Slashdot Mirror
Gigabit Internet Access Now Supported By 84 US ISPs
An anonymous reader writes: According to Michael Render, principal analyst at market researcher RVA LLC, 83 Internet access providers have joined Google to offer gigabit Internet access service (all priced in the $50-$150 per month range).Render's data shows that new subscribers are signing up at an annualized growth rate of 480 percent each year. That "annualized" is an important thing to note, though; this is early days, and adding a few households, relatively speaking, means an impressive percentage change.
The article summary needs to specify that it's about offering RESIDENTIAL service. Thousands of ISPs offer gigabit Internet access in datacenters and businesses all over the US. 84 of them also reach the home.
Of note - ALL current US ISPs offering RESIDENTIAL gigabit service do so on the oversell model, such that they CAN deliver UP TO 1Gbps to a customer, but likely will be delivering less as they share upstream bandwidth across facilities, areas, and customers. This is not a Bad Thing -- it's how the costs are leveraged across multiple residential customers so it is 7-10x lower than business-grade gigabit service.
This is a really great thing!
E
1st post !
The joys of living in a half dead town full of half built subdivisions and the illusion of ISP competition.
I'm curious as to how close to actually getting that 1 Gbps the people are. The people I've seen showing screenshots of Speedtest or similar stuff are mostly getting 1/3 of the advertised speeds, but is that the norm or are they just unlucky outliers?
fuck fake internet
20meg, 30 meg, 1 gig, 10 gig,.. WHat difference does it make? How fast you can download from a Cache? all this fake internet shit from content providers , unless your ALSO paying additionally for cable tv, your going to be blocked from streaming services, e.g. History Channel, Spike, CNN, hell, even lame ass CSPAN is now requiring you to have a separate cable subscription
30 megs here , things are occasionally slow as fuck or missing" from dns, downloads are randomly truncated, some sites are still slow as fuck (microsoft updates, youtube , google maps)
Okay but using a typical browser and typical site for download, what download rate do you get? I get maybe 1/10th of what my independent speed tests - to their far-flung servers - say I have available. And I am 1/10th Gb. So how does Gb really translate for single downloads?
And I don't mean ganging TCP connections. I mean a typical browser used by the masses to download a single, very-large zip file.
Whats left unsaid is how many ISPs (including those that dont yet exist except on paper or in someones head) would LIKE to offer super fast broadband but are unable to because local or state authorities have been convinced by dinosaur companies like Comcast and Time Warner to block alternative ISPs comming into the area and providing good access.
If governments at all levels stopped listening to the dinosaur ISPs and their friends in Hollywood and started listening to the people who elected them, the number of people able to get gigabit service (or even just super fast service) might start to be a meaningful percentage of the total population.
It is in theory... However right now I am not seeing the need for it. I am currently at 10-15mbs about 100x slower... I am able to stream HD video, while browsing the web at the same time. Unlike the old days of dial up when I started at 2400bps and even when I went to 14.4k and 28.8k even when I got to college and we had about 1-5mbs It was a point where we wanted more speed. However now unless I am downloading the latest Linux/BSD distribution ISO that I feel like playing with. It doesn't feel slow or non-responsive any more.
However I expect once a good portion of people switch to GB speeds, I will need to upgrade, because sites and services will be designed to handle the new average bandwidth Streaming 8k video, more teleconferencing tools etc...
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How many sites will let you download an ISO at gigabit speed?
So this Gig speed will only be used by a junkie with a 4K TV, or a dozen kids with 802.11ac laptops with malware. Maybe you will try to use it for work so they can replicate the SAN to your house? Maybe you will try to run your own mail server or serve up ammeter porn?
How many SOHO WIFI routers can really do GIG on the Ethernet ports or even supply 802.11ac at full speed for 1 client? Sounds like a lot of clueless home users calling into the ISP bitching about how the "Internet" is slow. Are those clueless chaps really going to fork out more than $200 on a good WIFI router or an Enterprise device?
Me 60/4 meg Charter because that is the slowest they sell. I never see even 7 meg per second when downloading files but the speed test they do always show I should be able to do 60. ;)
Your Average Joe
60Mbps = 7.5MBps.
Not sure at all that I'll judge my future spending on someone who doesn't get this.
