like without need for
| additional software.
| mchusma wrote:
| For me it was the 2ms ping that had me jealous. After maybe 200
| mbs I would trade almost all bandwidth for more latency.
| mrweasel wrote:
| It nice that 25Gbps is available, but I'd rather that ISPs
| started to lower prices, rather than upgrading speeds. I just
| cancels my 500mbps, because I now have to pay myself, 200mbps
| is plenty for online meetings, ssh and browsing.
| toast0 wrote:
| > I would trade almost all bandwidth for more latency.
|
| Well it's easy to get more latency ;)
| mchusma wrote:
| Sorry. Better latency :)
| vinay_ys wrote:
| I expect the 25Gbps link to be over-subscribed. Without minimum
| bandwidth guarantees, with 48Y4C * 2 switch and 100Gbps backhaul
| to the whole PoP (with minimum 64 customers for it to break-
| even), I suspect the sustained bandwidth will fluctuate wildly.
| In the worst case scenario, each customer may get a sustained
| bandwidth less than 50Mbps. Of course the big advantage is burst
| bandwidth is much higher.
| gigatexal wrote:
| I'm so envious.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| I'm thrilled with my gigabit fiber from Sonic. I wonder how many
| of their customers even get the full gigabit though; if they are
| connecting with WiFi they almost certainly aren't. And even
| ethernet is still not reliably gigabit in homes with older
| wiring. But this 25gbit is in another category.
|
| I'm impressed the Ookla speedtest server can deliver 25Gbit.
|
| The 25gbit network card he mentions costs $400-$500, that's
| cheaper than I would have guessed.
| Bud wrote:
| I had Sonic fiber for a few years, in the Bay Area. I always
| got the full gigabit, basically. Speedtest always showed around
| 940Mbps up and down. This was over Ethernet, since I always ran
| Ethernet into the Thunderbolt dock for my main Mac.
|
| Usually got around 500-600Mbps over WiFi on a fast device.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >I'm impressed the Ookla speedtest server can deliver 25Gbit.
|
| It's not surprising since is testing against his ISP's test
| server.
| greenburger wrote:
| Yeah, I'm a new Sonic customer and got their 10gbit service.
| $40/mo beats any of the other three providers pricing for much
| lower bandwidth.
|
| However, I only have a gigabit router, so most of that isn't
| utilized, assuming that's true for all my neighbors as well
| (Sonic's only offering here is 10gbit)
| kbenson wrote:
| Just think of it as future proofing, like installing higher
| rated cabling in a house than you'll use initially. The cost
| isn't any more for you to have 10Gbit in this case, so for
| you it's just knowing that you could buy more equipment for
| your end at any time to use it if you needed, and not have to
| wait for a service change. :)
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| Looks like the speed tests revealed test providers with 10G
| connections, the 25G connection could fully saturate the test
| host. It is unusual for a single client to have more bandwidth
| than some services.
| shasts wrote:
| I fondly remember the days in 2010 in Zurich, and cablecom had
| good functional internet, don't remember the speed. Then I moved
| to Germany in 2013, and it surprised me that I can't have
| internet in my apartment for the next two months, because the
| technician appointment and when I finally received, I got a
| meagre DSL connection with bad ping and 32 Mbits.
|
| It has gotten better over the years, but even the best available
| consumer connection is 1000 Mbits down and 200Mbits up.
|
| Majority of the tech Germans I meet are embarassed about the
| internet and telecom infra, being an advanced economy.
|
| Hopefully the new government fixes things.
| dx034 wrote:
| 1000/200mbit sounds more than enough to me, even for a family.
| I could have 1gbps but decided to stay with 250mbit because I
| just don't see how it would benefit me. Cloud vms are so cheap
| and tend to have lower ping to other services, so I go there if
| I really need faster speed.
|
| I do agree about the general state of German internet
| connectivity though. However, seems to be catching up quickly,
| especially in rural areas.
| imtringued wrote:
| Germany is improving at exactly the rate it needs to. Yeah sure
| it's definitively behind but it's not stagnating like the US.
| Biganon wrote:
| TIL the creator of i3 is a fellow Swiss
| denysvitali wrote:
| Swisscom customer (and employee) here, opinions are my own of
| course.
|
| They recently called me to upgrade my fiber connection from 1
| Gbps to 10Gbps for free (every customer with a compatible
| connection gets it, AFAIK).
|
| I have to admit that, although the network is indeed faster (on
| the speed tests and file transfers), I really don't see the point
| quite yet.
