Belgian ISP Claims One Customer Downloads 2.7TB 276
An anonymous reader writes with this envy-spawning excerpt: "While for most people the data limit is never reached, with media-rich websites becoming every more prevalent, and more media services going online (we're looking at you streaming video services), it won't be long before the average user is surpassing even the highest caps commonly imposed today. But how much data is it possible to download every month? And do the so-called data-hogs really burn through that much more data than everyone else? According to Belgian ISP Telenet, the answers are 'a lot' and 'yes, they can.'"
Human nature (Score:3, Insightful)
It's free, so consume it till it's all gone.
Re:Human nature (Score:4, Informative)
BT Broadband claimed I used 170GB per month on average over a 12 month period using my 2.5Mb connection.
Meanwhile, 2.7TB is nothing if you have a leased line. Just had a two week film shoot, used 6TiB. We have had to transfer all the daily rushes via the Internet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
P.S.
According to Telenet's website, the "Turbonet" service supplies 30Mbps download speeds. So that's pretty close to what I estimated. About 7 hours a day of downloading.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments can't hold on to infrastructure that can be exploited commercially. Whether it's buildings or cable networks, eventually it gets sold off to balance that year's budget. The belgian government went on a decade-long selling spree to balance a structurally unbalanced budget, and the consequence is that now there are gigantic budget issues and the government needs to make the deepest cuts in the history of the country.
In other words, just another typical government.
Re: (Score:2)
Human nature? That's the nature of life. All life forms from bacteria to dogs to people fail to rationally ration themselves. If there's food on the ground, and you don't eat it or take it, something else probably will and you won't get any benefit from it.
Overcoming eons of evolutionarily reinforced instinct to consume all that you can as fast as you can is something that humans are better at than most other species. Lets give ourselves credit where credit is due.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, most animals change their rate of reproduction based on available food resources.
Hogs? (Score:5, Insightful)
How are such people data-hogs? They are using what they have paid for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, If you sell something called an "Unlimited" account, then don't bitch when people use it in an Unlimited manner.
Re:Hogs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hogs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>How are such people data-hogs? They are using what they have paid for.
Not really. Imagine if electricity worked like internet data. i.e. You pay $400 a month and get unlimited usage. Most of us would use around 1000 KWh per month, but then you'd have a few people that would run their AC at 50 degrees, while the whole house was lighted even in rooms that are not being used, and have an electric-powered pool in the back with an elaborate fountain running all day and night. i.e. Splurging.
They
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Incidentally, as stated in the article:
Telenet has not posted this information as a complaint of what they have to deal with, but to give us "a better picture of what exactly is possible with this new way of surfing."
the ISP is not complaining at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not paying for the electricity they used
and I was pointing out that such a company should not have advertised unlimited usage if it did not intend to deliver such.
Although I don't recall making any Slashdot posts on the subject, the complaint about Comcast was that they previously did NOT disclose their caps. While bandwidth caps may be annoying, there's nothing unethical about them u
Re:Hogs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Electricity has to be generated, by consuming raw materials that produce an equivalent amount of electricity. Electricity is a finite scarce, consumable resource, generating it is expensive.
Where I live electricity is generated by water falling out of the sky, collecting in a river, and eventually turning a turbine. Where other people live its generated by wind / solar. Where other people live its geothermal. Where other people live its by incinerating garbage.
And then yes, where some people live its gas, coal, nuclear. But in the former cases in particular, and even in the final case to a large degree the cost of electricity is primarily the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. The small army of people fixing power lines, replacing transformers, laying cable, replacing it, troubleshooting it, monitoring the system, customer service, billing, advertising, ... the cost of the actual 'fuel' ranges from zero to a small percentage of total operations. Running a nuclear plant costs far more in maintenance than in actual fuel.
The analagy is more apt than you think.
For example, if 10 million people want to watch a live video feed that starts at exactly 6:00 PM EST.
That causes a hell of a lot more network congestion, than if 20 million people want to download a Linux ISO over BitTorrent over a 5 day period.
