5 ms·

> providers to offer 25gbit synchronous What use cases are there for residential (or even most business) connection to be 25Gb/s (or even >10 Gb/s)? Are there

> providers to offer 25gbit synchronous What use cases are there for residential (or even most business) connection to be 25Gb/s (or even >10 Gb/s)? Are there 'practical' application for homes or offices to have this much? At $WORK we have both 10 Gbps to both our office and our DC, and we don't come close to saturating that. There's really only so many Linux ISOs that you can download at home. (I'm not "against" having it, just curious on possible uses.)

Gelob 3y ago
How about streaming actual 4k content at not a terrible bitrate
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  Youtube 4k is 25mbps and I don't think anyone's 4k is over 100mpbs.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    For streaming, probably true. However my 2016-era 4K camera records at up to 150Mbps and I noticed recently that due to compression I was totally unable to show off some gorgeous telephoto video of a hummingbird bathing in a river because the fast running water looked truly horrible under compression, even though the original video looked great. I would love 100mpbs streaming options.
    - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
      Bitrate on a camera and on a video aren't comparable. The camera has to use a compression algorithm that can run real time on very low power (the cpu in a camera is probably ~5-10 watts. Anything non-real-time video will have been re-compressed and can probably maintain quality at roughly half the bitrate.
      - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        well if I could get sufficient bitrate to display my cute hummingbird video I would be very happy
- throw0101b 3y ago
  Blu-ray 4K content is an absolute maximum of ~150Mbps, but can be below 100Mbps. So with a 1G/1000M connection you can stream have 7-10 streams of 4K Bluray quality video simultaneously. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray What does going to 10G, let alone 25G, get you? Are you really planning on 70-100 4K simultaneous movie streams on 10G, or 160-250 simultaneous streams on 25?
  - Trixter 3y ago
    That's missing some of the bigger picture. One of the reasons streaming 4k content is at a lower bitrate is because it has to deal with network hiccups and fit inside the buffer of most playback devices. A computer or phone has plenty of room, but streaming 4K content to a TV or chromecast/roku/firestick/etc. does not. Faster bandwidth means keeping the bucket full more reliably.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
      Are we sure that is true? Why would Netflix or similar pay out to give a better picture? Outside of a few AV aficionados, I doubt the average consumer would know or care.
afavour 3y ago
“Futureproofing” feels like a lame answer but when you’re talking about laying cables in the ground it’s a good one. Just imagine a future where we’re streaming 4K 360 degree video for VR headsets or something. I’m sure all the folks that have had to tear up 100Mbps LAN cables wished there was 1000Mbps cable in there instead.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  The laying of cables is the same: it's single-mode fibre with a PON architecture. Once you have that possible future speeds are 'infinite' with end-point upgrades. I'm asking: why even get the 25Gig service over the 10Gig? What are you doing with a 25G down/uplink that you cannot accomplish with 10G?
  - antonjs 3y ago
    If the price is under $70 for 25G, I'd imagine most people pay half that for less bandwidth, but the 25G works for a number of people who need or want it, plus is great marketing. Also selling 25G that's underutilized is probably substantially cheaper.
    - sschueller 3y ago
      Init7 charges the same for 10gibt or 25gbit[1]. Just setup costs and HW are more. The 1gibt service they have now is cheaper and intended for "regular users". It's now CGNAT and comes with a per-configured router. [2] [1] https://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/ https://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/ [2] https://www.init7.net/en/internet/easy7/ https://www.init7.net/en/internet/easy7/
      - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        > It's now CGNAT CGNAT? As in: The provider walls in customers behind a NAT - and customers can't forward their own IPv4 ports? That CGNAT? Asking because that seems like a cruel restriction on 25Gbps upload.
doublerabbit 3y ago
I'd buy an old shed and turn it in to a make-shift data centre; plug an ethernet cable in to a mushroom. MTP, like TCP but more squishy. The book entangled-life was also a great read [1] [0] https://www.newswise.com/articles/mushrooms-communicate-with-electricity-after-rain https://www.newswise.com/articles/mushrooms-communicate-with... [1] https://www.merlinsheldrake.com/entangled-life https://www.merlinsheldrake.com/entangled-life
- sschueller 3y ago
  I was thinking of setting up some website and try to get hugged to death by HN but I think my server will crap out before the 25gbit connection.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > I'd buy an old shed and turn it in to a make-shift data centre, plug an ethernet cable in to a mushroom. My various jobs in recent years is to run HPC data centres: a little while ago one with 12PB of total storage (along with lots of Ceph storage for ~300 on-prem, private cloud OpenStack instances), a more recent one had about a thousand GPUs (our power usage was high-five digit kWh each month). Whenever I looked at our routers/firewalls, we never came close to saturating 10Gb/s even with all data sets we dealt with.
  - allset_ 3y ago
    That sounds like a limitation on the remote end that doesn't support high bandwidth. If you have 10Gbps connections on both ends, your link should be saturated (minus some overhead).
    - kortilla 3y ago
      Saturated with what? Real life use cases aren’t just copying the same files back and forth.
oceanplexian 3y ago
Games. These days the average new AAA games approach 100GB. the biggest ones like Ark Survival are 400GB. A 5 minute download vs a 50 minute download is a totally meaningful difference in quality of life. It might sound crazy but a top end gaming rig can definitely take advantage of that 10G connection.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  GP was questioning the need for speeds greater than 10Gbps.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Ark Survival is maybe 100GB tops for download size. You’re thinking of unpacking space. Unless something has changed in the last year, you’ll also have a lot of difficulty getting 10gbps of download speed from steam, let alone 25.
sharts 3y ago
Why does there have to be a practical application? Bandwidth is like speech. Once you’ve provided the basic framework you should have the right to as much or as little as wanted. We don’t limit speech of some people that don’t talk as much and expand it only for those that talk a lot. That would be crazy.
- manquer 3y ago
  Cost ? Anything over 1 gbs let alone 10gbs requires special /extra hardware which is on the expensive side . If there is no real use , why spend for that kind of gear ?
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    I get 250mbs down, and outside of a massive Steam game, I am not sure what I would do with more.
    - evandale 3y ago
      So because you don't have a use case for >250mbs down nobody has a use-case? I don't understand what your argument is.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> What use cases are there for residential (or even most business) connection to be 25Gb/s (or even >10 Gb/s)? Using a mapped remote drives for actual work, especially with multiple remote workers. (WFH kind of blurs residential/business use case distinctions.)
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > Using a mapped remote drives for actual work, especially with multiple remote workers. Not just the bandwidth but also the latency of fiber vs copper. With sub 10ms ping times and you're pretty much there.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Latency of fiber vs copper isn’t a thing you will notice within any cities. The latency you are probably thinking of is related to shared mediums and having to wait to transmit (e.g. DOCSIS).
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      >Latency of fiber vs copper isn’t a thing you will notice within any cities. The latency you are probably thinking of is related to shared mediums and having to wait to transmit (e.g. DOCSIS). You're saying fiber's low latency (within a metro area) is more tied to it's carrying capacity as opposed to it's transmission nature. You're correct. Maybe also pedantic but certainly correct.
tw04 3y ago
Honestly when it comes to bandwidth: if you build it, they will come? It's a chicken and egg problem most of the time. People aren't going to invent a new widget if there's no infrastructure and no sign of there ever being infrastructure to support it. For instance: who in their right mind would have built Netflix in 1992?
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  We were experimenting with IGMP on the Mbone back then, in terms of teleconference and webinar capabilities. We sort of envisioned that large groups of people would tune in simultaneously to live events, but Netflix's VOD and YouTube made for a markedly different architecture.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I think that the GP meant "symmetric" rather than "synchronous". 25 symmetric means "$up == $down". I believe that a synchronous clock is a given for broadband.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Streaming 16k video to your Apple Vision Pro 3 I presume.