|
| Considering that:
|
| - Most of the devices I use are anyways connected to WiFi 6
|
| - Reaching a 10Gbps peak is highly unlikely
|
| - Most of my ethernet ports are anyways at most 1Gbps
|
| - Most of the servers won't serve you more than 1Gbps anyways
|
| I do not really consider this a must-have upgrade for a
| residential customer, especially if you live alone / less than 4
| people.
|
| On top of that, as demonstrated by these tests, servers aren't
| quite there yet, and the 10Gbps / 25Gbps you are getting are not
| fully dedicated to your connection.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I love to be able to use the fastest internet
| I can - but realistically speaking this is just useful in a few
| specific cases.
|
| If you are hosting your own server at home, a 10 / 25 Gbps upload
| is definitely interesting though.
|
| It a nice thing to have already, and I'm really thankful to live
| in a country where I have the privilege of having such a luxury,
| but as of today a >1Gbps connection is overkill (heck, for most
| of the stuff even a >100Mbps is overkill sometimes).
| lukasLansky wrote:
| My ethernet is also capped at 1 Gb/s for most of my computers.
| The 10 Gb/s connection is still useful as it makes sure that
| things running at different devices won't affect each other.
| Streaming won't affect games won't affect work-related video
| calls. It's great.
| chrisandchris wrote:
| The last time i streamed 4K video while gaming on my PS4
| during a work related video calls was just a couple days ago.
|
| Joke aside. I get your point, but how many people do you have
| to have on a single 1 Gbit line to saturdate it? Some things
| will get faster for sure (like downloading large files, if
| the other side is fast enough), but I feel like most of the
| time it's driving a Ferrari within a city.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > it's driving a Ferrari within a city.
|
| Given that this article is about Zurich... that's a very
| apt analogy.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| I have taken over quite a lot of Ferraris in Zurich by a
| bicycle on the bicycle road when I was living there, it
| was always fun :)
| denysvitali wrote:
| Yes, in that sense you'd have a "dedicated" 1Gbps for each
| device. But realistically, how often do you need that?
|
| I don't know about you, but the only time I would reach such
| a peak would be in case I download something huge while
| watching Netflix at 4k (which I don't have) and while at the
| same time downloading an update for my phone and a game for
| the PS5 (which I don't own).
|
| I would argue that the likelihood of all the above things
| happening at the same time is quite low, at least for me :)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Perhaps we would not have to rely on other entities such as
| Apple/Google/Microsoft/Dropbox/etc to serve our content if
| we had decent upload bandwidth at home.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean in 1980 how often did you need 128kb ISDN? A hunter
| gatherer would have told you they have no use for a
| spaceship, yet modern society uses them do deploy
| satellites of all kinds. Just because you dont have a need
| doesnt mean that needs dont exist.
| denysvitali wrote:
| I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that as of today, I
| personally think it's useless.
|
| Sure, being 10Gbps-ready is already awesome, but it feels
| like buying a 16k TV today. For some niche use cases it
| might make sense, but until this technology is mainstream
| and makes sense it would take a while
| zepearl wrote:
| I assume that you got from Swisscom a new router? If yes, does
| it have an active fan? If yes, is it usually active? Thx
| denysvitali wrote:
| I kept my Internet Box 3 (IB3): the 10Gbps doesn't need a new
| router, just a new SFP module (sent free of charge) :)
|
| If you want you can get a IB4 and forget about the
| replacement module (it should have the module directly
| soldered onto the board AFAIK).
|
| Anyways, both routers are fanless from what I know (and can
| hear).
|
| https://www.swisscom.ch/content/dam/assets/b2c/products/inte.
| ..
| nix23 wrote:
| >Reaching a 10Gbps peak is highly unlikely
|
| True because the customer router has just one 2.5G and four 1G
| ports....thank you swisscom...but hey like you said the upgrade
| from 1G to "shared" ~10G was free.
| denysvitali wrote:
| That's true for IB3, but IB4 has a 10Gbps port, fyi
| [deleted]
| flatearth22 wrote:
| abridgett wrote:
| I wonder what systems the ISP has in place to avoid such networks
| becoming sthe source of DDoS attacks.
|
| Given the generally dire security of home routers (and
| understandably low security of most home networks/users) it feels
| a little like giving people far more power than most can safely
| wield.
| tonfa wrote:
| It's a niche/small ISP, which mostly targets advanced users.
|
| Though for regular users, they can get 10Gb/s for half the
| price of init7 with other isps (but probably worse peering as
| mentioned in the post).
| [deleted]
| panick21_ wrote:
| I bought the same connection. It was the same monthly price, just
| a slightly higher upgrade fee.
|
| I have not actually upgraded my router at all so I not profiting
| as much from it as I could.
|
| Still, love init7 and their service.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-23 23:00 UTC)