Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Network Google The Internet Wireless Networking

Google Fiber Touts 20Gbps Download Speed In Test, Promises Eventual 100Gbps (arstechnica.com) 56

Posted by BeauHD from the major-milestones dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Google Fiber is touting a test that delivered 20Gbps download speeds to a house in Kansas City, calling it a milestone on the path to offering 100Gbps symmetrical Internet. The company said it will also offer new multi-gigabit tiers in the near future. "We used to get asked, 'who needs a gig?' Today it's no longer a question," Google Fiber CEO Dinni Jain wrote in a blog post yesterday. "Every major provider in the US seems to have now gotten the gigabit memo, and it's only going up from there -- some providers are already offering 2, 5, 8, even 10 Gig products."

The Alphabet division recently began selling 2Gbps download speeds with 1Gbps uploads for $100, alongside its longstanding offer of symmetrical 1Gbps speeds for $70 a month. "In the coming months, we'll have announcements to dramatically expand our multi-gigabit tiers. These will be critical milestones on our journey to 100 Gig symmetrical Internet," Jain wrote. Google Fiber is "closer than you might think" to that goal, Jain wrote. "This month, we took our testing out of the lab and into the home, starting with our first trusted tester, Nick Saporito, the Head of Commercial Strategy for GFiber." Jain provided a screenshot from a test at Saporito's home in Kansas City showing 20.2Gbps download speeds. [...] The screenshot doesn't show upload speeds. The municipal broadband provider EPB in Chattanooga, Tennessee, recently launched a symmetrical 25Gbps service, notes Ars, but its costs "$1,500 per month for residential customers and $12,500 a month for business customers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Fiber Touts 20Gbps Download Speed In Test, Promises Eventual 100Gbps More

Google Fiber Touts 20Gbps Download Speed In Test, Promises Eventual 100Gbps

Comments Filter:

  • Love them or hate them (Score:5, Interesting)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2022 @05:12PM (#62922449) Homepage
    Love them or hate them, we have to admit that Google kickstarted the symmetric 1Gbps Internet service for consumers by offering it for $70. They deserve full credit for this. Before Google came on the scene I had fiber based Internet service from Verizon. I was paying $200/month for 10mbps symmetrical. And I thought I had it good. The idea of 1Gbps at $70 for consumers sent shockwave through the industry. Even if it was offered in few locations. Everybody had to follow suit. Now it is commonplace in many large cities. I don't live in a Google Fiber city, but we now have two providers offering 1Gbps fiber service in our area at comparable prices.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 )

      True. I've noticed the big ISPs price according to competitors in general. I think even disregarding symmetrical offerings, the cable companies have been shown to charge considerably more for the exact same packages when they don't have a competitor in a given city offering similar broadband connections.

      Personally, I find the most valuable bandwidth is the upload speed. That, traditionally, cost a lot because the mindset was that you didn't need a fast upload speed unless you were hosting something of comm

      • In many cases upload speed was limited due to actual time on copper spent either listening or transmitting. The more time in one direction impacted bandwidth in the other. Unlike fiber that either has a dedicated Tx/Rx strand, or as in GPON, different color spectrums for Tx vs Rx, copper such as coax or phone pairs were time division or frequency channel bonding for which state it ran. The upload was low because they really wanted to maximize and sell based on the download speeds. Single mode fiber is nearl

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have 2 options for options for Internet in my area:

      Local cable monopoly advertises 300mbps that is actually 150 mbps at best in actual use.
      Local phone monopoly advertises 1gbps speeds -- but not in my area. I can only get 50 mbps.

      The number of people getting actually gigabit speeds in the U.S. is very low.

      But, one guy in Kansas City, * who works for Google *, is getting great speeds. So, I guess we're supposed to be impressed, or something.
  • It really doesn't matter how fast a connection is if it's still limited by some arbitrary data cap. Even on a slower connection, downloads will still finish eventually. What's the point of having a connection where you could potentially use up your entire monthly data cap in a matter of hours? Even 4K streaming barely requires ~20Mbps. With any connection faster than 100Mbps you quickly realize that in most situations the place you are downloading from can't even supply speeds as fast as that. It's lik
    • They need a "+1 Car Analogy" mod.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xenx ( 2211586 )

      It really doesn't matter how fast a connection is if it's still limited by some arbitrary data cap.