Gelob 3y ago

How about streaming actual 4k content at not a terrible bitrate

adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
Youtube 4k is 25mbps and I don't think anyone's 4k is over 100mpbs.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  For streaming, probably true. However my 2016-era 4K camera records at up to 150Mbps and I noticed recently that due to compression I was totally unable to show off some gorgeous telephoto video of a hummingbird bathing in a river because the fast running water looked truly horrible under compression, even though the original video looked great. I would love 100mpbs streaming options.
  - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
    Bitrate on a camera and on a video aren't comparable. The camera has to use a compression algorithm that can run real time on very low power (the cpu in a camera is probably ~5-10 watts. Anything non-real-time video will have been re-compressed and can probably maintain quality at roughly half the bitrate.
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      well if I could get sufficient bitrate to display my cute hummingbird video I would be very happy
throw0101b 3y ago
Blu-ray 4K content is an absolute maximum of ~150Mbps, but can be below 100Mbps. So with a 1G/1000M connection you can stream have 7-10 streams of 4K Bluray quality video simultaneously. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray What does going to 10G, let alone 25G, get you? Are you really planning on 70-100 4K simultaneous movie streams on 10G, or 160-250 simultaneous streams on 25?
- Trixter 3y ago
  That's missing some of the bigger picture. One of the reasons streaming 4k content is at a lower bitrate is because it has to deal with network hiccups and fit inside the buffer of most playback devices. A computer or phone has plenty of room, but streaming 4K content to a TV or chromecast/roku/firestick/etc. does not. Faster bandwidth means keeping the bucket full more reliably.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Are we sure that is true? Why would Netflix or similar pay out to give a better picture? Outside of a few AV aficionados, I doubt the average consumer would know or care.

afavour 3y ago

“Futureproofing” feels like a lame answer but when you’re talking about laying cables in the ground it’s a good one. Just imagine a future where we’re streaming 4K 360 degree video for VR headsets or something. I’m sure all the folks that have had to tear up 100Mbps LAN cables wished there was 1000Mbps cable in there instead.

