• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Verizon: We Don't Think You Need 1Gbps

All you people arguing about how long it takes to make backups to a cloud based server missed something important: how long it takes to restore. I work with a woman who lost everything to the cryptolock virus. No problem, she thought, we have everything backed up to the cloud. But then she realized it would take WEEKS to restore all her data, and in the meantime her internet connection would be saturated, making her tablet almost as useless as her laptop. I'm sure she'd love to have 1Gbps service right now. Hell, even 100Mbps would be nice.
 
Exavior said:
wanting it and wanting to pay for it are different things. Will you pay $290 per month for 500/500Mbps service today? or about $400 for 1Gbps symentrical?
Click to expand...

No. Verizon can go F themselves, greedy bastards.

But I would pay the $1000 install and $70/month for Google 1 Gbps fiber.
 
canna said:
No. Verizon can go F themselves, greedy bastards.

But I would pay the $1000 install and $70/month for Google 1 Gbps fiber.
Click to expand...

I know that you aren't the person I was asking, but that just shows that there isn't a market then yet. Google isn't actually trying to sell a service so they are being nice to a few people, those actually trying to sell a service are going to charge a lot more. However the problem is that people don't actually wan to pay for 1Gbps which means that there is no market right now for that level of service.
 
DocSavage said:
I don't know about Verizon, but my Google fiber upload speeds are up to 910mbps on a non-google speedtest server (was 940mbps on google's): http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3306395967
Click to expand...

And what speed are the services you use ? Have you actually tried look at speeds of Google Drive/Skydrive/Copy/Box/Dropbox/... . Most times you will be happy to see anything above 1MB/s. So yes, 1Gbps is often kinda pointless on your side when the services on other side can't push that much data to you. And those who rate or speed limit you is a huge chunk of services people actually use.
 
faugusztin said:
And what speed are the services you use ? Have you actually tried look at speeds of Google Drive/Skydrive/Copy/Box/Dropbox/... . Most times you will be happy to see anything above 1MB/s. So yes, 1Gbps is often kinda pointless on your side when the services on other side can't push that much data to you. And those who rate or speed limit you is a huge chunk of services people actually use.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is stupid.

First, as technology improves for the end users, it will also improve for the content providers.

Secondly, "I can name a specific service with which I can only hit 1MB/s, so clearly >1MB/s is always pointless" is not a valid argument.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Since when has it ever been about "Needing" it?

Last I checked businesses were supposed to be providing their customers with what the customer "Wants" not what some random dude thinks they need. Pretty sure I stopped being a child who got told what I needed many years ago. Sure what he says might be technically true, but I would be willing to wager on it coming from him being a greedy asshole more than a technical observation.
Click to expand...

You sir are my F'n hero. If there was competition, someone would offer what we wanted instead of what we need.
 
Kongar said:
You sir are my F'n hero. If there was competition, someone would offer what we wanted instead of what we need.
Click to expand...

Indeed... Indeed. We want what we want, and that is why we buy it. Sure, I could wipe my ass with my hand, but I want to use something that is NOT my hand.
 
Exavior said:
I know that you aren't the person I was asking, but that just shows that there isn't a market then yet. Google isn't actually trying to sell a service so they are being nice to a few people, those actually trying to sell a service are going to charge a lot more. However the problem is that people don't actually wan to pay for 1Gbps which means that there is no market right now for that level of service.
Click to expand...

Umm... false? Sonic.net is doing 1Gbps fiber for $70 a month, while their markets are so small they make google look like a monopoly in the fiber game, point is they're hardly trying to stir the pot while happily taking a loss. AT&T even claiming to give 1Gbps fiber for $100/month, Comcast IIRC is even pushing 300Mbps service for similar prices as Google. Granted only in the markets that Google is in, but do you think all these companies are really ok with taking a loss just to make Google go away, if in fact your idea of them stirring up a fight is true.
 
1gbps would see an explosion in the use of things like offsite backup services. LAN speeds to a cloud storage provider? Yes please. I would be nice not to hoard all my data on a collection of mechanical disks.
 
I am loving Suddenlink right now. I pay 85.00 for 107/5 service, and its about 125.00 after taxes and modem rental. In the next 30 days its going to 300/20. Also there is a plan for 6 months later going to 1Gbs service with no rate increase.

