Sensible Erection | Is the End of Unlimited Internet Near?

Tuesday, 2 September 2008

quote [ Last week, Comcast -- the second-largest Internet service provider in the country -- announced that starting Oct. 1 it would officially set a threshold for monthly Internet usage. ]

One more step towards the end of net neutrality?
Or
Jesus! You downloaded 250 gigs of porn this month?

Been almost a month since we bashed Comcast, so thought I'd update everyone on their current doin's a-transpirin'.

[sci&tech] [by Anti-fuites@5:23pmGMT] [+10 WTF]

Comments

yasha said @ 5:27pm GMT on 2nd Sep
well -- there's gonna need to be differential pricing for bandwidth usage. no way someone who streams an HD movie a day should pay the same as my granma who plays scrabulous, gmail and maybe watches some youtube about chemtrails.

Anti-fuites said @ 5:28pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I was actually surprised they didn't already have a cap.

Anti-fuites said @ 5:34pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Though I do agree with the article in that if they're going to start billing like a utility company they should probably include an actual physical bandwidth meter that you hook up to your modem that tells you how much you've used this month. You can probably figure it out somehow, but it's obscure enough at the moment that I have no idea what my monthly usage is.

foobar said @ 5:46pm GMT on 2nd Sep
They did, as do pretty much all ISP's. The difference is that Comcast wouldn't tell you what theirs was before, they'd just cut you off if you went over.

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 5:59pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Umm cable tv is over the same pipes, so why does someone watching hdtv ALL DAY not get penalized, but someone that downloads a single flick that same day should get a hard slow one right in the delivery entrance.

Seraph said @ 6:15pm GMT on 2nd Sep
commercials

lilmookieesquire said @ 6:24pm GMT on 2nd Sep
been on the net lately?

maryyugo said @ 6:23pm GMT on 2nd Sep
is it really the "same pipes"? i know the cable company fiberoptic cables between their office and the home in the usa is the same.

but the backbone of the internet isn't really used for commercial network television signals, is it? and television doesn't get processed through your isp's overworked servers and hard drives, does it?

damnit said @ 6:26pm GMT on 2nd Sep
They're separate, but they travel the same cable line to your house.

maryyugo said @ 7:39pm GMT on 2nd Sep
yeah but i don't think the problem is as much between the server and home. i think the servers, whatever it is type of modem that couples the server to the fiber and the internet backbone are being overloaded. that's just aguess tho.

damnit said @ 3:56am GMT on 3rd Sep
It shouldn't matter. The only problem comcast is having is the people using all that bandwidth makes the Internet slower for others.

Whatever the problem, Comcast can't compete with HD programming against Verizon FIOS because HD streaming is harder for Comcast for using Cable. They call them HD, but they stream lower resolution videos instead of the full HD stream.

That's a different topic.

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 6:37pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Yeaaah, you're right of course.
But I sure as fuck hope those HDDs you mention are scratch-only and not the log-gasms we all know them to be.

mihomsi said @ 6:31am GMT on 4th Sep
How about IPTV? I don't exactly know how that goes (is it on a some sort of closed network or is it in the open)?

damnit said @ 5:32pm GMT on 2nd Sep
People will have to pay a lot less for their standard $50/month plan.

VictorTyne said @ 5:51pm GMT on 2nd Sep
People paying less? Bullshit. They've been capping internet use for months now. We've run into that wall too often already, and they didn't stop disconnecting us until after we called to complain three dozen times. What would happen is the internet would just shut off for 10-20min. This would happen at least a dozen times a day.

I don't even have any sort of peer-to-peer program running. Just two people playing games like World of Warcraft and Team Fortress 2 for a good portion of the day and normal internet browsing. 250gb/month is barely enough for one person, let alone two.

The only difference now is they're telling people what they're doing.

I'm paying nearly 60 bucks a month for cable internet service because even though I live about a mile from a college campus I can't get DSL for some reason. If I could, I'd drop Comcast in a heartbeat.