Ironically this situation is also reflected in the electricity situation. The electrical system has a maximum load it can deliver as well. There is a huge spike in the morning as millions of people wake up and turn on the lights, the coffee maker, the electric razer, take a shower (triggering the hot water heater to step up), etc.
In less developed countries (and California during energy crises) they don't have the capacity to actually satisfy peak levels of demand, and we get rolling brown outs when too many people hit it at once.
In most cities, the city can actually deliver all the electricity anyone demands when they demand it. But this isn't a characteristic of electricity. This is the result of slower growth in demand, and metered pricing which has led to the development of such things as "energy star", and 'green' drives to consume less.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any linux ISO can be considered a pornographic file when paired with the appropriate one time pad [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Its possible (Score:2)
Re:Its possible (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its possible (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a 10Mb/s connection, but it gets throttled if I go over certain thresholds (3000MB in the morning, 1500MB in the evening) at 'peak' times, with 14 hours in the day when there is no throttling. The throttling lasts for 6 hours, so maximum total throughput is achieved by staying under that limit. That means that the maximum that I can download in a day is (a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=14%20hours%20*%2010Mb%2Fs%20%2B%204500MB">14 hours at 10Mb/s plus 4500MB, or 67.5GB. That gives just under 2TB/month, so I'd be unable to download 2.7TB with my connection.
Mind you, I have one of the cheapest connections that my ISP provides. If I bought their 20Mb/s package, I could download just over 4TB/month. With their 50Mb/s package, it would be over 16TB. This is in the UK.
Even so, 2.7TB seems excessive. In a typical month, I download well under 100GB. The only time I've ever hit my ISP's throttling caps was when I was uploading the source material for a DVD to my publisher. Even with an Internet radio stream left running most of the time and fairly regular downloads from iPlayer, I don't come close to 1TB.
Re: (Score:2)
Minor correction, the throttling actually lasts 5 hours 10am-3pm and 4pm to 9pm for downloads, although the upload is 3pm - 8pm, so there is an overlap. But still it is a pain. The daytime cap is not too bad, but the 1.5GB during the evening is so easy to go over, I often get throttled back to 2.5Mb.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on the 50Mb package which doesn't get throttled (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to upgrade to the 50Mb but they wanted to charge me £50 for someone to come out, disconnect the coax screw connection and connect it to a new modem... something for which I would have to take a day off work to do to be sure of being home during any of the slots they offered... so changed my mind.
Last time I needed my modem replaced (because the old one was OLD and didn't work with the network upgrades for the 50Mb service) they posted me one and told me to fit it myself... and they posted
Re: (Score:2)
You'll only need 8 Mb/sec to get that 2.7 TB over a 30 day period. If I fully utilized my (Danish connection) I could get more than double of that. Koreans and Japanese would get 20 times. I suspect both UL and DL are included.
We regularly hit that, and though the "download" traffic isnt actually initiated on our end (it's actually uploads to our server), I am sure it's still measured the same way. The post production work for Star Trek Phase 2 [startreknewvoyages.com] eats a LOT of bandwidth in both directions. The website on the other hand is only 1/4 to 1/2 a terabyte (outgoing - and of course roughly 1/10th incoming).
Fortunately, we've got a business account, and no traffic throttles or such. Dreading the day when/if more US ISPs decide to start me
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because the limit there would be upload rates, which are much less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look into using 3G wireless prepaid. Surprisingly it is often cheaper than what the hotels will charge.
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is the ISPs problem if they can't deliver the bandwidth they promise their customers.
Their business is data transferings so if they should rejoices peoples use their pipes to transfer datas.
Except the industry -- at least, in the US -- is nowhere near capable of handling 100% utilization by 100% of customers. Heck, I'd be surprised if they're ready for 100% utilization by even 10% of customers.
Like it or not, everyone's fat pipe is sold under two unspoken conditions: That you're not going to use it 24x7, and that those who vastly under utilize (grandmothers checking their email on DSL, for example) are going to subsidize the rest of us.
In theory, they'd be working on infrastructure to supple
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's ok to oversell services but customers who want to use 100% must be able to do so. Otherwise the ISP is failing to provide.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Funny)
In theory, they'd be working on infrastructure to supplement the need, but in reality, well, buying hookers and yachts for lobbyists and politicians aren't cheap, you know.