      Yes, and no. Data caps are definitely a problem, and it's arguably fair to say they're the bigger problem of the two. However, the whole point of a faster internet connection is to get stuff done faster.

      It's like having a car that can do 400Mph but is only allowed to drive 10 miles per day. Meanwhile the person with the slow econobox is able to drive across the country at realistic freeway speeds.

      Your car analogy is flawed. Data caps are ISP dependent, not speed dependent. People don't often have any real choice in internet provider. It's not a matter of picking a slow package with no cap, or a fast package with a cap. Aside from that, there is also the matter of how much data you'll actually use.

      In

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Burdell ( 228580 )

      Google Fiber has no data caps. There's also no contract, so if they decided to implement something, it's easy to switch away. I've had GFiber's 1G/1G service for over 4 years and it has been great. Downloads from Steam come down at well over 900 Mbps, and uploads to my virtual server at Linode also go over 900 Mbps.

      2 gig has been available here for a year or more now IIRC, but I haven't upgraded. I use my own router, and getting suitable hardware for >1G is harder, plus they don't directly support using

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      It really doesn't matter how fast a connection is if it's still limited by some arbitrary data cap.

      Virtually every high end internet tier that comes with 1G+ speed comes with a unlimited data cap. My 1Gb connection is that way and so is the competitors high end tiers. The real limiting factor will be the internal networking equipment of the customer.

      My ISP just started offering a 5Gb tier in my area. Every piece of equipment in my home network tops out at 1Gb. It will be the same in 99% of the homes and business out there. Anything above 1Gb is a waste of money.

  • Whatever speeds they offer, people are gonna find a way to fill it up. The question is, what with? Multiple, simultaneous 4K live poker streams? 8K Kardashians?

    • Re:Fill it with what? (Score:5, Funny)

      by UMichEE ( 9815976 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2022 @05:30PM (#62922501)

      Someone will invent a new crypto token that is proof of work based on upload and download. You mine the coin by transferring needless data to someone else who is mining the coin and sends it back to you. I can see someone at Comcast working on this now, as they laugh maniacally.

      • That's it! Once the current crypto bubble has finished bursting, this'll be the new one! Will it also cause hardware shortages & supply chain issues?

    • It's been said that a picture is worth a thousand words.

      And a normal quality video is worth several thousand pictures, when it comes to data size.

      And a 4K video costs 20-30 times that.

      Over 80% of the internet traffic, by volume, is video streaming like Netflix and Hulu. The folks who leave those streams running all day are the ones using up a fair portion of the world's bandwidth, the ones creating the cost. But consumers demand that they not pay for the costs. That's partly because mobile phone carriers ch

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      Whatever speeds they offer, people are gonna find a way to fill it up

      I doubt that. There is actually very little 4K content out there compared to HD. I have yet to see a 8K stream outside of Youtube testing videos. An based on my a-typical house hold use case, I doubt many people will even fill up a 1G feed.

      I have a 4k TV that I bought to watch 4K documentaries on. It will ether have one of those or a baseball game up on it. I have my computer in here so it's not uncommon for me to have a HD video of some kind streaming to that. Depending on what I'm watching, a l

      • You're talking about now. Let's see what creative & ingenious ways people come up with to consume that bandwidth. Nobody needs more than 640K of memory, right?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          I defer to your wisdom on the topic because you have a very valid point. I will leave you with this to ponder. Whoever fills up their bandwidth with 8K Kardashians or the equivalent, will deserve to rot in whatever video hell they have established for themselves.

          My daughter says you have a very adorable user name.

  • How many people have network hardware at home that can support 10G or more? Very few, and it probably was not cheap.

    I use my house as one off-site backup location, 10G or more would be fabulous for bulk data copies. But for the average household, 10G or more seems like overkill in 2022.

    • Re:equipment (Score:4, Informative)

      by zeeky boogy doog ( 8381659 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2022 @06:11PM (#62922601)
      10G - very few, but slowly increasing. Small port count routers (4 or 8) with 10G support are no longer unobtanium, but are still several hundred dollars last I looked. New 10G NICs will still run you around $200 each, though you can do a quarter that on ebay. 10G qsfp+ transceivers, fiber and ethernet cable are all pretty cheap.

