• frezik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    That’s entirely speculative. There are diminishing returns. Unless you’re going to host your own YouTube, the use case for 50Gbps connections to the home is quite small. 4K video streaming at Ultra HD Blu-ray bitrates doesn’t even come close to saturating 1Gbps, and all streaming services compress 4K video significantly more than what Ultra HD Blu-ray offers. The server side is the limit, not home connections.

    Now, if you want to talk about self-hosting stuff and returning the Internet to a more peer-to-peer architecture, then you need IPv6. Having any kind of NAT in the way is not going to work. Connection speed still isn’t that important.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Unless you’re going to host your own YouTube…

      This is exactly what peer tube is struggling with. This bandwidth would solve the video federation problem.

      See, you get it!

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Except we need IPv6 before that’s at all viable.

        We are not even filling out the bandwidth of pipes we have to the home right now. “If you build it, they will come” does not apply when there’s already something there that isn’t being fully utilized.

    • Opisek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      How exactly does NAT prevent that? On good hardware it adds insignificant latency.

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        It has nothing to do with latency, and everything to do with not being able to directly address things behind NAT.

        Edit: and please, nobody argue that NAT increases security. That dumbass argument should have died the moment it was first uttered.