One thing I get from this thread is many are the only person using the service. I know my 107 service makes a big difference for me with everyday activities with everyone in the house doing their own thing. I have a family of 5 using multiple devices at the same time.
 
bring 500Mbps(symmetrical) lines for $30 a month, with unlimited bandwidth, no server hosting restriction, no bundling and all the extra bullshit charges, that's what we need, and Verizon, take your fios routers and stick them up your CEOs ass, i have my own router, thank you
 
Chas said:
On top of that, in many cases, the retain STUPIDLY small total transfer caps. To the point where someone on a fat enough conection can eat their data cap in under an hour. What's the point of buying an insanely fast connection when you're being told you can only use it 0.06% of the time without being charged EXTRA or have their speed reduced (or both)?
Click to expand...
With any luck data caps on internet traffic will soon be illegal in our country. And providers like Comcast and Google can take their ridiculous file size limitations for email attachments and cram it up their fascist loser assholes.
 
dandragonrage said:
Wow, this is stupid.

First, as technology improves for the end users, it will also improve for the content providers.

Secondly, "I can name a specific service with which I can only hit 1MB/s, so clearly >1MB/s is always pointless" is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...

Majority of services are speed limited. Even downloading the Windows 10 Technical Preview ISO maxes out at 10MB/s, less than two thirds of my 150Mbps download speed. Sure, Bittorent can use up any bandwidth you throw at it. But most of the servers simply are unable or unwilling to stream data at speed to even able to reach the cap of my "slow" 150Mbps connection. In my experience the only service which was consistently able to fully load my connection is Steam.
 
Your 150 Mbps connection is 18.75 MBps so it is using over half your connection.

Steam maxes out my 100 Mbps connection all the time when downloading games, so I am quite happy with it considering how large game downloads are.
 
Steve said:
This guy seems to think that there is no real need for 1Gbps service in the home. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And he's right. I'd much rather have 100Mb for $35/month (not that that'd happen) than 1Gb for 70. And even then I probably wouldn't need 100Mbs. Netflix isn't going to stream Blu Rays and those are what 40mbs? As I recall, Netflix limits you to 2 active streams/account, so even at 40Mbs, you'd still be golden at 100Mbs. But lets say they go to 60Mb/s you'd still be good at 150Mb/s.

There's a reason to build 1GB and for those with a lot of spare cash, it might be fun to have, but $70/month for internet is a lot. At that point, even if you could get your favorite cable stations over the web, you'd pay significantly more than if you just got cable and a narrower pipe.

Of course if you're paying $70.00 for 50Mb/s, then I guess this sounds awesome. I refuse to pay that much...especially when the fatter pipe comes with a cap.
 
Here in the Frontier Ghetto we're still on the pre -buyout speed tiers for FiOS.
 
I am happy with my download for now but the upload hasn't gotten any better over the years. Comcast doubled the download but they seem to not care about our upload speeds. I wish we had a symmetric connection.:(
3917901646
 
The reason it's important to advocate for 1gbps is so that when ISP's inevitably compromise on something less it ends up being 100mbps and not 10mbps. So, push 1gbps, use it as an easy number when writing your congress critters.
 
Chicken egg argument. You don't see the need for 1gb companies don't develop applications to take advantage of it. The circle goes round and round until ultimately some supplier that is making 1 gb infrastructure starts producing way more then they can use then they start dumping it into the market cheap. Suddenly they want to sell it to us.

Home-based broadband is far better equipped for 4K streaming. According to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, it won't require more than a stable 15 Mbps to stream 4K. For many that means a max speed of around 50Mpbs roughly. A quick check of my broadband speed today showed a steady 22 Mbps downstream from Milwaukee to Chicago, to St. Cloud, Minnesota and to NYC, meaning I could probably manage a 4K stream today as Netflix should have a server within reach.
Click to expand...

So based on that he could PROBABLY manage a single 4k stream, not impressed given 4K TVs are here now and will probably be dirt cheap by next black Friday. And Netflix is likely a garbage compressed stream. When you factor in multiple TVs / house and anything else people might be doing since now days a connection is usually hammered by everyones cell phone and multiple electronic devices on top of TV viewing I think if you roll out GB speeds people will take advantage of it. That doesn't even get into all the advantages having a high speed connection especially since the updload would hopefully be high enough you could actually run game servers and such from your home.

