News 50 Gigabit Internet Can Be Yours for Only $900 a Month

[Admin]

Ziply recently launched a 50 Gbps Internet plan for users in the Pacific Northwest region, but even users who can afford the $900/mo price of entry will find it hard to justify.

50 Gigabit Internet Can Be Yours for Only $900 a Month : Read more

 

[USAFRet]

For a residential user, anything much past 100/100 megabits is hard to justify.

If you're running a big internet cafe, then that performance at $900/mo might be justified.

At home? Not a chance.

 

[palladin9479]

Then we discover the ISP is using 10Gbe interconnects between circuits.

 

[HideOut]

For a residential user, anything much past 100/100 megabits is hard to justify.

If you're running a big internet cafe, then that performance at $900/mo might be justified.

At home? Not a chance.

I have ATT fiber, the service thats not listed cause ima tightwad. Its 300/300 (i get about 360/370 on average). Its amazing, and about $50/month. Massive game and windows updates are so much easier to download. You'd be surprised how nice it is. 1G service is a waste for most though. Even streaming 4K HDR only takese 30-60megs/sec, if that. Most shows you stream arn't maxing out their theorhetical limits. for a single occupancy on a budget 300/300 is very nice. If you have several people in the house then I can see the noraml "base" of 500/500 being somewhat useful. 100/100 isn't enough for a decent sized streaming family though.

 

[USAFRet]

I have ATT fiber, the service thats not listed cause ima tightwad. Its 300/300 (i get about 360/370 on average). Its amazing, and about $50/month. Massive game and windows updates are so much easier to download. You'd be surprised how nice it is. 1G service is a waste for most though. Even streaming 4K HDR only takese 30-60megs/sec, if that. Most shows you stream arn't maxing out their theorhetical limits. for a single occupancy on a budget 300/300 is very nice. If you have several people in the house then I can see the noraml "base" of 500/500 being somewhat useful. 100/100 isn't enough for a decent sized streaming family though.

I'll amend my above.....500/500 is enough, IF you have a largish family.

For me and the spouse, 100/100 is just fine.

 

[vanadiel007]

Ziply recently launched a 50 Gbps Internet plan for users in the Pacific Northwest region, but even users who can afford the $900/mo price of entry will find it hard to justify.

50 Gigabit Internet Can Be Yours for Only $900 a Month : Read more

For a residential user, anything much past 100/100 megabits is hard to justify.

If you're running a big internet cafe, then that performance at $900/mo might be justified.

At home? Not a chance.

I remember in the early days of the internet, when we were all using dial-up, the idea that someday a residential user would have a 1Mbit connection was considered impossible and very costly and for sure not needed.
Who needs more than 56 Kflex or 56 V90 speeds, right? Many ISP's ran off a 1 Mbit symmetrical connection in those days.

Same for MSDOS, where nobody would ever need more than 640 Kbit of memory. More than 1 Mbyte of memory was unthinkable for a home user. That was the domain of main frames.

Hard drives larger than 240 Mbyte was for corporate servers, not for home users unless you wanted to shelve out $1,000 for the amazing pleasure of having a 500 Mbyte hard drive.

Things change, and some day in the not so distant future we will be needing gigabit connectivity to stream those 32K HD movies to our home entertainment walls with 16.1 HD surround sound. Anything lesser quality would be unthinkable.

 

[pointa2b]

For normal desktop use it isn't that useful, but this opens up the possibility of running all kinds of bandwidth intensive services on your home connection (seedboxes, file hosting, etc). If the ISP ToS doesn't allow this though, outside of what people said above like large internet cafes, there isn't much (current) benefit to having a connection like this. 1 gigabit symmetric is already insane.

 

[USAFRet]

I remember in the early days of the internet, when we were all using dial-up, the idea that someday a residential user would have a 1Mbit connection was considered impossible and very costly and for sure not needed.
Who needs more than 56 Kflex or 56 V90 speeds, right? Many ISP's ran off a 1 Mbit symmetrical connection in those days.

Same for MSDOS, where nobody would ever need more than 640 Kbit of memory. More than 1 Mbyte of memory was unthinkable for a home user. That was the domain of main frames.

Hard drives larger than 240 Mbyte was for corporate servers, not for home users unless you wanted to shelve out $1,000 for the amazing pleasure of having a 500 Mbyte hard drive.

