Gigabit so near yet so far. Just 35 dollars a month.

[Doppel]

When people in a technology forum argue that we don't need gigabit I wonder what has become of us. Imagine saying in 1998 that we didn't need faster processors. Or better video cards. We wouldn't have HD capable computers. Or saying that 10Mb network cards were fast enough because you could fill up a 2 Gb drive in no time. We would not have terabyte hard drives with movies, television, pictures and music.

It's just sad. Clearly there must be forces at work that could get technologically savvy people to argue for no technological advancement. Pardon me while I weep for my country.

With more storage you can store more music, faster video card or CPU you can jack up game settings. Going from 50 mbps to a gigabit, who's really going to notice? The most bandwidth intense thing 99% of people do is stream HD video, which can be done on any internet connection, and I think you'd have a hard time noticing web pages loading faster on a gigabit connection. It will be nice in the future but at this point it's useless, kind of like if you took today's best video card back 12 years: even with any game back then maxed out there would be a lot of performance unused because you have no way to use it.

Eventually gigabit will be worthwhile and if I could get it now I would anyway just for the hell of it, my arguments aside

 

[Zargon]

That was the point. You are being guided to use Verizon's services and you don't even see it.

Netflix and similar services are all forced to drop their quality and bandwidth requirements because of ISP's. You're choosing FiOS and not Netflix because Verizon specifically restricts streaming traffic on their network. They either cut you off if you watch more than ~10 hours/month worth of video, make sure you can't watch said video in realtime, or offer the option but make you pay in the hundred dollar range. If you didn't have streaming limits, you would not be able to see a difference between your Netflix stream and your FiOS stream.

If the US landscape had no ISP with any video offerings, we'd have more bandwidth at cheaper prices than we do now. The main reason the FCC's duopoly policy failed is because the FCC ignored the technical limitations of DSL. It was invented as an interim solution, not long term, to use until modern infrastructure could replace it. As such, there is no way it would scale for very long.

When DSL was still competitive with ISDN, T1 and early DOCSIS 1.0, there was a lot of options and relatively low prices across the board. Recall how that competition disappeared when the technology couldn't scale to compete with higher bandwidth cable and how cable stopped scaling after all those little DSL companies disappeared.

yup

we need true net neutrality

 

[BurnItDwn]

I wonder how fast STEAM service would run... it's very easily capable of saturating my crappy 18mbit service.

 

[techs]

With more storage you can store more music, faster video card or CPU you can jack up game settings. Going from 50 mbps to a gigabit, who's really going to notice? The most bandwidth intense thing 99% of people do is stream HD video, which can be done on any internet connection, and I think you'd have a hard time noticing web pages loading faster on a gigabit connection. It will be nice in the future but at this point it's useless, kind of like if you took today's best video card back 12 years: even with any game back then maxed out there would be a lot of performance unused because you have no way to use it.

Eventually gigabit will be worthwhile and if I could get it now I would anyway just for the hell of it, my arguments aside

Sigh.
I guess my point was lost.
Its for all the things we don't know what Gigabit speeds will bring that we need it.
When they built the first roads they never envisioned it would lead to suburbs. Or just in time inventory. When they invented the laser no one foresaw it would lead to cd's or eventually bluray. Or laser surgery.

 

[Phoenix86]

With .265 being standardised soon it should be possible to do 4k at around 20mb/s at least if I remember my math right.

Thanks for this estimate, I was wanting something similar in another thread (although for 1080p). I figure the average home would need about 4x TV feeds for watching or recording + 2 surfing + phone at peak usage so that's about 100mb/s right there.

 

[mnewsham]

Thanks for this estimate, I was wanting something similar in another thread (although for 1080p). I figure the average home would need about 4x TV feeds for watching or recording + 2 surfing + phone at peak usage so that's about 100mb/s right there.

Yup, which is why I think 75-100Mb/s is going to be a "standard" within the next 2 decades, or at least I hope so.

 

[Wyndru]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works, but wouldn't this eventually create a bottleneck at routers and switches higher up though?

I know everyone is excited about gigabit, but are these companies really prepared to handle large pipes going to every home? I feel like eventually they will have to start throttling it as the amount of subscribers increases (or pour a ton of money into upgrading infrastructure). Granted, most people won't be maxing it out throughout majority of the day, but I just wonder what the traffic will be like at peak times, if it will slow right down.

 

[Phoenix86]

Yup, which is why I think 75-100Mb/s is going to be a "standard" within the next 2 decades, or at least I hope so.

1080p within 2-4 years, 4K another 5+ after that so about a decade guesstimate.

 

[mnewsham]

1080p within 2-4 years, 4K another 5+ after that so about a decade guesstimate.

we have 1080p streaming from netflix now, you can get a cheap 4k TV for less than $2k now, I say it's 2-4 years for 4k streaming options.

 

[techs]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works, but wouldn't this eventually create a bottleneck at routers and switches higher up though?

I know everyone is excited about gigabit, but are these companies really prepared to handle large pipes going to every home? I feel like eventually they will have to start throttling it as the amount of subscribers increases (or pour a ton of money into upgrading infrastructure). Granted, most people won't be maxing it out throughout majority of the day, but I just wonder what the traffic will be like at peak times, if it will slow right down.

Yes, most people don't have gigabit routers in their homes. And current routers wireless capabilities cant even meet the needs of the speeds many people are getting now.

Basically cable companies don't want to upgrade their networks and want to keep peoples speed down as long as possible to maximize their profits. And cable companies profits are huge. Making them upgrade to handle universal gigabit will benefit society and America so forcing them to upgrade is in our best interests.