This is pure monopolistic bullshit, plain and simple. It makes me wish for the days of dial-up, when a dozen companies could compete for customers to keep the price at a reasonable level.

damnit said @ 6:23pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Well, yeah. I'm not paying $50/month if it's not unlimited access. That's why we switched to FIOS.

elbandito said @ 6:52pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I would murder for 250gb/month. Here in New Zealand a reasonably priced datacap is just 6gb/month. You can get higher, but you pay exorbitant prices for it.

VictorTyne said @ 7:02pm GMT on 2nd Sep
You can get higher, but you pay exorbitant prices for it.

Really? What are the various pricing schemes there?

I consider $60/month (what's with everyone saying $50? my bill is 60 bucks, with a new "surcharge" added every few months) to be pretty damn exorbitant, especially considering how shitty the connection and customer service is.

My signal strength is so lowI have to plug my modem directly into the wall in another room and then run a hundred feet of cat5 to where my computer is just so it only sometimes disconnects me.

brat#3 said @ 9:10pm GMT on 2nd Sep
We're on $90 NZ for 20GB + our home landline, no tolls. It's with vodafone and their service is totally retarded though, so eventually we'll switch.

With telecom there's a loophole whereby since you have a free plan change per month you can switch to another plan and it resets your data allowance for no charge. We were doing this every month until we switched to Vodafone.

¿ said @ 9:45pm GMT on 2nd Sep
No signal in the coax of your room? That's actually quite normal. If it's your own place vs an apt, ask them to trench another line to the house. We couldn't get decent signals anywhere in the house until they did that. And start pulling some cat-5 through those walls.

maryyugo said @ 7:41pm GMT on 2nd Sep
cheez! 5gb is barely enough for a couple of blowjobs and a rimming!

maryyugo said @ 7:41pm GMT on 2nd Sep
in hi def, of course.

bathoz said @ 8:22pm GMT on 2nd Sep
6gb per month. Fuck me with a razor blade. I'm moving to New Zealand. Here in South Africa we get our lovely 3gb as the standard cap.

Baxter_UK said @ 8:37pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Funny]

cardinal said @ 10:46pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Interesting]

My parents have a 1gb cap. Of course, there's this article as well.

____________________

Cheaper to fly than use ADSL'

If you don't eat or stay over, you could fly to Hong Kong and download 100 gigabytes of data from the Internet, fly back to South Africa and pay less than if you were to download that amount of information using Telkom's ADSL service.

Even taking into account the duration of the return flight, you could be back in South Africa days before you could complete the download here.

This is according to Durban software developer Stuart Gunter, who has posted on an Internet forum the findings of an investigation that show just how internationally uncompetitive Telkom's ADSL service is compared to the rest of the world.

The findings were posted on the website myadsl.co.za, an informal online community that acts as a watchdog of Internet access services in South Africa.

"A couple of guys at work always found ADSL particularly expensive, especially with people having family overseas who can access the Internet at such cheap prices," Gunter said.

He said he had thought that it would probably be cheaper to fly to Hong Kong to download data off the Internet than it would be to use Telkom's services. He then did his maths and posted the findings.

Gunter compared the time and cost involved to download 100 gigabytes of data over Telkom's fastest ADSL service (one megabyte per second) with the time and cost it would take to fly to Hong Kong, visit an Internet cafe, download 100 gigabytes of data at their fastest speed (one gigabyte per second) and fly back to South Africa.

The result was that it would be faster and cheaper to download the information in Hong Kong, including the cost of air fare.

In just 13 minutes for a cost of R17,43 (HK$20) the data could be downloaded in Hong Kong compared to a download time of 9,5 days and a cost of R9 146 for 34 of Telkom's three gigabyte accounts - to which ADSL line rental at R680 and residential voice line rental at R92,28 must still be added.

Gunter said the grand total using Telkom's services amounted to R9 918,28, compared to the cost in Hong Kong - including air travel and Internet cafe use at R7 959,43 - making the technologically advanced Asian country R1 958,85 cheaper.

Telkom's Group Corporate Communications Executive, Lulu Letlape, was not available to comment on the website posting at the time of going to print.

However, a spokesperson distanced Telkom from the charges levied for ADSL services, saying that Internet service providers were responsible for setting charges for end use.

She declined to disclose Telkom's cost price to Internet service providers under its new billing system.