      Greater than 10G - none. The next options are 25Gbps SFP, 40Gbps QSFP, 50Gbps SFP and 100G QSFP. There are, afaik, no router/switches that are not datacenter oriented which support these port speeds. Passive cables for such speeds are horrible (imagine something that makes Cat7 ethernet cable look slim and nimble), and optical transceivers require active cooling. 40/100G routers are LOUD. You're looking at a minimum of $200 per link if it goes further than the other side of your desk.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )
      Came here to see when someone was going to say just this. I have a 10G switch, but I only do 10G between my server and my backup machine. The rest of the network, including my 1G internet connection, are all connected at 1G. I can't see needing anything more in the next 5 years. But if the prices of 10G NICs and a 32 port switch drops to the 1G levels before 5 years, I'd be happy to upgrade.

    • How many people have network hardware at home that can support 10G or more? Very few, and it probably was not cheap.

      True, but 2.5 Gbps NICs are pretty cheap, and if they put 4 such ports on the WAN router plus Wifi 6 you could reasonably make pretty good use of it.

      I use my house as one off-site backup location, 10G or more would be fabulous for bulk data copies. But for the average household, 10G or more seems like overkill in 2022.

      That's true, but it probably won't be overkill in ten years, when all the cable modem hardware including the head ends, or at least the line cards, has had to be replaced at least once to come up to speed...

  • Still seem largely unobtainium which make speeds over a gigabit less useful in practice

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by klui ( 457783 )

      Using enterprise routers, yes. But it's possible if you have a fast enough CPU for your router running VyOS, pf/OpnSense, TNSR for the WAN connection. For 10G and above it may be better to offload most routing to a high speed L3 switch but will incur more complexity.

  • Back in Colorado, we had our choice of Xfinity (comcast) or century link (dsl). Comcast offered 200 MB for ~$200 (that also included a voip).
    Moved to Washington state, where I am now on 1 GB Ziply (loving them at $60). Comcast? They offer 1GB as well at $120.

    So yes. Competition MATTERS.

  • Most home users run 1-2 4K streams and maybe some background noise their various devices spam around all day. 100Mbs is sufficient.

    I picked up symmetric 1Gbs because it came with no data usage cap and was the same price as lower speeds once you added the no data cap option to them. We're pretty typical, 4K tv, random devices, kid is on tiktok and Roblox and other social media crap all day.

    Don't come anywhere close to 1Gbs.

    My router does support 10Gbs. Uhm ok. So what?

    Back in the day I ran an office of a

  • It is a shame that high bandwidth home Internet is mostly limited to consumption even when the links are symmetrical.

  • If there are 100 people in the neighborhood with 10 Gb connections would they provision a 1 TB Internet uplink for them? Or is just gong to be bandwidth sharing one step up from the last mile?

  • In the developed world 100 Gbps has been a consumer service offered for many years. For instance, Sony Nuro has offered such a service uncapped for around $70 a month since 2013.

    But good on Google, I guess, for bringing 20 Gbps to the USA.

    • Google fiber has existed for a lot longer than that already. But it also only exists in a tiny number of markets. Some of them are sizable, but they are overall few in number. Presumably Google only goes where they can get favorable terms, and isn't interested in competing for scraps.

  • If it has the word Google or Alphabet (goodness what a stupid name) ⦠ya no thanks. Done being raped of my private information so someone else can get paid.
  • I've been working with multiterrabit for over a decade. From trans-Siberian fibers for LTE backbones to being part of architecting a massive generational upgrade of a Tier-1 ISP to calculating optimal coefficients for QAM/OFDM squeezing's much data into a series of 8.25Mhz channels for geosync satellite. Then there was the Pakistani land rush where I was one of the people provisioning links for a tier-2 ISP who was driving 8 individual fiber trawlers at high speed from the border into the country laying fib
  • I would be fine with 200Mbps if it is symmetrical. Right now no one around where I live offers symmetrical connections. You get the typical Comcast junk that is 100Mbps down and 5 up. :( The phone companies are still offering ADSL. :( :( I am not far from Mpls/St. Paul either and still can't get fiber to the house.

  • We have 120Mbs and we rarely touch the sides of it. A gig might be nice for some work-related tasks, but not many. 20Gbs is just pointless for individual homes. The market is really landlords supplying a block of flats.

    • I have 400 Mbps and I regularly use about half of it, leaving the other half free for my lady's use. She will never touch it, except maybe during a large patch download. In a household with multiple downloaders, it might not be enough.

      But yes, you would be hard pressed to use up 10, let alone 20 gigabits for even a large household of hardcore nerds...

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close