I don't know how much a hooker currently goes for, but surely it's cheaper than a server-grade router.
So if they were smart they'd just buy each of those 25 top users a hooker. That'll keep those nerds occupied bragging about how they "made love" to a "woman" on forums, which uses a lot less bandwidth.
It's much cheaper than upgrading hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their business is data transferings so if they should rejoices peoples use their pipes to transfer datas.
comparethemeerkat.com. Simples!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Set it up like the cell carriers with rollover GB. You get 500 GB/mo and roll over. It's a limit for heavy users and practically unlimited for everyone else.
And if you read the ORIGINAL story, they don't car (Score:3, Interesting)
The ISP doesn't CARE. This is old news and the data has been used by the ISP to show data limits are useless AND they dropped them therefor.
So the ISP isn't complaining, it is advertising. Both making its competitors seem like cheapo's AND showing that you can download what you want with them as well as showing that overall, the average consumer doesn't even come close. Because the difference between 1 and 2 is already huge but number 10 barely counts.
Why else do you think some of the users agreed to have
Bandwidth hog! (Score:2)
You must run up at least 2.7TB a month with your unusual use of the letter S.
Windows Update (Score:5, Funny)
Poor guy just left Windows Update set to automatic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
WANTED! (Score:2, Funny)
We will pay up to $50,000 for any information leading to the identify and ultimately capture of the individuals present in the Ten Most Wanted list published by Belgian ISP Telenet.
Warmest regards,
Signed RIAA, MPAA and BSA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hardly a big deal (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've done just under 2tb in a month before, I've heard of other people on the same internet plan as me (Big Time on New Zealand's Telecom, unlmited ADSL2+) before they took it away because of people like me.
Most I heard of was just shy of 3TB, this was on a horribly shaped connection too.
Why is this news?
This is news because if the US ISPs have their way, we'll be limited to approximately what, 0.37% of this per month?
2700 GB -> 5GB AT&T cap, 10GB theoretical cap by my ISP (cableone), etc etc.
About 1/3 of 1 percent of what your connection could use?
So in other words, the people selling us "Unlimited Broadband" would really like it if we would only use our connections about 2.6 hours a month (0.37% * 30 days = .111 days * 24 hrs = 2.6 hours).
Of course, my math is probably wrong. It's 4 AM, and harble
Re: (Score:2)
Basically $34/month for the plan, then $1.02 per Gig (unlimited), so 35Gig/month costs around $70 but no actual cap unless you want one. Just pay $1.02/gig
or you could go with their "Torrenting" plan.... http://www.xnet.co.nz/hsi/ [xnet.co.nz] and pay 1.52 per gig, with downloads free from 2am to 8am.
I am with xnet, and am pretty happy.
Download caps? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are these? Is that a relic from the past?
Re: (Score:2)
The ISP in question has only very recently (since juli) stopped using download caps. They had an 80Gb limit on their most expensive subscription IIRC. This could be people acting out, downloading whatever they can and repairing their ratio's, etc. I'd like to see some more statistics in a couple of months, my guess is usage would level off. With the speeds I'm getting on Telenet I think 2.7 TB would be an always on connection going full blast for the whole month.
Re: (Score:2)
...in a galaxy far, far away in the retro future!
Re: (Score:2)
Well... (Score:4, Informative)
In theory:
28 Day "Month" (4 weeks), 24h/day, 60 min/h, 60 sec/min, 2.5Mb/sec..
I see a possible 6Tb in total transfer (and that's assuming you're not also transmitting!), and that wouldn't be saturating my internet link. However I do find it quite difficult to (1) Maintain 2.5Mb/sec constant (speaking of Torrents/other P2P in general) and (2) Having things to constantly download at that rate.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline is 2.7 TB, not 2.7 Tb.
6 Tb is 0.75 TB
2.5 Mb/s is pretty slow though. Some European ISPs already provide 100 Mb/s. So the maximum limit would be 230 TB.
Re: (Score:2)
My bad, I fell at this myself too. I meant the maximum limit would be 29 TB.
Re: (Score:2)
Telenet provides 30Mb down 4Mb up connections.
