Comcast's 105MBit Service Comes With Data Cap 372
itwbennett writes "Comcast just announced the ultrafast, ultra-broadband 'Extreme 105' 105 Mbit/sec Internet service for an introductory price of $105, when bundled with other services. That's the good news. The bad news: Comcast 'put a data cap on the service of 250 GB per month — about five hours worth of full-bandwidth use,' writes blogger Kevin Fogarty."
Bytes or bits? (Score:3)
Gbit or GB?
Re:Bytes or bits? (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly they mean bytes, not bits. 5 hours of full bandwidth usage would be about 1890 Gbit, or roughly 235 GB of usage, so there is a mistake in the summary and the story itself.
So yeah, it's annoying, but not as bad as they made it sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Choose a different mirror (Score:2)
When I download a upgrade to my Ubuntu system I never get a download speed greater than a hundred thousand bytes per second.
If you're getting low-end-DSL download speeds from your chosen Ubuntu repository mirror, perhaps you need to choose a different mirror. It's unfortunate that apt-get can't download from multiple mirrors at once.
Misogynist analogy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Misogynist analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Gee I'd be doing really well if it was once a week.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee I'd be doing really well if it was once a week.
Really? I get it every 2 or 3 days, usually. If you're not getting it very often, perhaps you should focus more on her needs...
Re:Misogynist analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do men die before women?
They want to!
Re: (Score:2)
As they were singing back in the 1950's....
If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife...
Re: (Score:2)
So.. are you the husband or the fish in this fantasy of yours...
I'm using the 105Mbit service and the cap is real (Score:3, Informative)
But it isn't that bad.I haven't come close to maxing it out and I tried. I don't know, how exactly do you use more than 250GB in a month?
There is no speed cap and its the fastest internet available in my area so why not use it? It's not perfect but it beats DSL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how exactly do you use more than 250GB in a month?
Rsync.net. Why do you need 100 mbits/second if you're not really going to use it?
Re: (Score:2)
Just put a 1 megabit/sec camera feed on it and you're over.
FWIW within Japan you get similar insane speed but again a similar 300GB cap as far as I know.
Not that I have ever run into such a cap. But it may affect a video application I'm planning now.
If they would just give a clear service menu as to what it costs to get the real thing.
But that would be like a contract that lets you run your own ISP and would likely be at least twice the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't the 300GB cap _per day_, not per month? And only on upload, too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, my kids definitely watch less TV than we did. I'm afraid they still get just as much or more "screen time," but g
Multi-user households (Score:3)
A buddy of mine has six heavy internet users on a 10MBit pipe. Believe me, with all of them wanting to stream video, download torrents, play music, etc. they'd exceed the cap in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
...I don't know, how exactly do you use more than 250GB in a month?
(Overheard from Charlie Sheen) "pfft...fucking amateurs."
Re: (Score:2)
I'll stick with Cablevision's Optimum Ultra [optimum.com]. An extra $50 a month on top of their Boost plan (30down/5up) for 101Gbit down (where do you think that 105 came from?
But, either way, thank goodness for competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't that bad.I haven't come close to maxing it out and I tried. I don't know, how exactly do you use more than 250GB in a month?
You're doing it wrong!
Re:I'm using the 105Mbit service and the cap is re (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is two Netflix streaming users in one household. Right before the cap started Comcast opened a reporting page to show us our average usage for the previous three months. I had hit the cap on all three months, even if for month three I cut down my torrent usage down to zero. That means we hit our cap just watching streamed video. I ditched Comcast (22/8, not that it ever performed at that level) for FIOS (25/25 for $5 per month, always performs beautifully) and never looked back.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, how exactly do you use more than 250GB in a month?
I can think of a few ways:
Yes, it is certainly possibl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
how exactly do you use more than 250GB in a month?
Backing up a single hard drive over the internet. To The Cloud!
But thats not true (Score:2, Insightful)
Downloads are around 10Megs per second on a good day, you can download all day for 5 days at this rate and still not max out the 250GB per month. You would would have to deliberately max your speed out all day every day for about a week before you max out the 250GB. Honestly I doubt many people would be able to do it if they were challenged to.
