As a power engineer, I have a problem with your power plant analogy. Power plants always GENERATE only enough power to meet the current demand - and the laws of physics actually limit GENERATION to always exactly demand. CAPACITY must match peak demand. GENERATION and CAPACITY are totally different things. That said, great presentation. I think the key takeaway is that ISP sales people always try to convince consumers that 'more' equates with 'better'. Your message is that there is a third level - 'enough'.
Thank you for the clarification there! It sounds like I need to brush up on my power plant knowledge 😊 Thanks for the feedback as well, I’m glad you found the video useful!
If all of the devices are using the internet at the same time, you will need to make sure you have enough bandwidth for all of them. If only a few of the devices access the internet at any given time, you don't need as much bandwidth. I hope this makes sense. Thank you for watching!
Latency is a much more important consideration. If you have fiber internet, with a very low latency, and with a household of two, you truly do not need more than 50gb connection. Even 120gb is overkill, much less the 1gb plans people sign up for.. lol And with fiber, you truly get the 50gb connection, not the "up to" scenario the OP discusses in the video.
Everyone is different. I assume you mean 50 megabits and 120 megabits. Latency is essentially irrelevant to most users as long as it's under 50 milliseconds. For example, I would be much better served by 1 second ping and 1 gbps than a 10ms ping and 50 megabits per second connection, because of what I do, that is, no online gaming whatsoever but a metric shit ton of downloading and uploading. In addition, if you were trying to game with your low ping 50 mbps connection you're going to do absolutely fine. But when you're streaming and someone else in your family is streaming a 4k video or some shit, you want the rest of that bandwidth. Low latency doesn't make up for not enough data coming to you. But online gaming is where latency matters the most, and that is extremely low bandwidth. Like 3 mbps low.
This is a good point in terms of bandwidth needs. When it comes to latency, I agree with @funkmon: latency only really comes into play with online gaming. In most cases you’ll have latency that is sufficient for your everyday online needs and you won’t notice it
This video is strange to me for two reasons because I have never lived in an area where my ISP ever offered a substantial discount for a slower connection and streaming has never been a motivation for having a faster connection nor has it been the primary source of my data usage. I'm guessing the video is aimed at people who are being taken advantage of by predatory ISPs like comcast? I have two ISPs in my area and my speed/price choices are 200/25Mbps for $60, 1000/25Mbps for $99 , 500/500 Mbps for $70 , 1000/1000 Mbps for $99.95, 5000/5000 Mbps for 199.95, and 10000/10000 Mbps for 299.95. I'm curious to know what is the price difference that other people's ISPs are charging between a 100Mbps and 300Mbps connection?
I would say it depends upon the area that you live in! It can be different for everyone, but even a $20 difference between the two internet plans can make a difference over the course of a year.
Well, I think your calculations would always keep someone happy, I think there needs to be away where you add in factoring for more people. As an example by your calculations if there’s five people in the house and they all have devices, you would need 600 Mb. I have an apartment building where I have a 200 Mb connection and I’m feeding 100 customers with no issues.
This is an interesting example! I assume in this case each unit/apartment has a 200 Mbps connection right? In other words, each unit has their own modem/router and therefore a separate connection to the internet? The reason I’m thinking this must be the case is because 100 people couldn’t use a 200 Mbps internet connection simultaneously
I'm not sure why this video made it onto my homepage, and I understand you're gearing this towards people who don't really know any better, but I dont think you should say things that are literally untrue. You should probably rewrite the end conclusion. Obviously having a 300 megabit connection loads videos and webpages faster than a 100 megabit connection. Whether it is useful to be slightly faster to load the buffer or small amount on a webpage is a different story. I would suggest that you say something like "the webpages and videos arent going to load noticably faster." Furthermore, I see a lot of people misunderstanding wifi and how it relates to internet speeds, and people mistakenly going wired or upgrading a router to a higher speed when their internet is the bottleneck, which you maybe are accidentally contributing to. Wifi isnt going to be affected whatsoever by you increasing your internet bandwidth. If you only get 30 megabits from your wifi but you calculate you need 30 megabits, then double it so you get 100 megabits from your provider to account for "ISP and wifi" issues, that is a huge waste as it does nothing. The flip side also occurs, where people think the wifi is why they are slow but the connection is shit. I think you should take that part out of the video, or just say "safety factor." I'm not a networking professional and I have virtually no interest in networking, but I am network+ certified, so while I may be wrong, I don't think I am on these fundamentals, and I think they mislead customers.
