"Blazing" fast internet speeds aren't noticeable

[mikescepaniak]

Easy money-saving win - downgrade your internet speed. This confirms what I've long-suspected - and what I've always seen in my own personal experience. We do fine on 25MPS. And we were fine on 15MPS before they raised the lowest speed tier.

The Truth About Faster Internet: It's Not Worth It

[J Dough]

Interesting article, thanks.

I wonder if this is more of a recent development as speeds get faster, and the slowest speed offered increases.

I've always selected the slowest speed at the lowest price, knowing I might not have the best streaming. I feel like streaming used to be a problem, though I don't remember the connection speeds I was paying for. I haven't had any issues in the last few years -- video streams just fine on my cheap internet.

[FindingFI]

Fairly certain we have 5 mbps and Netflix still streams just fine.  We got fed up with constantly having to pay attention to promotional rate expiration followed by massive price hikes, so we downgraded to the cheapest option with only the occasional small price increases.

[cangelosibrown]

I've always gotten the lowest speed internet with the logic "if I ever get annoyed by it, I can just call and upgrade." I never have. Maybe once a month I'm copying some file for work, and I wish it would go a little faster, but certainly not worth it for me to upgrade to avoid that extremely small annoyance.

[fattest_foot]

We used to have the lowest tier, but then our ISP (Mediacom) implemented data caps.

If not for that we'd still probably be on a 10 Mbps plan.

It really annoys me a lot too, because "data caps" are one of the most ridiculous concepts. It makes it sound like "data" is a more traditional utility like electricity or water, that has a finite amount that needs to be replenished. As long as the routers and switches can handle bandwidth at any given moment, "data" could be infinite.

[SugarMountain]

Easy money-saving win - downgrade your internet speed. This confirms what I've long-suspected - and what I've always seen in my own personal experience. We do fine on 25MPS. And we were fine on 15MPS before they raised the lowest speed tier.

The Truth About Faster Internet: It's Not Worth It

I had 12 MBS DSL that was never really above about 6 and Qwest/CenturyLink claimed they could never fix because of existing line quality and/or distance to the switch.  They kept telling me that I couldn't get fiber yet, despite having two techs tell me I could, that it was right in the alley behind our house.  I finally pushed the issue because we want to cut the cord and our DSL didn't work well for streaming.  Now I've got 100 MBS for basically the same price.  I think I could drop down to save $10/month (or go to 1 GB for $10 more).  I've found the switch to be worth it, it's much more reliable and streaming works much, much better.

[MilesTeg]

Easy money-saving win - downgrade your internet speed. This confirms what I've long-suspected - and what I've always seen in my own personal experience. We do fine on 25MPS. And we were fine on 15MPS before they raised the lowest speed tier.

The Truth About Faster Internet: It's Not Worth It

Hmmm, next you're going to tell people that don't need a car with a 3.5 second 0-60. Bollocks!

[ecchastang]

Easy money-saving win - downgrade your internet speed. This confirms what I've long-suspected - and what I've always seen in my own personal experience. We do fine on 25MPS. And we were fine on 15MPS before they raised the lowest speed tier.

The Truth About Faster Internet: It's Not Worth It

Hmmm, next you're going to tell people that don't need a car with a 3.5 second 0-60. Bollocks!

I certainly don't need a commuter car that can go 150mph. 

[JLee]

I think for most people, anything past 25Mbps is largely irrelevant unless you are routinely doing multiple 4k video streams.  Netflix Ultra HD is about 25Mbps per stream.

Three of the four people who live in my house are tech professionals and we all consume streaming media -- my options are 100/100 for $40 or gigabit for $80, so gigabit it is. I will wholeheartedly admit that is unnecessary for most people.  I enjoy never having to be concerned about bandwidth; if I want to download a game or a large update and two people are watching Netflix, I'm not going to destroy their viewing experience.

[EricEng]

Fairly certain we have 5 mbps and Netflix still streams just fine.  We got fed up with constantly having to pay attention to promotional rate expiration followed by massive price hikes, so we downgraded to the cheapest option with only the occasional small price increases.

For Netflix 1080p you might want more.  For 4k you would definitly need more than 5. 

