7 ms·
Google Fiber: 151Mbps down / 92Mbps up
- sp332 15y agoTo me, the 5ms ping is the most impressive part. I might not use 100Mbps on a daily basis, but the low latency is nice all the time. Edited for clarity.
- derobert 15y agoAround the same latency as I see on FiOS. Which residential fiber products have huge latency?
- patrickgzill 15y agoDSL has up to 110ms latency.
- drm237 15y agoMy DSL in SF is pretty good then: --- google.com ping statistics --- 26 packets transmitted, 26 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 9.077/15.996/34.578/7.464 ms
- qx24b 15y agoThe high latency with dsl usually comes hand in hand with interleaving enabled.
- elithrar 15y ago> The high latency with dsl usually comes hand in hand with interleaving enabled. Interleaving doesn't add huge amounts of latency. To the LNS with the ISP I'm on, I usually see about 11-16ms to the first hop, maybe 5ms to a game server on their network a most. Without interleaving, I see about 5-7ms less on a good day. Now, saying that, there are different levels of interleaving that can be applied on modern DSLAMs, but we're not really talking tens of milliseconds here. It's also worth keeping in mind that your pings won't be truly representative of latency. Plenty of ISPs de-prioritise ICMP traffic.
- qx24b 15y agoMy pings are really similar to my latency measured with different sources. My isp (Qwest) uses interleaving and it adds quite a bit to my first hop (it usually is about 60ms) and from what I've seen those people actually living in a more populated area the interleaving latency added is about the same (>30ms first hop and usually closer to 60). So of course it depends on the ISP and qwest is notoriously bad for this but is my only option, and occurs with plenty of other ISPs with interleaving.
- vegardx 15y agoThere are no upper boundaries when it comes to latency, but at some point your browser/whatever will start to resend the information, thinking it's lost. Typically you should have around 20-30ms within the same country, depending on peering and such.
- sukuriant 15y ago"Small"-country standpoint. In the States, ping could be upwards of, or over 100. I imagine China has a similar issue.
- moe 15y agoYour country may be big, but it's not that big. Physical coast to coast distance is 15 light-milliseconds.
- sukuriant 15y agoThose are the latencies I expect, though. And literal coast to coast distance does not take into account the structure of the network.
- icehawk 15y ago15ms, one way, in a vacuum, going directly. When you start to factor in things like the fact that light travels 1/3 as fast in a glass fiber as it does in vacuum, routing overhead, and the fact that ping is a round-trip measurement, 60-100ms is about normal.
- onemoreact 15y ago15 milliseconds * 2 (ping = round trip time) * 1.52 (~index of refraction in fiber) = 45.6ms straight line. Add in routing dilays and less than optimal paths and your quickly hit 60-100 ms.
- ulvund 15y agoA lower bound for latency to the 'other side of the earth': (20 000 km) / the speed of light = 66.712819 milliseconds http://www.google.dk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=A+lower+bound+for+latency+to+the+other+side+of+the+earth%3A(20000+km)+%2F+the+speed+of+light+%3D+0.066712819+milliseconds#sclient=psy&hl=da&source=hp&q=(20000+km)+%2F+the+speed+of+light+in+ms&pbx=1&oq=(20000+km)+%2F+the+speed+of+light+in+ms&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=9481l10628l0l10691l7l4l0l0l0l0l218l638l1.2.1l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e829e03d004bbee2&biw=815&bih=702 http://www.google.dk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&...
- mmaro 15y agoPing measures the round-trip time, so it would really be twice that.
- shimon 15y agoThe 20k figure is an approximate circumference of the Earth.
- bhavin 15y agoits 40k, not 20k.
- ryannielsen 15y agoThe circumference of the earth is ~40k km, which would make "the other side of the earth" ~20k.
- burgerbrain 15y agoYeah, that's the point.
- sp332 15y ago24,000 miles, not km.
- vegardx 15y agoWell, ping is relative. In Norway we generally have around 6-8ms to Norwegian Internet Exchange, and typically end up at around 30-40ms to most parts of Europe. At some point distance will get you. Regular cobber is not actually slower, but the equipment connected to it is, and that is why you usually see at least 30ms+ just leaveing your ISP network. For instance, if you're using WLAN you might end up doubling your response time. Something to keep in mind if you're a latency freak like me!
