this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
267 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

60056 readers
4010 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 153 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Maybe they should be expanding their physical network first. I waited seven years after they supposedly came to my hometown, and their coverage area barely moved. Most of that is absolutely the fault of AT&T and Comcast stonewalling pole installations but they have the money to put up their own damn poles made of gold after that 77 billion profit report.

Now I moved elsewhere after covid and of course the only two real options still suck uncontrollably with no hope of any other big mover creating actual competition.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 57 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i am also incredibly disappointed in their lack of achievement here. they have a metric shit-tonne of liquid cash, lawyers and tech out the butthole.. but no.. were back to ma' bell still coagulating ala T2.

so much for being different

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArtificialLink@yall.theatl.social 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Google fiber has been supposed to be coming to the west side of Atlanta for like 10 plus years. Hasnt an expanded at all . Yet they still keep that message coming soon to your neighborhood up. And somehow where I am only one option available. Fucking shitty Comcast

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's vaults labeled "GFBR" 200 yards from my house on the east side, and it's still "coming soon." Meanwhile, AT&T is out here digging every 2 years.

[–] ArtificialLink@yall.theatl.social 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

At&t offered my 5mbps lmao. Idk what they are digging for

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Probably putting in VDSL to cash in on federal "high speed Internet" grants.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

IKR? The last time digsafe came out and marked, there were 3 separate AT&T lines twisting around each other like spaghetti, all going the same way and within 3 feet of each other. Like, you've already got conduit buried, just blow another fiber through it. Maybe some exec's kid runs a horizontal drilling company.

[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Something something ISPs forcing municipalities to create service monopolies?

[–] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yep, somethingsomethingsomething regulatory capture.

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude I feel bad you’re relying on Google of all people to save you 😬

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you should feel bad for everyone in the u.s. that have to suffer the government(s) that allow this bullshit to even be a problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 50 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I wouldn't want to calculate what it'd cost to replace all my switches with 25G capable ones.. then all the network cards.. You'd have to have a really specific application to justify it.

[–] Polar@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just cost me 1K to replace 3 NICs, 1 router, and 2 switches to freaking 2.5Gb.

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I got one of the 2.5 x 8 + 10 switches StH reviewed for like $80, and x520 nics are $20. I'm happy with it for homelab stuff!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You won't but I will

Switch: mikrotik CRS504-4XQ-IN ($799.99) Cabling: QSFP28 to 4 x 25G SFP28 DAC ($63.00 per cable) NICs: Intel XXV710 25GB ($349.0)

I don't know how many machines you have so for two machine it's cost you $1562.97 and maxing out the switch would cost you $6651.83 but do you really have sixteen machines that need or can even physically saturate a 25GB line?

I think it's more reasonable to get something similar to ubiquiti's USW-Pro-Aggregation and have three machines capable of the full speed and 28 machines capable of half rate speeds (at a much lower cost per machine)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

That's the early adopter tax. Same as it ever was.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kyrinar@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just want an internet provider that isn't Spectrum or single-digit download speeds. Not having any real choice fucking sucks, especially since Spectrum is horrible.

Had AT&T fiber at my old place and god damn that shit went down one time for an hour the whole 3 and a half years I was there

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Have you looked at mobile broadband from T-Mobile or Verizon? I haven't tried either personally but I know if I were in a broadband desert or an oligopoly market like most Americans I would definitely give it a try and see how performance is. Prices weren't great when released, maybe $50+/mo. for home internet, you can get $ 30-40/mo around here from fixed line providers CenturyLink, FiOS/ziply, or comcrap; feel like the mobile Carriers really missed an opportunity at not pricing it cheaper to add a ton of subs or at least get people to try.

[–] Byter@lemmy.one 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If you're struggling to think of a use-case, consider the internet-based services that are commonplace now that weren't created until infrastructure advanced to the point they were possible, if not "obvious" in retrospect.

  • multimedia websites
  • real-time gaming
  • buffered audio -- and later video -- streaming
  • real-time video calling (now even wirelessly, like Star Trek!)
  • nearly every office worker suddenly working remotely at the same time

My personal hope is that abundant, bidirectional bandwidth and IPv6 adoption, along with cheap SBC appliances and free software like Nextcloud, will usher in an era where the average Joe can feel comfortable self-hosting their family's digital content, knowing they can access it from anywhere in the world and that it's safely backed up at each member's home server.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

Video calls were all over 1950s futurism articles. These things do get anticipated far ahead of time.