GotNoRice said:
And it's somewhat obvious, but we REALLY need 10Gbps Ethernet to become mainstream. It's kinda nuts when you consider that consumers have not had a relevant increase in Ethernet data speeds in over a decade. The transition from 10 to 100 to 1000 happened much more quickly. It just seems wrong for an internet connection to be the same speed as the LAN.
Click to expand...

I don't mind 10gb but the reality now days most people are doing everything cloud based. This means almost everyone in the house is pushing tons of data through the internet, even if they are syncing photos it often has to go through some cloud based solution. So the internet connection really does need to be at the level of the LAN. The other problem is now days most consumers don't even bother with networking devices its all wifi, that cant just be Ethernet.
 
nilepez said:
And he's right.
Click to expand...
no he is not, it's a repeat of "640K ought to be enough for anybody".
nilepez said:
I'd much rather have 100Mb for $35/month (not that that'd happen) than 1Gb for 70. ...
Click to expand...
that is fine, that's YOUR preference, it is not my NEED,


There's a reason to build 1GB and for those with a lot of spare cash, it might be fun to have, but $70/month for internet is a lot. At that point, even if you could get your favorite cable stations over the web, you'd pay significantly more than if you just got cable and a narrower pipe.
Click to expand...
you are talking about the costs again, but the only way to lower the costs of it is to make more of it available at a lower price, which doesn't happen without competition, and where is the competition? i don't see 1000s of mom and pop shops offering gigabit connections, in fact i dont see any competition, look at your hometown.

Of course if you're paying $70.00 for 50Mb/s, then I guess this sounds awesome. I refuse to pay that much...especially when the fatter pipe comes with a cap.
Click to expand...
nothing wrong with your choice, but what would be your choice if someone in your area provided 1Gbit line for $30 a month?
 
i don't need 1Gbps.


but when i get it, the people in bfe will get 50Mbit, and they need it.
 
...Multiple users per household?

I'm sure there could be a solution in QoS type applications on a NAS box.
 
Well, we don't NEED the internet at all.

It would be nice to have the highest speeds available though.

Yes, even with my 150Mbit connection I don't max it out very often, but I DO burst up to max speeds on a regular basis.

And who knows what the future will bring? They need to push the envelope
, since when the service is out there, then entrepreneurs will figure out new ways to use that bandwidth, driving the tech world (and the world in general) forward.

They need to be out ahead of the curve, rather than holding it back...
 
You don't NEED anything we'll have to pay to upgrade our infrastructure for. Are you sure you want it? We'll make you pay for it 100x over even though you've already paid for it 99x over.
 
nilepez said:
There's a reason to build 1GB and for those with a lot of spare cash, it might be fun to have, but $70/month for internet is a lot. At that point, even if you could get your favorite cable stations over the web, you'd pay significantly more than if you just got cable and a narrower pipe.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. The ONLY reason we should have 500Mb~1Gps speeds EVERYWHERE in AMERICA is because the Federal Government PAID for it using Tax money since 1996!! Also if you think $70 a month for internet is a lot, I would love to know where you live and what service speeds/price you pay.

While internet speeds should be as fast as I mentioned earlier and cost well under $50 a month had the Government held the companies that eagerly took the "handouts" for backbone/network improvements, that is sadly not the case. There should be massive fines levied against ATT, Comcast, Verizon etc in the billions until they live up to the terms of the agreement they entered into. Or we just take them over and make internet a dumb service. Their choice.:D

matt_to_the_max said:
I am happy with my download for now but the upload hasn't gotten any better over the years. Comcast doubled the download but they seem to not care about our upload speeds. I wish we had a symmetric connection.:(
3917901646
Click to expand...

I can agree about low "upload speeds"..One guy mentioned being happy with 105/7 earlier, and that is just insane..If his provider were to offer 100% of his rated down speed, the 7Mb upload would prohibit it in the first place..

I have was on Mediacom's 50/5 service (the fastest they offered in my area) and this summer they bumped us to 100 down and 10 up, but since replacing my faulty DOCSIS 3.0 modem, I am now bonding on 2 downstream channels and am pushing 20+ up round the clock. Now if only I could get my DL speeds to up a bit more..Steam will max my line out though, so I am thankful for that.