Gigabit has tons of uses and don't equate "ISP's" with "consumer-only ISP's". Businesses will happily pay for Gigabit speeds, therefore small businesses will do too, therefore work-at-home people like graphic designers or similar will do too.
It's not a question of whether the hardware can take it (the ISP's can always supply compatible hardware because nobody knows what the fuck ADSL2 vectoring, or DOCSIS 3 is, so the ISP has to supply sufficient shit anyway). It's a question of is the value there? Are there limits? Is it available? What's the install cost? How much are you paying per Mbps? etc.
60Mbps is fine but lots of people need more. It would take you two days to download my steam folder alone. Put several kids in the house, a mother who works from home, a father who mirrors the family photos to his brother's house, etc. and you're fucked.
There's not really an upper limit on what Internet speed I would like. Maybe one endpoint can't flood my connection (I wouldn't want it to) but nowadays there's a lot more than one device online, one user online, going to one destination.
Fuck, on 60Mbps (which IS more than I currently use at home myself, but because of cost nothing else) it would take me all day to sync my Google Drive to a new device, for instance.
The general rule I use is to divide mbps by ten to get MBps, rather than 8. The slight over-division compensates for various overheads - headers, dropped packets, etc.
It'd be better if we weren't stuck on such tiny MTUs still, but backwards compatibility demands it: Anything over 1500 bytes is probably going to run into an ethernet segment somewhere and go wrong.
We always suspected that submitters and editors do not understand maths, but now we know it.
The key word is "percent", not annualized. There is nothing sneaky about annualizing - they just compare one quarter to the same quarter next year. But putting it into relative growth figures makes it look impressive.
Personally I think we will see tremendous growth in 1Gb connections for a while. It is a standard technology transition process, and it is clearly entering the rapid growth phase.
For me, video calling would be the thing I'd expect to improve significantly with higher speed access. But higher speed doesn't mean equivalently lower latency, and latency improvement is really what I want.
"83 Internet access providers have joined Google to offer gigabit Internet access service (all priced in the $50-$150 per month range)."
Meanwhile, people still pay ~$40 for a 4mbit at&t line. There being lots of smaller regional players providing some service to a limited population doesn't mean crap in the more global view of how things are standing. Reality is, very many cties how only 1 to 3 choices, none of them really good, and absolutely none of them priced realistically. I don't care about statistics, when we can see the reality wit our own eyes.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Um, that is what jumbo frames are for. Fragmentation will take care of the rest.
I pay $47/mo for 1.5Mbps/.25Mbps with ATT and nothing better is offered in my area. I might could get something a little better with Comcast/xFintiy but I refuse to do business with them.
So I have a choice between shit service or getting screwed and getting shit service. I would love another company to come i but the Georgia state legislature is made up of mostly business worshiping Republicans who have been bought and paid for by well, every big corp that's here.
Great. Now when are they going to offer IPv6? A gigabit bandwidth should be enough for anyone (for the new few 100 years anyway) so time to start concentrating on native IPv6 support as the next "killer feature".
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Don't forget you've already pretty much optimized bandwidth for your current needs. New applications (4k video streaming, etc.) that you don't currently use may become more common place in your life as they become more accessible.
"... the oversell model ... CAN deliver UP TO..."
At OSCON 2015 last week, I talked with several people about technology companies being wildly mis-managed and very poorly communicated.
There is apparently no "Gigabit" service. "Gigabit" only refers to the electrical connection speed. The real speed of actual data delivery is whatever the providers want it to be.
My experience is that speedtest.net exaggerates the actual speed of delivery. Numion is realistic.
More than 84. My small local ISP offers it and they aren't on the list.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Well, Well, Well...
I think you might be the .01% of the Internet users. Most can't spell computer or know how to use it.
I agree on the backup, but all the commercial companies know how to do backups at night with something as slow as DSL, and all those Cable modem users are not symmetric either.
If your doing work from home, you either have a competent IT department or you don't. Most larger companies have a remote solution, Server based computing using RDP. PCoIP or the like.
Graphic designers... Hell they can bury the 1gig connection at work and fill up any disk they have access to, so I am not sure those people have enough patience to try to work from home. Besides if they have a real workstation at work, why the hell do they try to piss off time at home with something that does not have business 3d Graphics, SSD RAID subsystem, dual WQHD/WQXGA displays and TONS of RAM... And I for sure would not spend the coin on that hardware at home. The geek in me wants to have that but I have better things to do with that kind of dollars.