Thank you for your feedback. With regards to your comment saying a 300 Mbps internet connection will load a webpage faster than a 100 Mbps webpage - this is not correct. Both internet plans have plenty of bandwidth to load the webpage (not more than 2 Mbps is needed), and the extra bandwidth literally does nothing in terms of the speed at which the webpage loads. I agree with you in terms of many people misunderstanding that their internet plan is usually the bottleneck of their network, and that a “faster” router won’t have any impact on performance in that situation. Thanks again for sharing (and for your feedback)!
@network-from-home Yes they both have plenty of bandwidth, but more bandwidth loads things faster assuming the server isn't throttling your connection. Period. That's facts. You can't possibly think that a connection that works at 40 megabytes per second doesn't load an 8 megabyte page faster than one that works at 13 megabytes per second all else being equal. That's just literally wrong. It's not the major factor, but it loads each element faster than a slower connection as long as the server isn't throttling. By definition. If you want to test this yourself, though I don't know why you would because speed is built in to the definition in this case, go ahead and throttle your browser to 2 megabits, 10, 50, 100, and 300, and load a complex page. Count the frames in the capture.
@@network-from-home Yes they both have plenty of bandwidth, but more bandwidth loads things faster assuming the server isn't throttling your connection. Period. That's facts. You can't possibly think that a connection that works at 40 megabytes per second doesn't load an 8 megabyte page faster than one that works at 13 megabytes per second all else being equal. That's just literally wrong. It's not the major factor, but it loads each element faster than a slower connection as long as the server isn't throttling. By definition. If you want to test this, though I don't know why you would as it's literally defined by how much time it takes to load data, limit your browser to 2 Mbps, 10 mpbs, 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps and 300 Mbps, load a complex webpage and count the frames. I've attempted this comment a couple times, I hope it posts and I didn't post multiples.
As a power engineer, I have a problem with your power plant analogy. Power plants always GENERATE only enough power to meet the current demand - and the laws of physics actually limit GENERATION to always exactly demand. CAPACITY must match peak demand. GENERATION and CAPACITY are totally different things.
That said, great presentation. I think the key takeaway is that ISP sales people always try to convince consumers that 'more' equates with 'better'. Your message is that there is a third level - 'enough'.
Thank you for the clarification there! It sounds like I need to brush up on my power plant knowledge 😊
Thanks for the feedback as well, I’m glad you found the video useful!
I've always thought faster is better, I am probably paying more than I need to, thanks
Honestly this is probably the biggest misconception when it comes to internet plans. You are definitely not alone. Thanks for watching!
But if you have 20 devices or more that use Wi-Fi you need more bandwidth
If all of the devices are using the internet at the same time, you will need to make sure you have enough bandwidth for all of them. If only a few of the devices access the internet at any given time, you don't need as much bandwidth. I hope this makes sense. Thank you for watching!
Latency is a much more important consideration. If you have fiber internet, with a very low latency, and with a household of two, you truly do not need more than 50gb connection. Even 120gb is overkill, much less the 1gb plans people sign up for.. lol And with fiber, you truly get the 50gb connection, not the "up to" scenario the OP discusses in the video.
Everyone is different. I assume you mean 50 megabits and 120 megabits.
Latency is essentially irrelevant to most users as long as it's under 50 milliseconds. For example, I would be much better served by 1 second ping and 1 gbps than a 10ms ping and 50 megabits per second connection, because of what I do, that is, no online gaming whatsoever but a metric shit ton of downloading and uploading.
In addition, if you were trying to game with your low ping 50 mbps connection you're going to do absolutely fine. But when you're streaming and someone else in your family is streaming a 4k video or some shit, you want the rest of that bandwidth.
Low latency doesn't make up for not enough data coming to you. But online gaming is where latency matters the most, and that is extremely low bandwidth. Like 3 mbps low.
This is a good point in terms of bandwidth needs. When it comes to latency, I agree with @funkmon: latency only really comes into play with online gaming. In most cases you’ll have latency that is sufficient for your everyday online needs and you won’t notice it
@funkmon I agree with regards to latency, well said!
