Nah, we are only on a 100 meg connection now and normally are under 2 meg of actual usage at any time. We are transferring under a terabyte a month.
Why?
I get to do a fun build vs. buy analysis every year or so. As long as your servers need to stay up 24/7, co-location is still the way to go for virtually all implementations. Cloud continues to hover around the 2.3-2.7x cost of co-lo, depending on the application profile. Even if you go 100% cloud native and redevelop everything for that model, it is hard to get the total cost down below 2x the cost of running your own servers in a co-lo. Cloud isn't about saving money. It is about being able to deal with bursting demand. That is why companies like Netflix build their own data centers once they reach a certain size. Public clouds should be one of many tools used to build a robust infrastructure, not the only one. "Hybrid" is definitely the way to go.At least you could reduce your heating bill in the wintertime…
Realistically, though, with modern servers ticking over at ~100 W the major power demand comes from rotational HDD. If you can afford SSDs, you might be able to break even with your electric bill in a few years. But, do your research. Maybe a hybrid with the database on AWS and you host the server that knows where everything is.
arstechnica.com
They have been working a lot in my town, not sure what exactly they are doing though.
That's what they did here in Cheshire, too. The fiber is near the bottom of the pole, although it's along side the phone/cable lines. I just connected with them this week! Great speed, much cheaper than Cox.
