News Google Fiber Gaining 5 Gbps and 8 Gbps Internet Tiers in Early 2023

[Admin]

5 Gbps and 8Gbps services will cost $125 and $150 per month, respectively. Announcement comes in the wake of Google teasing 20 Gbps service tests.

Google Fiber Gaining 5 Gbps and 8 Gbps Internet Tiers in Early 2023 : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

would give my left (and right) nut if they'd actually expand coverage...

so many ppl would switch to them.

 

[jeremyj_83]

8Gbps internet is awesome until you realize you need $10k+ worth of equipment just to be able to utilize that speed.

 

[pixelpusher220]

8Gbps internet is awesome until you realize you need $10k+ worth of equipment just to be able to utilize that speed.

I think Alexa literally thinks for you at this speed

 

[pixelpusher220]

would give my left (and right) nut if they'd actually expand coverage...

so many ppl would switch to them.

I think they're starting to expand a little again, but yeah, it's just f'n cruel to leave so many of us with Comcast.

 

[hotaru251]

I think they're starting to expand a little again, but yeah, it's just f'n cruel to leave so many of us with Comcast.

again i'd give a lot for reliable fast net and give comcast the finger finally..
regional monopolies suck x_x

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

8Gbps internet is awesome until you realize you need $10k+ worth of equipment just to be able to utilize that speed.

$10k+ ?

A 10Gbit ethernet card is literally $80 and high-end mobo already have 10Gbit ethernet.

Any recent SSD writes far faster than 10Gbit/s.

 

[Ogotai]

$10k+ ?

A 10Gbit ethernet card is literally $80 and high-end mobo already have 10Gbit ethernet.

Any recent SSD writes far faster than 10Gbit/s.

maybe not 10k+ but you are also forgetting about the possible switch if you have more then 1 comp in the house. those from what i have found are still quite pricey ( here at least )

 

[USAFRet]

Future thread here:

"We got 5Gbps from google. My fps in Fortnite didn't go up. How do I fix this?"

 

[CaR0nTe]

I'm surprissed with that info. I live in Madrid @ spain and I have 10/10gbps since 2 years ago for 25$. A 10gbps nic 80$ and qnap sw with 10/2.5 ports for 250$...

 

[bit_user]

maybe not 10k+ but you are also forgetting about the possible switch if you have more then 1 comp in the house. those from what i have found are still quite pricey ( here at least )

In March of 2020, I got a Netgear MS510TX switch with 1 SFP+ port, 1x 10 gigabit port, 2x 5 gigabit ports, 2x 2.5 gigabit ports, and 4x 1 gigabit ports. It cost < $300.

That switch seems to have been replaced by the MS510TXM, which is sadly selling for about 2x as much, but the good part is that it has 4x 2.5 gigabit ports, 4x 10 gig ports, and 2x SFP+.

Here's their current lineup of multi-gig switches: https://www.netgear.com/business/wired/switches/multi-gig/

 

[bit_user]

I'm surprissed with that info. I live in Madrid @ spain

Look at the locations they listed. These are "wide open spaces", which means long cable runs.

I have 10/10gbps since 2 years ago for 25$.

Also, your peak speeds might be 10 Gbps, but it's another question what you can actually achieve in practice.

That said, I'm jealous. I pay almost $110 for Comcast/Xfinity service that's I think ~300 Mbps (might even be 1 Gbps - I haven't bothered to upgrade my cable modem to the latest DOCSIS version). More than fast enough for me. I can't complain about the service, but the pricing leaves a lot to be desired!

BTW, my first modem was 1200 bps (1.2 kbps). I've been pretty happy with my broadband, for most of the time since I first got hooked up with 1 Mbps cable internet, back in 1998 or so. Just to put things in perspective...

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

This is ridiculous. 99.9% of households do not need more than 50Mbps internet. 99.999999999999% of households do not need more than 150Mbps internet....

"oH bUt We HaVe 3 KiDs In ThE hOuSe ThAt WaTcH nEtFlIx, StReAm AnD wAtCh YoUtUbE aT tHe SaMe TiMe"

That joke never gets old. Even if you have 4 people watching 4K netflix at the same time, thats 100Mbps (25 each required). Then you have 2 people with a PS5 playing games. 5Mbps will do lots. That leaves 40MB of headroom on a 150 Mbps connection, and that assumes you have 6 people doing all those things in the house all at the same time.....

doesn't happen.... almost ever.

