
Typical U.S. households don’t use most of their bandwidth - jmsflknr
https://www.wsj.com/graphics/faster-internet-not-worth-it/?mod=rsswn
======
jedberg
It's not just about speed but about time. I value my time. Yeah, I may not
saturate my gigabit line, but when I only have to wait 1 minute for a 3GB
MacOS update instead of 20, that's valuable to me. It's worth the expense of
having a mostly idle gigabit line.

Also I definitely saturate my gigabit link on download all the time, and
sometimes on upload too, but I realize I'm not the average person in that
regard.

~~~
gfo
I don't disagree with you, but I think most HN readers are power users.

In the context of this article, I feel like most readers don't fall into this
category and probably aren't getting that amount of return on their higher
speed investments.

Though, your comment brings up an interesting point - I wonder if internet
speeds would play a factor in getting more users to run their updates? In
general they're disruptive so there are other issues, but it could be part of
the overall frustration. Personally, I have a fast connection so I rarely have
this specific problem.

~~~
mrguyorama
Anyone who plays video games on computer, ps4, or xbox one also regularly
saturates their connection. Game updates are a daily occurrence on Steam for
me (mostly because I have hundreds of games) and giant updates are normal on
console

~~~
zelon88
I'd beg to differ, especially if your console or PC is networked wirelessly.
802.11n can only do 600mbps in the best conditions. Residential gig pipes are
not uncommon anymore.

I've seen some ridiculous download speeds from Steam, but never enough to
saturate my gig pipe even during a full game installation. I just can't see
Steam providing that kind of bandwidth to it's users when the filesizes can
get upwards of 50gigs. They would DDOS themselves.

~~~
kcb
I regularly see consistent 80 - 90 MB/s from Steam downloads. CDNs are
powerful things.

------
jjoonathan
For a definition of "it" that corresponds to the prices American telecoms feel
their monopoly/oligopoly position entitles them to charge, the title is right,
the extra bandwidth isn't worth "it."

On a recent trip to Sweden, I saw multiples of the bandwidth I'm used to
advertised for a fraction of the price. For that definition of "it," I'd pay
"it" in a heartbeat.

~~~
WhoBeI
In my case 500/500 fiber @ ~$40-45/month, somewhere around $20-25/month for
100/50 4G and something like $60-65 for 1000/1000 fiber. Semi-rural areas are
usually not far behind.

With neighborhood deals you can push those prices a bit.

Most (major) train lines have fiber buried next to them that is leased by the
various telecoms which helped the expansion.

[Edit] Looked it up and a rural town in the southern parts where I used to
live offers 1000/1000 from 5 different ISP's who are apparently fighting.
They've all lowered prices recently, cheapest is at ~$30/month.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_Most (major) train lines have fiber buried next to them that is leased by the
various telecoms which helped the expansion._

Yes indeed. Most people don't know that. Here's a little piece of related
trivia:

Long before wireless was a thing, people wanted to bypass the AT&T long
distance voice telecom monopoly. Actually, long before voice communications
were a thing, people wanted to send telegrams.

Hmmm ... as you note, there are train lines all over. Perfect for right of way
to run telegraph wires, and eventually to run long distance fiber.

A relatively modern name arising from that: Southern Pacific Railroad Internal
Network Telecommunications

Sprint for short.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Corporation#Southern_Pa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Corporation#Southern_Pacific_Communications_and_introduction_of_Sprint)

------
psim1
When I switched from DSL to cable internet several years ago, the concern I
had was with upload capacity. To get to 10 Mbps upload speed, which I wanted
in order to be able to do high-definition video conferencing along with other
simultaneous internet usage, I had to order the 250 Mbps download speed. I
recognize that I seldom use 250 Mbps download, but I can fill up 10 Mbps
upload pretty easily.

~~~
std_throwaway
You are a minority 1% user who doesn't really show up in the statistics. Most
likely your upload is classified as file sharing and you are probably seen as
abusing your connection. There is a reason why uploads are so limited for
consumers. You should get a business connection if you really need it for
conduction serious business.

