What "internet speed" is enough?

In my opinion, in the times of streaming media, 100Mbps for a family home is the basis. At least that's how it is in my case. Netflix on two TV sets + online games on the computer effectively "clog up" my 20Mb / s.
Streaming game servers will be launched at any moment (rendering in the cloud, a tiny computer with poor parameters is enough to receive the stream of the "ready" game). This way of playing requires 25 Mb / s for one fhd station.

For me, the actual net speed is ~ 30Mbps (in words: thirty megabits per second). It is easy enough for my and my wife's current needs (browsing, e-mail) and for Netflix 4K. I don't expect more. Speed as needed.

And! wrote:

Do the lines proposed by suppliers, e.g. 300Mb / s, 600Mb / s, and even 1Gb / s, make sense?

When they start to give symmetrical, it is possible.
M.

I have 300/300 for fiber and for free the same for LAN as the second link.
There is no chance of using it at home

I have 1Gbps Dow and 500 up, I only power the router in the attic, media converter, etc. - so it's 100/100 for computers - it's enough.

In Bydgoszcz, I have 7-8Mbit / s, which is definitely not enough.
Downloading larger data packages is a chore.
It is better not to talk about sending in the vicinity of 60-70KB / s (~ 500Kbit / s).

I can't normally send a larger (several MB) attachment to the e-mail because I am overloaded with time. I need outlook.
It used to be 120KB / s (1Mbit / s) and around 10Mbit / s, but the lightning hit and it stayed like that after the repair.

In Gdańsk, 600Mbit / s previously 150Mbit / s for the same rate.
The factory laptop card was only able to handle 5.5MB / s (44Mbit / s), then I added a newer standard to USB (Lenovo in this model has a lock for factory mPCIE replacement) and I can easily reach the USB 2.0 limitation, i.e. 20MB / s ( 160Mbit / s).
Wired network only 100Mbit / s so it is more profitable to use Wi-Fi.

Such speed is definitely useful when you need to roll several dozen / several hundred GB in one evening.
The record is 1.5TB in two days on a 150Mbit / s link and a 1Gbit / s cable connection.
I was limited by the speed of the seeds on the torrent anyway (yes, it was one torrent).

But overall I was sitting on this limited 44Mbit / s for quite a while and it worked decently.
I would also consider the 50Mbit / s area comfortable.

Probably there will be those who will not even have 2-4 Gb / s, claiming that they use the link to the full.
40-50 Mb / s is enough for me, it is important that the connection is stable and not too many packets are lost.

A lot of people are so addicted to numbers. that he is taking up faster and faster internet and the network card in the PC is a bottleneck or the router is misconfigured. Some people have a 1 Gb / s connection connected with a 4-core 100 Mb / s Ethernet cable.

I have 600/30 distributed on TV, PC, laptop, 2 phones, on TV and PC netflix is flying non-stop. I download something more than once and then such a connection is useful, because you do not have to wait long and netflix does not start to "lag"

I have an FTTH 300/30 link with public IP from a local provider. I chose this option due to the upload speed, which is useful for NAS and CCTV recorders. The lower available option was 100/10, where 10Mbps upload is a bit of a misery by today's standards ...

120 Mb / s + upload 30Mb / s (surcharge). Computer + workstation + tablet + Netflix + channel to the company (online rendering) ..... touches. But since the perspective is 4k (online processing / Netflix), I'm switching to FTTH 1Gb / 250Mb. The company pays extra. 120 Mb would be enough for a house party.
ps I do not actively use WiFi (pro-health) - sometimes on tablets and smartphones.

ps I started on 1200/2400 baud on a switched phone line. Then 9600, 16800, 19200, 56k. Then 1Mb / s but on DSL .... I remember TPSA 0202122 number for commutated until today.

I have a guaranteed 60/60 from a local provider with a fixed public IP, it's enough for me, basically 90% of me use the network at home, my wife something from the phone and sometimes a laptop, children from time to time cartoons on YT. I also basically care about the layout because of the NAS - I have a lot of files I need on the disk, sometimes I have a SAT stream to another place from the tuner, where I have no way to watch TV. Optical fiber is only in my plans, so I have to wait some time.

In my opinion, an ordinary home user does not need more than 200Mb / s because most websites / services on the Internet are configured to significantly limit the maximum upload / download speed (due to server bandwidth), so you can rarely use the potential of a very fast connection. It is also worth considering that most people use WiFi instead of an ethernet cable, which means they have higher latency and lower speeds.

100/30 is sufficient for the whole family, when I use ADSL 10/1 alone, it is already annoying.

bravo37 wrote:

most people use WiFi instead of an ethernet cable, which results in higher latency and lower speeds.

There is a dog buried here. Even though synthetic tests can show a decent result even with Wifi connections, packets are not lost so colorfully under load and there are significant delays.
For example, my local internet provider, for people who decided to buy a Wifi modem package (for a small additional monthly fee, it doubled the speed. For example, for PLN 40 you have 50 Mb / s on a coaxial cable or for PLN 48 you have 100 Mb / s with a Wifi antenna installed on the building .
I am not equipped with internet faster on paper, but not very stable, so I stayed with the cable.

I have 100/100 fiber optic at home and I can say that it is enough and it is hard for me to clog the entire internet

Each according to the needs: 512kB Aero2.

In a Scottish village the rump does not break off - 40 / 10MBps. I could buy a package up to 64, but 40 is guaranteed (now 36), so a fifth is not worth it.
That's all for now, because the village is fresh from Digital Scotland stock, so I don't expect any new investments any time soon.
Is it enough? 4K from Netflix goes on the cable calmly, but several Gigabit installations for XBOX have to be put on at night, because it lasts.
Fiber optic infrastructure for telecommunications cabinets, and "last mile" (i.e. with me about 300m) on the telephone cable.

And I do not understand something, looking at photos from your "speed tests" I made one myself and I became "jealous".
When in your "hundreds" are shown, in my case only units and something decimal.
I will only add that I have internet TV and during the test there were two TV sets, two PCs and "countless" number of smartphones in the household.
How can this be understood?

https://beta.speedtest.net/
It is enough for me at home.

Kraniec_Internetów wrote:

And just about access to the Internet. Have you heard about Elon Musk's new venture? It intends to send 12 thousand satellites into orbit that will make the Internet available to everyone at a speed of 1Gbps (everyone). The first 60 satellites flew on Wednesday, I have no idea how oz intends to launch the remaining 11,940 satellites in a year and a half. Of course, he had already obtained the permit.
Do you think that if he succeeds, even within, say, five years, he can monopolize the internet supply market?

Okay, I think it will be satellite internet? It seems to me that this type of internet has limitations when it comes to uploading, you need a special 'transmitter' for the upload speed to be decent. Besides, I wouldn't take it seriously because Elon Musk has problems with such a down-to-earth thing as making the cars ordered on time, so I wouldn't be so sure if he could handle something that big. But an admirable initiative, I am waiting for results.

Satellite Internet was based on GEO satellites (high ping, high powers and long distances),
if there are to be so many satellites, they will probably be LEO (as in Iridium), but what frequencies, what antennas, what modulations?

I started with 1 Mb / s, now I have 10 Mb / s. Or rather up to 10 Mb / s, because in reality it is 7-8 Mb / s download and about 1 Mb / s upload. And that is more than enough.

Hehe. I started with 512 kb / s and, in retrospect, I can say that with such "dizzying" speed, websites without encryption and a lot of ads were loading much faster than I currently have 50 Mb / s.

I started with 65 kb / s, for some time I had 250 Mb / s, now i have 20 mb / s and somehow it's enough for me