The new per gigabyte process, as opposed to packaged billing, came into effect on November 1 and has attracted widespread criticism from consumers that it has drastically inflated the cost of ADSL Internet access.

¿ said @ 9:26pm GMT on 2nd Sep
250gb/month is barely enough for one person, let alone two.
Are you serious? 250gb/month is more than enough for most households.
Though average Warcraft bandwidth usage varies (average estimates from 1-10 mb per hour), if you were perpetually engaged in raids 24/7 for a month, that's still only 7.2 GB. Hell, WOW is somewhat playable on dial-up (w/ the exception of heavily populated areas). And according to this article:
"Be your own Team Fortress 2 team. Playing 24 hours a day for each day in the month, by yourself, would only cost you 62 GB of bandwidth. But hey, that's why you need to multibox as a Soldier, a Medic, a Heavy... "

Monitoring my connection via tomato firmware on the router, and my household seldom cracks 100GB a month(I don't leave my machine to torrent overnight).
You might have something else flagged on your account; WOW, TF2, & normal browsing shouldn't get anywhere near 250 GB.

donnie said @ 9:54pm GMT on 2nd Sep
streaming porn 24/7 would consume considerably more bandwidth, however

¿ said @ 12:06am GMT on 3rd Sep
Then you have other problems.
Namely, being a giant-armed, tissue-plastered, dehydrated zombie.
If you can provide some free links for we can, um, check their bandwidth usage to see... Otherwise, wouldn't you be paying almost as much for access to the streams as the service?
Just do regular downloads. After awhile, you can go back and rediscover the stuff you didn't know you had.
"I didn't know I had midget pr0n since last year... Sweeet!"

donnie said @ 12:20am GMT on 3rd Sep
...only on SE

EPT said @ 11:23pm GMT on 2nd Sep
250GB/month isn't enough for one? Christ, how many items do you steal via torrenting each month?

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 5:45pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:3 Interesting]
[...] + This = basically no working internet until we start launching pirate satellites with some sort of ad-hoc net on em.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:55pm GMT on 2nd Sep
It's bullshit.

They are shaking down other businesses that depend on internet usage and access. Pure and simple.

lilmookieesquire said @ 6:16pm GMT on 2nd Sep
pure gobbletigook!

lilmookieesquire said @ 6:16pm GMT on 2nd Sep
complete poppycock!

valen85 said @ 6:18pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Utter bamboozlement!

sacrelicious said @ 6:27pm GMT on 2nd Sep
a touch of the ol' flabergastery!

kichijoii said @ 6:50pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Bend over, I'll [verb used out of context] your [noun used out of context].

RoboRonnie said @ 8:23pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I'll malarky your hubbub.

Supreme_Coconut said @ 11:21pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Well fiddlesticks!

leopold stotch said @ 3:17am GMT on 3rd Sep
aww hamburgers!

nbob said @ 3:25pm GMT on 6th Sep
Fuzz Munchies!

balzac said @ 6:51pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Penis.

Xiph0 said @ 7:01pm GMT on 2nd Sep
This is bullshit, this is malarkey!

sacrelicious said @ 6:22pm GMT on 2nd Sep
oct. 1st? hey, that's about when my $29.99 for the first 6 months trial ends!

kichijoii said @ 6:52pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Unlimited internet? It was over the moment people started paying to ACCESS it.

balzac said @ 6:53pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I'm a heavy user of WoW and my girlfriend is currently on a Doctor Who kick (which involves a lot of P2Ping.)
This is probably going to suck. Oh wait, I don't have comcast, suckas.
It'll suck when my ISP tries the same shit, though.

balzac said @ 6:55pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Informative]
http://www.geckoandfly.com/2008/09/01/monitor-your-broadband-internet-bandwidth-usage/

Article containing a bunch of freeware for monitoring your bandwidth usage.

spite48 said @ 7:02pm GMT on 2nd Sep
How long until you need an internet license? Pay the license fee. Pass the political correctness test, install your monitor program to ensure no improper content/copyright infringement, and then you can feel free to post a comment on puppiesandkittens.com as long as you respect the content guidelines and don't use too much bandwidth.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:23am GMT on 3rd Sep
I swipe my forged license and turn on my monitor bypass, then dial in to Uplink Internal Services

spite48 said @ 10:23pm GMT on 3rd Sep [Score:1 Underrated]
Are you a plumber?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 4:58am GMT on 4th Sep
You might say that I... eliminate... leaks. Yes. Is there a "leak" that you would like to be rid of?

