... he said, while his comment posted correctly, in the moment he wanted, because the tech behind the posting ability was Right.
The fact that things do work doesn't mean that ISPs are doing everything correctly, not that there isn't reason for complaint or improvement. Just look at the state of the related infrastructure, both technological and political, in the US and elsewhere.
Our internet is quite a bit behind because telcos in this country don't have to meaningfully compete. Plenty of legislation has cemented their market dominance through artificial (and unnecessary) barriers to entry with practically no accountability for shoddy service and infrastructure. Remember when Verizon received billions in subsidies to bring fiber to NY in the late 00s and ran off with the money with no penalty?
Likewise more bandwidth enabled applications only up to a point, 40Mbps DSL is perfectly good for watching TV and so on. I had Gigabit on someone else's dime back at the turn of the century and when I bought service for my current home I not only didn't enquire what it would cost to run Gigabit here, I didn't even choose the expensive 80Mbps option, I already know 40Mbps is fine. What mattered most even going from dial-up to 1Mbps DSL wasn't bandwidth, it was Always On. The Network's omnipresence is what matters.
Fibre matters to some extent for infrastructure, same way it matters what a bridge is built from. Fibre coms doesn't attract thieves, not subject to RF interference, lots of benefits for infrastructure projects, but Gigabit Internet for the home? Not important.
At 1000mbps downloading any file takes roughly the same time, regardless of size. Offsite storage becomes practical for multimedia files.
Not every home benefits from 1000mbps, but it’s very possible to be a home that does. I don’t have a lot of data stored on disks in my home, because I know I can always download it quickly, even if the filesize is 100gb.
A 100Mbit connection would be equivent to maybe a 4kW home supply in a temperate climate - probably enough for the average user but only just you'd still have to watch your usage.
Additionally the real benefit to FTTH is not bandwidth but ping which is noticeable. And no sane operator is installing FTTH with sub-gigabit capacity because it's a complete waste of time and money.
Examples:
* Multiple users watching youtube/netflix at 4K * Downloading an update to a game so you can play with your friends in a reasonable amount of time * Uploading youtube videos * Pulling in packages from a package manager, or updating your OS
It is absolutely important for the home, just not to _you_.
But I couldn't care less - what I want is something as cheap as possible, irrespective of speed.
They seem to have an option right now for 30 Mbps for $15, but I'm assuming there's some catch. I did think the low cost option was only available for people on public assistance or something.
I used to have a cable connection, and it seemed slightly faster than cellular, but it didn't really make a difference to me, and since I can't do without the cellular, it made more sense to get unlimited data for that, than paying more for limited data and cable service.
More bandwidth only encourages websites to add more advertising, anyway.
Yep - TCP can paper over a lot of incompetence.