- guelo 15y agoAll that means is that Google's Stanford fiber is topologically close to where speedtest.net's SF server is hosted, which is apparently an ISP called Unwired. The fact that it didn't pick speedtest's Palo Alto server probably means that Google and Unwired share the same upstream fiber loop. Also interesting from the image is that speedtest identified the ISP as Tata Communications.
- anshargal 15y agospeedtest.net at WWDC download area was about 700Mbps down, so I am waiting for Apple Fiber )
- FireBeyond 15y agoBecause Apple supplies fiber to Moscone Center, right? ;)
- mbreese 15y agoI wonder what kind of router they put in at the home. I doubt your standard Linksys WiFi router will be able to cope at that speed.
- maratd 15y agoAny gigabit router should be able to handle that, even Linksys.
- msbarnett 15y agoIt's not enough that they 'support' gigabit ethernet; most cheap routers will fall over long before they hit that speed.
- mbreese 15y agoRight... especially on the WAN port. Most cheap routers aren't expecting to have to route gigabit traffic, hence the initial question.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- derobert 15y agoDual-band, double-width-channel 11n might be able to do that speed. But even if not, the gigabit wired ports ought to be able to.
- nitrogen 15y agoSome routers' CPUs simply aren't fast enough to forward traffic from the WAN to the LAN. Before I replaced my router with a higher-end model, my 50mbit/s cable connection ran at 30. Now it peaks at 60.
- wmf 15y agoSpecifically, here's a list of home routers sorted by performance: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/router-charts/view http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/router-charts/view Looks like there are only about 20 routers that can handle 150 Mbps or more.
- brainless 15y agoCan someone please explain the ISP to be Tata Communications in a US city? It is an Indian company. So is it because it owns some broadband company in US?
- kamakazizuru 15y agotata's running the isp for google i guess.
- kornholi 15y agoThey are a global tier1 carrier which provides connectivity to other ISPs (such as Google, Comcast, etc) around the world. Not sure why it shows Tata though.
- calloc 15y agoI've got a friend that have had to deal with Tata Communications in a UK datacenter and he said they were the absolute worst company to deal with. Comcast has a link with Tata Communications that it apparently runs at a 100% capacity day in day out ... there was a story about it not too long ago.
- wmf 15y agoComcast has a link with Tata Communications that it apparently runs at a 100% capacity day in day out http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html To be clear, that is Comcast's fault because they're too cheap to buy more bandwidth.
- paulnelligan 15y agoAnd people say that Google are competing with Facebook. Give it 20 years and see ...
- tadfisher 15y agoI'm wary of speedtest.net's results. Comcast operates a speedtest server nearby, and it consistently reports exactly 20Mbps/4Mbps, which (no surprise here) is exactly the service I pay for. Another nearby server, not operated by Comcast, hovers around 12-13Mbps/1-2Mbps, which I suspect is the reality of my connection.
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoThat may not be completely inaccurate, if the bottleneck is on the link leaving comcast. You get your full bandwidth for internal network stuff, but get less once you leave the internal network. So, technically, you are getting what you pay for, even if that is meaningless. That said, I've often wondered if Qwest (my provider) prioritizes packets for speed tests.
- jmesserly 15y agoThat's funny, I've usually had the opposite experience with Qwest (in Seattle): inconsistent results in speed tests, but very consistently good download times for large files. Tis strange.
- xist 15y agoInternal network will get you that speed... random parts of the internet is always a crapshoot. comcast may route you halfway around the country until you get to that other close by server, who knows. Try downloading http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test and see what you get, or a few other speedtests randomly in different parts of the country.
- whichdan 15y agoDo you know if PowerBoost factors into the speed?
- strmpnk 15y agoYou have to wonder at what point the speed test server itself becomes the bottleneck. I bet the connection is actually faster and I'd try running a few of these simultaneously to different locations.
