3 ms·

100/20 is barely enough for a household of 3-5 "light" users. What the hell are you doing that 100/20 is "barely enough"?

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
Work from home? Copy large files?
- userbinator 1y ago
  The majority of WFH setups are either "remote into a server and work there" (RDP uses a few Mbps at most when streaming HD video, and SSH is basically negligible) or "everything you need is already on your local company-owned machine."
Larrikin 1y ago
2 younger kids streaming a movie, one parent listening to a podcast in the shower, one parent streaming a YouTube cooking video while making dinner, and an older kid playing any game would completely saturate the network. That is assuming nobody has a phone that is also connected to the network Also its ridiculous to think that is excessive in any way. Imagine what we could have if we had 100 gigabit or 1 terabit. Instead of watching a flat 4k movie, render a full 4k scene in AR.
- 0x457 1y ago
  2x1080p streams is 10mbit/s 2x4k is 30mbit/s. so below 100mbit/s. Video games don't consume a lot of traffic[] fortnite literally measured in 100s kbps. Video games consume traffic most only when they're updating, then sure you can saturate 100mbit/s, but you also can saturate 10G just as well, so in this case it's about speed, kid can do some chores while it's updating lmao. I initially wanted to skip podcast because...320kbps max? But then thought that not only that, but it's also most likely already downloaded to the device. []: destiny 1/2 consume a lot, but that would mean your older child is over 30 and living with you. That's if you use any streaming service, if you're streaming legally ripped Blu-rays, then yea, 100/20 isn't enough, but those are usually within LAN. And if you're talking seeding/streaming to others, then any asymmetric connection speed will suck.
- baby_souffle 1y ago
  > That is assuming nobody has a phone that is also connected to the network A buddy of mine has horror stories about what happens when an office full of iPhones all download the same 1+ gig iOS update at the same time. > Imagine what we could have if we had 100 gigabit or 1 terabit Exactly my point. I'd rather we not let large ISPs be the ones that decide what is innovative and "fast enough" for us. I want somebody with the power to push them... pushing them to be faster and better.
- vel0city 1y ago
  That YouTube cooking video is probably ~10Mbit. Assuming the kids are watching 4K streaming video, its maybe up to 20Mbit per stream. So, you're at maybe 50Mbit of throughput with all your highest usage things going at once. Your phone being on the Wifi but not actively being used is practically no bandwidth usage. That podcast is anywhere from 320kbps to maybe even 64kbps, practically nothing compared to even one of those video streams which all together are only using half your bandwidth. Same goes with playing an online game, assuming you're not talking cloud rendered its maybe a few hundred Kbit. Rounding up all the other little things, you're looking at using maybe ~60Mbit down. 60% of your bandwidth. > Instead of watching a flat 4k movie, render a full 4k scene in AR. It wouldn't take 100-gigabit to make this happen. You can already get this on existing VR headsets today. I watched some basketball games with a Windows Mixed Reality headset nearly a decade ago, and I definitely did not have terabit networking.
baby_souffle 1y ago
> What the hell are you doing that 100/20 is "barely enough"? Many things. A partial list in no particular order: My day job is all SSH so I don't need a wide pipe so much as I need a short pipe. If the pipe is also quite wide, I can reliably stream content while I work. This isn't just music, this is watching the daycare camera feeds. Every once in a while I need to docker pull a multi-gig image. It's nice when that doesn't take more than 30 seconds. I don't worry about background tasks moving/syncing/backing-up data; there's plenty of headroom! Some of my hobbies involve _lots_ of data and the less time I spend waiting for that to download is more time I get for actually doing hobbies. I also have a few scripts that backup other consequential data stores; the biggest one is google takeout for a few accounts. This results in ~ 800 gigs of data from a few different accounts. The work product from these hobbies and backups is something that I like to back up off site and a 20mbps connection is trivial to saturate for hours as a time. Every once in a while I'll make some of my excess compute/GPU available to friends so they can render things. The assets involved are not small and a big pipe means that everybody gets the desired result _faster_. If you give me a faster/wider pipe, I _will_ find a new use for the extra room. I may not be representative of the typical user but I know for sure that I would not have developed my skills to the extent that I have if I had crap internet access.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

Work from home? Copy large files?

userbinator 1y ago
The majority of WFH setups are either "remote into a server and work there" (RDP uses a few Mbps at most when streaming HD video, and SSH is basically negligible) or "everything you need is already on your local company-owned machine."