Things change, and some day in the not so distant future we will be needing gigabit connectivity to stream those 32K HD movies to our home entertainment walls with 16.1 HD surround sound. Anything lesser quality would be unthinkable.

Sure.

I was one of the first of my friends to move beyond dialup, into 1mbs "broadband" in the mid-90s.

25 years later....100/100 still suffices.

My current GPU has more memory than my first dozen PCs had RAM and hard drive space, combined.

Yes, things need to increase. But there does come a point of diminishing returns.

And listening to the ISP ads..."You NEED gigabit!!" is, currently, wasteful.

 

[vanadiel007]

For normal desktop use it isn't that useful, but this opens up the possibility of running all kinds of bandwidth intensive services on your home connection (seedboxes, file hosting, etc). If the ISP ToS doesn't allow this though, outside of what people said above like large internet cafes, there isn't much (current) benefit to having a connection like this. 1 gigabit symmetric is already insane.

Well, I have the option to upgrade from 1.5/1 to 3/3. I might actually do it. Not because I need it, but because the modem for the 1.5/1 package only provides gigabit LAN ports.
The modem for the 3/3 provides 2.5G ports + an SFP+ port.
I can upgrade my modem for an extra $10/month, which just happens to be the price difference between my current plan and the new plan...So, why not grab the extra speed I don't need.

 

[vanadiel007]

Sure.

I was one of the first of my friends to move beyond dialup, into 1mbs "broadband" in the mid-90s.

25 years later....100/100 still suffices.

My current GPU has more memory than my first dozen PCs had RAM and hard drive space, combined.

Yes, things need to increase. But there does come a point of diminishing returns.

And listening to the ISP ads..."You NEED gigabit!!" is, currently, wasteful.

The slowest I can get is 50/50 FTTH, which is $65/month, 500/500 is $75/month, 1.5/1 is $80 and 3/3 is $90. There's also 8/8 plans but not in my area yet. But it's coming.

I am at 1.5/1 and I would not go back to anything less, unless there was no other option. With some game downloads being 45 GB or larger, it would simply take to long to download and install over a 100/100 connection.

 

[tazzmonster]

This could be a service for a community to share among households. Maybe an apartment complex or a group of neighbors sharing the service and cost.

 

[USAFRet]

This could be a service for a community to share among households. Maybe an apartment complex or a group of neighbors sharing the service and cost.

Exactly.
If the ISP allows, with the relevant account.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Imagine if they can divide it among households

50 (1gbps each) - $18 a month
25 (2gbps each) - $36 a month
10 (5gbps each) - $90 a month

That's a tremendous value. Or if it's in an apartment complex where the landlord provides internet service. Simple enough to split up between units.

 

[USAFRet]

Imagine if they can divide it among households

50 (1gbps each) - $18 a month
25 (2gbps each) - $36 a month
10 (5gbps each) - $90 a month

That's a tremendous value. Or if it's in an apartment complex where the landlord provides internet service. Simple enough to split up between units.

Value to the households, yes.

It is NOT done that way, because the ISP can gain more money other ways.

50Gigabits/sec to a particular building is apparently easy.
You also have to update all the cabling, switches, etc....

 

[Ogotai]

50 gig down, and 100meg up for $900/month 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[Colif]

its still slow

With 319 Terabytes per second, Japan sets new world record for internet speed. What does this mean?

Researchers in Japan's National Institute of Information and Communications Technology recently set a new world record for the world's fastest internet speed at 319 Terabytes per second (Tbps). The long-haul transfer of data took place over 3,001 kilometres. This record marks speeds twice as...

www.wionews.com

You get diminishing returns once you can download anything in under a second.

I am happy with what I have as there are people in my country that would be happy just to get 100mb/s. I remember dial up, 4 hours to download 40mb. It all depends where you started as to what speed you happy with.

 

[hotaru251]

near 6GBp/s.....what servers actually support this even IF you had the hardware to use it yourself?

At those speeds the server client side likely throttle before you hit them speeds.

 

[PBme]

50 gig down, and 100meg up for $900/month 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

It is 50 up and 50 down. Not sure where you read 100mbit up.

Exactly.
If the ISP allows, with the relevant account.

They do not. This is single address offering.