- wmf 15y agoThe server is probably not a bottleneck; this test is actually quite slow compared to the Internet at the 'plex: http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2011/03/29/how-fast-is-the-internet-at-google-mind-blowing/ http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2011/03/29/how-fast-is-the-...
- waffle_ss 15y agoWho do I have to kill for this?
- codingsolo 15y agoGoogles owns all your surfing.
- bgurupra 15y agocan anybody explain how is Google able to do this or point to an explanation of it?
- wmf 15y agoGigabit FTTH is not technically difficult; it's just expensive to install. Google is supposed to be working on some secret sauce to make it cheaper, but they haven't revealed anything yet.
- joe24pack 15y agoHow is Gigabit FTTH different from ordinary FTTH ? Is it the fiber itself or the equipment on the endpoints ?
- wmf 15y agoI guess these days FTTH is all Gigabit, but I remember a few years back when some companies were talking about 100 Mbps FTTH; that's nearly pointless now that cable can deliver that speed.
- kapitalx 15y agoThe 151mbs down might be a limitation of speedtest.net and not google's fiber. Speedtest's minimum requirement for a test server is 100mbs.
- juiceandjuice 15y agoNo, I can get 400 from speedtest.net occasionally. I get inconsistent results sometimes though: (300mb/200mb on the first one) http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447015910.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447015910.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447014970.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447014970.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447013001.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447013001.png
- kapitalx 15y agoNice that refutes my point. I was basing it on this link http://speedtest.net/support.php http://speedtest.net/support.php under "What are the requirements to be a testing host". Edit: But now I noticed that they follow it up with "[in some countries] we are now requiring gigabit connectivity."
- Geee 15y agoIt depends which server you choose. I haven't been able to reach even 100 Mbps. If in doubt, it's better to try just downloading something from fast servers.
- thatjoshguy 15y agoWhat I would like to know is how much of that speed is due to being 'on-net'. I know that speed is what the connection is capable, but if the server is onnet, then it is nowhere near realistic. Speedtest tells me I get 75mbps up/80mbps down and a ping of 5ms, but that's with the server it automatically gives me... This is using my uni's on-campus internet, which is connected to AARNET, a massive network. How much of that speed is due to me never actually 'entering' the 'internet'? Is there some sort of way to test all of them automatically and get the average? Edit: My speed test results over 15 test and multiple servers http://cl.ly/9aNO http://cl.ly/9aNO
- 15y ago
- crizCraig 15y agoCross site poll: What would you pay to get something like Google Fiber? http://www.wepolls.com/p/2028308/How-much-would-you-pay-for-Google-Fiber-with-150Mb/s-down,-92Mb/s-up,-and-5ms-ping http://www.wepolls.com/p/2028308/How-much-would-you-pay-for-...
- thyrsus 15y agoI need to know more. Right now (though without any contractual guarantees I'm aware of) Time Warner hands me via DHCP a publicly routable IPv4 address that doesn't change except during extended outages, which don't happen very often (the address stays the same through brief outages - less than an hour every month or so). Effectively, I can initiate a connection to my home machine. There are no explicit data caps, though if TWC were to start slowing things down after more thann 100Gbyte per month, I wouldn't know. Tomorrow I could find out that TWC has decided to use NAT'd private addresses and quenching at 40Gbytes, and I'd lose all that, with the only recourse being to use AT&T ADSL. I haven't adopted use of any dependencies on high bandwidth - no internet backups, no TOR participation, yell at the kids when they torrent anything already available to them on Netflix. TWC business class effectively guarantees the features which I'm getting but not paying for - for an extra $200/month. I would pay that if I were running a server for customers, but I'm not.
- joblessjunkie 15y agoI find it curious that most users on this poll would not pay more than $100 for Google fiber speed. I already pay about $100 for my OK-but-not-great 7Mbit DSL service. The DSL service itself is only $50, but I also have to pay $50 for a land phone line I never use. Not that I want to give the cable company any money, but they don't serve my apartment building, so DSL is my only option. I'd happily pay twice this for Google's service.