Re: (Score:2)
I have used far more then that with far less speed, it is easily possible, there are single torrents bigger then 250Gigs.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming all servers also deliver at 105mbits/s, which is rarely the case at this point in time.
Anywho - I really don't know what you'd be using that level of bandwidth for. For my uses that cap seems fairly reasonable, but I'd agree it's a bit silly to have a cap at that level for such a high ability of bandwidth.
Doing a quick google search it sounds like the high-end average for streaming is 2.3GB/hr @ HD quality. 250GB cap/2.3GB/hr ~ 108hr. Your average movie is about 1.5hrs. So 108hr/1.5hr/movie~
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this how leases work? Leases always have some limited number of miles and any miles above that will be charged at very expensive rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HD podcasts, streaming music, streaming HD netflix, streaming video events, Steam downloads, VPN and VNC work, remote backups, gaming.
I'd be more interested in knowing how someone can *not* use 250gb a month.
You could try stepping outside once in a while?
Re: (Score:2)
"You could try stepping outside once in a while?"
And ruin my naturally transparent skin? The day-star is a cruel mistress.
Re: (Score:2)
I cant help but think..... (Score:3)
If you think about it, streaming services can only go so fast. If youre streaming HD video from Netflix 105Mbit/s sounds a bit like overkill. The same can be said for streaming audio. Your media will still playback one second at a time. However, 105Mbit sounds lightning quick if you think about it in terms of downloading content. There are paid services where you can get your media, but they have to limit your speeds. Thousands of people trying to grab files from a server as fast as they can has the potential to cripple the infrastructure
So, where is this speed most effective? P2P applications
Do packages like this encourage piracy? (Score:2)
No, they simply support the new wave of everyone streaming their content from places like netflix, pandora, amazon, etc.
Of course if you do this you get penalized, but that's not my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever my Windows VMs are downloading patches, I notice that they max out my cable connection. I bet that if I had 105Mb/s instead of 15Mb/s that they would still max out. Or at least get far more than they do now.
This morning, a new vlc stabilised on Gentoo/AMD64. I downloaded the source (24MB) at 904KB/s from a mirror. I'm guessing here, but if I had a bigger pipe, I probably could have gotten faster. Not that I would have got a full 10MB/s, but I might have gotten 1.5-2MB/s - the wget log shows bu
Re: (Score:2)
family usage (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? If I'm streaming raw Bluray quality, that can be up to 54 Mbit/s, and I quite like having a bit of a buffer to work with.
If I'm in a multiway video conference, why should everybody be reduced to low quality video and sound? Build a proper encoder for a it (even hardware), and you could be doing Bluray quality video conferencing with your family and friends, instea
Re: (Score:2)
soo this means... (Score:2)
oh, you actually want some content in your content?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno, it depends on the latency.
Is this really a surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Caps of traffic management? (Score:3)
In the UK, we only really have one cable company - Virgin Media.
They offer 10, 30, 50 and 100Mbit services - all "unlimited" (with an Acceptable Use Policy attached for people who constantly throttle their full connection). The kicker is they employ some pretty heavy traffic management. Download more than about 3Gb in the evening (between 4pm and midnight) and your connection speed gets cut by 75%. So the 30 becomes about 6 or 7mbit.
The thing is, you can still keep downloading as much as you want, it's just slower - so which system is better?
They also employ traffic shaping, so between the same hours (And ALL weekend), P2P and newsgroup traffic gets slowed by 75% as well, no matter how much you're downloading.
It's a bit of a ridiculous catch. There are some decent DSL providers that have no usage limits, but they can only offer an "Up to" connection that can do 24mbit, but you're more likely to get about 8mbit (on average), whereas on Virgin you'll get the speed you signed up for (until traffic management/shaping kicks in). So /.ers which would you rather have, obscene traffic management or hard caps?
Re:Caps of traffic management? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll take the French ISP Free. No traffic shaping, no bandwidth cap, no traffic management, oh, and 100MBit down and 50Mbit up fiber connection delivered to your home – not shared by the street as it is with Virgin in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
so which system is better?
