[intellirogue]

Also in central Berlin with the same speed connection. But my friends in the US, both in major metropolitan areas, can only dream of such a connection.

One has no option but ADSL which reaches 8Mbps on a good day, the other is luckier and has Cable but only 100Mbps.

[MaxBarraclough]

> only 100Mbps

What use would you have for throughput in excess of 100Mbps?

[rhino369]

I’ve had 900 mbit an 100 mbit and there is barely any practical difference.

And like 1/10 houses are actually networked well enough to even use a 300 mbit connect.

The only practical difference I’ve seen is upload. Cable internet is usually slow enough to impact actual use.

[CaptainZapp]

It's nice when you want to download RDR2 on Steam.

[MaxBarraclough]

Sure, but how many times a year does something like that crop up? Personally I don't mind leaving a vast download like that to run overnight. On a related note, software updates run in the background, so whether it takes a minute or an hour makes little difference. Same for automated backup.

I very rarely have use for capacity beyond 40Mbps, or perhaps even 25. 4K streaming is as demanding as it gets. If 40Mbps is appreciably cheaper than 100, I'll take 40.

If your Internet connection can't handle video chat and streaming, then you're right to say you don't have a decent modern Internet connection, and it's holding back what you can do. Capacity beyond 40Mbps, though, is rarely of any real consequence.

(I mean this in the particular context of home broadband, of course.)

[CaptainZapp]

Sure, it's rare enough that you download to such excess.

But the thing is that thanks to fiber there's hardly any difference price wise. So why not use it, when it's on offer?

Before that I had 100Mb up and down and was pretty happy with it. Large games could be a bit of a drag. Especially when GTA5 became available and I wanted to play it right now!

[MaxBarraclough]

> Especially when GTA5 became available and I wanted to play it right now!

Once the JSON parses, that is ;-P

[robert_foss]

Running a CI, checking out repositories, doing backups, etc.

I've had 1Gbps before, and it was fantastic.

[MaxBarraclough]

Does your CI really require extremely high bandwidth? Doesn't caching resolve this?

Checking out repositories is a rare event. It's even rarer to check out repositories weighing tens of gigabytes, such that throughput in excess of 100Mbps is noticeable.

As I said in my reply to CaptainZapp, it's generally fine if a background process like a backup takes several hours, and that's just for the few people who need to backup tens of gigabytes of data to the Internet every day. For everyone else, 100Mbps is far more than enough.

For most home users in particular, capacity beyond 40Mbps rarely brings any benefit.

[johnchristopher]

Agency PDF, clients videos to review, things that take less time to watch than to download.

[MaxBarraclough]

As I already said in my reply to CaptainZapp, 40Mbps is more than enough to stream 4K video, and it's rare to need to quickly download tens of gigabytes of data.

If you want to run several 4K streams at once, you'll need more than 40Mbps. I don't think many households have this requirement though.

[johnchristopher]

I don't stream PDFs, I don't stream reels, I don't stream PPTs, I don't stream WeTransfer.

[MaxBarraclough]

PDFs are small files. 40Mbps is way more than enough for that. Same for PPTs.

If you're regularly dealing with huge video files, then sure, you may be in the small minority that really does benefit from an extremely fast connection.

[johnchristopher]

No, a 200Mbytes PDF file is not small. Especially when it's sent on the spot by a participant in a zoom meeting. I don't want to wait 2 minutes, I want to have it as soon as I click the download link.

And yes I regularly have PDFs and PPTs of that size (thank you web agencies that keep on sending 20 pages product kit with 8K background pictures).

I do agree it's overkill and we all could do without if we prepared better but that's how it is.