- darklajid 15y agoCologne, one of the bigger/biggest German cities, has a provider that tries to give fiber to every household. You can get a 100 MBit plan from them (not sure about the upstream right now. Probably much less, maybe 10?). The call it the most modern network in Europe (are they? No clue), market it as CitynetCologne. It's affordable and available for a good part of 1.000.000 people. Is Google Fiber really big news? And - tin foil hat on - would you want Google to be your ISP..?
- simonsarris 15y agoIf I had a choice between Google and Comcast? Yeah I'd take Google.
- darklajid 15y agoYou're arguing service (I guess. I've no clue about Comcast). I'm arguing that your ISP knows _everything_ about you, unless you are really making sure that you're using encryption everywhere. Now - you'd opt in for a plan that gives you great access to the network where all traffic is handled by the company that stores everything forever and ever and already owns most of your online activities? Really? Maybe I'm _seriously_ paranoid, but I'd never fall for that. Free, like in the article? Maybe. With precautions. But that won't last forever, so they will be announcing a plan. And at that point I cannot imagine supporting G anymore. You're feeding the beast..
- btam 15y agoIt seems like giving all of the people in the test area Chromebooks would be a really great move by Google, because people would associate Chromebooks with "lightning-fast" once they advertised the two products together. Thoughts?
- ben1040 15y agoBased on my month with a Chromebook, the only thing lightning-fast about it was its bootup. It was pretty choppy at rendering pages, while Chrome on my desktop was in fact lightning-fast.
- muppetman 15y agoAhh Speedtest. Running a speedtest and reporting the results is akin to running a ApacheBench on your index.html, recording how fast it goes, then telling everyone your PHP server can serve pages that fast. Speedtest by default finds a local server, which is almost always delivered over local uncontended peering. Of course you're going to see great results, you might as well be testing to a Speedtest server plugged into your LAN. Run speedtests to ~10 sites around the country and a few around the globe and report those figures.
- ars 15y agoBut that's not what they want to measure. All they want to know is the speed of the local link, and speedtest measures that. It's not everything you need to know, but it does provide the desired measurement.
- jrockway 15y agoPeople want to measure the bottlenecks they can control. Speedtest shows what speed your first few hops get. In most cases, "The Internet" is much faster than their DSL line. In this case, that's not true, but there's not much that can be done by the end user.
- joe24pack 15y agoNot Google Fiber Local ISP with fiber http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447021540.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447021540.png
- calloc 15y agoThe speed isn't there but that latency is to die for!
- joe24pack 15y agoWell according to my ISP I have 8Mbs down and 4Mbs up ... or at least that is what they bill me for and yes the latency on my connection is good. I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are.
- thatjoshguy 15y agohttp://www.speedtest.net/result/1447236364.png http://www.speedtest.net/result/1447236364.png 5 ms? Apparently I have the fastest internet in Australia
- dmerfield 15y agoWill this extend to the greater Palo Alto area?
- wmf 15y agoNo.
- daimyoyo 15y agoWhy is the up speed so much slower than the down speed? I thought that fiber was symmetric by design. Is google throttling?
- csomar 15y agoThis is not accurate. He is testing a server which is 50 miles away. I use a 3G internet connection, location: Tunisia Server: San Francisco: (6450 miles) Latency: 264ms. Down (0.37mbps) Up (0.32mbps) Server: Tunisia: (50 miles) Latency: 133ms. Down (0.93mbps) Up (0.39mbps)
- jroll 15y agoIt does make a difference, but there's a very good chance a lot of traffic goes to nearby servers when you live in the bay area.
- dvdhsu 15y agoUnfortunately Google Fiber at Stanford does not allow torrenting.
- wmf 15y agoNo offense, but [citation needed]. After all their net neutrality lobbying this would be hard to imagine.
- dvdhsu 15y agoI have a friend who lives at Stanford, where his mother is a professor. After he torrented some legitimate software (but used a Pirate Bay tracker), he was contacted by Stanford authorities. That was the first warning he received, he did not try to appeal the decision or break it again.
- wmf 15y agoThat sounds like the campus network, which should be separate from Google Fiber. It'a also disappointing to me to see our bastions of intellectual freedom embracing such policies.
- dvdhsu 15y agoNo, it was on the Google Fiber network at their house (in Stanford). To speak of one is to speak of the other, currently.