"Oh BuT i DoWnLoAd LaRgE aAa GaMeS" ..... you download them once, and then you have them forever..... unless you're a mass torrent pirate, a big datacenter, a big business, a massive operation which requires heavy bandwidth, there is absolutely no need for almost ANY household (excluding probably 1 in 10,000) to have more than 150Mbps. Consumers have been brainwashed by media corporations and ISPs in tandem to believe that they need these obscenely fast internet plans just to do basic tasks. YA DONT!!!. If you and a buddy share an apartment, and you both are heavy 4K streamers/gamers/netflix watchers. Even between the two of you, 50-100MB will probably do the job just fine. I spit my drink out every time I hear "Ya, I upgraded from 500Mb to 1Gig because we have 4 kids in the house who all have phones. Lol. Its hysterical. Unless you're a big corporation, datacenter, etc, 50-150 will be just fine for almost all households, with a few anomalies

 

[drivinfast247]

This is ridiculous. 99.9% of households do not need more than 50Mbps internet. 99.999999999999% of households do not need more than 150Mbps internet....

"oH bUt We HaVe 3 KiDs In ThE hOuSe ThAt WaTcH nEtFlIx, StReAm AnD wAtCh YoUtUbE aT tHe SaMe TiMe"

That joke never gets old. Even if you have 4 people watching 4K netflix at the same time, thats 100Mbps (25 each required). Then you have 2 people with a PS5 playing games. 5Mbps will do lots. That leaves 40MB of headroom on a 150 Mbps connection, and that assumes you have 6 people doing all those things in the house all at the same time.....

doesn't happen.... almost ever.

"Oh BuT i DoWnLoAd LaRgE aAa GaMeS" ..... you download them once, and then you have them forever..... unless you're a mass torrent pirate, a big datacenter, a big business, a massive operation which requires heavy bandwidth, there is absolutely no need for almost ANY household (excluding probably 1 in 10,000) to have more than 150Mbps. Consumers have been brainwashed by media corporations and ISPs in tandem to believe that they need these obscenely fast internet plans just to do basic tasks. YA DONT!!!. If you and a buddy share an apartment, and you both are heavy 4K streamers/gamers/netflix watchers. Even between the two of you, 50-100MB will probably do the job just fine. I spit my drink out every time I hear "Ya, I upgraded from 500Mb to 1Gig because we have 4 kids in the house who all have phones. Lol. Its hysterical. Unless you're a big corporation, datacenter, etc, 50-150 will be just fine for almost all households, with a few anomalies

Or you constantly have multi-gig game updates that seem to roll out weekly. Or need to dl large files quickly during work meetings. The difference between 500mbps and 1gig is <$30 and <$40 from 250mbps to 1gig. I'll pay the little extra for the convenience of a couple minutes to download a 60gb file.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

Or you constantly have multi-gig game updates that seem to roll out weekly. Or need to dl large files quickly during work meetings. The difference between 500mbps and 1gig is <$30 and <$40 from 250mbps to 1gig. I'll pay the little extra for the convenience of a couple minutes to download a 60gb file.

And thats fine, but Im talking about the average household. Who sits there in their house downloading 60GB files all day? Even weekly game updates are (in most cases excluding big DLCs) a few GBs in size AT MOST. 50-150 will do MOST of those updates in 5 minutes. Even when you get that big 20GB update, those can be downloaded on a 50-150 connected in half an hour. Thats nothing. But those only come every now and again, not once a week, unless you own 300 games. The vast majority of households dont own 300 games. Ya, I'm not going to argue price per Mbps. In that case, the highest tier always wins. I'm talking about in practice, in real world use cases, 50-150 will suffice for 99.99999999999% of people

 

[bit_user]

This is ridiculous. 99.9% of households do not need more than 50Mbps internet. 99.999999999999% of households do not need more than 150Mbps internet....