KingPellinore said @ 7:17pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I'll admit my ignorance toward all things technical and just ask.

How does this affect things like Xbox Live? When I'm playing say, GTA4 against someone else half a country away, just how fast am I burning through bandwidth?

rudecookie said @ 10:35am GMT on 3rd Sep [Score:1 Informative]
Distance isn't a factor... 250gigs divided by, lets say 20mb/hour...
You get 12,800 hours of gameplay per month. You could play for over a year and a half before hitting 250gigs

Vernes said @ 7:57pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 WTF]
THIS ARTICLE NEEDS MORE WTF

Christopher Walken said @ 8:00pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Funny]
This article needs more COWBELL!

pleaides said @ 10:03am GMT on 3rd Sep

donnie said @ 7:58pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but most places I've been have several options. You get either the massive super-corporate and ubiquitous shit service which feeds the unwashed, or then you can pay a little more for much better with a smaller specialist company. The likes of Comcast, Rogers, Tiscali, or whomever, all profit by providing a good-enough service for most people at a low price based on what is quite typically rather light internet usage. They are within their rights to discourage a few rogue netizens from devouring masses of bandwidth, and quite sensibly so. If you are among this minority of people, you generally have the option of selecting a different company which will provide a much better service for the bandwidth-hungry. You just have to pay for it, that's all.

theolypse said @ 8:57pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I have the choice between cable internet through comcast, and FiOS through Verizon, which is just another giant corporate malarker destined to follow suit. Oh, or I could go back to dial-up.

This is deregulation.

donnie said @ 9:11pm GMT on 2nd Sep
You only have two choices? Jesus... I think there are probably a hundred ISPs that serve my area. You've got to be joking.

theolypse said @ 9:53pm GMT on 2nd Sep
My area is the city of Pittsburgh. Not the biggest market, but not exactly a rural area.

Sean said @ 3:22am GMT on 3rd Sep
My area is the city of Buffalo. I as well only have two choices.

DSL or cable. We don't even have FiOS yet :(

donnie said @ 9:29am GMT on 3rd Sep
Ah, well most people have the choice of DSL or cable, I imagine, but there must be more than one company offering each service....no? Has the american dream died or is it illegal to start a new telecoms company these days?

theolypse said @ 7:52pm GMT on 3rd Sep
There are no, to my knowledge, cable repackagers in operation in my area, for either internet service or television programming.
There are DSL repackagers, but Verizon tends to feed them bandwidth off its slowest pipes to make them less competitive, and there is no other primary provider of same.
Verizon is also the only FiOS provider, and hasn't even saturated city limits yet.

theolypse said @ 9:54pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Oh, and if you mean the tiny repackagers that spring up and die out in six months from time to time, well... They spring up and die out in six months.

foobar said @ 10:26pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I thought you were a Vancouverite? There are only two consumer grade ISPs here.

donnie said @ 12:23am GMT on 3rd Sep
I hope at least one of them isn't crap - I'm not a vancouverite but I was thinking to move there soon. I live in the UK at the moment - 330 ISPs .

psychotim said @ 1:28am GMT on 3rd Sep
Tier 3 ISPs aren't.

donnie said @ 9:27am GMT on 3rd Sep
Please. Regardless of tier there are many options and the levels of service vary dramatically. Tier snobbery on your part does little to affect this.

psychotim said @ 1:36pm GMT on 3rd Sep
The majority of Tier 3 ISPs don't even handle their own technical support. They primarily handle secondary features and billing. The actual quality your your connection, from connectivity to QoS, are going to be determined by the transit provider, which is going to be one of at most three servicing an area, and that's being generous and assuming there is meaningful overlap between systems, which there mostly isn't.