What is the actual cost to the ISP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on what we are paying for Internet traffic, 2TB of traffic would very roughly cost about $50.
So since this is their one biggest user, and even he is probably paying more than $50 for his internet connection, I don't see the problem with bandwidth hogs.
Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (Score:5, Insightful)
So since this is their one biggest user, and even he is probably paying more than $50 for his internet connection, I don't see the problem with bandwidth hogs.
That's actually the reason the ISP posted the information - they want to convince their customers (and potential customers) on cheaper slower plans that not only is the ISP capable of handling massive bandwidth consumption, but that they encourage other people to upgrade/switch to the same unlimited plans and really take advantage of the available capacity.
Its totally the reverse of what we are used to in the USA with places like comcast bitching and moaning about hogs - apparently this ISP understands that bandwidth hogs are a business opportunity to be cultivated not capped.
Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's actually the reason the ISP posted the information - they want to convince their customers (and potential customers) on cheaper slower plans that not only is the ISP capable of handling massive bandwidth consumption, but that they encourage other people to upgrade/switch to the same unlimited plans and really take advantage of the available capacity.
Its totally the reverse of what we are used to in the USA with places like comcast bitching and moaning about hogs - apparently this ISP understands that bandwidth hogs are a business opportunity to be cultivated not capped.
Although according to their website [telenet.be] if you go over the double the average usage for people with a FUP subscription your connection is slowed. These guys are getting a free ride now because Telenet need the publicity. A couple of ISP's have switched from capped downloads to a FUP recently and I guess they are feeling the competition. Let's see how they treat these guys in a couple of months.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, it's 2680GB, so it's more like 2.6TB. Second of all, where are you getting your data transfer prices? Amazon has some of the lowest prices around (unless you count the "unlimited" bullshit on dreamhost or something), and even with the >150TB discount it's $0.08/GB [amazon.com], bringing the bill to $214. Of course AWS's pricing isn't directly comparable to an ISP's but that's the best I could find. Finally, Telenet's most expensive offering is 99 Euro, so effectively everybody else is subsidizing this g
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.100tb.com/dedicated-hosting/ [100tb.com] = $0.002/GB and that is a hosting solution not simply a line you get to use as an ISP is (also it is 50% off atm). Comes with a computer and all that shit... and given that this is an ISP they likely pay even less than this. (BTW when i started looking I expected to find like $0.02/GB which is sorta normal... I've no idea how 100tb can possibly exist without crushing its co
Re: (Score:2)
It depends where that bandwidth is going among other things...
In the UK at least (not sure about belgium), traffic over the telco's adsl platform is very expensive and that just gets it to the isp, it then has to traverse the internet...
On the other hand, internet transit is quite cheap, he.net for instance appear to offer $1/mbps (quick google search - http://he.net/ip_transit.html?gclid=CJi3mPy3yqMCFQGY2AodCWImuQ [he.net]), 1mbps continuous over a month is good for about 300GB in each direction... A large isp is a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As in 2680/1024 = 2617?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup. The real problem is charging for an unmetered service, and then trying to somehow meter it.
Look, is it "unlimited" or not? If yes, then just live with what you promised. If not, come up with something reasonable.
The last mile of telecom is a natural monopoly, and price should be PUC regulated just like your water or electricity. Does the electric company publish a list of top-10 electric consumers? Of course not - those are its best customers.
I'm fine with paying by the GB, provided those rates ar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Does the electric company publish a list of top-10 electric consumers? Of course not - those are its best customers.
Those customers also pay per kW-h used, so this is a completely opposite situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, which was my whole point. The model has to change so that it isn't the opposite situation.
Re: (Score:2)
But many slashdotters become hysterical at the suggestion of metered service (which I would prefer, being a low-volume user).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a moderate-volume user, and I wouldn't mind it if the price was fair.
If 3TB is really $50, then 1TB would probably be $10-20. 100GB would be only $1-2. The typical email+web customer might pay 50 cents per month.
Sure, throw in a $5/month fixed billing charge like the utilities do. Your ISP might sell email for another $1/month/account, and webhosting/etc for $1/month for those cheapo file-only accounts.