4K Blu-ray discs have a maximum bitrate of 128 Mbps. Most streaming services compress more heavily than that; they're closer to 30 to 50 Mbps. A 1Gbps feed can easily handle several people streaming 4K video on the same connection provided there's some quality of service guarantees.

If other tech were there, we could likely stream a fully immersive live VR environment to nearly holodeck-level realism on 1Gbps.

IPv6 is the real blocker. As you say, self-hosting is what could really bring bandwidth usage up. I think some kind of distributed system (something like BitTorrent) is more likely than files hosted on one specific server, at least for publicly available files.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I couldn't care less tbh. Gigabit is more than enough.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And we're still stuck on IPv4. Going to IPv6 would do a lot more than 1Gbps connections would.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And what do you think it would do for you?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • Better routing performance
  • No longer designing protocols that jump through hoops to deal with lack of direct addressing
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Paradox@lemdro.id 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I have 10 gig at home, and powerful enough networking hardware that can take advantage of it (Ubiquiti stuff)

Nothing can ever saturate the line. So it's great for aggregate, but that's it

[–] LukeMedia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's not often that I can saturate a 1Gbps line, unless you have a large household I don't see much point in going over 1Gbps right now. Though I'm sure there are some exceptions.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That’s what I was gonna say: it’s not that i use sufficient bandwidth to really need 1gbps but the line is never even temporarily saturated. Just rock solid

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Having a connection that's not even close to saturated (or backbone for that matter) means lower latency in general. But it also means future proofing and timely issues resolution as you catch problems early on.

[–] LukeMedia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Future proofing an Internet line doesn't make much sense to me. If a higher speed plan is available, I'd just upgrade my plan if the need arises, save money in the meantime.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Flip it around and look from the ISP's point of view. Once fiber is connected to a house, there are few good reasons to use anything else. Whomever is the first to deploy it wins.

Now look at it from a monopoly ISP's point of view. You're providing 100Mbps service on some form of copper wire, and you're quite comfortable leaving things like that. No reason to invest in new equipment beyond regular maintenance cycles. If some outside company tries to start deploying fiber, and if they start to make inroads, you're going to have to (gasp) spend hundreds of millions on capital outlays to compete with them. Better to spend a few million making sure the city never allows them in.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

Man, I'd love to sit on that. Growing up with 56k and living with 100Mb/s now is already a big difference, but it shows when I push and pull docker images or when family accesses the homeserver. 1Gb/s would be better, but probably I'll somehow use up the bandwidth with a new toy. 10Gb would keep me busy for a long time. 20Gb would allow me try out ridiculous stuff I haven't thought of yet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jah348@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is still a thing? I thought they crushed it like 10 years ago

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they severely underestimated how hard it would be to overcome the telcos and their lobbying.

[–] CynicRaven@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

They may mean crushed it like Google killed Fiber. :D

[–] o0joshua0o@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I have their 1gbps plan, but I don't see how I could utilize anything faster.

[–] ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My provider recently started offering a 2gbps plan for $30 more a month. I was tempted until I thought about the money I'd need to spend on new equipment to take advantage of it. 1gbps fiber is plenty for now.

[–] billygoat@catata.fish 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Tbf, a lot of these multi gig plans are geared to families, where more than one person could be doing high bandwidth activities. Or even just one person doing high bandwidth things doesn’t cause the other persons zoom call to stutter.

That being said, ain’t no one NEED 20gbits but by god I would enjoy it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Things that take seconds now take even fewer seconds!

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

how long until google kill it?

[–] jollyrogue@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I thought they already did, so this is unexpected.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fiber infrastructure? More likely they’d sell it if they wanted out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] b0gl@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'll never understand how you guys in the US are fine with having bandwidth limits on your broadband connections. I'd be pissed. I even have unlimited on my phone. Like wth?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Would be more exciting and worth paying attention to if Google Fiber wasn't basically living in an iron lung over at Alphabet these days since they halted major expansion.