Your Average Joe
I'm at 100Mbit/s nominal(110 down 105 up actual), and for my family, sometimes we actually congest it badly, especially now that the kids are getting older.
The ability to download a game at 80Mbit/s while there are 4 different HD streams going etc is a boon, for example. Or being able to send friends, family or work large files without needing an hour.
Sure, the ISPs offer it... just not to your home. Or mine. Or in 90% of the country. I'm sure many of the ISPs /technically/ provide the gigabit-speeds but the area where people can actually get it is probably very, very limited. This is just another fluff piece from the telecom industry hoping to make people believe America isn't as technologically backward as Europe, Japan or Korea; "Look, American Internet is as fast as in the rest of the world!". They hope to forestall government regulation enforcing mandatory speed minimums for all parts of the country by pointing out that their network technically has this capability... even if 99% of it can never achieve this sort of speed.
And that doesn't even get into the astronomical prices they are charging for the service.
When Farmer Bob can call up Comcast and have them deliver gigabit service at the same price as Sue-in-the-city, then they can start boasting. Until then the ISPs are seriously deficient in the service that they have been providing to this nation.
...In the final analysis, if Comcast’s 25 Mbps internet costs $50 per month ...
Around here, since Comcast has little competition, Comcast's 25mbps internet costs well over $50 per month.
.
Hopes of seeing anything approaching gigabit speeds this decade are quite low.
Your problem isn't the capacity, you have more than enough. You just need to prioritize access to the network. I don't see why a file download or upload should be done in seconds, that's not a priority task in any way and it can be send in background without disturbing any live sreaming. You just don't use your network wisely. Getting more bandwith will not fix this, you will still congest the network, but for shorter period of time until you will want to download/upload larger and larger files, etc.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Why would you need to download an ISO at gigabit speed? This isn't a critical task, you can run it in background. I don't see the point. Your life is paused until the download is completed?
Achille Talon
Hop!
A file download and upload can certainly be a priority task, like for example sending my father a clip of something at the same time I'm talking to him about what I've filmed, for example.
But it's also a convenience thing: As it is now, we can now decide on a movie we want to watch and then go and make tea, and when we get back, it's ready to watch, while with your approach, we'd have to schedule it hours or days ahead, which is just head-up-your-ass retarded.
Also, capacity reduces the time it takes to install games, or get patches, which is where some of the congestion comes from, especially games that use bittorrent, other things is stuff like manually triggered syncing of devices, such as my oldest kid sync'ing her school tablet with the school server to get some material for her homework, including video or sound clips.
You can claim wisdom all you want, but all you come across as is a miser who sees no value in anything other than your priorities.
>> all priced in the $50-$150 per month range
>> Of note - ALL current US ISPs offering RESIDENTIAL gigabit service do so on the oversell model, such that they CAN deliver UP TO 1Gbps to a customer,....
No duh
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Think of the Advertisers! Without gigabit residential service, how can they add all that garbage to useful content?!
He's talking about traffic shaping and prioritization, obviously. There are several approaches which can make your last mile "uncongested" in the sense that you won't notice service degradation anymore, even if there are several large downloads going on at the same time. Prioritization of real-time protocols is one approach, minimum guaranteed bandwidth allocations per device (with currently unused bandwidth made available to other devices) is another. Keeping VoIP working with several P2P clients on the network can be a challenge, but it is doable, and traffic shaping solves it better than more bandwidth would. (Just so we're clear: This is on your own network. ISPs can use stochastic underprovisioning, but should not be allowed to prioritize in any way. They're selling bandwidth. What you use it for is not their concern.)
Your problem isn't the capacity, you have more than enough. You just need to prioritize access to the network.
That's the wrong end to start in, if removing the resource limitation is trivial that's a better solution than any resource management system, whether good or bad. At least if you're fixing this problem for you and not rolling out a resource-gobbling solution to a million devices. Before lots of applications running at the same time would trash the disk, with an SSD I just don't care since at >10000 IOPS it serves everything at once. The side effect is of course that I'm becoming more indifferent to inefficient solutions, but as long as it doesn't make a difference in practice I don't care.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
He's not just talking about traffic shaping. He's also talking about personal priorities and behavioural patterns.