This video is strange to me for two reasons because I have never lived in an area where my ISP ever offered a substantial discount for a slower connection and streaming has never been a motivation for having a faster connection nor has it been the primary source of my data usage. I'm guessing the video is aimed at people who are being taken advantage of by predatory ISPs like comcast? I have two ISPs in my area and my speed/price choices are 200/25Mbps for $60, 1000/25Mbps for $99 , 500/500 Mbps for $70 , 1000/1000 Mbps for $99.95, 5000/5000 Mbps for 199.95, and 10000/10000 Mbps for 299.95. I'm curious to know what is the price difference that other people's ISPs are charging between a 100Mbps and 300Mbps connection?
I would say it depends upon the area that you live in! It can be different for everyone, but even a $20 difference between the two internet plans can make a difference over the course of a year.
Well, I think your calculations would always keep someone happy, I think there needs to be away where you add in factoring for more people. As an example by your calculations if there’s five people in the house and they all have devices, you would need 600 Mb. I have an apartment building where I have a 200 Mb connection and I’m feeding 100 customers with no issues.
This is an interesting example! I assume in this case each unit/apartment has a 200 Mbps connection right? In other words, each unit has their own modem/router and therefore a separate connection to the internet? The reason I’m thinking this must be the case is because 100 people couldn’t use a 200 Mbps internet connection simultaneously
I'm not sure why this video made it onto my homepage, and I understand you're gearing this towards people who don't really know any better, but I dont think you should say things that are literally untrue. You should probably rewrite the end conclusion.
Obviously having a 300 megabit connection loads videos and webpages faster than a 100 megabit connection. Whether it is useful to be slightly faster to load the buffer or small amount on a webpage is a different story. I would suggest that you say something like "the webpages and videos arent going to load noticably faster."
Furthermore, I see a lot of people misunderstanding wifi and how it relates to internet speeds, and people mistakenly going wired or upgrading a router to a higher speed when their internet is the bottleneck, which you maybe are accidentally contributing to. Wifi isnt going to be affected whatsoever by you increasing your internet bandwidth. If you only get 30 megabits from your wifi but you calculate you need 30 megabits, then double it so you get 100 megabits from your provider to account for "ISP and wifi" issues, that is a huge waste as it does nothing. The flip side also occurs, where people think the wifi is why they are slow but the connection is shit. I think you should take that part out of the video, or just say "safety factor."
I'm not a networking professional and I have virtually no interest in networking, but I am network+ certified, so while I may be wrong, I don't think I am on these fundamentals, and I think they mislead customers.
Thank you for your feedback.
With regards to your comment saying a 300 Mbps internet connection will load a webpage faster than a 100 Mbps webpage - this is not correct. Both internet plans have plenty of bandwidth to load the webpage (not more than 2 Mbps is needed), and the extra bandwidth literally does nothing in terms of the speed at which the webpage loads.
I agree with you in terms of many people misunderstanding that their internet plan is usually the bottleneck of their network, and that a “faster” router won’t have any impact on performance in that situation.
Thanks again for sharing (and for your feedback)!
@network-from-home Yes they both have plenty of bandwidth, but more bandwidth loads things faster assuming the server isn't throttling your connection. Period. That's facts. You can't possibly think that a connection that works at 40 megabytes per second doesn't load an 8 megabyte page faster than one that works at 13 megabytes per second all else being equal. That's just literally wrong. It's not the major factor, but it loads each element faster than a slower connection as long as the server isn't throttling. By definition.
If you want to test this yourself, though I don't know why you would because speed is built in to the definition in this case, go ahead and throttle your browser to 2 megabits, 10, 50, 100, and 300, and load a complex page. Count the frames in the capture.
@@network-from-home Yes they both have plenty of bandwidth, but more bandwidth loads things faster assuming the server isn't throttling your connection. Period. That's facts. You can't possibly think that a connection that works at 40 megabytes per second doesn't load an 8 megabyte page faster than one that works at 13 megabytes per second all else being equal. That's just literally wrong. It's not the major factor, but it loads each element faster than a slower connection as long as the server isn't throttling. By definition.
If you want to test this, though I don't know why you would as it's literally defined by how much time it takes to load data, limit your browser to 2 Mbps, 10 mpbs, 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps and 300 Mbps, load a complex webpage and count the frames.
I've attempted this comment a couple times, I hope it posts and I didn't post multiples.