None? I sort of hate this kind of thinking. Why did we let them do that. I'm just going to ask for a fairly good solution. Because this is going out of hands already with their "unlimited capped Internet" that makes no sense. What's next? a 1Gbps service that sends you to random places and doesn't let you even pick your URL? (Yes, that's probably coming soon, the type of hijacking of "hey I noticed you wanted to go to Slashdot. We thought you wanted instead to go to Gizmodo. Here it is!" or "You wanted to r
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, I completely agree with everything you've just said. Neither option is ideal, neither option is the "best" option as the best option would involve no caps or traffic shaping at all and really we should have a third option that meets these needs.
I guess the thing is that most people would be happy on either of those two systems. By "most" people, I mean average non-techy person that uses the internet for little more than Facebook, gaming, porn and the odd bit of streaming. This is probably
Re: (Score:2)
I'm totally fine with this kind of caps, the soft ones.. If someone is hitting their cap, slow them down to a reasonable speed, where they can still use their connection, but its noticeably slower.
Re: (Score:2)
8 Mb is still twice as fast as the average American has access to. And I'll bet spotted dick to lamb fries that it's cheaper for you as well.
bytes not bits (Score:2)
I doubt it's really 250 gBIT...... it's gotta be 250 GBYTES.
250gBIT is only about 32gigs, so there's no fuckin way that's right.
5 hours of use a month. (Score:2)
That's useful. Thanks comcrap.
$105 for 5 hours of internet? (Score:2)
Ridiculous.
Please USA, sort your shit. Internet must get cheaper, not more expensive!.
Re: (Score:2)
Speed vs Caps (Score:3)
Caps to me are still the real issue. I say that because once you have any decent broadband connection it is typically going to be 'fast enough' for an average end user. Most end users are not downloading an ISO a day or something to that effect. In fact since most if not all end user pipes are not even close to full duplex they are not really that much good for anything but normal end user type stuff.
Now I will throw in the caveat that as you add more users to a connection clearly that is when a bigger pipe will help. But that still brings us around to again the real issue, caps. With more users you are running even a bigger risk of going over a cap if you are using what the modern internet can do. Streaming, online gaming, downloads, smartphones/tablets switching over to Wifi mode when they are in range, and of course all of the standard stuff like email/web/IM/etc.
Caps are something that need to be seriously regulated as it is not like we have a lot of options when it comes to our broadband options. They should be pretty damn high as in you really would be having to running full bandwidth for a week straight out of a month.
Re: (Score:2)
also deadpanning on how the node is setup up (Score:2)
also deadpanning on how the node is setup up / how many people are on it you may have a hard time even getting to 105MEG download speed.
Router Capable of 105Mbps??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
250 gigs of data is their normal cap across the board.
Just like "corrupt government".... it's normal. don't complain. accept.
Re: (Score:3)
250 gigs of data is their normal cap across the board.
And that limit is very easy to approach, even on their slowest line, with moderate netflix + gaming. Their penalties for going over 250 are pretty severe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except this isn't 250 gigs, it's 31.25 gigs, also known as 250 gigabits.
Re:That's normal (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, except this isn't 250 gigs, it's 31.25 gigs, also known as 250 gigabits.
Except it's not:
"As of October 1, 2008, data usage above 250 Gigabytes ("GB") per month per Comcast High-Speed Internet residential customer account is considered excessive."
http://customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQViewer.aspx?seoid=frequently-asked-questions-about-excessive-use [comcast.com]
Re:That's normal (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed is not just about downloading more. It is also about downloading stuff quicker, believe it or not. Even if I wouldn't go anywhere near the cap, I would love that speed if I needed to download a movie or two onto my iPad to take on a long journey, because I might not think about it until it's rather late. If I can do that in 10 minutes, then grand.
And ISP have a clue, believe it or not. They know that only about 0.5% or less of their customers regularly go over the cap, and very few actually find the caps to be a problem. If they could just not take that bothersome 0.5% as customers, they would probably be better off. Here in the UK, I just signed up for a broadband deal that has a 60GB cap, but allows me unlimited downloads that don't count towards my cap between midnight and 8am. That seems a reasonable compromise to me. Downloads as much as you want but don't affect other customers who have lower needs, but who still want to watch Youtube videos in HD.
