6 ms·

The new record is 319 terabits per second (Tb/s). Ookla Global Internet Speeds Comparison : https://www.speedtest.net/global-index https://www.speedtest.net/gl

The new record is 319 terabits per second (Tb/s). Ookla Global Internet Speeds Comparison : https://www.speedtest.net/global-index https://www.speedtest.net/global-index The global average speed of Fixed Broadband is 110 Mbps(download) and 60 Mbps(upload).

HenryKissinger 5y ago
What's preventing the average Joe from enjoying 1+Tb/s broadband? Fiber everywhere? A specific kind of fiber? Different tech on the ISP end?
- qwertyuiop_ 5y ago
  Monopolies like ComcastNBCUniversal who have pretty much every congressman/woman in their pocket.
  - chakspak 5y ago
    This. I have a friend with 1Gbps up/down at his house. I've been waiting for fiber for like 10 years but it's never been available at any place I've lived. This is despite the fact that we live in the same (relatively small) county. This situation could only be possible if they just didn't care about making fiber available to everyone.
- yuliyp 5y ago
  Nothing prevents it, except practicality: running enough fibers to support a terabit point to point is already hard enough. Add in needing to support millions of people and it becomes impossible. As is, internet routers and fiber links already use tons of power. Asking for 1000xing that just can't happen without a dyson sphere or something.
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    I don't know if I'd go that far - we can probably get more than 1000x throughput without absorbing the whole power of the sun - but it would require some meaningful amounts of infrastructure improvements and replacements.
    - yuliyp 5y ago
      Fair enough. I used a dyson sphere as a shorthand for "a power generation technology giving us orders of magnitude more power than we are generating now"
- kazinator 5y ago
  Congestion? The fact that the server Joe is pulling from won't feed that file to him at that rate going out its own locally attached ethernet? (Due to either throttling, or serving stuff thousands of others?) There is a seven lane highway three miles from where Joe lives; why can't he drive to his friend across town in 3 minutes?
- sigstoat 5y ago
  > What's preventing the average Joe from enjoying 1+Tb/s broadband? are other responders not seeing the 'T'? it is the rare home device which can handle 2.5Gbps. 10Gbps switches are common enough. the cheapest switch i'm seeing on fs.com with a 100Gbps uplink port is $3500. i don't think we currently have the tech to drive 100Gbps through a single port, i think it's done with multiple wavelengths being multiplexed onto a single fiber, and then split back out. so... at a minimum, joe is kept from 1 Tbps of bandwidth by $35,000, some optical multiplexing hardware, 10+U of rack space, and having absolutely no conceivable way to put the kind of bandwidth to use. plus his part of the amortized capital costs to build the ISP's end of that.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    You wouldn't even be able to transfer the data out of memory at speed. Even if you overclocked your DDR4 ram to crazy levels - you'd tap out at 50GB/s - a far cry from 1Tbs/s. There is very little practical use to speeds beyond 10 gigabit for home use unless you have some insane PCIE storage or keep a giant ram drive. (Which again asks the practical use category - what are you doing?)
    - remus 5y ago
      > There is very little practical use to speeds beyond 10 gigabit for home use Give it a few years and we'll all be wondering how SPA web apps became gigabytes in size and trying to work out how to make 1Tbs/s to the home practical.
  - iptrans 5y ago
    100G per wavelength has been standard fare for some time now. The confusion is probably due to the fact that you can also run the 100G using multiple lanes at lower speeds. It all depends on what optics you use. You also don’t need 10U worth of rack space to switch 1 Tbps. You can do that with a single 1U switch.
    - sigstoat 5y ago
      > 100G per wavelength has been standard fare for some time now. fair enough. > You also don’t need 10U worth of rack space to switch 1 Tbps. You can do that with a single 1U switch. how much does that cost?
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  His (and all of his neighbors') Wi-Fi setup.
- jwineinger 5y ago
  Oversubscribed neighborhood trunk lines prevent me from enjoying my 80Mbs down somewhat regularly.
- fouric 5y ago
  Aside from the actual fiber itself: literally your entire computer. No part of a modern consumer computing device has 1Tb/s bandwidth - RAM, SSDs, networking cards, PCI, the front-side bus, and everything else, with the possible exception of the L1 cache[1], have maximum bandwidths well below 1Tb/s (= 125 GiB/s). [1] https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/329789/how-can-cache-be-that-fast https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/329789/how-c...
armchairhacker 5y ago
That’s insane. I don’t think my computer can transfer 319 MB/s. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook stored about 1.2 million terabytes of data in 2019. With this speed you could download all of this data in about 8 hours.
- cheeze 5y ago
  Assuming you have a standard gigE port, it can't.
  - trulyme 5y ago
    To be pedantic: it might be able to transfer 319 MB/s (with a gigabit port), but almost certainly not 319 GB/s, let alone 319 TB/s.
    - wang_li 5y ago
      A 1 Gbps ethernet port has a transfer rate of 125 MB/s. With protocol overhead you would see peak bandwidth measured at around 110 MB/s.
- gremloni 5y ago
  This can’t be true. I would think thousands of terabytes of data are being uploaded to YouTube very second.

