Forgot your password?

How much use would you get from a 1 gigabit internet connection?

Displaying poll results.
Lots -- I push a ton of bits almost constantly
  3702 votes / 14%
Some -- I saturate my connection on a regular basis
  8278 votes / 31%
Little -- It would come in handy once in a great while
  6953 votes / 26%
None -- My current connection handles my needs just fine
  2444 votes / 9%
None -- I don't *need* it, I just *want* it
  3599 votes / 13%
I just want to upgrade my telegraph
  916 votes / 3%
25892 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How much use would you get from a 1 gigabit internet connection?

Comments Filter:
  • I have a gigabit (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @04:04PM (#46827043)

    I live in Chattanooga, TN where every house is able to get 100 mbit or 1gbit from the electric company. I can't tell the difference between 100mbit and 1 gbit because my laptops wifi card isn't fast enough

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @04:31PM (#46827371)

    I currently am on 150/15 (megabit) and in May that will go up to 180/18.
    (Docsis3 cable.)

    The download is plenty. I can saturate it, but I really have to work hard to do that.
    The upload is decent, but I really would like to have some more.
    To move my backups off-site (have a 2nd Synology NAS parked at my sisters house, big updates can take more than a night) and for the VPN (I frequently need to upload files >200 MB) to the office.
    And some more upload would also mean I wouldn't have to down-throttle usenet and/or torrent downloads while gaming.

    Considering that nearly all curren soho routers can't even handle 1 Gb/s at wire-speed....
    It sounds nice, but who is actually going to use it ?

  • by sandytaru (1158959) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @05:01PM (#46827623) Journal
    Even 10 mbps second would be a vast improvement over the 1.5 down and 0.75 up I see in practice from AT&T DSL.
  • by Zmobie (2478450) on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @06:08PM (#46828165)

    I disagree with that article on the single point of multi-tasking. Right now, I have a 24 mbps connection from AT&T and for single tasks, yes it is pretty much plenty for me for general use (once I have my home server up this will NOT be the case though). The thing is if I could turn on all the things I want to at once, I could easily saturate 300 to 400 mbps half the day right now.

    There are tons of services, background downloads, personal applications, and so on that I just turn on and off depending on what I am doing. When working on any websites, I have to turn some other stuff off so that I can access pages, upload files, etc. but with a 1 gbps connection I would not give one single damn what-so-ever. On top of that the many things I would like to implement and host from home I could run all the time (various game servers, home web hosting, file hosting for myself, client-server applications, documentation and my own personal "cloud" services, the list is kind of massive now that I think about it) without worrying about destroying everyone else's connection at my house. I mean I do like the idea of cloud hosting for instance, but not when someone else is the host and with that kind of connection I can be the host.

    Now, I will definitely give you that I am probably in the very small minority of people that could/would do this sort of thing, but that is the main advantage (right now) of 1 gbps connections. Beyond that expandability comes to mind since so many things are transitioning to run over internet connections. My TV and phone both run through the same line but are limited by necessity right now since things are run to me over such lower bandwidth connections. Considering many places want to completely get rid of POTS lines and most of your TV services are going to a vastly improved digital distribution service, high bandwidth connection are going to become much more useful in the future (not *necessary* for a while simply because it is going to take forever for this to roll out to rural areas due to the ROI being so much smaller for that kind of deployment).

    If it isn't cost prohibitive to the consumer, bring on the increased bandwidth I say, can't wait until they roll it out to my area.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @06:33PM (#46828389)

    I regularly saturate 50Mbps downstream. I just timed it: 12 minutes for a 4.2GB Knoppix ISO. I also download Youtube Videos at 50Mbps. If you're seeing no more than 24Mbps (M is mega, m is milli, btw.), even though your ISP promises more, then check if your router is a bottleneck. The WAN-to-LAN throughput is CPU limited on most routers, and many can't handle a true high speed connection. (If I had a gigabit connection to the internet, the first thing I would do is build my own router from PC hardware, just to be able to use that bandwidth.) Another pitfall is that XP doesn't achieve full TCP throughput on high speed internet connections without a parameter modification. Obvious tip is obvious: Use a wired connection to measure throughput. WLAN throughput can be unreliable.

  • Re:Missed the point (Score:5, Informative)

    by SQL Error (16383) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:01AM (#46830829)

    Then you're going to be disappointed.

    The speed of light in optical fibre is about 200km per millisecond. So a round-trip ping of 10ms, ignoring all other sources of latency, limits you to a range of 1000km (call it 600 miles). And that's never going to change.

  • Re:Missed the point (Score:4, Informative)

    by floobedy (3470583) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:19AM (#46830885)

    I don't think getting gigabit would help latency much. Latency is largely a function of how many routers you're going through and physical distance, neither of which is affected by whether you have fiber to the home. Furthermore, your internet connection to your home is just last mile stuff anyway. The vast majority of the distance your packets travel is over fiber even if you personally are using dialup.

    Fiber might help latency slightly, because it would improve the speed of transmission for the final 0.1% of the distance. However, I'd guess the overall difference in ping times would be pretty slight.

In case of atomic attack, all work rules will be temporarily suspended.


Forgot your password?