Re: (Score:2)
Also here in the UK, I use Be who provide a true unlimited, unshaped connection.
I regularly use about 100GB/mo but can easily exceed 300GB during the Christmas period. I'd settle for a 250GB limit with a 105Mb connection, but I'd jump ship as soon as a better ISP started offering similar connection speeds. I bet this Comcast service employs some sort of traffic shaping too.
Re: (Score:2)
Telling everyone to download at night means speeds will eventually deteriorate so that little gets downloaded. And if downloads affect streaming speeds, lots of people streaming during the day will just as easily cause difficulties. The problem is that the ISP does not have the capacity to provide the speed advertised. Adding faster tiers to exploit speed freaks is the worst thing that can be
Re: (Score:3)
Well, nobody here (continental europe) has a data cap for land line connections (mobile, it's a whole other thing).
There used to be. Then, the accountants figured out that collecting, consolidating, and billing the extra did cost them more than what they got back.
Out went the caps. And since then, it always cost less to upgrade the collecting backbones than to deploy a full fledged count-n-cap infrastructure.
And the clincher? It's 30euro per month (~ 43 US$). For triple-play fiber if you're in a major city,
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing happened with telephone bills here back in the late 1990's.
I imagine at some point, they will rediscover this for bandwidth.
Re:Business Accounts (Score:5, Informative)
Business accounts have a limit. It just isn't acknowledged as any specific limit. You can easily use a terabyte or maybe even two without running into problems. After a certain point, they're likely to want to speak with you about signing up for a more dedicated service at a higher cost.
It's interesting, however, that in the same physical location, they can't afford more than 250gb/mo, because it is consuming all of their precious resources. Pay them an extra $40, however, and that same location and network can suddenly handle six or eight times that much bandwidth. Of course, the other important reason to get their business service is that you can get 5, 10, or even 50 mbps *up*, instead of 768kbps.
Re: (Score:3)
I pay for two meg up with Comcast, and use part of that. I've got a tor relay set for one meg and seed some open source torrents at half a meg during the day, two meg at night. Total aggregate use rarely exceeds two meg up on my mrtg graphs. These are uses compatible with my business mission and aren't going to generate any 3rd party complaints.
Now, even thought I pay for two meg up, I get about four meg up. I could push it, but that would violate my "don't be stupid, don't be greedy" rule. I assume mo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, or some sort of service billing itself as being "unlimited."
Oh wait.
Re:I'm using the 105Mbit service. The datacap is r (Score:4, Interesting)
No reasonable way to use 250gb a month? Really?
Streaming HD is around 2gb/hr. Watch two movies per day (simple in a household) and you're looking at around 250gb.
Just because you and your grandmother only use it for email and printing out coffee cake recipes doesn't mean the rest of us do.
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming HD is around 2gb/hr. Watch two movies per day (simple in a household) and you're looking at around 250gb.
Comcast would rather have you use its On Demand offerings. Netflix? Apple? Youtube? Hulu? Those are all competitors.
Re:I'm using the 105Mbit service. The datacap is r (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure there is: Netflix. YouTube. Online backup.
The fact that you can't come up with a reasonable way doesn't mean that there is no reasonable way.
Re: (Score:2)
A HD movie on iTunes is 4.7GB down. One movie a day 30 days = 141GB. Now let's do some TV. 4 shows a day also HD ~1GB per. (22min for 3 and 1 40min show) that's another 4 GB * 30 = 120 GB and voila, 262 GB / month.
Not counting any YouTube, software, gaming, general Internet, skype or FaceTime, Flickr or anything else.
Re:I'm using the 105Mbit service. The datacap is r (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you judging? Maybe he has more than one kid? One child is watching the new pixar movie, while another is upstairs working on a online college course that has them running through some online lectures.
Then, you have the Mom, who is a work at home mom and has to constantly keep up-to-date with their training materials.