For instance when two way, non buffering HD is in place colleges can do many classes without students having to attend. Saving a ton of money on a college education. You would see the teacher and the teacher would have a large screen with all the students on it. Full interaction. Imagine the money saved, the gasoline saved, etc.

 

[Phoenix86]

we have 1080p streaming from netflix now, you can get a cheap 4k TV for less than $2k now, I say it's 2-4 years for 4k streaming options.

The vast majority of TV services are 720p and not even IP based. Options doesn't mean acceptance/norm. Just look at how long 1080p TVs have been around that aren't being utilized.

 

[Bryf50]

That was the point. You are being guided to use Verizon's services and you don't even see it.

Netflix and similar services are all forced to drop their quality and bandwidth requirements because of ISP's. You're choosing FiOS and not Netflix because Verizon specifically restricts streaming traffic on their network. They either cut you off if you watch more than ~10 hours/month worth of video, make sure you can't watch said video in realtime, or offer the option but make you pay in the hundred dollar range. If you didn't have streaming limits, you would not be able to see a difference between your Netflix stream and your FiOS stream.

You realize it is Netflix restricting 1080p video over FiOS right? Verizon refused to sign up for Netflix's Open Connect CDN therefore they restrict access. There is nothing stopping Netflix from sending a 1080p higher bandwidth video stream over FiOS. I've never heard of any streaming limits over FiOS and it has always been one of the least restrictive ISPs when it comes to actually using the bandwidth.

And with the exception of on demand FiOS TV is not IPTV. They still add another 8-9mbit to your connection when you sign up for TV so on demand doesn't cut into your internet speeds.

 

[mnewsham]

You realize it is Netflix restricting 1080p video over FiOS right? Verizon refused to sign up for Netflix's Open Connect CDN therefore they restrict access. There is nothing stopping Netflix from sending a 1080p higher bandwidth video stream over FiOS. I've never heard of any streaming limits over FiOS and it has always been one of the least restrictive ISPs when it comes to actually using the bandwidth.

And with the exception of on demand FiOS TV is not IPTV. They still add another 8-9mbit to your connection when you sign up for TV so on demand doesn't cut into your internet speeds.

It's a free service from netflix, so it really falls on verizon to accept it, they refused.

 

[jpiniero]

Obviously VZ isn't interested because the two are competitors really.

 

[Sahakiel]

You realize it is Netflix restricting 1080p video over FiOS right? Verizon refused to sign up for Netflix's Open Connect CDN therefore they restrict access. There is nothing stopping Netflix from sending a 1080p higher bandwidth video stream over FiOS. I've never heard of any streaming limits over FiOS and it has always been one of the least restrictive ISPs when it comes to actually using the bandwidth.

And with the exception of on demand FiOS TV is not IPTV. They still add another 8-9mbit to your connection when you sign up for TV so on demand doesn't cut into your internet speeds.

There is nothing stopping every resident in the US from laying fiber to the nearest backbone, too. Oh, wait, there are a bunch of laws in each city or county preventing all but one company per sector, let alone private citizens, from doing so. Verizon themselves gave up on the fiber rollout because they ran into the same red tape that protected Verizon in its home districts from competition.

Also, why are you okay with the idea of Verizon treating Netflix traffic different from any other internet company? If Verizon is so lenient on traffic use that they will let you saturate your pipe without a peep while you download large non-video files, why do they turn on Netflix and ask them to pay for transit? Why did Verizon present Netflix with charges for traffic that the customer is supposedly already paying for based on the fact that traffic from almost every other content provider (even sites like youtube) is NOT charged transit?

The answer is simple: Netflix is a high profile direct competitor to FiOS' video services. Verizon can charge Netflix for traffic and either gain loads of additional revenue for next to nothing or market the "terrible" video quality of Netflix versus FiOS' "superior" HD offerings.

And by the way, 8-9 mbit for video is less than half what bluray can handle. That's not counting packetization. Funny that.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yup, which is why I think 75-100Mb/s is going to be a "standard" within the next 2 decades, or at least I hope so.

Honestly I'd be happy with 50mb up/down. I wish we could get that here. Of course 100 is even better. The key though is it has to be unlimited. As soon as they have caps, it defeats the whole purpose.

 

[zCypher]

Honestly I'd be happy with 50mb up/down. I wish we could get that here. Of course 100 is even better. The key though is it has to be unlimited. As soon as they have caps, it defeats the whole purpose.

lol yeah, good luck with that!

 

[indy2878]

Zero need. I am totally happy with my 18 meg cable.
I guess part of the reason is that nothing is throttled, not any type of download, nor any time of day. That type of thing makes people want to upgrade for sure.

I kinda agree with you on this....
From 2000 to 2012 I had 1.5M/364k ADSL and I NEVER felt the need to upgrade at all considering the majority of the time I was using text data and at the most .jpg and .png files.... Then I got an xbox 360 and started playing Call of duty Modern Warfare 2 and started streaming 720p video/music files. I then upgraded to my current Comcast 25 down 5 up, 15-25ms ping times. Its actually the single digit ping times I'm REALLY after if anything at this point.... I might upgrade to 50 down 10 up later on during this year or just keep what I've got which I'm VERY happy and lucky to even have. Starving people in the world would kill for my connection. So just be happy with what you've got folks!

 

[Zargon]

I wonder how fast STEAM service would run... it's very easily capable of saturating my crappy 18mbit service.

about the same

it can't saturate my 30mb line, none even close

Origin however...go akamai go