"oH bUt We HaVe 3 KiDs In ThE hOuSe ThAt WaTcH nEtFlIx, StReAm AnD wAtCh YoUtUbE aT tHe SaMe TiMe"

That joke never gets old. Even if you have 4 people watching 4K netflix at the same time, thats 100Mbps (25 each required). Then you have 2 people with a PS5 playing games. 5Mbps will do lots. That leaves 40MB of headroom on a 150 Mbps connection, and that assumes you have 6 people doing all those things in the house all at the same time.....

doesn't happen.... almost ever.

I hear this complaint enough that I believe the bottlenecks they're hitting are real. You didn't allow for video conferencing, BTW. And just having a web browser open on a computer or phone is going to bring in streams of self-playing videos.

I think a lot of people are actually hitting wifi bottlenecks, well before they max their broadband speed. We know wifi doesn't scale as well with the number of users as switched ethernet, particularly if you're not using MU-MIMO.

Also, when you're doing something latency-sensitive, like gaming, you don't just want your little slice of the pie, but you actually want a good deal of headroom. Because, the fuller the pipe gets, the more likely it is that your packets get queued behind others. That adds latency and increases the chance of packet loss.

Finally, I think an underappreciated piece of the puzzle has to do with what's happening upstream. We can reasonably presume that if Google is provisioning 8 Gbps to every house, then at least some of those users are going to be able to verify that full 8 Gbps, when they test it. That means the upstream "central office" and metro switches should have greater bandwidth, as well. And that's probably the key.

"Oh BuT i DoWnLoAd LaRgE aAa GaMeS" ..... you download them once, and then you have them forever.....

Don't forget about updates. These only need to be large enough to momentarily tax the connectivity for others to notice (i.e. packet loss, because that's how packet-switched networks manage congestion).

unless you're a mass torrent pirate, a big datacenter, a big business, a massive operation which requires heavy bandwidth, there is absolutely no need for almost ANY household (excluding probably 1 in 10,000) to have more than 150Mbps. Consumers have been brainwashed by media corporations and ISPs in tandem to believe that they need these obscenely fast internet plans just to do basic tasks. YA DONT!!!.

In the USA, Congress killed net neutrality in 2017. Without that, you can't assume that a basic plan will have your traffic prioritized the same way as that of premium subscribers'. And if I'm right that upstream congestion is the #2 issue behind people's wifi, then priority/QoS actually matters.

I'm hardly a networking guru, but I think your understanding of networks is too simplistic.

 

[bit_user]

Even when you get that big 20GB update, those can be downloaded on a 50-150 connected in half an hour. Thats nothing.

A half hour can seem like an eternity, if you're waiting for it.

Let's face it: most desktop computer users spend a tiny amount of time actually taxing their hardware. Most of their cores spend most of their time just idling away. Same with storage and graphics. But, when you do push it and it's fast, you get that dopamine hit of seeing your beefy new rig not even break a sweat. That gratification is worth a lot, to some people.

For me, when I'm working, I typically spend < 10% of my time compiling code. But, when I am, the time I'm waiting for it to compile is not only affecting my productivity, but it's also breaking my flow. For that reason, I'll spend more money just to get those compile times down.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

A half hour can seem like an eternity, if you're waiting for it.

Let's face it: most desktop computer users spend a tiny amount of time actually taxing their hardware. Most of their cores spend most of their time just idling away. Same with storage and graphics. But, when you do push it and it's fast, you get that dopamine hit of seeing your beefy new rig not even break a sweat. That gratification is worth a lot, to some people.

For me, when I'm working, I typically spend < 10% of my time compiling code. But, when I am, the time I'm waiting for it to compile is not only affecting my productivity, but it's also breaking my flow. For that reason, I'll spend more money just to get those compile times down.

Sure, but that half hour is only once every so often. You are going to pay more on your internet bill just to not wait an extra few minutes. It's your money, do what you want. But I think most people would find this hard to justify, unless you have 300 games. You're an anomaly. I'm talking about 99.9999999% of users

 

[jeremyj_83]

This is ridiculous. 99.9% of households do not need more than 50Mbps internet. 99.999999999999% of households do not need more than 150Mbps internet....