Now, this mom that works from home, always has to have some type of white noise in the background so jumps onto a hulu channel herself.
250GB is easy to burn through if you are single, and EVEN EASIER to burn though if you are married and have kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Forever alone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The coward is right with his typo: there is one reasonable way anyone can use their 250GB/mo 105Mb/s service, to download one uncompressed hd video [archive.org] in four hours. There are no two reasonable ways, once you have used up your one reasonable way for the month, you are SOL.
Re:I'm using the 105Mbit service. The datacap is r (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of anonymous cowards claiming that it's unreasonable to go past 250 GB even with a 100+ Mbps connection.
As someone who has a 100/100 Mbps connection this seems weird, I can easily use more bandwidth than that in a month. Hell, on a few occasions I've used more in a week. And that's only downstream.
Re: (Score:3)
The linked article is in error. The cap is 250 gigabytes per month.
http://xfinity.comcast.net/terms/network/amendment/ [comcast.net]
Re: (Score:2)
250Gbit / 105Mb/s = "about five hours worth of full-bandwidth use". Since when?
250,000,000,000
105,000,000
250,000b / 105b/s ~= 2381s
2381s / 60s/m ~= 40m
Either one of the numbers is wrong or his math is way off.
Not that this paints a prettier picture.
Then again:
250Gbit / 8bit/byte = 31,250,000,000
Who downloads 31Gb per month but doesn't get a dedicated line for the purposes?
Well I can guess who - but even a typical blu-ray rip (not an ISO) is what.. 4GiB? That's still about 8 such movies in a month if you're into that sort of thing.
If you really need the bandwidth -and- lack of cap.. get a dedicated line. This offer seems to be for people / small business who might need a high burst rate for certain things (i.e. on the phone, need to send a 50MB file being referenced, don't want to wait 2 minutes on the phone for receipt, etc.) but wouldn't typically hit the cap.
As long as these caps are clearly advertised.. who cares?
You don't have a clue how young people use the internet. I'm guessing you've never been to the tube sites. You probably think the only way to download more than 30 gigs a month is piracy. If you watch HDTV on your computer, and each show is a few gigs, you will easily get up to 30 gigs in a month. You might even get up to 150 gigs. But you probably will not get up to 250 gigs.
As far as dedicated lines go, this service is meant to compete with FIOS and bring the USA up to speed with China, Japan and Europe.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For a nation made up of 'We The People', Corporations have the one and only voice.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own broadband company, and then charging a flat rate with absolutely no limits on usage. There may be some trouble with you keeping that going, though, because you'll have to charge higher than the ongoing rates to keep it alive, or will go out of business. This isn't about who has a "voice," it's about businesses providing services, and people who want higher speeds deciding whether or not that higher speed - with a usage cap - is a good fit for
Re: (Score:2)
>There is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own broadband company
Oh look, we've got a so-called "Free Marketer" here.
Let me clue you in, there is no such thing as a free market, even without government regulation. There are the incumbents that will do anything and everything to keep you out of the market. An example of this would be the deliberate jamming of competitors in the radio market before the advent of the FCC (thus also demonstrating in reality the "tragedy of the commons")
And
Re: (Score:2)
Are you autistic? Have Asperger's syndrome maybe?
Life is not that orthogonal, cause-and-effects. Do some research into "corruption", "lobbying", "monopoly", etc.
Why doesn't the government have their own ISP (where they sell internet to people, yes), to compete with Comcast and other companies out there? Space travel, The Bomb, nuclear energy... those projects raised the bar on science. And they weren't backed by companies, it was the government who spend the money in R&D and that's what put America in t
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own broadband company
Nothing in the Constitution, sure.
But often times, local municipalities sign deals with cable providers. Not to mention the fact that you need to get the cable laid down, which is very expensive, and again you need to get the local municipalities to sign off on it. Unfortunately, starting a company to provide internet access isn't quite as straight forward as starting a company to provide other kinds of goods and services which don't require laying cable on other peoples' land.
Noe, maybe this will change
Re:Welcome to no Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own broadband company, and then charging a flat rate with absolutely no limits on usage.