If you do online backups you better get the backup plan that will be coming
soon from a range of supported backup providers. /s

~~~
Ajedi32
Video conferencing isn't the only use for upload bandwidth. There are lots of
other use-cases which are _much_ more mainstream, like streaming, YouTube
uploads, backups (lots of phones these days do photo/video backups
automatically), photo sharing, etc. Downloads are still more common of course,
but these days I'd say upload bandwidth gets used far more than it ever has in
the past.

~~~
wil421
Every use case you’ve given are minority use cases or power users. I’d say
less than 5% of subscribers do the above and most do not use a lot of upstream
bandwidth. Most phones do the backups at night when most people are sleeping.

------
pathartl
I feel like this is a prime example of survivorship bias. We're in an era
where things have to be transcoded to utilize a smaller amount of bandwidth,
so the stuff delivered to us it pre-optimized for our connection. If YouTube
or Netflix suddenly made their encodes not crap, we might actually saturate
the network.

Having asymmetric connections in most homes I feel severely limits how we
utilize the internet. I'm definitely a power user and would choose to run
multiple game servers and web servers along with some video streaming if my
connection was symmetric instead of the 400/25 that Spectrum offers in my
area. However, I feel like there's a ton of missed potential for home-based
consumer server appliances. Maybe companies like Apple would be more inclined
to take platforms like Synology and create something that's even more user
friendly.

~~~
mxuribe
I agree that there's so much potential that could be tapped if only we
consumers could host stuff at home. In fact, I don't get why ISPs don't push
for this; I have to imagine there's a market out there for this.

~~~
pathartl
Stuff like Syno is probably the easiest stuff out there, but it's still not
like I could give it to my parents. It has huge potential just from a
marketing standpoint. "Your data's secure because you know exactly where it
is." and such.

------
cde-v
Unless I missed it, the article doesn't mention once that to get 10 Mbps, you
need to pay for 100 Mbps because you NEVER get remotely close to the
advertised speeds.

Pretending you get the advertised speeds reeks of industry shilling...

~~~
Aloha
You should complain to your provider if your average speed is that far below
the advertised one, it should be within 10%.

~~~
ct0
Should be within 10%? Where is that posted? I pay for xfinity 1gbps, and
rarely get 50% of the "advertised maximum". I would switch to fiber in a
heartbeat if I could, but my little street is the only street without enough
customers to "make it worth it".

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Common practice is to set the throttling limit for a cable modem at 10-20%
above your advertised speed. On my half-gig service with my current carrier I
clock between 550-640 Mbps. When I had a 150 Mbps Xfinity plan, I regularly
clocked 180 Mbps.

If you're regularly getting less than your advertised speed, either the local
distribution is over-extended and badly in need of an upgrade, or the line to
your house is trash. Either way, you should be complaining.

Also, note that if you have 1 Gbps service from Xfinity, you have fiber out at
the street, they just bring coax into your home.

~~~
Aloha
When you start getitng into gig speeds, you're gonna run lower than 1gbps in a
speed test, because of overhead too, I'd note.

------
_--___-___
Recently downgraded to $35/mo comcast 60 down performance tier because I have
low bandwidth usage (1-2 simultaneously connected devices, little streaming
with a downloaded collection on a local plex server).

Really wish I had the option to pay for better latency and less jitter, which
matter much more for my needs. I know the ISPs probably don't even have the
infrastructure to offer reliable internet, which is 100% on them even if the
general consumer only cares about Netflix getting throttled. Funnily, Verizon
claims to offer "Fios" in my building with plans that are clearly not FTTH.

------
kevin_b_er
Only if you get the advertised speed. Sure you can buy 100mbps, but will you
get? Unlikely even wired locally via gigabit.

The major service provides frequently lie out their teeth by abusing "up to".
1mbps is a speed that fits into "up to 100mbps".

Further, due to the corruption of the FCC through Ajit Pai, they are not
required to give you any particular level of speed that you'd expect depending
on where you talk to.

The ISP can willfully and intentionally degrade your service you bought and
paid for to certain providers unless that provider also pays.

------
save_ferris
> The Wall Street Journal studied the internet use of 53 of our journalists
> across the country, over a period of months, in coordination with
> researchers at Princeton University and the University of Chicago.

From the first paragraph, which says it all right there. If journalists aren't
making use of all available resources, then more mustn't be worth it. Nor do I
see the price comparisons of related internet service globally.

