Do I need ultrafast broadband?

Broadband is sold in speed bands, and the labels are looser than they sound. "Superfast" generally means 30 Mbps and up. "Ultrafast" is usually used for 300 Mbps and above, the definition Ofcom uses, though some providers stretch the word down to 100 Mbps in their marketing. "Gigabit" sits at the top, 1,000 Mbps and beyond.

The jump between the names sounds enormous, and on paper it is. The jump you actually feel at home is far smaller, because the speed you can perceive is capped by what you are doing, not by the size of the connection. A single 4K stream uses about 25 Mbps whether it is running on a 100 Mbps line or a 1,000 Mbps one. Past a certain point, extra speed stops translating into anything you can see, and for most homes that point arrives well below the ultrafast line.

The useful question is not "is ultrafast fast" but "what does my home actually use at once." Add up a busy evening and the numbers stay surprisingly small.

A single person or a couple who stream, browse and take the odd call rarely need more than 100 Mbps, and often less. Even two 4K streams at the same time is only about 50 Mbps.

A typical family, with a few 4K screens, a couple of phones, a games console and someone working from home, peaks at maybe 80 to 120 Mbps when everything runs together. A 100 to 300 Mbps line covers that comfortably, which is why most households sit in this band without ever feeling short. This is squarely below ultrafast.

A genuinely heavy home, where several people move very large files, upload big video or design work or game and stream in 4K all at once every evening, is the case that can climb past 300 Mbps. These homes exist, but they are the minority.

Run the per-activity sums on what speed you actually need and for the large majority of readers it lands well short of the ultrafast tier.

Ultrafast earns its price in two situations, and falls flat in a third.

It is worth it when your home genuinely loads the line: a full house of heavy simultaneous users, regular large uploads or several people who all hammer the connection at peak. If you are noticing slowdowns on a 100 to 300 Mbps line when everyone is on at once, more speed is a real fix and ultrafast will remove the ceiling.

It is also fairly bought when ultrafast full fibre is simply the best-value line at your address, which happens more than you would think, because the newer networks often price their fast tiers keenly. If 500 Mbps costs the same as 150 from the same provider, taking it does no harm.

It is wasted money when you buy speed to "future-proof" a home that never touches what it already has. Paying for 900 Mbps when your household never exceeds 150 makes nothing on your screen faster; it just makes the bill bigger, every month, for the length of the contract. Speed you do not use is the purest form of overpaying there is.

So before you pay up for ultrafast, or stay on it out of habit, check the real question: is there a cheaper line at your address that still covers what you do. The comparison runs your current price against the cheapest deal at your address that is at least as fast as you need and shows the gap in about thirty seconds.

This trips a lot of people up. Ultrafast describes the speed; full fibre describes the technology, and they are not the same. You can have an ultrafast line that is not full fibre, for example Virgin Media's cable network, which reaches ultrafast speeds over coaxial cable rather than fibre to the door. And full fibre is not always sold at ultrafast tiers; plenty of full-fibre lines run at a sensible 100 to 300 Mbps.

For most homes the technology matters more than the headline speed. Full fibre, fibre all the way to the property, is steadier, more reliable and has far better upload than older part-copper or cable lines, even at the same download number. If you are choosing where to spend, a 150 Mbps full-fibre line usually beats a 500 Mbps part-copper one for everyday use. Speed is the number on the box; full fibre is the quality of the line behind it.