Wrong. Internet infrastructure still requires a wire so it has the same problem as power companies. You are not going to allow 5 different power companies to run power poles through your neighborhood. So, the company that owns the power poles can charge whatever they want. That is why we have government. To protect the consumer from abuses by companies in areas that are in natural monopolies. Same thing for internet infrastructure. I remember when my neighborhood had the infrastructure put in. They were hitting gas lines and cutting power lines every day or two. People's lawns got dug up. Were they asked for permission? No, the local municipality used their easements to give the ISP the right to dig through people's lawns without paying for it. You think people will allow that to happen 3 or 4 more times (to have true competition you need at least 4 or 5 companies competing against each other).
You want a centrally managed economy that prevents Eeeevil companies from competing with each other and trying to price things to win your business while managing to also stay in business.
No, I want companies to compete for my business. It isn't happening. Please name for me the 4 or 5 companies that are competing in your neighborhood for your business. Because if it is just Comcast and AT&T, then they are getting rich while you got slow internet. The free market provides excellent service, price, and innovation when there is a lot of competition. This is because PROFITABILITY requires good service, low prices, and innovation. When there is little or no competition (monopoly or oligopoly) then those things are no longer sources of PROFIT. The profit comes from reducing costs (bad service), increasing income (high prices), and stifling competition (preventing innovation). They are not evil. They are looking after their shareholders. It is government's job to look after the consumers (the people).
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality says you'll not discriminate on delivering the packets, regardless of where they are going to or coming from.
A monthly cap just says "you can use this much data, but we don't care to or from the data is going". Nothing at all with net neutrality.
The problem is the ISP's upstream isn't $105/month for 105Mbit/sec continuously, it's many orders of magnitude higher so they'd be going out of business if everyone could just keep it maxed out 24/7 (Price up
Re: (Score:2)
Because Al Gore invented the internet, and thus the US should have the best internet infrastructure in the world.
Here is a quick comparison for ya:
Twenty 56k modems (say throughput of 5KB/sec @ 24/7) would be able to pass this cap.
Re: (Score:2)
Ehmm... I don't know where you live, but assuming there are caps everywhere just because "you had since day one", is at least ignorant. It must be a very backwards place if caps are 10-40GB.
For example, I live in one of the least developed (in Broadband service) EU countries (Greece) and the only cap I have seen is for internet on 3G Mobile networks, where it is at 30GB (it is plenty as a 3G connection is not supposed to replace your DSL). The DSL service on the other hand is never capped (unless you ask to
Re: (Score:2)
Your internet sucks. Stop trying to drag the rest of the world down with you.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world has had caps since day one.
Here we had caps. Now we don't. Apparently in the US it works backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world has had caps since day one.
I have lived in 4 different countries in past 10 years.
I've never had any bandwidth caps, and had fully unlimited Internet (and never had a call from ISP, no matter how much bandwidth I spent).
So, what is that "rest of the world" you are talking about?
Australia and New Zealand are not really "the rest of the world".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get why Americans think they are so entilted to unlimited broadband
We've *always* had unlimited broadband and we've seen the rise of services like actual video-on-demand as a result of it.
We've been doing it the right way here all along, you should be backing us up instead of whining about how we should get as shitty of service as you.
Re: (Score:2)
250 billion bits? That sounds as stupid as a republican opening her mouth !! Caps are ALWAYS given in bytes. Another hack without a clue is on the loose !! SAGA !!
its to generate comments like yours, duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.. please define the measurement in 'Library of Congress's or with a valid car analogy.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, there is only one road, and it is constantly clogged by other cars because the municipality responsible for the roads refuses to admit they have a traffic congestion problem.
1 LoC = 10 TiB [jamesshuggins.com], so you get 0.0227373675443232059478759765625 Libraries of Congress per month, at a speed of 9.5238095238095238095238095238095e-9 LoC/s
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube sometimes is on a "go slow", at times one video on YouTube can't be watched in HD, but another can, they are probably on different servers and one server's upstream is maxed out and the other's is not. It may not always be your end that is the problem.