mbps

Secondly, is that 200 Mbps down / 20 mbps up?

When sites loaded blazing fast on my 256k DSL modem--faster than they do on my 50 Mbps connection today.

The 200/20 is indeed 200 Mbps down and 20 up, this little trick saturated the line pretty good though.

The coaxial cable used by Rogers and Shaw is already capable of carrying 100 mbps.

I have 50/25 Mbps at home (via fiber) but, looking at my usage graphs, my peak usage is waaaaaay below that (we hit up to ~6 Mbps when watching Netflix).

That's because without fibre optics, the telephone companies are stuck using copper cables that can only offer a maximum of about 50 mbps.

Whereas with an abundance, many if not most users would never even notice having 500+ Mbps serving as relay capacity at all times.

Both require a good few mbps connection to begin with though: 1.

I'm a UI guy + Rails developer, I own 3 Macs (1 Mini and 2 MBPs).

You don't necessarily need the extra power that MBPs offer.

I was in a similar situation with Time Warner; I have a 160 Mbps modem and was on a 100 Mbps plan but was only getting 50, so I downgraded to the 50 plan.

On my desk now I have two MBPs and one windows PC.

It would still be lighter than the older 15" MBPs with optical drives.

I certainly think Apple would sell a lot of 17" MBPs that were thick enough to house an optical drive or extra battery in the space.

I think those are 15" MBPs, their stock power supplies are rated for 85W, so we're looking at a maximum draw of just over 8kW for the laptops alone.

I would think you'd want to see if they could repair something to get the speed up to 150 Mbps.