Larrikin 1y ago

2 younger kids streaming a movie, one parent listening to a podcast in the shower, one parent streaming a YouTube cooking video while making dinner, and an older kid playing any game would completely saturate the network. That is assuming nobody has a phone that is also connected to the network Also its ridiculous to think that is excessive in any way. Imagine what we could have if we had 100 gigabit or 1 terabit. Instead of watching a flat 4k movie, render a full 4k scene in AR.

0x457 1y ago
2x1080p streams is 10mbit/s 2x4k is 30mbit/s. so below 100mbit/s. Video games don't consume a lot of traffic[] fortnite literally measured in 100s kbps. Video games consume traffic most only when they're updating, then sure you can saturate 100mbit/s, but you also can saturate 10G just as well, so in this case it's about speed, kid can do some chores while it's updating lmao. I initially wanted to skip podcast because...320kbps max? But then thought that not only that, but it's also most likely already downloaded to the device. []: destiny 1/2 consume a lot, but that would mean your older child is over 30 and living with you. That's if you use any streaming service, if you're streaming legally ripped Blu-rays, then yea, 100/20 isn't enough, but those are usually within LAN. And if you're talking seeding/streaming to others, then any asymmetric connection speed will suck.
baby_souffle 1y ago
> That is assuming nobody has a phone that is also connected to the network A buddy of mine has horror stories about what happens when an office full of iPhones all download the same 1+ gig iOS update at the same time. > Imagine what we could have if we had 100 gigabit or 1 terabit Exactly my point. I'd rather we not let large ISPs be the ones that decide what is innovative and "fast enough" for us. I want somebody with the power to push them... pushing them to be faster and better.
vel0city 1y ago
That YouTube cooking video is probably ~10Mbit. Assuming the kids are watching 4K streaming video, its maybe up to 20Mbit per stream. So, you're at maybe 50Mbit of throughput with all your highest usage things going at once. Your phone being on the Wifi but not actively being used is practically no bandwidth usage. That podcast is anywhere from 320kbps to maybe even 64kbps, practically nothing compared to even one of those video streams which all together are only using half your bandwidth. Same goes with playing an online game, assuming you're not talking cloud rendered its maybe a few hundred Kbit. Rounding up all the other little things, you're looking at using maybe ~60Mbit down. 60% of your bandwidth. > Instead of watching a flat 4k movie, render a full 4k scene in AR. It wouldn't take 100-gigabit to make this happen. You can already get this on existing VR headsets today. I watched some basketball games with a Windows Mixed Reality headset nearly a decade ago, and I definitely did not have terabit networking.

baby_souffle 1y ago

> What the hell are you doing that 100/20 is "barely enough"? Many things. A partial list in no particular order: My day job is all SSH so I don't need a wide pipe so much as I need a short pipe. If the pipe is also quite wide, I can reliably stream content while I work. This isn't just music, this is watching the daycare camera feeds. Every once in a while I need to docker pull a multi-gig image. It's nice when that doesn't take more than 30 seconds. I don't worry about background tasks moving/syncing/backing-up data; there's plenty of headroom! Some of my hobbies involve _lots_ of data and the less time I spend waiting for that to download is more time I get for actually doing hobbies. I also have a few scripts that backup other consequential data stores; the biggest one is google takeout for a few accounts. This results in ~ 800 gigs of data from a few different accounts. The work product from these hobbies and backups is something that I like to back up off site and a 20mbps connection is trivial to saturate for hours as a time. Every once in a while I'll make some of my excess compute/GPU available to friends so they can render things. The assets involved are not small and a big pipe means that everybody gets the desired result _faster_. If you give me a faster/wider pipe, I _will_ find a new use for the extra room. I may not be representative of the typical user but I know for sure that I would not have developed my skills to the extent that I have if I had crap internet access.