donnie said @ 2:24pm GMT on 3rd Sep
Yes, but that has no bearing on the policies effected by each of the reseller ISPs. I can choose one of many ISPs, all of which may indeed lease their lines from BT, who also provide DSL service directly, but each of which will offer dramatically different levels of service. Some throttle and cap, run with high contention ratios, etc. It's not the quality of the infrastructure which is the problem, but in most cases is simply how each ISP chooses to allocate the infrastructure it owns or has purchased access to. If I choose Titan over Tiscali I'm running on the same physical infrastructure but my average throughput and customer service will be dramatically superior. The service costs more, but you get what you pay for. The only people who feel "ripped off" are the ones who buy bargain-basement internet service and expect to be able to saturate the line 24/7. It's not the quality of the transit provider which typically limits one's connection - it's the bandwidth usage policies set by the individual ISPs and the number of people they try to cram into the so-called series of tubes.

psychotim said @ 4:51pm GMT on 3rd Sep
You're assuming the reseller will be dictating the policy. That's often not the case. Sure, your reseller might be providing better service for soft products, but they won't be providing system upkeep nor negotiating peering agreements, which is going to affect your average throughput much more than your bootfile will unless you are saturating your connection at any given time, which is uncommon. In at least two cases (Comcast, who I have direct knowledge of, and Bell Canada, who is all over the news for it), traffic shaping and data privacy policies are still enforced on reseller connections without any input by either the vendor or consumer.

It's somewhat anagalous to franchised fast food. Yeah, the location is independantly owned and maybe they're a little more free to manage how they see fit, but that's not gonna change the fact that Big Macs are shit.

donnie said @ 5:40pm GMT on 3rd Sep
Well, at least in the UK there are very tangible differences - theorise all you want, but your conjectures simply do not hold, at least not universally, because the evidence is starkly to the contrary. Here, at least, there is massive choice and very real contrast in service level, line speeds, traffic shaping (or lack thereof), bandwidth limitations, etc. When I was with Bulldog, for example, I had an 8Mbit line that I could absolutely rinse - all day, every day, any time of day. It cost me £40/month (including telephone line rental), but it was a hardcore service. Customer service was atrocious, mind you, but there are other options for people who find that a priority. With any of the major ISPs, at any rate, I wouldn't have been able to get anywhere near the sort of robustness of connection that I had with Bulldog. There are innumerable other examples in the UK broadband scene I could select from, but there is no denying that there are massive differences between ISPs.

anger_die said @ 9:12pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Verizon's already a few steps ahead of Comcast in enforcing an internet and other mass communications services consisting of only corporate generated and controlled content. Typically, satellite access is half the speed of cable, but you might want to look into that alternative (if it's available) instead.

theolypse said @ 9:52pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Half the speed for twice the price, and that puts this particular luxury outside my range.

psychotim said @ 8:11pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I used to work for Comcast in a position where I had access to the QoS environment, and 250Gb was where people started to show up on the "harass user" list in the firstplace. They just got smacked by the FCC a little harder than they'd have liked and now they're going public about it.

brb lawsuited to death for violating NDA.

RuneLancer said @ 9:47pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Meh. Here, it's always been like that (Quebec, Canada) We basically have 5-40 gigs a month (depends on the package you get and from which provider) and pay a small surplus if we go over it (usually it's something like $5 per extra gig or whatnot...)

To be honest though, it's really nothing to worry about. I don't pay very close attention to my bandwidth usage and usually just use up a dozen gigs out of 30 or so a month.

I suppose it'll be an adjustment for people used to downloading $5000's worth of ISOs and movies a month...

psychotim said @ 10:09pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I have 10/1 with a 120Gb cap. Worst that's ever happened when I go over is Shaw spamming me with bandwidth reduction tips.

EPT said @ 11:19pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2]
Heh, americans complaining about 250 GB being a low cap is like them complaining about having really expensive fuel. They have no idea.

Dig up the story on slashdot - there's two interesting points in the comments

The first is that to reach 250GB/month, you need to have a constant average use of 100kbit/sec for the entire time. There's no way you can do this unless you either run a popular fileserver or are an unabashed torrent leech. Either way, you're an astoundingly heavy user and should look at a higher level plan.

