Any of you able to make use of 2GB down??
Only a paltry 1gb up though…
I only pay $55 for 1gb Google Fiber, so no way i’d pay another $45 even if I heavily used remote backups or similar.
I wonder what they’re gonna use… an SFP port to the modem/ router and… no way to connect to a single user device for >1gb? Or provide an sfp port for the user too?
This is an automatically-generated Wiki post for this new topic. Any member can edit this post and use it as a summary of the topic’s highlights.
Great. I can upgrade my modelling projections to live status using even more cloudy data. 
I don’t know why anyone would want 2-gigabit service unless you are running a business or data center. That is faster than most hard drives out on the market.
I can’t even use 1 gigabit as most websites can’t send data anywhere near that fast. If a site can send me a file at 300-400mbps that is considered very fast.
My ISP only offers 100megabit or 1 gigabit. If there was something in the middle like 300-500mbit I would probably take that to save money.
1Gbps = 238MB/s, faster than any non-RAID spinning drive, but slower than any SSD (~550MB/s, or 2-6x faster than that in RAID or NVMe).
But yeah, nobody can watch that much pr0n. Perhaps if you’re building some AI and it needs to feed on all the data out there… 
We’re on 1 Gbps plan with AT&T and we’re never coming close to using it all.
For starters, most WAN devices cannot use the full bandwidth anyway. And even streaming 4K w/ HDR takes only about 25 Mbps (on Netflix). Even if all your users were watching different streams at the same time and you had a lot of devices connected that used up some extra bandwidth, it’s hard to see the need for 2 Gbps for most non-server applications.
Maybe if someone was torrenting a lot they could use a lot since fiber adds download and upload bandwidth and there’s really no limitation on either if you don’t set limits. But that doesn’t seem like a very common use to me to justify the extra cost.