This all depends on your home use.  I have gigabit and use it heavily, but my use case isn't common and I'm very techy.

[Crabbie]

400 at home here, but I split it into several networks and mesh it out via google wifi, sharing with others who almost completely cover the costs.

[the_fixer]

I dropped down from 400 to 100 it was the sweet spot for price at the time.

We do not have cable TV and stream all of our TV and never have issues. YouTube TV, philo, prime tv, Netflix all work flawlessly even when watching in 4k.

I have throttled my speed down to about 30 before I see issues with but that is 4k content above 50 everything works great.

I am not careful about other devices running we multiple computers on at the same time, gaming console and whatever else never changes quality.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[MilesTeg]

It would be nice if Netflix (et al.) would stream 1080 content with a high quality codec. To get Bluray quality (which is still compressed), you need about 30Mbps. Netflix generally won't send 1080 content at more than 5-6Mbps.

You'll get a much better picture with 1080@30Mbps than a 4k@30Mbps.

[ysette9]

I can’t quite figure out where the bottleneck is but I am constantly irritated at how suck-y our internet is.
I struggle to do video conferences with work from home. Loading the video camera spying on my babies sleeping in their room takes FOREVER. Sometimes video chatting with family all they get is our voices and a frozen image of someone’s face. There is no excuse for this nonsense in the middle of Silicon Valley. We in the US get a pretty raw deal on internet compared to other developed countries. We get slower speeds for much more money.

[JLee]

I can’t quite figure out where the bottleneck is but I am constantly irritated at how suck-y our internet is.
I struggle to do video conferences with work from home. Loading the video camera spying on my babies sleeping in their room takes FOREVER. Sometimes video chatting with family all they get is our voices and a frozen image of someone’s face. There is no excuse for this nonsense in the middle of Silicon Valley. We in the US get a pretty raw deal on internet compared to other developed countries. We get slower speeds for much more money.

Do you have any wired devices to test on / are all of your problematic devices on wifi?  If you're in a densely populated area you may run into wifi congestion, i.e. there's simply not enough frequency space available to properly accommodate all the wifi networks. When that happens, wifi performance goes to shit even if the underlying internet connection is good.

It would be nice if Netflix (et al.) would stream 1080 content with a high quality codec. To get Bluray quality (which is still compressed), you need about 30Mbps. Netflix generally won't send 1080 content at more than 5-6Mbps.

You'll get a much better picture with 1080@30Mbps than a 4k@30Mbps.

Yeah, the difference between a a 4k Bluray and a 4k Netflix stream is astonishing.

[mikescepaniak]

I can’t quite figure out where the bottleneck is but I am constantly irritated at how suck-y our internet is.

Try connecting your router as close as possible to the point at which your line enters your house. Several years ago, I was troubleshooting poor performance after switching providers and it turned out that the (coax) cabling in my house was the cause.

[ysette9]

Good suggestion. I don’t think we have any device that can be physically connected to an internet connection. Maybe my husband’s brick of a work laptop? I’ll see.

[dblaace]

Your only going to be as fast as the slowest link.

Some troubleshooting tips.

From a command prompt:
tracert google.com or whatever site your trying to get to. It will show the time to every router between you and the site your trying to get to. Some will timeout because they are blocking icmp traffic. response times should be less than 100ms

The first line/hop should be your router if you have one and your default gateway.

Ping sends a 32 byte of data and gets a response back similar to tracert but to a single ip.

You can vary the packet size and number of packets sent.

Start by pining your first hop. Then increase your packet size.

ping 192.168.0.1
ping 192.168.0.1 -l 256
ping 192.168.0.1 -l 512
ping 192.168.0.1 -l 1024
ping 192.168.0.1 -l 2048 (some providers will limit the packet size to 1024)
ping 192.168.0.1 -l 4096

Things may appear fine with just ping but as you increase packet size you might start to see dropped packets. This is a sign of latency/congestion on that link.
 

[JLee]

Good suggestion. I don’t think we have any device that can be physically connected to an internet connection. Maybe my husband’s brick of a work laptop? I’ll see.