~~~
microcolonel
This is, incidentally, how the WSJ conducts all of their research. ;- )

------
vidanay
Apparently the WSJ has discovered the Law of Diminishing Returns.

I'd love to double my 20Mb/5Mb connection, and I would get real benefit from
doing so. Doubling a 1Gb/1Gb connection doesn't have the same effect nor
benefit.

------
gnode
While increased speed isn't justifiable for many subscribers, as streaming and
web-browsing is mostly all they do, there are a few fairly common use cases
where slow speeds cause frustration (game downloads, and software updates, for
example). Once the capacity is installed, there's little cost in providing a
high speed last-mile connection to a subscriber, versus a lower speed using
the same hardware, yet the data transferred by a subscriber translates more
directly to increased costs for the ISP.

I expect that in the future, price differentiation based on speed may go away,
and data transfer caps / metering become more commonplace. Data transfer
contributes more directly to the ISP's costs, and offering subscribers a
faster connection makes it easier to consume.

------
swiley
Of course you don’t use it most of the time, you pay for it because when you
need it you need it.

Someone decides they _need_ some crazy tool in NPM and without a fast
connection you’ll be waiting for a while.

------
dredmorbius
The main arguments here are for streaming video usage, and probably apply,
though the chicken-egg question of higher-quality video supply and demand may
apply. Distinctions between latency and overall reliability can also make
appreciable differences.

My experience is that this isn't where I find myself wanting speed. Rather:

\- Downloads. Especially OS updates, though also occasional data-scraping
projects. Both rates and service caps impede this, though the needs are
occasional. Schedulable updates (quite possible with Linux, slightly less
convenient with MacOS) largely address this. (Mac OS and application updates
being schedulable, with Firefox as the major culprit, would be a big help
here.)

\- Podcast downloads. I'll occasionally grab a stash of episodes before
heading out for a while, to be able to listen whilst mobile (and
disconnected). The difference between my standard 5 Mbps connection and the
occasional higher-speed cable, approaching 100 Mbps, _is_ distinctly
noticeable. An episode taking a couple of minutes to download is fetched in <
10 seconds. Again, an occasional need.

\- VOIP. We're actively exploring more cord-cutting options, and the promise
of higher QoS with Internet telephony or video chat is an interest. Existing
lower-speed connections are sufficient for voice, but not video. And the voice
connection has quite pronounced artefacts. Higher speed would be a boost here.

\- Multiple simultaneous household uses. VOIP + streaming audio + streaming
video + OS updates being able to occur simultaneously with minimal
interference _might_ justify higher-speed service.

\- Home-based services. Whether private (VPN over Modem or Router via OpenWRT,
Nextbox fileshare, and related services), or public (email, Mastodon,
Diaspora, Friendica, and/or web services), the capability to self-host
services could be useful. The headache factor remains to be assessed.

Truth is that in the local neighbourhood, slow (ADSL) and faster (cable)
service are not hugely disproportionate in pricing, so a substantial service
boost might be available at little additional cost. Higher-speed cable service
largely _isn 't_ necessary, and does have a high price premium.

I suppose it's a case of fools subsidising the discerning....

