Will Sonic upgrade DSLAMs to VDSL2? (if not already done?)

[pockyken007]

With your amount of usage I would recommend a business class service where the same speed is delivered to each user rather then one shared speed .

[dherr]

Yup, the question is for anybody/everybody.

Latency: Yup, very important, but my 3M connection was capable of better latency than my FTTN connection since I am stuck with interlacing now. My 18ms base latency is fine for all that I do, so not complaining.

Upload: Yup, upload must not be forgotten but I was replying to a post that did not mention it. I went from about 1M to about 2M. I would like more upload but am not doing anything that really needs it recently. The biggest upload hit for me is that the Sonic FTTN VOIP will break up if the upload side is saturated. Only seen in testing so far but it is the biggest reason why I would rather have more upload. But note that proper QoS would also resolve that.

5 people doing 1080p: It sure looks like that could be handled by 50Mbps but it would be nice to have some overhead margin so 100Mbps would seem like a reasonable consideration.

And yes, the simplest answer to my question is having a lot of people. For residential customers I assume 5 Internet users is above average.

Thanks much for the replies. I am still not leaning toward considering FTTN X2 but I am open to changing my mind.

[pockyken007]

I went with FTTN x2 and to be honest can't be happier , the speed is blazing fast ( I have constant data stream coming in - server monitoring logs ) , I am bale to skype , and my wife is able to view netflix at the same time without any hiccups ( while the constant data stream keeps on coming in ) ... do I need X2 most likely 50 mbps would be able to handle all of this but I like to have the overhead just in case ...

[Guest]

With your amount of usage I would recommend a business class service where the same speed is delivered to each user rather then one shared speed .

This isn't a business, this is just kids watching Youtube videos. The audio conferencing just takes it off the precipice. What happens when Google upgrades 1080p60fps or 4K for most videos? If I were living by myself I wouldn't have this problem. And my kids are young. Just bracing myself for them to use multiple devices at the same time.

[pockyken007]

Google will not upgrade to 1080p60fps or 4k anytime soon they know A) internet is slow and not everybody can afford ( or have delivered - out of coverage area ) fast internet ... b) not everybody have computers capable of streaming at that resolution / frame rate ... so they would be catering to a very small population most likely not worth their money

[Guest]

do I need X2 most likely 50 mbps would be able to handle all of this but I like to have the overhead just in case ...

I've read/heard that a healthy network is to not have more than 70% network utilization on the WAN side. It doesn't happen 24x7, only on occasion. Here's an instance recently where my downstream has been maxed out. I specifically recalled that it was when we had maybe 3 streams from Youtube at that time. I already have a policy cap on my Lync/Skype conferencing.

https://i.imgur.com/qIIj2kl.png

[pockyken007]

Create a policy / rule that youtube can't get more than X amount of speed leaving you with enough speed to do whatever you have to do and still have a bit extra overhead ... or go with faster speed if the overhead % is to low for what you need it to do ... i always believe it's better to have more in case you need it then not have enough when you need more

[Guest]

Create a policy / rule that youtube can't get more than X amount of speed leaving you with enough speed to do whatever you have to do and still have a bit extra overhead

A policy won't work in this case because of the way Youtube's HTML player works. I've waited this long to get rid of Flash and I'm not about to go back. It is too eager to notch it up at a higher rate so we've clamped the player to use 720p as its maximum resolution. I can still get work done but the player just stutters while the data stream tries to catch up.

[pockyken007]

Well then I believe you answered your own question . If you can continue with current speed and some stutter then stay with the one you have now , if you want to have more leeway in streaming + work I would go for faster tier . Ultimately you will not be disappointed in faster tier as it will permit you to stream and do your work at the same time + have a lot of overhead .

[Gizmotoy]

Gizmotoy: A question or two for you...

I jumped from 3M/1M to 22M/2M with my FTTN upgrade. It means that streaming Roku stuff is more stable and at higher resolution. That was a nice change. A number of other things are noticeably quicker and some stuff will now run at their fastest speed, staying below my 22M ceiling.
I have no reason to consider X2 at this point. Nothing I do would justify that extra expense.
So, if you have money to burn then I seriously have no problem with how you want to spent it.
But what use would you have for 100M?
Is there even any need to jump above your current 20-22M?
Again, this is not an attack, I am just wanting to learn more about the high speed Internet game.

Well, couple things. First, there's no possible way, under any configuration, I can get anywhere close to 100Mbps. The upper quoted end is 44Mbps with X2.

Essentially the need is driven by 1) Offsite backups, several GB per day, 2) Streaming SuperHD Netflix, 3) Offsite work through VPN. Essentially, one or more of those is actively using my connection 24 hours a day, and during prime-time all three may be competing. 18Mbps is not enough. I'm not even sure if 44Mbps is enough, but I'm not about to go to Comcast for more.

But that's all a tangent, really. The question was why can't we schedule a simultaneous VDSL2/X2 upgrade if you know that's how much speed you want? As-is I have to upgrade to VDSL2 hardware, call back for an X2 upgrade, and then upgrade to X2 hardware. Seems like a waste for everyone involved.