From: this@ddress.is.invalid
Chris wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> > On 2026/1/11 14:13:20, Paul wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1/11/2026 7:03 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just out of curiosity - what are you actually _doing_ that _needs_ that
> >>> speed - or, are you just trying to achieve it anyway, since you've been
> >>> told you've been given the (free) upgrade? (It's not that you're talking
> >>> of a multi-user household, as you're talking about one PC here.)
> >>
> >> In some cases, with new things, you don't find out until you get there.
> >>
> >> Normally, 2Gbit/sec could support quite a few PCs doing web browsing.
> >>
> >> And a ton of TV sets.
> >
> > That's what I was thinking - how can he possibly be using that much
> > capacity! (I know in a few years' time that'll seem quaint, of course.)
>
> I've said for a long time that 99% of domestic users don't actually need
> anything more that 50Mbps. What they do need is reliable symmetric speeds
> and better latency.
Indeed. For my (cable) ISP, the *minimum* available speed was 50Mbps,
as long ago as 2019! (Now it's 250Mbps.)
'Even' for watching (Full HD) TV, 10Mbps is fine. I got that in April
2011, nearly 15 years ago.
I started as 'low' as 300*K*bps in 2003 and before that, in the late
90's, we did (technical support) work-from-home at 64Kbps, yes with full
GUIs.
High bit-rates are a bit *over* rated! :-)
> Some media or technical people who work remotely from the office may
> require a 200-300Mbps connection, but that's a very small number of people.
>
> It's simply marketing.
One of my kids had to give up DVB-C TV in order to get lower
bandwidth/cost Internet. That lower bandwidth was of course fine to
watch IP-TV. Go figure!?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