throw0101b 3y ago
The laying of cables is the same: it's single-mode fibre with a PON architecture. Once you have that possible future speeds are 'infinite' with end-point upgrades. I'm asking: why even get the 25Gig service over the 10Gig? What are you doing with a 25G down/uplink that you cannot accomplish with 10G?
- antonjs 3y ago
  If the price is under $70 for 25G, I'd imagine most people pay half that for less bandwidth, but the 25G works for a number of people who need or want it, plus is great marketing. Also selling 25G that's underutilized is probably substantially cheaper.
  - sschueller 3y ago
    Init7 charges the same for 10gibt or 25gbit[1]. Just setup costs and HW are more. The 1gibt service they have now is cheaper and intended for "regular users". It's now CGNAT and comes with a per-configured router. [2] [1] https://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/ https://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/ [2] https://www.init7.net/en/internet/easy7/ https://www.init7.net/en/internet/easy7/
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      > It's now CGNAT CGNAT? As in: The provider walls in customers behind a NAT - and customers can't forward their own IPv4 ports? That CGNAT? Asking because that seems like a cruel restriction on 25Gbps upload.

doublerabbit 3y ago

I'd buy an old shed and turn it in to a make-shift data centre; plug an ethernet cable in to a mushroom. MTP, like TCP but more squishy. The book entangled-life was also a great read [1] [0] https://www.newswise.com/articles/mushrooms-communicate-with-electricity-after-rain https://www.newswise.com/articles/mushrooms-communicate-with... [1] https://www.merlinsheldrake.com/entangled-life https://www.merlinsheldrake.com/entangled-life

sschueller 3y ago
I was thinking of setting up some website and try to get hugged to death by HN but I think my server will crap out before the 25gbit connection.
throw0101b 3y ago
> I'd buy an old shed and turn it in to a make-shift data centre, plug an ethernet cable in to a mushroom. My various jobs in recent years is to run HPC data centres: a little while ago one with 12PB of total storage (along with lots of Ceph storage for ~300 on-prem, private cloud OpenStack instances), a more recent one had about a thousand GPUs (our power usage was high-five digit kWh each month). Whenever I looked at our routers/firewalls, we never came close to saturating 10Gb/s even with all data sets we dealt with.
- allset_ 3y ago
  That sounds like a limitation on the remote end that doesn't support high bandwidth. If you have 10Gbps connections on both ends, your link should be saturated (minus some overhead).
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Saturated with what? Real life use cases aren’t just copying the same files back and forth.

oceanplexian 3y ago

Games. These days the average new AAA games approach 100GB. the biggest ones like Ark Survival are 400GB. A 5 minute download vs a 50 minute download is a totally meaningful difference in quality of life. It might sound crazy but a top end gaming rig can definitely take advantage of that 10G connection.

sokoloff 3y ago
GP was questioning the need for speeds greater than 10Gbps.
kortilla 3y ago
Ark Survival is maybe 100GB tops for download size. You’re thinking of unpacking space. Unless something has changed in the last year, you’ll also have a lot of difficulty getting 10gbps of download speed from steam, let alone 25.

sharts 3y ago

Why does there have to be a practical application? Bandwidth is like speech. Once you’ve provided the basic framework you should have the right to as much or as little as wanted. We don’t limit speech of some people that don’t talk as much and expand it only for those that talk a lot. That would be crazy.

manquer 3y ago
Cost ? Anything over 1 gbs let alone 10gbs requires special /extra hardware which is on the expensive side . If there is no real use , why spend for that kind of gear ?
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  I get 250mbs down, and outside of a massive Steam game, I am not sure what I would do with more.
  - evandale 3y ago
    So because you don't have a use case for >250mbs down nobody has a use-case? I don't understand what your argument is.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> What use cases are there for residential (or even most business) connection to be 25Gb/s (or even >10 Gb/s)? Using a mapped remote drives for actual work, especially with multiple remote workers. (WFH kind of blurs residential/business use case distinctions.)

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Using a mapped remote drives for actual work, especially with multiple remote workers. Not just the bandwidth but also the latency of fiber vs copper. With sub 10ms ping times and you're pretty much there.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Latency of fiber vs copper isn’t a thing you will notice within any cities. The latency you are probably thinking of is related to shared mediums and having to wait to transmit (e.g. DOCSIS).
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    >Latency of fiber vs copper isn’t a thing you will notice within any cities. The latency you are probably thinking of is related to shared mediums and having to wait to transmit (e.g. DOCSIS). You're saying fiber's low latency (within a metro area) is more tied to it's carrying capacity as opposed to it's transmission nature. You're correct. Maybe also pedantic but certainly correct.

tw04 3y ago

Honestly when it comes to bandwidth: if you build it, they will come? It's a chicken and egg problem most of the time. People aren't going to invent a new widget if there's no infrastructure and no sign of there ever being infrastructure to support it. For instance: who in their right mind would have built Netflix in 1992?

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
We were experimenting with IGMP on the Mbone back then, in terms of teleconference and webinar capabilities. We sort of envisioned that large groups of people would tune in simultaneously to live events, but Netflix's VOD and YouTube made for a markedly different architecture.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

I think that the GP meant "symmetric" rather than "synchronous". 25 symmetric means "$up == $down". I believe that a synchronous clock is a given for broadband.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

Streaming 16k video to your Apple Vision Pro 3 I presume.