------
oezi
At my company we were downgraded from 200/50 Mbit cable to 10/10 Mbit MPLS,
because 20 people won't consistently saturate the link (according to the IT
guy). Sigh...

~~~
Havoc
IT guy needs to be shot. By the time 20 people consistently saturate a link
productivity is down the tubes

------
std_throwaway
Isn't it a hen-and-egg-problem?

High quality 4K and 8K streaming isn't widely used because there are not many
users. Therefore there is no evidence for demand. Therefore there isn't many
providers and content. Therefore we don't really need the bandwidth to support
something that doesn't exist yet. We need to wait until other markets prove
that this demand exists. Then the companies who provide the solutions can take
over our market. Win-Win.

------
olliej
I don’t think it’s about “I want to download the maximum possible every
month”, but rather “I want to wait the least time possible whenever I _do_
need data”.

Eg downloading a new game is nowadays something like 20gig, software updates
are regularly more than a gig, etc.

Then there’s the more basic a core issue: content latency is still one of the
largest drivers of browsing performance, so even when there isn’t a lot of
data you want high speed.

The article seems to basically miss the point.

------
O5vYtytb
Average is definitely the wrong metric to look at for this. It's like saying
"the average speed of a car is only 25 MPH, but you're paying for one that can
go 70", but everyone would probably agree that going over 70 is valuable even
if it's only for short bursts.

Especially bad is that graph of speed vs average bandwidth used (%). Of course
people don't max out a 1000 MB/s line constantly, that'd be nuts.

------
anilakar
A fast internet connection is like many other resources: It might be good 95 %
of the time and you won't pay any attention to it, but when you notice it's
not enough, it totally pisses you off. This applies equally to computer RAM,
floor space and station wagons.

I really appreciated my gigabit Ethernet connection when I had to reinstall
DCS World, which takes over 100 gigabytes of disk space when you own a few
extra modules.

------
aaronax
If it is not worth it (presumably because most of the bandwidth will just be
unused) then the ISPs should just bump everyone up to gigabit or whatever
their end-user links support. Few people will actually use the extra bandwidth
so there will not be much aggregate impact on the ISP.

(This holds true until the next leap in bandwidth-requiring applications comes
along.)

~~~
Ajedi32
It may not be worth it for consumers, but for ISPs it's an excellent form of
market segmentation.

------
shmerl
It's worth it, if ISPs aren't ripping users off. Gigabit for $70 without caps
is already pretty high but OK price. Anything higher is probably fishy.
Hopefully rapid deployment of low orbit satellite ISPs will seriously pressure
incumbents, and prices will become normal for high bandwidth plans. Then
they'll be surely worth it.

------
christkv
I've got 600/600 fiber here in Northern Spain and it's its just awesome for
things like digital game downloads on the PS4 or PC. The cost is 39 eur a
month. The funny thing is that most people with this kind of setup are using a
wifi hotspot that can only deliver a small percentage of the available
bandwidth.

------
gumby
Given that this is the WSJ I have to suspect the telecom cartel encouraged
this article to justify caps.

------
not_a_cop75
The truth about articles like this: Comcast and others pay for stuff like this
to be published.

~~~
pranjalv123
Why would Comcast do that? Wouldn't they want you to pay more for faster
internet service (when you're almost never going to be maxing out your
bandwidth)?

~~~
Nextgrid
I guess they could be gaining by publishing this so it calms down those who
are already on the maximum tier but are not happy and might switch to a
different provider that can offer more?

~~~
psychrometer
Since Comcast offers gigabit, I doubt there are many people who are itching to
switch to something faster than that.

~~~
not_a_cop75
They have what, an offering of gigabit to 5% of the market? I must quickly
call everyone and shout about how unbelievably impressive this is.

------
timw4mail
Now if only home bandwidth caps were illegal...

------
NetBeck
The internet is a form of free speech. The more bandwidth, the more free
content available. For example, DOCSIS 4.0 can deliver symmetrical 10Gbps to
the house.[1] YouTube would be obsolete if a P2P video platform was available
with users pushing 10Gbps each.

Faster internet is worth it. Nobody uses what they have because they don't
have much. Everything has been designated to the cloud.