There are also free apps to look at congestion -- check the apple/play store for a wifi analyzer app.  If you run it and see a plethora of overlapping networks, that is likely a significant part of the problem.

[Boofinator]

It really annoys me a lot too, because "data caps" are one of the most ridiculous concepts. It makes it sound like "data" is a more traditional utility like electricity or water, that has a finite amount that needs to be replenished. As long as the routers and switches can handle bandwidth at any given moment, "data" could be infinite.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how can data be infinite if bandwidth is not also infinite? And if bandwidth is not infinite, shouldn't the users who use more bandwidth also be the ones who pay for it? Hence the introduction of data caps, to separate the tiers of use in a similar way to speed tiers?

[EngagedToFIRE]

We had 25mbps and it was brutal.  It was noticeably slower.  We stream on a few devices and what not, but it was clear.  Once we were at 75mbps, it was WAY faster and snappier, even web browsing.  I think 25 is quite low for a lot of people, but not everyone.  If you are just a couple and have 1 tv, it's probably fine.  If you are streaming on several TV's, doing large downloads, etc... then it's very noticeable.   However, once you surpass 75 or 100, it really makes almost no difference.  We have gigabit now and it's not any faster than 150mb.  We only have it because it's not much more than the slower internet and it's the only plan that has no data cap (which we blow through every month).  But we have gigabit because of our mustachian ways... no more cable, just streaming services.  And it's great.  So win/win.

I would also point out that the article even suggests 100mbps and up you can't tell the difference.  They aren't suggesting 25...

[JLee]

It really annoys me a lot too, because "data caps" are one of the most ridiculous concepts. It makes it sound like "data" is a more traditional utility like electricity or water, that has a finite amount that needs to be replenished. As long as the routers and switches can handle bandwidth at any given moment, "data" could be infinite.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how can data be infinite if bandwidth is not also infinite? And if bandwidth is not infinite, shouldn't the users who use more bandwidth also be the ones who pay for it? Hence the introduction of data caps, to separate the tiers of use in a similar way to speed tiers?

Data is infinite up to the maximum throughput capacity of the circuits involved.  It doesn't cost significantly more to have a connection running at maximum capacity vs a connection sitting idle - a few watts in some network gear.  Bandwidth itself is not a consumable resource - it exists up to the maximum capacity of the equipment. Whether it's idle or not is largely irrelevant. 

Contrast that to electricity, where more electricity use requires more electricity to be generated - which costs correspondingly more money to produce. 

[ketchup]

cries in 6mbps DSL

Before we moved, we had uncapped 1000mbps down and 250mbps up ($80/mo fiber) and it was glorious.  Now we have 6mbps down and 768kbps up.  It's at least consistent with very little downtime, but it's a real bitch uploading anything.  Girlfriend is a pro photographer and delivering photos to her clients is painful.  And forget cloud backups of anything.  We've at least gotten used to 720p streaming which is shockingly decent on our connection.

We pay $77/mo, which includes DirecTV that we don't use (literally unplugged right now) because otherwise our crappy connection would be even crappier with a bandwidth cap.  Yay.

I would pay a lot more money for faster speeds.  But this is our only option out here.

[JLee]

cries in 6mbps DSL

Before we moved, we had uncapped 1000mbps down and 250mbps up ($80/mo fiber) and it was glorious.  Now we have 6mbps down and 768kbps up.  It's at least consistent with very little downtime, but it's a real bitch uploading anything.  Girlfriend is a pro photographer and delivering photos to her clients is painful.  And forget cloud backups of anything.  We've at least gotten used to 720p streaming which is shockingly decent on our connection.

We pay $77/mo, which includes DirecTV that we don't use (literally unplugged right now) because otherwise our crappy connection would be even crappier with a bandwidth cap.  Yay.

I would pay a lot more money for faster speeds.  But this is our only option out here.

Ohhh wow, that is tragic :(

I have all my photos backed up via cloud and even with gigabit up the first sync is not fast!