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3920691096

One thing to note that is every time I use speedtest, my results during the test are consistent, but then around the 98% mark they drop anywhere from 7~15Mb..For example the about result was 72~75Mbps down and 22~25 UP during the entire run and then it plummets at the end..Anyone else every notice that?
 
ccityinstaller said:
You are wrong. The ONLY reason we should have 500Mb~1Gps speeds EVERYWHERE in AMERICA is because the Federal Government PAID for it using Tax money since 1996!! Also if you think $70 a month for internet is a lot, I would love to know where you live and what service speeds/price you pay.

While internet speeds should be as fast as I mentioned earlier and cost well under $50 a month had the Government held the companies that eagerly took the "handouts" for backbone/network improvements, that is sadly not the case. There should be massive fines levied against ATT, Comcast, Verizon etc in the billions until they live up to the terms of the agreement they entered into. Or we just take them over and make internet a dumb service. Their choice.:D



I can agree about low "upload speeds"..One guy mentioned being happy with 105/7 earlier, and that is just insane..If his provider were to offer 100% of his rated down speed, the 7Mb upload would prohibit it in the first place..

I have was on Mediacom's 50/5 service (the fastest they offered in my area) and this summer they bumped us to 100 down and 10 up, but since replacing my faulty DOCSIS 3.0 modem, I am now bonding on 2 downstream channels and am pushing 20+ up round the clock. Now if only I could get my DL speeds to up a bit more..Steam will max my line out though, so I am thankful for that.

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3920691096

One thing to note that is every time I use speedtest, my results during the test are consistent, but then around the 98% mark they drop anywhere from 7~15Mb..For example the about result was 72~75Mbps down and 22~25 UP during the entire run and then it plummets at the end..Anyone else every notice that?
Click to expand...

It could be because cable is bullshit. Comcast branded it boost, others will call it something else. The result is simple when you start a download they increase your speed to the max or even more than your connection paid for they advertise this as a feature so you can get a download done faster. But this only last a short time, less than 2 minutes. The reason they did this was because they knew it would game the speedtest results.
 
SGA76 said:
You don't NEED anything we'll have to pay to upgrade our infrastructure for. Are you sure you want it? We'll make you pay for it 100x over even though you've already paid for it 99x over.
Click to expand...

and probably most of the infrastructure was paid for with tax money to start with
 
GotNoRice said:
First of all, I would say that before things get crazy with bandwidth, issues with caps need to be settled.

I would rather have an uncapped 15Mbps connection than a Gigabit connection with a monthly cap.
.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. When you have to worry about data caps, speed becomes a secondary and often placed aside issue.

I can use more of the 300 gig soft cap I have every month with normal use. Speed is irrelevant at this point as long as the service doesn't become over loaded.

But where will we be long term? And where do we want to be? Generational diversity where younger people are getting everything online. What is the balance point they see? What do we as consumers want? And the all important what price are we willing to accept? Clunky restrictive service isn't service.

I remember in the 90's thinking the same thing with 4 meg video cards... Can't imagine needing what we use today.
 
m heisty said:
Okay, no they do not. Backing up your data takes forever the first time. After that you back up the changes. Why on earth would you need to back up your steam games, or your itunes movies collection? It might take you 2 days to back up everything on a 3mbps up line. But guess what, you don't have to do that every day.
Click to expand...

I have a client that wants their backups done with raw vm data. This means pushing terabytes of .vmdk data to the backup and then to the cloud. They absolutely could and would use gigabit speeds if they were available and not exorbitantly priced.
 
Gavv said:
I agree with you. When you have to worry about data caps, speed becomes a secondary and often placed aside issue.

I can use more of the 300 gig soft cap I have every month with normal use. Speed is irrelevant at this point as long as the service doesn't become over loaded.

But where will we be long term? And where do we want to be? Generational diversity where younger people are getting everything online. What is the balance point they see? What do we as consumers want? And the all important what price are we willing to accept? Clunky restrictive service isn't service.

I remember in the 90's thinking the same thing with 4 meg video cards... Can't imagine needing what we use today.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. Just normal usage with netflix and hulu and downloading updates for my games or downloading a game i purchased i will EASILY crack over 300 gigabytes. I average AT LEAST 12-19 gigabytes per day. Even at the low end i'm going way over. And no, 12 gigabytes in a day is not in any way shape or form abusing the service, yet i'm getting punished for it.
 
Vielgus-Kutas said:
no he is not, it's a repeat of "640K ought to be enough for anybody".
Click to expand...