"oH bUt We HaVe 3 KiDs In ThE hOuSe ThAt WaTcH nEtFlIx, StReAm AnD wAtCh YoUtUbE aT tHe SaMe TiMe"

That joke never gets old. Even if you have 4 people watching 4K netflix at the same time, thats 100Mbps (25 each required). Then you have 2 people with a PS5 playing games. 5Mbps will do lots. That leaves 40MB of headroom on a 150 Mbps connection, and that assumes you have 6 people doing all those things in the house all at the same time.....

doesn't happen.... almost ever.

"Oh BuT i DoWnLoAd LaRgE aAa GaMeS" ..... you download them once, and then you have them forever..... unless you're a mass torrent pirate, a big datacenter, a big business, a massive operation which requires heavy bandwidth, there is absolutely no need for almost ANY household (excluding probably 1 in 10,000) to have more than 150Mbps. Consumers have been brainwashed by media corporations and ISPs in tandem to believe that they need these obscenely fast internet plans just to do basic tasks. YA DONT!!!. If you and a buddy share an apartment, and you both are heavy 4K streamers/gamers/netflix watchers. Even between the two of you, 50-100MB will probably do the job just fine. I spit my drink out every time I hear "Ya, I upgraded from 500Mb to 1Gig because we have 4 kids in the house who all have phones. Lol. Its hysterical. Unless you're a big corporation, datacenter, etc, 50-150 will be just fine for almost all households, with a few anomalies

Don't forget that a ton of people have shared cable connections. While they might have 200Mbps from the main trunk, they are sharing that trunk with a dozen+ other people. Having a faster connection can be the difference in getting something downloaded before your shared speed goes down. I have a 200/10 cable connection and when everyone was working from home I saw times when my connection dropped to 7-15Mbps. I noticed a severe difference in latency on my RDP session. It was even more noticeable during conference calls.

While right now 150Mbps is enough for most people, that is only right now. In theory you can have 4x 4K streams but in reality you cannot. The nature of internet states that your connection speed will be going up and down so odds are you will buffer, especially during peak usage times. That doesn't take into account that webpages are growing all the time. As more ads, self playing videos, etc...are added to webpages your connection becomes a huge limiting factor. My in-laws had a 5Mbps DSL connection all of 3 years ago. Browsing the web was painfully slow as webpages had so much garbage on them. A page like Tomshardware would take 10+ seconds to load. It felt like I was using dial up again. Streaming 1080p was tough even though that only needs 3Mbpsu. Sure it had the bandwidth but if someone was browsing stuff on their phone the video would stutter.

 

[spongiemaster]

would give my left (and right) nut if they'd actually expand coverage...

so many ppl would switch to them.

Indeed. Google should concentrate more on expanding coverage than increasing to these incredible speeds that consumers don't really need. What's the point of increasing speeds when availability is so low? Is there anyone who hasn't signed up for google fibre because the speeds are too slow and they are waiting for something faster? There's more money to be made by increasing your userbase, rather adding things no one is asking for.

I used to live in an area that supposedly had Google fibre. I didn't know anyone who had it or anyone who even lived at an address where they could get it. AT&T fibre which enter the market after them seemed to have more availability.

 

[spongiemaster]

$10k+ ?

A 10Gbit ethernet card is literally $80 and high-end mobo already have 10Gbit ethernet.

Any recent SSD writes far faster than 10Gbit/s.

That's fine for one PC. Just adding a 2nd one and the costs start climbing quickly. There are very few consumer routers with 10gb capabilities, and none of them are cheap. Add in a 10gb switch, and a 10gb nic for every pc, and the likely need to run new cabling throughout your house and the costs aren't hit 10k+ but they do become significant.

 

[bit_user]

That's fine for one PC. Just adding a 2nd one and the costs start climbing quickly. There are very few consumer routers with 10gb capabilities, and none of them are cheap. Add in a 10gb switch, and a 10gb nic for every pc, and the likely need to run new cabling throughout your house and the costs aren't hit 10k+ but they do become significant.

If you stick with 5 Gbps, you can probably use existing Cat 5e for the kinds of lengths that one would find in a normal house.

As for the switch, I cited Netgear's MS510TXM: a managed switch with 4x <= 10 Gbps RJ-45 ports and 2x SFP+ ports (+ 4x 2.5 Gbps ports) for about $600.