[ketchup]

cries in 6mbps DSL

Before we moved, we had uncapped 1000mbps down and 250mbps up ($80/mo fiber) and it was glorious.  Now we have 6mbps down and 768kbps up.  It's at least consistent with very little downtime, but it's a real bitch uploading anything.  Girlfriend is a pro photographer and delivering photos to her clients is painful.  And forget cloud backups of anything.  We've at least gotten used to 720p streaming which is shockingly decent on our connection.

We pay $77/mo, which includes DirecTV that we don't use (literally unplugged right now) because otherwise our crappy connection would be even crappier with a bandwidth cap.  Yay.

I would pay a lot more money for faster speeds.  But this is our only option out here.

Ohhh wow, that is tragic :(

I have all my photos backed up via cloud and even with gigabit up the first sync is not fast!

Our "offsite-backup" is a pile of external hard drives in my desk drawer at work.  I update it regularly via sneakernet but it's a manual un-fun process.  GF shoots about 8-10TB/year.

[mikescepaniak]

I would also point out that the article even suggests 100mbps and up you can't tell the difference.  They aren't suggesting 25...

I believe they are, actually. From the article:

For the portion when all seven of his streams were going at once, he averaged 8.1 Mbps.

[effigy98]

I'm more concerned about upload speeds because I work from home a lot and it really makes a difference. The cheapest plan in my area for 10mbps upload is $96 and that is still very slow. I get very little benefit from the 250 down. Having zero choice (DSL is not a valid choice) is really frustrating. I absolutely will not buy a house without FIOS being available in the future.

[Uturn]

I can’t quite figure out where the bottleneck is but I am constantly irritated at how suck-y our internet is.
I struggle to do video conferences with work from home. Loading the video camera spying on my babies sleeping in their room takes FOREVER. Sometimes video chatting with family all they get is our voices and a frozen image of someone’s face. There is no excuse for this nonsense in the middle of Silicon Valley. We in the US get a pretty raw deal on internet compared to other developed countries. We get slower speeds for much more money.

I often see the wireless as the problem, not the internet circuit.  Wireless is an open spectrum, and there are tons of things using it.  If you are in a densely populated area, the spectrum just might be full.  I see this in apartment buildings and business parks.  Unless you build a Faraday cage around your home, you can't keep your neighbor's wireless out of yours.  Your wireless might even be on the same channel as a neighbor, with will cause both networks to suck.  Don't even get me started on the monstrosity that is wide channels if you are anywhere other than a dairy farm in Iowa.

Think of your wireless like your ears.  Two people in a room talking can understand each other just fine.  You start filling that room with more people, now your brain has to try to filter out voices other than the person you are talking with.  Your wireless is trying to do the same thing.

[lukebuz]

Hello!  1.5 mbps cellular connection checking in!  To add to the horror, we only use it through our phone's hotspot, adding latency.

Believe it or not, we are surviving!  If it gets too slow, we just go play outside as a family! 

Oh, did I mention we have a 40GB cap?  I know!!

[PDXTabs]

I'm disappointed that at no time in this article from a leading news outlet did they mention the difference between bandwidth and latency.

A minivan full of hard drives still has incredible bandwidth, but the latency makes for a poor user experience.

I can’t quite figure out where the bottleneck is but I am constantly irritated at how suck-y our internet is.
I struggle to do video conferences with work from home.

I often see the wireless as the problem, not the internet circuit.  Wireless is an open spectrum, and there are tons of things using it.  If you are in a densely populated area, the spectrum just might be full.  I see this in apartment buildings and business parks.

Yes, I do as much over Ethernet as possible.

[the_fixer]

Hello!  1.5 mbps cellular connection checking in!  To add to the horror, we only use it through our phone's hotspot, adding latency.

Believe it or not, we are surviving!  If it gets too slow, we just go play outside as a family! 

Oh, did I mention we have a 40GB cap?  I know!!