The other point is that caps help improve quality of service. Here the caps are a little low, but the ISPs don't do things like deep packet inspection and fucking around with your traffic. Nor do you get internet slowdown at peak periods. There's a more eloquent response on the slashdot page.

But in short, if you're a humungous torrent freak, it's you that's fucking up the internet for everyone else and you should be paying for a higher level of service instead of saying 'cheap unlimited internet is my god-given right'. As someone else said in the slashdot comments, you can have your own T1 for as low as $600/month if you really want fast, unlimited internet.

RuneLancer said @ 12:53am GMT on 3rd Sep
What people really see is the reduction in numbers. Going from "infinity" to "a couple hundred gigs a month" sounds like a huge problem.

On the other hand, like you illustrated so well and like I said in my earlier post, the average user won't come anywhere near busting that limit. If they do, it's likely they should rethink their internet usage in the first place.

The real question here isn't "by how much have we been limited" but "how much more have we been limited." And for a lot of people, the answer is "not at all."

EPT said @ 9:58am GMT on 3rd Sep
The real problem is that people don't want to pay for services they use - that is, amazingly heavy users of the internet often like to make out that they're average joes and that they shouldn't have to pay more than an average joe.

Sean said @ 3:24am GMT on 3rd Sep
T1 is 1.54 Mb/sec; cable is much faster.

EPT said @ 10:00am GMT on 3rd Sep
meh, go for a T3 then.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:25am GMT on 3rd Sep
I used to think a 10 megabyte game was huge.

EPT said @ 10:01am GMT on 3rd Sep [Score:1 Insightful]
"Wow, this game comes on seven floppies!"

ah, yes, I remember those days...

KingPellinore said @ 1:33pm GMT on 3rd Sep [Score:1 Good]
Remember when the first games started coming out that needed TWO cds?

"Wait...you mean ONE cd wasn't big enough?"

Baxter_UK said @ 2:19pm GMT on 3rd Sep
I remember an old friend of mine years ago had his porn collection on about a thousand floppy disks.

donnie said @ 2:52pm GMT on 3rd Sep [Score:1 WTF]
floppy disk raid ftw!

sanepride said @ 11:26pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Fuck you Comcast.
Why bother investing in the infrastructure to provide the fast, cheap internet available in other developed countries when you can just limit usage? Nice business model you cheapskates. May you soon whither on the vine of failure.

At124 said @ 12:11am GMT on 3rd Sep
Fuck Comcast

I do not have Fios in my area. I will switch in seconds. 15Mb/s for upload is awesome when you need to sent 4GB backup of your server over shitty unstable Comcast connection.

I will sacrifice my 20Mb/s download from Comcast for decent upload speed. BTW blocking port 80 is just lame. There is tons of other ports to access home server.

¿ said @ 12:12am GMT on 3rd Sep
Why is this bad for net neutrality? They can just enforce bandwidth limits.
They don't have to block bit-torrent for everyone anymore (whether they actually do that remains to be seen).

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:26am GMT on 3rd Sep
I'm wondering if/when Google will decide that it's in their best interest to install free wireless networks in all major cities. After all, "Google LIVES on the Internet. It's in our interest to make the Internet better... We NEED the Internet to be a fair, smart, safe place."

At124 said @ 12:32am GMT on 3rd Sep
We NEED the Internet to be a fair, smart, safe place

Wow, a big wish. Especially about 'smart' and 'safe'.

k0k0peli said @ 4:19am GMT on 3rd Sep
For bandwith delivered, the maximal medium is still a truckload of those funny plastic discs.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:02am GMT on 3rd Sep
I believe you mean... a series of tubes load of those funny plastic discs.

k0k0peli said @ 5:36am GMT on 3rd Sep
No, I mean the ENTIRE CHINESE COSCO FREIGHTER FLEET filled with those funny plastic discs.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:00am GMT on 4th Sep
It's not a truck. It's a ~~series of tubes~~ CHINESE COSCO FREIGHTER FLEET.

cb said @ 8:34am GMT on 3rd Sep
Wow, I assume this article is about some US company?

Here in Australia we already have to about pay that much for 20GB/month, at much lower speed too.