The key is for the pricing to be fair - wholesale cost plus a few percent profit. The utility has
All you can eat (Score:2, Insightful)
So, the ISP, in essence, advertises and sells an all-you-can-eat buffet, then complains when people pay for it and proceed to eat all they can? Cry me a river.
Does this come as a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
Download limits get you no where these days and ISPs don't get this. 10GB limit on Telstra here in Australia (one of the first in the world) was fine in 1999. Dropping to 3GB crippled my fancy new broadband connection. We put up with Telstra's 10GB crap for years constantly hitting the limit and they called us a power user. Now here we are in 2010 I have a 150GB download limit, 110GB offpeak, and 40GB onpeak. We hit the 40GB onpeak limit every single month. This does not include any download, high def porn or any other such nonsense since we schedule that to run through the night. Yet even then we still do about 70GB offpeak per month.
I'm almost scared of what we will be doing in 2020. What a nail-biting election we're having today too. Tonight we find out if the future of Australia is to make the worlds dumbest monopolistic ISP (who still think 10GB is for power users now in 2010) even bigger, or if we're going to get FTTH setup by a political party.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they have 30GB caps in Japan?
Per day, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
8,07 days. (Score:2, Informative)
so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to accumulate 2TB in video data, say on iTunes. And it's reasonable to want to transfer that from one machine to another over the Internet (e.g., to back it up to a machine somewhere else or in the cloud).
If ISPs don't want this to happen, they need clear limits and rules, not underhanded complaints and name calling.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Consumption (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be interested to know how people can consume that much data! Assuming 1080p rips at 11GB a pop lasting 3 hours, you're looking at 251 movies or 754 hours worth of entertainment.
Assuming you don't work and you don't sleep then there are only 744 hours in the longest month! Assuming you're unemployed and you do sleep, then this puts this down to a "mere" 496 hours and you'd have to be watching them from the moment you wake up to the moment you fall asleep.
Even in a house of 4 people, that's still each person downloading 54 HD movies a month - how on earth can you watch that much in a month? Or find that many movies worth watching for that matter?
Digital Download games (Score:3, Insightful)
This summer there were an astounding number of digital download sales. Each title was originally designed to be packaged and distributed via 8GB DVD. When you're offering 8GB of data that is to be absorbed over a period of days or weeks, people tend to jump up and buy/download it when it only costs $2.50 or so. Couple that with EA's store recently having several $1.99 pricing snafus, and the careful shopper can buy 35GB worth of data for under $10, and feel right in downloading it that very day (who doesn't want to play with their new toys?). That doesn't include any of the 20 three minute 720p videos I watched on youtube this afternoon.
A Terabyte is what, 1000GB? I signed on to steam yesterday on my linux machine (via wine) to message someone about something, walked away and came back to find out that it'd finished downloading all 11GB of Call of Duty 4 and 3GB of Street Fighter 4, in addition to countless updates to other steam games I had installed to test but never play on that machine. Let me put it this way; I accidentally downloaded 15GB of data this afternoon. Didn't phase me a bit. Didn't cost me anything, only downside on my end was maybe a couple extra cents on the electricity bill for running the laptop a couple of hours. Valve pushed out a 64mb patch tonight to fix the fact that all their game characters were wearing birthday hats on the wrong day. My roommate probably downloaded 60gb worth of "HD" netflix movies this afternoon. Data is cheap, practically free after the cost of infrastructure, and the baseline of data being pushed around is growing by the day, because, hey, it's better to have it locally just in case, rather than wait 60 seconds to download it.
No doubt as market saturation begins to plateau, we'll all see large caps (15gb, 20gb) installed, with a couple of neighbors splitting the cost of a pair of bonded T1s to skirt around it.
Re: (Score:2)
A Terabyte is what, 1000GB?
No, 1024GB. It's only drive makers and a committee that try to redefine that.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew I would be corrected, but I wasn't expecting someone to have created an alternate account for specifically correcting people. Kudos to you, good sir.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, 1024GB.
No, 1000GB.
> It's only drive makers and a committee that try to redefine that.
The prefixes were defined long ago by the BIPM.
