I just got a new phone (Google Pixel 6 Pro) and I'm sotting in a restaurant using it, when I noticed--for the first time evee--that I have a "5G" logo next to my signal indicator. I jump on Speedtest.net, run the test, and, yep, over 48Mbps download speed. Suddenly, I feel the need to stream a 4K movie ...
Enjoy it while you can. T-Mobile uses a different band for their 5G service, so they're less likely to be impacted by this, I believe.
Uh...wow. From my car, parked at home, I'm getting 110 Mbps! If it's like this inside, my fixed broadband line is toast.
You got me curious, so I checked my speed on my home internet service and my 5G phone. It’s tempting to cancel the internet service. I can get fiber in my place. Not sure what the speeds are for fiber here.
My home internet service is supposed to 250? 300? Mbps. this is what I usually get, sometimes even faster.
I get about 335 Mbps (download) on my home network, so I won't be ditching the cable connection anytime soon ... still, being able to get better speeds than before when I'm out will be cool.
is that megabits? or megabytes? If you're on FIOS and 104MB per second is the download rate then you're running gigabit networking (1000Mbps). If you're only getting 104Mbps download then you suck. A lot also depends on routers and switches, or wifi quality beyond the FIOS modem. But you know this, right?
My home network is limited by my wi-fi router (5Ghz, 10/100 Ethernet). I'm not sure what my cable modem and network are rated to. Further investigation is required. I probably have more accessible bandwidth than I realize. One way or another, I'm probably about to do an infrastructure upgrade.
Okay, my service sucks. I'm getting about 75Mbps. The 5G wireless would be faster. It's through the local cable monopoly, so I can't just buy internet; I have to pay for some level of cable TV service as well. They have a "local channels" only option--which I have--but it maxes out at 100Mbps. They have much faster options--300, 600, and 1200 Mbps--but I'd have to pay for some huge number of cable channels that I don't want. Just curious: those of you with 100s of Mbps, what are you paying for it?
I pay about $160, but that includes my cell phone as well. The cell plan is unlimited talk, data, and text. And I just ran another speed test, here's what I just hit. checked my plan, I'm paying for 300Mbps. So I'm doing ok I guess.
FIOS is fiber optic lines . . . but you know this, right? And I'm relatively close to a hub (closest one is roughly a block away). So I'm getting very high speed. Put it this way - I stream 4K movies without issue. I run multiple devices at the same time with no issue. Also, I'm a web developer and so am pretty familiar with network stuff, so even if I didn't spell out megabit or megabyte for the simple-minded, I wouldn't post the data if it was the low end.
People normally don't talk about network bandwidth in megabytes per second (which you haven't clarified). If you're only getting 104MbPS then you suck. 104megabits per second is still fast enough for 4K streaming. I don't know why anyone thinks they need gigabit service. Ed?!!!!
I don't pay or subscribe for gigabit service, the speed is there or almost there. It's been like that for several years now.
Internet Of Things. When every device is "smart" and chatters to every other device, the speed will become necessary. Also, look for 8k streaming probably before 2030. Network speeds are like closet space . . . no matter how much you have, you'll find ways to use it all and then some.
I think most IoT devices are pretty low-bandwidth. I mean, if 25Mbps is sufficient for uninterrupted 4K video streaming, I don't think you're going to need another 300Mbps for your oven to send you an SMS that your roast is done.
And? You grasp the point I was trying to make, yes? Or are you just commenting because you think folks will find you clever for making such a remark? Because history is littered with folks who didn't think that a new technology was really all that necessary, only for said tech to become ubiquitous (and seen as necessary) by folks a few years later. But if you're fixated on Gates making a terrible prediction here's a list of them.
In fairness, I feel the need to point out that you're someone who thinks that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and also failed to answer my question. So please, Francis, keep on doing what you're doing, while using technology that utterly rejects your notions about the universe by its very existence. You're absolutely