[–] prorester@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Why are people doubting this? This opens up massive possibilities for people, especially those who want to start businesses outside of city centers.

You could:

  • host your own home-servers and never be worried about bandwidth

  • get 8k streams and not stutter (a low-end 8k stream requirs 50Mb/s, a family of 4 would need minimum 200 Mb/s just for videos)

  • send 8k streams and not stutter

  • offload most of your data to a datacenter on the other side of the planet and not worry about access speeds

    • boot into a browser or a minimal frontend with a low powered device and mount your home directory
  • offload computing to the cloud (no need for a gaming PC if you can just play them online)

The biggest thing would be 8k streams. 360 8k streams would be even crazier. 360 videos are filmed using 3-6 cameras depending on how much fish-eye you want. True 360 requires at least 6. If each is filmed at 1080p that's ~6k total resolution, but since you're only watching one section of the video at a time, you're really seeing 1080p.

Those "8k 360 videos" up on youtube are a lie! They aren't 6x8k, but most likely 8k / number of cameras. True 360 8k video would be 6x8k cameras.

A single 8k stream at minimum requires ~50Mb/s. Multiply that by 6 and you're at 300Mb/s just for a single 360 8k stream. Family of 4 --> 1.2Gb/s just for everybody to watch that content - and that's the minimum. If you have a higher bit rate and aren't streaming a 30 fps, you can quite easily double or quadruple that. Family of 4 again means 5Gb/s if everybody's watching that kind of content in parallel.

But this is just the beginning. Why stop at "video". These kinds of transfer speeds upon you up to interactive technologies.

It would still not be enough to stream 8k without any compression whatsover to reach lowest latency.

8k = 7680 × 4320 = 33,177,600 pixels. Each pixel can have 3 values: Red Green Blue. Each take 256 (0-255) values, which is 1 byte, which means 3 bytes just for color.
3 * 33,177,600 = 99,532,800 bytes per frame
99,532,800 bytes / 1,024 = 97,200 kilobytes
97,200 kilobytes / 1024 = ~95 megabytes

So 95MB/frame. Let's say you're streaming your screen with no compression at 60Hz or about 60 fps (minimum). That's 60*95MB/s = 5,695GB/s . Multiply that by 8 to get the bits and you're at 45,562Gb/s which is way above 25Gb/s. Hell, you wouldn't even be able to stream uncompressed 4k on that line. 2k would be possible though. I for one would like to see what an uncompressed 2k stream would look like. In the future, you could have your gaming PC at home hooked up to the internet, go anywhere with a 25Gb/s line, plop down a screen, connect it to the internet and control your computer at a distance with minimal lag as if you're right at home.

In conclusion, 25Gb wouldn't allow you to do whatever you like. You could do a lot, but there's still room. We're not at the end of the road yet.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, man. Thank God someone is finally thinking about the family of 4 simultaneously watching 8K 120Hz 360 degree streams.

Also,

  • bandwidth isn't the same as latency. This would not let you remote control "with minimal latency," it would be exactly the same as it is with say 20Mbps download.

  • lossless and visually lossless compression dramatically reduces the amount of bandwidth required to stream video. Nobody will ever stream uncompressed video, it makes no sense.

  • If you want to know what an uncompressed 2K stream looks like, look at a 2K monitor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] maxprime@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

20 gig networking — even just a switch — is so expensive. 10 gig is already out of reach for 99% of the population, even network nerds. We’re just now in the past couple years seeing a standard of motherboards with 2.5gbps rj45. A lot of brand new nvme ssds can’t saturate 25gbps. There are just so many bottlenecks. I’m not saying I wish dearly those didn’t exist, but I know from my experience upgrading to 10 gig just how many there are.

https://store.ui.com/us/en/pro/category/all-switching/products/usw-pro-aggregation

Personally I am more excited for high speed networking for homelabs to come down in price. At this point in my life I don’t feel the need to access my network outside of my house at super high speeds. My 100mbps up is fine for when I’m out of the house, and 10gbps is more than I need when I’m home.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] httpjames@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could start your own VPC data center with this lmao

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tandybaum@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m all about thinking ahead but this seems insane. Really struggling to think of a home use need this these speeds.

I run a relatively small server for family and friends and I haven’t moved to 2gig plan because even that seems like overkill.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›