When we started using "kilobyte" to refer to 1024 bytes interchangeably with 1000 bytes we understood that it was an approximation. Same with "megabyte". "kilobyte" has always meant 1000 bytes, "megabyte" has always meant 1000,000 bytes, "gigabyte" has always meant 1000,000,000 bytes, and "terabyte" 1000,000,000,000 bytes. KB, MB, GB, and TB have always been the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, 1024GB. It's only drive makers and a committee that try to redefine that.
The 1024 scale is completly stupid. The only area where it makes a little bit of sense is RAM, everything else, HD storage, bandwidth, etc. it is completly meaningless and useless, as size doesn't increase by power of two in those areas.
Here is a thing: Just because you have grown up with something doesn't make it right or a good solution. All the 1024 scale does is cause lots of unneeded confusion, because it makes calculating between TB, GB, MB, KB extremely hard, instead of completly trivial as it would
Amount downloaded isn't very interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
I could easily saturate my 100mbit line, from Giganews or other usenet source, setting up my own news mirror, mirror a few big download sites, or find some other way to waste bandwidth.
My theoretical monthly download capacity would be something like 10MB*3600*24*28 = 24TB, and if that's not enough, there are gigabit upgrades available. However, that's not very interesting, since just the storage cost for 24 TB is much much more than I care to pay.
And, especially, what could I possibly consume that requires those data amounts? Scene-released 720p averages at 7mbit, assuming 1080p averages at 10, and I have to watch 10 simultaneous Full-HD streams around the clock to consume that bandwidth. Who's got the time?
Whats the problem ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> just charge per bandwidth.
Thereby causing the many slashdotters who believe that downloading TBs of unauthorized copies of movies and music at no extra cost is a basic human right to squeal and squall.
Here's a real funny observation... (Score:3, Informative)
It's funny that ISPs can whine and cry over the biggest users of bandwidth but can't be arsed to shut down let alone locate and notify their customers about their malware-infected PCs that are blasting spam all over the net. Start working on that and we might not have to worry about bandwidth caps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah there used to be a dashboard widget for mac ("Telemonitor") which showed your total traffic and since the latest changes it does nothing. It was really handy too. I wish they would make such information easy to get.
Early adopters will be average consumers in 5 yrs (Score:2)
That amount of data does not seem outrageous to me (Score:2)
I chose to switch to business class internet service after determining that my usage typically exceeds Comcast's monthly consumer bandwidth cap in a any normal five-day period. I was already paying for a faster connection, but they really wanted to penalize me for using it.
What's the point of a 25Mbps download speed if it means I just hit a cap that much faster?
At least for my ISP, business service is about $20/month more expensive, has no caps, restrictions on use, or throttling. If that's the cost to get
Average Family TV over IP Usage? (Score:2)
How much data would the average family pull if they did all of their TV watching via IP and not regular cable/sat/broadcast?
They are pushing broadband aren't they? And the benefits of high speed access?
all the best,
drew
Air Hogs? (Score:2)
Are athletes air hogs? Should we encourage the couch potato lifestyle to reduce air usage and cut down on CO2 emissions?
~;-)
all the best,
drew
In other news, ISPs cannot do math. (Score:2)
10 hours a day of high quality high definition ... (Score:2)
... TV per day works out to 2.7TB per month. That's using 20Mb/s for high quality, a figure that broadcast TV cannot reach (in USA it is limited to 19.39MB/s ... and the cable/satellite companies are known to ruin the quality by over compressing).
At Comcast quality (definitely nowhere near high), that works out to about 24 hours a day. And given the choices on Comcast's channel lineup, one clearly must include internet video feeds in nearly all of that.
IMHO, internet services for year 2015 should be tiere
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
are you seriously going to start the 2.6 = 2.7 debate when they're still fighting about Kb, KB and KiB?
the numbers are more like guidelines...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's hilarious that the leader [wikipedia.org] (and some of the most prominent members) of a party complaining about democracy in Europe is an hereditary peer. It also doesn't stop them from suckling at the teat of the EU at the taxpayers expense in the EU parliament but then as aristocrats I guess they're used to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant, if Belgium is a non-country then there is no story.