- kentbuckle 15y agoStanford gives out automated warnings if you have a lot of torrent-y network activity (I got a few back in the day after downloading some linux distros), but as I recall they are only to notify students that if they are pirating music/movies/etc, they will be held accountable if someone from the RIAA or some other group contacts Stanford about it. If you're downloading legitimate software you shouldn't have anything to worry about (except for some occasional automated spam)
- jsz0 15y agoThe obvious question now is, if Google can do this, why aren’t network operators banging down the company’s door to get involved and roll this out everywhere. Yes, there’s big investment involved, but these companies are kidding themselves if they think waiting and dealing with a lack of bandwidth in the future is going to work for them. Whoever jumps first and starts investing in these fiber-to-the-home initiatives is going to be rewarded with a lot of new customers in years to come. They don't need Google to do it. FTTH/G-PON solutions are available to any ISP in the country and have been for several years. They haven't done it yet (besides Verizon FIOS who provisions at much lower speeds) because the demand really isn't there yet. Most customers do not pay more for faster speeds even when they are available. You've got a lot more customers who downgrade to slower speeds to save money than customers who pay more for faster speeds. More competition would certainly help but until you can convince normal people they actually need faster Internet connections it's not much of a competitive advantage. (as long as you can match or slightly exceed your competitors) Once you hit about 20Mbit/5Mbit faster speeds are almost completely unnoticeable by most people who are just doing some normal browsing, IP video, e-mail, FaceBook, etc. That's what most people are using their Internet connections for these days. We really need a killer app that pushes the limits of most Internet connections and you'll see more companies betting on (expensive) upgrades to deliver those speeds. I don't see much on the horizon. You can already do pretty decent 1080P video at 10-20Mbit/sec. What type of apps are going to push the demand?
- jdunck 15y agoP2P live video.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoThat's already a real thing and it doesn't require any higher bandwidth than even conventional cable/dsl provides.
- joelhaus 15y agoWhat if you want to steam high quality P2P video ( ≥720p )?
- 8ig8 15y agoI tried to read this article on a few occasions today, but all I get is an empty (what may be) OnSwipe page from both my iPhone and iPad. All I see is the TOC graphic in the corner and the gear at the bottom, neither of which go anywhere.
- mrb 15y agoThese 151/92 Mbps numbers are almost certainly flawed results because speedtest.net is a very poor tool to measure high-bandwidth connections. Let me show you why. I was in Tokyo in August 2009 at my sister's house. She had 100Mbit/s to the internet. I could easily reach close to the maximum theoretical bandwidth by downloading multiple kernel images from jp.kernel.org, at 95+ Mbps. However speedtest.net would only give me download speeds of 50-60 Mbps. My system was running Linux, so I ran top, and saw speedtest.net's Flash app (npviewer.bin) at 100% CPU... it was being bottlenecked by the CPU! It was an old Pentium 3 1.2GHz, but still. Even a modern 2-3GHz CPU core is only about 3x-4x faster. Bottom line, speedtest.net, due to the high overhead of the Flash VM, is a very poor choice to benchmark high network speeds, as it is CPU-constrained at about 150-200Mbps even on a modern CPU, which is exactly the number reported by this Google fiber user. I am shocked that no one knows this.
- bobbles 15y agoSorry but I'm having a hard time believing that any modern CPU would only be 3-4x faster than a Pentium 3 1.2GHz. Just generally looking at the difference between levels of modern processors in something like 3D mark vantage http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/3DMark-Vantage-High,2418.html http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010... shows massive performance differences. If I'm missing something obvious here let me know
- quantumhobbit 15y agoThe flash app is probably only running in one thread and therefore only one core without any hyperthreading and doesn't take advantage of modern vectorized instructions. Moving from 1.2 GHz to 3.6GHz will give you a 3 times speedup. So sounds about right.
- mrb 15y agoExactly. Speedtest.net does not take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
- deleted 15y ago
- exadeci 15y agoFrance fibre provider: http://www.universfreebox.com/article13240.html http://www.universfreebox.com/article13240.html Eat that google :P