And I haven't been tracking wifi speeds, but aren't they well into the multi-gigabit range? From what I'm reading Wifi 6/6E (802.11ax) is supposed to do up to 9.6 Gbps. I know you won't get close to that, in practice, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't easily get a few gbps.

 

[jeremyj_83]

As for the switch, I cited Netgear's MS510TXM: a managed switch with 4x <= 10 Gbps RJ-45 ports and 2x SFP+ ports (+ 4x 2.5 Gbps ports) for about $600.

That is really cheap for a multiport 10GbE managed switch. For most people the 4x 10GbE RJ45s will be enough. I wonder if that is smart managed instead of fully managed. I know Netgear uses smart management as sort of entry level into managed switches.

And I haven't been tracking wifi speeds, but aren't they well into the multi-gigabit range? From what I'm reading Wifi 6/6E (802.11ax) is supposed to do up to 9.6 Gbps.

Technically WiFi 6 can do 1200Mbps/stream on the 160MHz band. However, you can only have 2 of those going on the 5GHz spectrum. WiFi 6E introduces the 6GHz spectrum that is WiFi only so you can have up to 7 streams at 160MHz. Problem is most NICs are only 2 streams, you can get more expensive ones that do more, so that maxes you 2.4Gbps. If you have one that does 4 streams then 4.8Gbps. That said you also need to account for WiFi overhead, usually about 50%, and obstacles between your router and NIC. Therefore you might be able to have a theoretical 2.4Gbps connection but if you only have a single router your actual usable speed will be around 1/2 that or less.

likely need to run new cabling throughout your house

CAT6A or better is required for certified 10Gb over twisted pair. However, that doesn't mean you cannot run at 10Gb with lesser cables. CAT6 will do it over a distance of 50M, certified needs to be 100M, and IIRC CAT5E will do it over 33M. Standard CAT5 cannot and I don't even think it can do 2.5Gbps either.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

Don't forget that a ton of people have shared cable connections. While they might have 200Mbps from the main trunk, they are sharing that trunk with a dozen+ other people. Having a faster connection can be the difference in getting something downloaded before your shared speed goes down. I have a 200/10 cable connection and when everyone was working from home I saw times when my connection dropped to 7-15Mbps. I noticed a severe difference in latency on my RDP session. It was even more noticeable during conference calls.

While right now 150Mbps is enough for most people, that is only right now. In theory you can have 4x 4K streams but in reality you cannot. The nature of internet states that your connection speed will be going up and down so odds are you will buffer, especially during peak usage times. That doesn't take into account that webpages are growing all the time. As more ads, self playing videos, etc...are added to webpages your connection becomes a huge limiting factor. My in-laws had a 5Mbps DSL connection all of 3 years ago. Browsing the web was painfully slow as webpages had so much garbage on them. A page like Tomshardware would take 10+ seconds to load. It felt like I was using dial up again. Streaming 1080p was tough even though that only needs 3Mbpsu. Sure it had the bandwidth but if someone was browsing stuff on their phone the video would stutter.

99.99999999999999999999999% of households dont have 12+ people living in them. I'm talking about the average, normal household. The vast majority. You go around the country, knock on 10,000 completely random doors of residential houses and ask the people living there what they do with their internet. Compile the results. I bet you can count on one hand which ones of those legitimately need more than 150Mbps

 

[spongiemaster]

If you stick with 5 Gbps, you can probably use existing Cat 5e for the kinds of lengths that one would find in a normal house.

You're already backtracking and making compromises.

As for the switch, I cited Netgear's MS510TXM: a managed switch with 4x <= 10 Gbps RJ-45 ports and 2x SFP+ ports (+ 4x 2.5 Gbps ports) for about $600.

$600 for a 6 port vs sub $100 for a 24 port gb switch. SFP+ ports are a no go for almost all consumers. Copper SFP+ cable length limits mean the device has to be in the same room as the switch, or at most the room next to it if you can go straight through the wall. Anything longer and you are looking at fibre and at that point most people will be looking at professional installation to get it right.

I bought a Netgear XS505M in January 2020 for $350. While most of us were hoping that 10gb gear would drop in price as it became more ubiquitous. Almost 3 years later, and that switch is now selling for $426. Prices are moving in the wrong direction.