A statement that was never made

that is fine, that's YOUR preference, it is not my NEED,
Click to expand...
The point is most people don't need 1Gb. That statement is clearly true. Most people don't buy the fast internet package that their cable provider offers. Most of the ones that do believe that they need 50Mb to play WOW, which doesn't need a lot of bandwidth.

you are talking about the costs again, but the only way to lower the costs of it is to make more of it available at a lower price, which doesn't happen without competition, and where is the competition? i don't see 1000s of mom and pop shops offering gigabit connections, in fact i dont see any competition, look at your hometown.
Click to expand...

The thing is that most palces with Gb services don't offer cheap fast service. It's Gb or a 10 or 15 off for much less bandwidth. I'm not sure what you're doing that requires 1Gb. Do you have multiple Netflix accounts? If not, then 4k isn't going saturate a 100Mb, because they don't allow all 5 profiles to be active at once. Even if you add a 4K Amazon Prime stream, you're well under 100 Mb.

Wait, are you playing 20 boxes of Wow? Still not close. What the Verizon guy said is true.

If you manage to some how require 1Gb, great, but most customers don't need it and most aren't going to dump 70/month for internet.

nothing wrong with your choice, but what would be your choice if someone in your area provided 1Gbit line for $30 a month?
Click to expand...

I'd take it. You won't be offered that. I work in Telecom. Companies are not going to drop prices to $30.00 in the near future. If my company could make money on $30/moth (but lets bump it up to $40 for some extra profit), we'd deploy everywhere. We'd take over the the ISP business.

Telecom companies are not the good guys, but $30.00 isn't going to happen anytime soon. Maybe in 10 or 20 years....maybe.
 
rudy said:
It could be because cable is bullshit. Comcast branded it boost, others will call it something else. The result is simple when you start a download they increase your speed to the max or even more than your connection paid for they advertise this as a feature so you can get a download done faster. But this only last a short time, less than 2 minutes. The reason they did this was because they knew it would game the speedtest results.
Click to expand...

It think it also depends on how much bandwidth they have. The best way to test is to just download a big file from a reliable high speed site. I generally find I get about 24-25mb down and about 8 up (but some times 12).

I want to see better speeds. I like the idea of 1Gb (so long as there are reasonable offers on other speeds), but there's not currently a widespread need for it, which is why I agree with what hte Verizon guy said. Nevertheless, if you can build out a 1Gb network and get cities to give you a long term exclusive for building it out (and you know that in some places that will happen), it's profitable and eventually there will be apps that use it....but we're not close to that point. Most of the time, I don't need 10Mb....but it's sure nice to have more when downloading or for buffering faster when streaming.
 
nilepez said:
A statement that was never made


The point is most people don't need 1Gb. That statement is clearly true. Most people don't buy the fast internet package that their cable provider offers. Most of the ones that do believe that they need 50Mb to play WOW, which doesn't need a lot of bandwidth.



The thing is that most palces with Gb services don't offer cheap fast service. It's Gb or a 10 or 15 off for much less bandwidth. I'm not sure what you're doing that requires 1Gb. Do you have multiple Netflix accounts? If not, then 4k isn't going saturate a 100Mb, because they don't allow all 5 profiles to be active at once. Even if you add a 4K Amazon Prime stream, you're well under 100 Mb.

Wait, are you playing 20 boxes of Wow? Still not close. What the Verizon guy said is true.

If you manage to some how require 1Gb, great, but most customers don't need it and most aren't going to dump 70/month for internet.



I'd take it. You won't be offered that. I work in Telecom. Companies are not going to drop prices to $30.00 in the near future. If my company could make money on $30/moth (but lets bump it up to $40 for some extra profit), we'd deploy everywhere. We'd take over the the ISP business.

Telecom companies are not the good guys, but $30.00 isn't going to happen anytime soon. Maybe in 10 or 20 years....maybe.
Click to expand...

umm if you look up in the above posts you see a clear example of why current internet connections are ready to be saturated right now.
 
w00t69 said:
I have a client that wants their backups done with raw vm data. This means pushing terabytes of .vmdk data to the backup and then to the cloud. They absolutely could and would use gigabit speeds if they were available and not exorbitantly priced.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's a good example, but i hope that those company's backups are not sensitive..
or they are screwed lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top