Higher high speed internet overrated/unnecessary?

[Guitar]

Do you have tv svc?

Internet only.

 

[eidairaman1]

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

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

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

 

[Ja.KooLit]

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

 

[eidairaman1]

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

6Mbps is plenty for gaming/Data Transfer.

 

[newconroer]

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

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

Insane.

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

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

 

[RejZoR]

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

 

[newconroer]

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

 

[Aquinus]

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

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

 

[newconroer]

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

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

 

[Aquinus]

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

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

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

 

[eidairaman1]

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

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

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

 

[newconroer]

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

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

 

[Aquinus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Seany1212]

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

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

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

 

[Aquinus]

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

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

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

 

[RejZoR]

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

 

[JUSTIN1982]

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

@XSI: telecommunications in the USA is a sham.

what part iof iowa