I move large datasets for various projects. We also have some servers that get surges of activity (see: my kids run game servers with friends sometimes).

Having high speed fiber to the home has been great.

Oh, and the latency is much more consistent. On cable or dsl I often experienced many more laggy transmissions and packet retransmits.

Sometimes it's not about what you can do now, but in the future.

Some months ago I've watched a documentation about a small village in Germany with abysmal internet access and how how multiple companies there struggled to do any work beyond being a bakery.

There was a construction company pre-building blocks for houses out of lumber and their CNC machining required stable internet access. They weren't able to work for days because of fluctuations.

I have a one gigabit line here at my home and even I struggle sometimes uploading bigger assets to my company's servers.

I like the approach Switzerland went with. If you tear up the road, put down the most modern infrastructure available at the moment. Don't bother with "good enough for the moment".

Also, what do you do with > 1gbit fiber??

instead of saving anything to a hard drive you just keep a constant stream of download <-> upload going to keep the data in the tubes

Also, what do you do with > 1gbit fiber??

More than 10 years ago, Australia started rolling out it's national broadband network. The original plan was for fibre-to-the-premises for every dwelling in the country. The governing party that came up with the idea was voted out for other reasons, the conservative party(s) - a coalition of two parties - gained power and stripped it back, it would be fibre-to-the-node for the majority of the country, with some places gaining fttp. or fibre-to-the-curb. Before this it was (mostly) all copper wiring and ADSL. Speeds were supposed to be close to gbit, but the conservative party questioned that, like you have, why would we need more than 20mbit speeds. Nobody needs those speeds citing this, as well as costing issues the conservative party ended up spending more to deliver less. Years later, when future reality hit everyone in the face with how internet-centric the world was becoming there were plans to bring forward fttp to all dwellings in the country, costing more. So, instead of just sticking with what was originally planned, which would have future-proofed the network for some time, they ended up spending more, to deliver less, then ended up costing more to finish the job as was originally intended. Which still isn't finished yet.

It should also be noted, that when announcing the changes to the planned network, the conservative government chose to do so at Foxtels studios. Foxtel is Australia's largest (pretty much only) cable/satellite tv provider. Foxtel, being listed on the NYSE had disclosed to investors that one of the risks to its business at the time was the upcoming NBN, given the apparent rise of Netflix, and other online streaming entertainment. Now of course it's not fair to suggest any link between the two events, as it also isnt fair to suggest that cost blowouts wouldn't have occurred had they kept to the plan. However, the facts are, they bastardised the plan, it cost tax payers more money, it required rework less than a decade later, and it still isn't up to the level it was originally intended for.

Should be noted that the conservative party is also the party that cut ABC funding (Australian Broadcasting Corparation - the public broadcaster. least biased. Most attacked by cuntservatives). Meaning the ABC couldn't afford to produce Bluey solely on their own, meaning they had to sign deals with BBC and such, which gave the BBC full merchandising rights. So, given Bluey is an Australian created world-wide smash hit, not one cent goes back to australia (minus anything from the original creators). So again, the fiscally conservative party, screwed over the people again. Then had the audacity to attack the ABC for the bad deals created for Bluey.

Massive tangent there, I apologise. However, my main point was, the majority may need more than 1gbit, or more than a couple hundred mbit right now, but it will at least be future-proofed for a good while, saving more money in the long run.

maybe they can say internet freedom

I suppose they can do about 25x more. But that’s just my bad math.

👌👍🤣

You just said if people were buying the telocos would scale up 🤣

100 times more resources? wtf are you talking about? fiber isn't manufactured in the US.

manpower has an upper limit of what actually helps. ie: you can't make a baby faster by getting more women pregnant.

if you want to talk about money, Switzerland is literally founded on banking establishments.

so what "resources" are you referring to?

It doesn't work that way because of how completely spread apart the US is. It would take much more money per square mile and much, much, longer to do.

I don't know if anyone told you this or not, but fiber and copper network lines have to be connected to function. you can't just run them in one neighborhood and magically have them connect to another across the state.