Gigabit bit bit sorry I'm being a nit/bit picking sh*te Gigabyte would be incredible one day 5G has some crazy potential in that direction with the potential to download entire movies in seconds. 100 megabit is more than enough for most especially if it is a bit cheaper.
I think that is what some are after, downloading movies in seconds or downloading games in seconds. And still doing umpteen other things at the same time. That sort of thing. I don’t think they are all quite as daft as they might seem. Maybe they are. Each to their own. But we think 100 mbs will do for us. Whilst we are getting 15 to 18 mbs download speed from fibre to cabinet, it isn’t like that all the time. We hope that we will get more reliability throughout the day with 100mbs. This is a neighbours download speed.
That's symmetric, I was using the wrong term earlier (age is getting to me), that's the same as we have in the office, incredibly good! The upload speed is what suggests symmetric, no one gets that on any kind of ADSL on SDSL this is what you get. Gigabit ethernet will not get you a full movie in less than 2 seconds, although you might get 100 to 120 megabyte a second which would let you get a full 2GB movie in maybe 20 seconds, makes no difference if you are streaming as the program playing the stream will only maintain a small forward buffer at any one time enough to provide maybe 30 seconds of play if there were any interruption on the server data stream. We run up to 14 people daily all day in the office (when we are working there) on a 1Gb SDSL fibre line so yes you can do a lot on that kind of line but the main use is the offsite backup where we have to move terabytes of data every night. 100 megabit will be fine for you as all your parallel stuff will be streamed. If 1Gb was available to me at home though I would jump at it at that price. My earlier error in saying our line was synchronous was that it did not really apply here at least I don't think it does, synchronous refers to a full duplex connection which transmits and receives at the same time and asynchronous refers to half duplex where transmit and receive have to wait for each other although are switched very quickly. Business grade lines do tend to be full duplex.
Sometimes there are gaps in the market that the big players don’t take on or don’t want to. Maybe too greedy or cannot adapt as too big and cumbersome. What’s happened here is two young entrepreneurs have seized upon the opportunity and gone for it. BT and Openreach could have done the same but chose not to. The same was true of my next door neighbour in the Isle of Man when he introduced wireless broadband to the island,
Absolutely. 99.999 percent of home users don't need anything approaching 1gbps wan. Most of them don't even need 100mbs and considering the cruddy WiFi connections and low end devices they use there would be no point. I use 10gbps fiber LAN in my house (which can copy a 1gb file in about 1-2 seconds) and would not personally bother with 1gb wan. Unnecessary.
About 50% of the residents on our estate agree. But 50% don’t agree. In our case we know 100 mb/s will deliver a better result for us than 14 to 16. That’s why we have opted for it. My immediate neighbour hasn’t opted for it. I don’t think they use the benefits of the internet very much. It depends what one is looking for. I think I said earlier, some people are running businesses from home and the levels achieved with 14 to 16mbs aren’t sufficient for their businesses needs. Another neighbour of mine finds he can’t get the best from his games whilst his wife is working from home. The speeds are insufficient for his “needs”.
You misunderstand. 16mbs is ludicrously primitive and of course a 100mbs connection will be an improvement. However the majority of average Joes will not be using the bandwidth and most of them will cope just fine with 50. That's what I mean when I say they do not need 100mbs. 16 mbs is not the only alternative.
It is also worth mentioning that for your gamer use case above, he doesn't necessarily need higher bandwidth. He needs lower latency. There is a world of difference. Usually higher bandwidth connections exhibit lower latency. However different providers and the way they manage their traffic will have a more significant impact impact than simply upping the speed alone.
There seems to be a good number of serious gamers on the estate that have made that mistake. I am not a gamer though so it doesn’t bother me very much.
Probably. The general public - and that includes the majority of gamers - just dont understand networking or what the numbers your isp sells you actually legally mean. In your estate for example, if there are 1000 houses being offered a 100mbs connection, the ISP will not have a dedicated 100gbps connection for them. The real bandwidth available is substantially lower - indeed the ISP isn't even legally obliged to provide their advertised speed all of the time. This is all statistically calculated to save the ISP money - because the ISP knows that most people don't use all of their connection, all of the time. Average Joes, gamers and people running small businesses just don't use that much bandwidth 24/7. What does affect your user experience is latency - and that is in the hands of the provider - the way the provider manages his traffic and importantly - on how busy your neighbours are.
That's pretty cool My router is cabled in to a cheap 1Gb switch that I bought, I can't really afford local fibre just for the flat particularly as I just rent this place but when I eventually move back to Scotland and buy a flat I will think about doing a really high speed local LAN. I got the 1Gb switch to speed up transfers between my machines but the BT connection only gets about 30 megabit, supposed to be 40 megabit. Plus I bet you are set up so that none of the fibre LAN traffic can leak out the building on the WiFi
My kids keep moaning about the internet speed in Manila, James in particular gets upset about his frame rate and keeps wanting a faster connection but as you say latency is what matters for them for games and there is no guarantee that switching to PLDT fibre would improve the latency, it might but it might not depending on how the routers and switches are configured, and PLDT have notoriously cheap DSL routers.
I know about the nominal download speed and the actual. Quite well actually. But you will notice that the nominal speed is 1Gig but the actual speed in the photo wasn short of that but not by an awful lot. They aren’t complaining. For my 100mbs I am not expecting 100mbs but hopefully something up in the 80s or 90s.
Some are buying better routers than the one provided. Some of my neighbours are running some serious businesses using their home internet and they seem to have it all in hand. Some. Not all maybe. It shouldn’t be overlooked that most home users will be using the internet to provide different functions and not just any one function at any one time. My immediate neighbour is switching from nominal speeds of 25mbs (actual 20) to a nominal speed of 100 mbs as since his wife has been working from home they have struggled. Like him I am fully expecting those issues to be resolved once he is upgraded. If some of the householders are running businesses from home they probably won’t begrudge paying the £55 a month for 1Gig of download speed. And why not? It probably future proofs them a bit aswell as maybe opening up new avenues of business.
In the Phils a better router would likely improve the local WiFi in the house but the latency would depend on a lot of other factors at the PLDT end of the network, there is also the point that PLDT don't support swapping out the router so you have to get all the relevant passwords and settings out of the existing one in order to get it to work, there are crib sheets for this on the web but it is too big a risk to try a better router/DSL unit without me being there. Kids only get 9 megabit at best just now with less than 1 megabit upstream.
Hi @oss it's not as prohibitive as you think. I bought an HP Procurve 6600 data centre switch on ebay and fitted 10gbe card in the servers and workstations. Then just a bunch of sfp+ adapters and fiber. It's not wired into the house. Just links the servers and nas and workstation. Yes of course I don't use the crappy router the provider gives. I run Dd-wrt on an internal proper router / firewall and double-NAT
@JohnAsh sounds great. I do this for a living but you sound like you have it all worked out. Best of luck.
I used to run a LAN for a number of years circa 2002 / 2007 using fibre. Very succesfully for a well known and very large organisation that many people know and love. Quite a lucrative network at that. It’s quite amazing to see fibre being installed in houses almost 20 years later.
The upload speed in your image was better than we were getting in our office when we first got the FTTP line.
