I should have said most home users. My point is that more bandwidth at this point probably won’t affect 99.999% of home users.

What’s described in the post is the tech equivalent of supe-ing up a sports car and then driving it in rush hour traffic. It’s fun to geek out doing it, but practically in everyday use the difference will be negligible. Even with large file uploads and downloads, there’s a good chance that services won’t reach those throughputs end to end.

What’s telling is that the post shows screenshots and charts from artificial speed tests. No videos of the Dropbox client chugging away with throttled uploads.

To quote the previous post:

> I've yet to come up against a download (even a torrent) that seems like it would have really benefitted from having the entire theoretical 1.5 pipe available.

There are many things along the way that would get in the way of a home user downloading something from the internet that would hit that 5GB/s speed. It's not that people should be "banned" from it or something, more that the investment cost isn't worth it.

How much $ extra are you willing to pay for the extremely occasional transfer at rates higher than gigabit? 2x? 3x?

Those ssds are very likely cached and so cannot keep that pace for more than a quick burst of a few gigs.