 

[PBme]

This is a halo offering primarily for marketing reasons (upstaging google fiber's 20gbit offering). There are some folks who will be able to use it for their personal businesses purposes running on their home servers but, like Ziply's 10gbit (and really even the 5gbit), there is no real world benefit for general users. To even receive the 50gbit offering you need some multi-thousand dollar equipment and that is not part of the $900 a month or the setup cost. If you could benefit from it, you know who you are and you aren't 99.99%+ of Ziply's residential customers.

And if you think it is crazy, note they can actually deliver 100gbit to residential if they wanted using the same connection, as they have shown some of their network managers testing it. They way they deliver it is that they don't use PON, it is a direct fiber ethernet connection into their network.

 

[George³]

Seems like fraud.

 

[HyperMatrix]

For a residential user, anything much past 100/100 megabits is hard to justify.

If you're running a big internet cafe, then that performance at $900/mo might be justified.

At home? Not a chance.

I’m on 3 gig fiber and while it’s excessive, I would die trying to use 100mbit internet. Right now I can remotely access my NAS at 180MB/s. If that dropped to 11MB/s I would probably kill myself. If we stick to “gaming” download speeds for example Alan Wake 2 just came out. It was an 84GB download I believe. It took about 10 minutes to download after launch. If I were on 100mbit I’d have been waiting 2.5 hours. That’s just not acceptable.

I could live with 1Gbit pretty comfortably. But the last time I was on 100Mbit or slower was over a decade ago. You’ll run into issues when trying to stream Apple TV+ while anyone is doing a game download for example. It’s way too limited.

 

[bill001g]

I’m on 3 gig fiber and while it’s excessive, I would die trying to use 100mbit internet. Right now I can remotely access my NAS at 180MB/s. If that dropped to 11MB/s I would probably kill myself. If we stick to “gaming” download speeds for example Alan Wake 2 just came out. It was an 84GB download I believe. It took about 10 minutes to download after launch. If I were on 100mbit I’d have been waiting 2.5 hours. That’s just not acceptable.

I could live with 1Gbit pretty comfortably. But the last time I was on 100Mbit or slower was over a decade ago. You’ll run into issues when trying to stream Apple TV+ while anyone is doing a game download for example. It’s way too limited.

This all comes down to how much money you are willing to spend and how much you value your time. It depends on how much downloading you actually do in a month. If for example it costs a extra$50 per month and you save a total of 5hrs you are paying $10/hr for that extra speed. The cost per minute/hr gets much higher when you are talking going from 1gbit to say 5gbit.

It all depends on how much extra money you have. There are lots of people that spend $5-$10/day on fancy coffee and then complain they do not have enough money.

 

[Unolocogringo]

And then we have people like me.
I am the last home in our neighborhood with a 50/2mbps plan. Get about 40/1.75.
Our rental next door (100yards/meters away)is only offered 25/1 mbps plan.
Our friend at the end of the road gets 14/.5mbps.
And we pay $70 month for service.
They have started running overhead fiber closer to town ,but not sure it will reach us yet.

 

[velocityg4]

The slowest I can get is 50/50 FTTH, which is $65/month, 500/500 is $75/month, 1.5/1 is $80 and 3/3 is $90. There's also 8/8 plans but not in my area yet. But it's coming.

I am at 1.5/1 and I would not go back to anything less, unless there was no other option. With some game downloads being 45 GB or larger, it would simply take to long to download and install over a 100/100 connection.

That really depends on your habits. At 100 mbps, that'd take about an hour. It would feel like too long if you're just sitting and waiting for the game to play.

I'm not it a rush to play a game. I already have multiple games on my computer. Typically I install a game weeks or even months ahead of when I plan to play it. As there are others already installed in my queue. Which I'm going to play first.

If that was all my plan offered. I'd throttle the download to 10 mbps. Letting it download all day if necessary and not effect any other services in my house. I've got Gig internet though. I can let it download much faster. Not that it matters for me. As it won't effect when I'll play it.

The only reason I have a gigabit plan is for no data cap. As a 1TB cap isn't enough when everyone is watching streaming video and no OTA/cable.

 

[jp7189]

Latency aside, if your Internet link is faster than the link to your PC's local storage, then it completely changes the paradigm of computing. In that scenario, thin client/cloud PC would cover the vast majority of people's needs.