I don't see why a file download or upload should be done in seconds
Years sound fine to me. Why do we even need to communicate in the first place? The quicker the better, within reason. 1Gb/s is cheap, 10Gb is still expensive, but not for long. There's no reason we should have the fastest cheap networks.
I was reading some search about network congestion. They focused on speeds between 500Mb/s and 2.5Gb/s and all rates showed the exact same congestion characteristics.
They simulated 10s of thousands of flows with a typical peak hours distribution of the types of flows from realtime UDP to bulk TCP transfers.
1) Never more than 200 flows of packets in the buffer at any given time. 2) Never more than 30 flows had more than one packet in the buffer at any given time
Their conclusion was that keeping all flows completely isolated from each other, even if there are tens of thousands of flows in total, would only require tracking 200 flows at any given moment. A Fair Queue AQM like fq_CoDel can in theory scale to very high bandwidths. while fq_CoDel does up to Layer 4 isolation, trunk links could be changed to only do Layer 3 as to keep customers isolated from each other.
That's interesting. I've seen situations like that, also.
My guess is that someone else had already downloaded the same game, and it was being held on your ISPs hard drives. So, it wasn't actually being transferred over the internet.
Of note - ALL current US ISPs offering RESIDENTIAL gigabit service do so on the oversell model, such that they CAN deliver UP TO 1Gbps to a customer
My Midwest USA ISP sells 1Gb/s residential, and they do not say "up to". Instead they guarantee that you will not get congestion on their network or to their transit provider. I have called in on 10ms ping increased and they have fixed the issues. They take congestion spuriously.
Taken from marketing
1 Gbps Symmetrical. It’s dedicated symmetrical fiber so speeds never go down or change.
Extremely large online backups
Web hosting
Webinar hosting
Cloud computing
Online gaming
Uninterrupted HD streaming (Netflix, YouTube, Hulu)
Taken from terms and conditions
No Unreasonable Discrimination
The Company does not unreasonably discriminate in its transmission of lawful traffic over the broadband Internet access services of its customers.
The Company does not block, impair, degrade or delay VoIP applications or services that compete with its voice services and those of its affiliates.
The Company does not block, impair, degrade, delay or otherwise inhibit access by its customers to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.
The Company does not impair free expression by actions such as slowing traffic from particular websites or blogs.
The Company does not use or demand “pay-for-priority” or similar arrangements that directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic.
The Company does not prioritize its own content, application, services, or devices, or those of its affiliates.
The Company does not retain, store or provide customer traffic information, except as required by law under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
Simply because you don't have a need for it, doesn't mean others feel the same way. Your experience doesn't reflect everyone else's.
Within the $50-$150 price range?
Thanks for the list.
"AFAICT speedtest measures the best case, it uses a nearby fast test server and it waits for the speed to stabilize to allow for TCP slow start." (slightly edited)
Yes, SpeedTest.net is not giving information that reflects the actual user experience.
Overhead is only about 5% with 1500mtu. Doubling your frame size won't do crap. SANs love larger frames so frames can be the same size as disk sectors, but they are special compared to normal internet data transfers.
250 Mbps is $150 from Comcast right now in Houston and I'm about to upgrade from my stupid 120 Mbps "if we like you that day" tier which is literally 100 dollars anyway.
One day I miught just move to Austin and get real internet from Googlay. because obviously they're never moving it down here.
You think there is no oversell on business-grade or even carrier-grade bandwidth? Even in a datacenter, the bandwidth is oversold easily at 100:1, unless you're actively peering with someone (at which the point is moot) you're being oversold to an extent. If you want dedicated bandwidth between 2 points, you can typically get that at a 10x price point but that will still be on the same network but at the cost of someone else's bandwidth (residential or business-grade).
Business-grade is typically just residential-grade (same bandwidth, same connections) but with some extra services (better tech-support, fewer limits, phone lines, dedicated IP's etc).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Try putting in a (Tomato/OpenWRT/DD-WRT) router and enable the fq_codel (or a similar) QoS algorithm - Multiple video streams, torrenting, surfing and video calling at the same time all became much better/possible.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I'll check that out.. thanks
+1.
Some people don't realize that even business grade is statistically multiplexed and not "dedicated" in the overly strict sense of not shared.
speedof.me
True. But the good side is that Numion reflects actual experience. Numion visits numerous web sites of big companies and records the speed. That speed is closer to reality than anything that says "gigabit".