[1]
[https://www.cablelabs.com/technologies/docsis-4-0-technology](https://www.cablelabs.com/technologies/docsis-4-0-technology)

~~~
std_throwaway
> Everything has been designated to the cloud.

Because that's where the money and power lies.

~~~
austinheap
It’s where electricity and bandwidth are cheapest due to economies of scale.
Colo’ing at HE is fun/etc (and they have an amazing team!) but you pay a
pretty penny for physical proximity.

------
okmokmz
Perhaps for a "regular" user, but for me it's absolutely worth it. I imagine
the ycombinator crowd isn't who this article is targeting, and likely isn't
applicable for many here

------
brownbat
More and more I care far more about latency than throughout.

I want responsiveness, I don't want my traffic to circumnavigate the globe,
and inconsistent pings can signal other qos issues.

------
jtbayly
Streaming video might not cause you to max out your connection, but
downloading large files may well. And if so, the files will download
substantially faster.

------
resters
The bandwidth is not priced as dedicated bandwidth, so of course users don't
expect to use "all" of it.

Gigabit speed residential bandwidth packages allow users who want slightly
faster download speeds to pay extra, ultimately they are just using the newer
hardware revs and getting the same level everyone else will get in a year or
two.

------
pier25
It's like driving a car. You rarely drive at the fastest speed or highest
engine torque, but in some situations you need to be able to accelerate
quickly.

I'm sure on average I don't use even one third of my bandwidth, but it sure
gets fully used when streaming a 50GB file from a Plex server or downloading
an Xcode update.

------
Bantros
My 150/150 fibre connection says it is

------
dvduval
In my neighborhood Cox brought in Gigablast a few months ago and it is around
$130/month. Google fiber is being put in now, and will be $70/month, so we
will have two Gigabyte options. I like seeing the competition, and the
resulting price drops. Surely Cox will need to lower their price to compete.

------
fossuser
We have a gigabit Bay Area Comcast connection for $89/month (gigabit
down/35mbps up) and downloading an Xbox One game (50-90GB) while wired
directly into the switch still takes 20min or so.

I can’t get behind the paywall, but faster internet is definitely worth it.

~~~
Nextgrid
That upload speed is just ridiculous. With pretty much everyone pushing cloud
storage & services, upload speeds are important too. I’d take a symmetric
100/100 connection over 1000/35 any day.

~~~
mshook
Exactly, having a 1000/400 Mb (roughly, can't complain for 49€) at home not
only helps to download stuff as plenty others mentioned but it also created
new opportunities.

I have roughly a half a gigabyte of pictures (digital and digitized from
films). Before having fiber, it wasn't doable to do backup in the cloud. But
now it's just a piece of cake and it doesn't take that long either.

------
raintrees
Isn't this the primary target market for the new blockchain distributed
processing services that are cropping up? Such as Golem, OTOY, etc. Kind of
the next iteration of bitcoin mining, rather than SETI.

------
forgotmypw3
Even capped bandwidth is oversold. There is not enough capacity in the system
for everyone to use up their entire cap.

"their bandwidth" doesn't actually exist.

------
asdf333
"most people do not fully max out their their pentium-133Mhz cpus. therefore
we should not speed up computers"

said no one ever.

this is the same line of argument

------
ricardobeat
Since torrents and music downloads were killed there is not much to use it
for...

------
fnord77
true... been trying to think of ideas to put my 1Gb fiber to good use,
especially while I'm at work. Besides piracy and running a tor exit node
(neither I want to do), nothing jumps out.

any ideas?

------
TheRealPomax
This title needs a [paywall] suffix. So not having read this, I suspect this
was a paid article by US carriers to convince US customers that everything is
fine and they should stop demanding service that is on par with the rest of
the developed world because "what we offer you is fine, see?"

------
aloknnikhil
Honestly, what's the point of these paywall articles? Might as well just setup
groups on HN that only have access to certain paywalls and publish them there.
At this point, this is only a topic of discussion. I have no idea why the
article thinks it's not worth it.

