gii2, that's a good point: there is definitely a conflation here between bandwidth and monthly usage quota and they have nothing to do with each other (although 1Gps can help you reach your quota much faster). I would agree that the issue here is over bandwidth per month, not bandwidth per second, which sort of undermines the article's thesis.
By way of example, it's understandable for a trucking company to put their business near an interstate exit: there may be jams at peak times, but their proximity to the on/off ramps should mitigate congestion for everybody else. It's not ok, however, if the company's fleet is so large that nobody can then use the exit because the flow of trucks coming in and out is peaking 24/7.
talync, that statement, "[a]s mentioned in today's paper, Iron Labs Inc. uses our 100Mb connection and it works for them", makes this editorial even more disingenuous, then. Apparently Iron Labs neither needed, nor would have used, EPB's 1Gbs service if Comcast's 100Mb connection "works for them".
It is difficult to know EPB's motivations for denying gig service to Iron Labs, but I'm pretty sure they would have been happy to provide 100Mbs or 300Mbs service to Iron Labs (which apparently would have been fine).
Either the 100Mbs service is a tremendous compromise on Iron Labs' part and they operating at only 1/10th of their potential (which doesn't read as 'works for them!') or consistent 1Gbs bandwidth was over-specification on Iron Labs' part.
(Not to take anything away from Covenant, of course. Congratulations on your new library system)
I find it a little hard to call this "pioneering" or "never been done before" when UTC runs the same system (http://utc.worldcat.org/) which would affect far more people locally.
Also it is just the catalog and the back office systems in the cloud. It has nothing to do with e-books.