HenryKissinger 5y ago

What's preventing the average Joe from enjoying 1+Tb/s broadband? Fiber everywhere? A specific kind of fiber? Different tech on the ISP end?

qwertyuiop_ 5y ago
Monopolies like ComcastNBCUniversal who have pretty much every congressman/woman in their pocket.
- chakspak 5y ago
  This. I have a friend with 1Gbps up/down at his house. I've been waiting for fiber for like 10 years but it's never been available at any place I've lived. This is despite the fact that we live in the same (relatively small) county. This situation could only be possible if they just didn't care about making fiber available to everyone.
yuliyp 5y ago
Nothing prevents it, except practicality: running enough fibers to support a terabit point to point is already hard enough. Add in needing to support millions of people and it becomes impossible. As is, internet routers and fiber links already use tons of power. Asking for 1000xing that just can't happen without a dyson sphere or something.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  I don't know if I'd go that far - we can probably get more than 1000x throughput without absorbing the whole power of the sun - but it would require some meaningful amounts of infrastructure improvements and replacements.
  - yuliyp 5y ago
    Fair enough. I used a dyson sphere as a shorthand for "a power generation technology giving us orders of magnitude more power than we are generating now"
kazinator 5y ago
Congestion? The fact that the server Joe is pulling from won't feed that file to him at that rate going out its own locally attached ethernet? (Due to either throttling, or serving stuff thousands of others?) There is a seven lane highway three miles from where Joe lives; why can't he drive to his friend across town in 3 minutes?
sigstoat 5y ago
> What's preventing the average Joe from enjoying 1+Tb/s broadband? are other responders not seeing the 'T'? it is the rare home device which can handle 2.5Gbps. 10Gbps switches are common enough. the cheapest switch i'm seeing on fs.com with a 100Gbps uplink port is $3500. i don't think we currently have the tech to drive 100Gbps through a single port, i think it's done with multiple wavelengths being multiplexed onto a single fiber, and then split back out. so... at a minimum, joe is kept from 1 Tbps of bandwidth by $35,000, some optical multiplexing hardware, 10+U of rack space, and having absolutely no conceivable way to put the kind of bandwidth to use. plus his part of the amortized capital costs to build the ISP's end of that.
- bradlys 5y ago
  You wouldn't even be able to transfer the data out of memory at speed. Even if you overclocked your DDR4 ram to crazy levels - you'd tap out at 50GB/s - a far cry from 1Tbs/s. There is very little practical use to speeds beyond 10 gigabit for home use unless you have some insane PCIE storage or keep a giant ram drive. (Which again asks the practical use category - what are you doing?)
  - remus 5y ago
    > There is very little practical use to speeds beyond 10 gigabit for home use Give it a few years and we'll all be wondering how SPA web apps became gigabytes in size and trying to work out how to make 1Tbs/s to the home practical.
- iptrans 5y ago
  100G per wavelength has been standard fare for some time now. The confusion is probably due to the fact that you can also run the 100G using multiple lanes at lower speeds. It all depends on what optics you use. You also don’t need 10U worth of rack space to switch 1 Tbps. You can do that with a single 1U switch.
  - sigstoat 5y ago
    > 100G per wavelength has been standard fare for some time now. fair enough. > You also don’t need 10U worth of rack space to switch 1 Tbps. You can do that with a single 1U switch. how much does that cost?
otabdeveloper4 5y ago
His (and all of his neighbors') Wi-Fi setup.
jwineinger 5y ago
Oversubscribed neighborhood trunk lines prevent me from enjoying my 80Mbs down somewhat regularly.
fouric 5y ago
Aside from the actual fiber itself: literally your entire computer. No part of a modern consumer computing device has 1Tb/s bandwidth - RAM, SSDs, networking cards, PCI, the front-side bus, and everything else, with the possible exception of the L1 cache[1], have maximum bandwidths well below 1Tb/s (= 125 GiB/s). [1] https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/329789/how-can-cache-be-that-fast https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/329789/how-c...

armchairhacker 5y ago

That’s insane. I don’t think my computer can transfer 319 MB/s. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook stored about 1.2 million terabytes of data in 2019. With this speed you could download all of this data in about 8 hours.

cheeze 5y ago
Assuming you have a standard gigE port, it can't.
- trulyme 5y ago
  To be pedantic: it might be able to transfer 319 MB/s (with a gigabit port), but almost certainly not 319 GB/s, let alone 319 TB/s.
  - wang_li 5y ago
    A 1 Gbps ethernet port has a transfer rate of 125 MB/s. With protocol overhead you would see peak bandwidth measured at around 110 MB/s.
gremloni 5y ago
This can’t be true. I would think thousands of terabytes of data are being uploaded to YouTube very second.