I tried to use my Google Fi phone for our internet and gave up after a few days because I am soft :(





Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[BTDretire]

 I'm paying for 60Mbps, I paid an extra $5 mo ($869 over 10 years :-) to upgrade from 30Mbps.
 I just started streaming on 3 TVs and did a speed test on the computer. I got 61Mbps down and 4.5Mbps up.
I've been told my isp no longer provides 30Mbps or 60Mbps, the lowest is 100Mbps. I just checked their site and the slowest advertised is 100Mbps.
 I pay $40 mo for service as a loyal 15 year customer, if some bum comes in off the street, they will give him 100Mbps at $24.95 for the next two years. They just don't return the love! :-)

[Boofinator]

It really annoys me a lot too, because "data caps" are one of the most ridiculous concepts. It makes it sound like "data" is a more traditional utility like electricity or water, that has a finite amount that needs to be replenished. As long as the routers and switches can handle bandwidth at any given moment, "data" could be infinite.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how can data be infinite if bandwidth is not also infinite? And if bandwidth is not infinite, shouldn't the users who use more bandwidth also be the ones who pay for it? Hence the introduction of data caps, to separate the tiers of use in a similar way to speed tiers?

Data is infinite up to the maximum throughput capacity of the circuits involved.  It doesn't cost significantly more to have a connection running at maximum capacity vs a connection sitting idle - a few watts in some network gear.  Bandwidth itself is not a consumable resource - it exists up to the maximum capacity of the equipment. Whether it's idle or not is largely irrelevant. 

Contrast that to electricity, where more electricity use requires more electricity to be generated - which costs correspondingly more money to produce.

I catch your drift, but ISPs need to develop infrastructure to meet maximum bandwidth use. If there were no data caps, the typical family that streams, say, 300 GB per month has to help cover the infrastructure costs of the "Power User" who torrents non-stop and would consume, at speeds of 100 Mbps, over 30,000 GB per month, or two orders of magnitude greater. So the ISPs could charge by data usage to cover the additional bandwidth costs associated with the super users or, since for whatever reason many people seem to be opposed by that concept, they could introduce a data cap. So I still fail to see how data caps are ridiculous, but rather that the concept "data could be infinite" fits that bill.

[JLee]

It really annoys me a lot too, because "data caps" are one of the most ridiculous concepts. It makes it sound like "data" is a more traditional utility like electricity or water, that has a finite amount that needs to be replenished. As long as the routers and switches can handle bandwidth at any given moment, "data" could be infinite.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how can data be infinite if bandwidth is not also infinite? And if bandwidth is not infinite, shouldn't the users who use more bandwidth also be the ones who pay for it? Hence the introduction of data caps, to separate the tiers of use in a similar way to speed tiers?

Data is infinite up to the maximum throughput capacity of the circuits involved.  It doesn't cost significantly more to have a connection running at maximum capacity vs a connection sitting idle - a few watts in some network gear.  Bandwidth itself is not a consumable resource - it exists up to the maximum capacity of the equipment. Whether it's idle or not is largely irrelevant. 

Contrast that to electricity, where more electricity use requires more electricity to be generated - which costs correspondingly more money to produce.

I catch your drift, but ISPs need to develop infrastructure to meet maximum bandwidth use. If there were no data caps, the typical family that streams, say, 300 GB per month has to help cover the infrastructure costs of the "Power User" who torrents non-stop and would consume, at speeds of 100 Mbps, over 30,000 GB per month, or two orders of magnitude greater. So the ISPs could charge by data usage to cover the additional bandwidth costs associated with the super users or, since for whatever reason many people seem to be opposed by that concept, they could introduce a data cap. So I still fail to see how data caps are ridiculous, but rather that the concept "data could be infinite" fits that bill.

Introducing a data cap doesn't change peak usage, only total usage.  Total usage is irrelevant when peak usage is the concern.

[Boofinator]

Introducing a data cap doesn't change peak usage, only total usage.  Total usage is irrelevant when peak usage is the concern.

OK, for the sake of this discussion*, let's concede your point that data caps don't decrease peak usage, since that is a function of total bandwidth. But introducing a data cap does decrease the number of users at any given time, and therefore increases average data speed... thereby preventing shitty-speed syndrome.

*We either look at this from the perspective of the costs required to ensure consistent speed (increasing bandwidth to cover the peak use), or look at it from the perspective of keeping bandwidth constant and varying the speed. Either way, users will incur costs, whether those are of the monetary or time forms.

[jpdx]

The biggest difference, for me, is to have a upload speed that is on par with the download speed. I regularly upload large files and 50Mbps up (100Mbps down) is sooooo nice.

