I think you’re misreading that as “10 GB of data,” when it’s actually download speeds of 10Gb/s. I looked it up, and there doesn’t seem to be a data cap.
While you are technically correct, gigabit almost universally refers to speeds, and not size. You can probably blame the ISPs for that, since they love to advertise “gigabit service” and drop the bit about “per second.”
then it would be €1200 for a TB (assuming the price goes up linearly), so not cheaper than starlink
10 Gbit as in speed, not data cap. In Europe (at least in most places afaik) we don’t have data caps on fiber.
So no, not even close.
Then you should write Gbit/s or Gbps, not just Gbit
Also I live in Europe and my internet is capped at 50 GB and the max speed is 30 Mbps, so 10 Gbps is baffling to me.
I think you’re misreading that as “10 GB of data,” when it’s actually download speeds of 10Gb/s. I looked it up, and there doesn’t seem to be a data cap.
So it’s quite a bit cheaper than Starlink.
I’m not misreading. The comment clearly says 10 Gbit, not 10 Gb/s
While you are technically correct, gigabit almost universally refers to speeds, and not size. You can probably blame the ISPs for that, since they love to advertise “gigabit service” and drop the bit about “per second.”
well you can’t blame me for misunderstanding the comment then can you