[Raeon]

I currently live in a small town where I can choose between $40 "out the door" per month for 12Mbps down/1 Mbps upload DSL or pay about $100 a month for 50/50 cable.  Lack of competition is letting these companies gouge us hard.  A small city 30 miles away has double those speeds at half the price, but I digress.  The point is, I have so far survived just fine on the 12/1 DSL. 

The 12 down is less of a problem than the 1 up.  We can both stream netflix fine, but the moment DW snaps a pic of herself or one of the dogs the whole house's internet grinds to a halt for 10 seconds while her iphone backs the pic up to her cloud.  As someone who likes to play online computer games in my evening leisure time, her picture taking habit is a considerable source of frustration.  One thing I haven't figured out is why she takes a picture half the time she uses the bathroom.  I know this happens because her bathroom breaks are often associated with a service disconnect from a game or a pause in video/music streaming.  Barring naughty pics to Sancho she's either photo cataloguing her bowel movements or the bathroom is a stellar lighting environment for her sweet instagram pics.  One more female mystery I may never solve! (or don't have the nerve to ask about)

[Bloop Bloop]

I used to have 5mbps, recently upgraded to 12mbps, my work has approx 25mbps and my partner's parents have 50mbps. I would say the qualitative difference between 5mbps and 50mbps is that the latter "feels" about 2x faster. I can do everything up to 720p video just fine on 5mbps. I was content with 5mbps over the past 8 years and would have kept being content with it had my old ADSL line not been pulled out.

It's funny because my government thinks 12mbps is "basic" and has been encouraging most ISPs to get rid of the 12mbps plans so that the bottom tier is 25/50mbps. This is ridiculous and unnecessary "expensing". Unless you think that having 4K Netflix is a human right, there's nothing "basic" about 12mbps.

[Clever Name]

It would be nice if Netflix (et al.) would stream 1080 content with a high quality codec. To get Bluray quality (which is still compressed), you need about 30Mbps. Netflix generally won't send 1080 content at more than 5-6Mbps.

You'll get a much better picture with 1080@30Mbps than a 4k@30Mbps.

Yeah, the difference between a a 4k Bluray and a 4k Netflix stream is astonishing.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure I would need a magnifying glass to tell the difference.

[JLee]

I'm pretty sure I would need a magnifying glass to tell the difference.

It's not about the minute detail - it's the overall quality of the entire picture. Color depth/range, compression artifacts, etc.

[ecchastang]

I'm pretty sure I would need a magnifying glass to tell the difference.

It's not about the minute detail - it's the overall quality of the entire picture. Color depth/range, compression artifacts, etc.

I can't really notice or appreciate the difference.

[GuitarStv]

I'm pretty sure I would need a magnifying glass to tell the difference.

It's not about the minute detail - it's the overall quality of the entire picture. Color depth/range, compression artifacts, etc.

I can't really notice or appreciate the difference.

You need to be sitting at optimal viewing distance to get the full effect.  The vast majority of people have never sat at optimal viewing distance of a UHD screen . . . because it's really, really close.  For UHD with various screen widths:

40’’ TV– You should sit between 3.5 and 5 feet away from the screen.
43’’ TV– You should sit between 3.5 and 5.5 feet away from the screen.
50’’ TV– You should sit between 4 and 6.5 feet away from the screen.
55’’ TV– You should sit between 4.5 and 7 feet away from the screen.
60’’ TV– You should sit between 5 and 7.5 feet away from the screen.
65’’ TV– You should sit between 5.5 and 8 feet away from the screen.
70’’ TV– You should sit between 6 and 9 feet away from the screen.
75’’ TV– You should sit between 6.5  and 9.5 feet away from the screen.
80’’ TV– You should sit between 6.5 and 10 feet away from the screen.
85’’ TV– You should sit between 7 and 10.5 feet away from the screen.


It's noticeable at those distances, but I've found that it's super duper rare for a person to buy a 7 ft wide TV and then sit 7 ft away from it.  :P

[ketchup]

I'm pretty sure I would need a magnifying glass to tell the difference.

It's not about the minute detail - it's the overall quality of the entire picture. Color depth/range, compression artifacts, etc.

I can't really notice or appreciate the difference.

You need to be sitting at optimal viewing distance to get the full effect.  The vast majority of people have never sat at optimal viewing distance of a UHD screen . . . because it's really, really close.  For UHD with various screen widths:

40’’ TV– You should sit between 3.5 and 5 feet away from the screen.
43’’ TV– You should sit between 3.5 and 5.5 feet away from the screen.
50’’ TV– You should sit between 4 and 6.5 feet away from the screen.
55’’ TV– You should sit between 4.5 and 7 feet away from the screen.
60’’ TV– You should sit between 5 and 7.5 feet away from the screen.
65’’ TV– You should sit between 5.5 and 8 feet away from the screen.
70’’ TV– You should sit between 6 and 9 feet away from the screen.
75’’ TV– You should sit between 6.5  and 9.5 feet away from the screen.
80’’ TV– You should sit between 6.5 and 10 feet away from the screen.
85’’ TV– You should sit between 7 and 10.5 feet away from the screen.


It's noticeable at those distances, but I've found that it's super duper rare for a person to buy a 7 ft wide TV and then sit 7 ft away from it.  :P

And this is why my GF's 4K 24" monitor that we watch streaming stuff on pretty often looks just fine streaming 720p from 15ft away.

[undercover]

Using less than 10Mbps with eight 1080p streams going is physically impossible unless they were highly compressed and basically past the point of being called 1080p. The streams he wasn't watching likely auto downgraded to 480p or something in the background. A typical 1080p stream requires about 4-8Mbps

[WhiteTrashCash]

We only have 15 Mbps internet service at our house, but it is more than adequate for our needs. Probably helps that I spend a lot of my time outdoors in the garden.

[GuitarStv]

We pay for and consistently get 22 mbs.  That 'consistently' part is important.  I've had plans before where the quoted speed was 20, but it would vary from 5 - 15 depending on time of day.  That takes it from no problem, fast internet to almost unusable.

[ketchup]

We pay for and consistently get 22 mbs.  That 'consistently' part is important. I've had plans before where the quoted speed was 20, but it would vary from 5 - 15 depending on time of day.  That takes it from no problem, fast internet to almost unusable.

This is absolutely key.  I bitch about my 6mbps/768kbps DSL line, but it's solid and consistent.  I'd take that over 15mbps-some-of-the-time-1mbps-some-of-the-time.

[Schaefer Light]

We pay for and consistently get 22 mbs.  That 'consistently' part is important.  I've had plans before where the quoted speed was 20, but it would vary from 5 - 15 depending on time of day.  That takes it from no problem, fast internet to almost unusable.

Yes.  The consistency of the throughput is very important.  I have a 300Mbps package from AT&T, but as a single person who only needs 1 video stream at any given time I think I could get by with a 10-15Mbps connection as long as the speed was consistent.

[ecchastang]

I have never noticed or needed the blazing fast internet speed, but I pay for the cheapest available.

[Just Joe]

We had 25mbps and it was brutal.  It was noticeably slower.  We stream on a few devices and what not, but it was clear.  Once we were at 75mbps, it was WAY faster and snappier, even web browsing.  I think 25 is quite low for a lot of people, but not everyone.  If you are just a couple and have 1 tv, it's probably fine.  If you are streaming on several TV's, doing large downloads, etc... then it's very noticeable.   However, once you surpass 75 or 100, it really makes almost no difference.  We have gigabit now and it's not any faster than 150mb.  We only have it because it's not much more than the slower internet and it's the only plan that has no data cap (which we blow through every month).  But we have gigabit because of our mustachian ways... no more cable, just streaming services.  And it's great.  So win/win.

I would also point out that the article even suggests 100mbps and up you can't tell the difference.  They aren't suggesting 25...

We're getting by on 15 MBPS with occasional latency problems. We can stream to two screens, one desktop computer playing an online game with voice chat - and the occasional device checking messages or doing updates. The TV picture is pixelated some evenings for a minute or two but mostly stays clear. We don't care, we're just glad to have working internet. ISP with slow repair response and reliability.