Is there a good reason why data rates are always measured/reported

>>62379435
Higher count.

>>62379445
Not sure if you've got my point.
Well, it's because, you know, 2000 is obviously more than 200 and so on.

>>62379435
Packets may not contain only whole bytes; they can be resized according to connection speed.

>>62379435
yes.
They don't care what the data is supposed to be, they count the bits transferred, not the data you end up transferring.
Look into network protocols.

It allows marketers to fool people effectively. If you dont know that "mb" means millibit, you're clearly an idiot.

>>62379618
this

>>62379618
wouldn't it fool people more if you wrote mb and then people couldn't transfer that much data?

Bit rate, not byte rate.

>>62379435
To make it seem like you're transferring more data than you actually are. Like I pay for 100 megabits down and 10 megabits up. That's actually 12.5 megabytes down and 1.25 megabytes up. Not so impressive now, is it?

>>62379435
Now think about how the fuck data is traveling over the internet?
A) Does it travel in bytes (set of 8 bits)
OR
B) Does it travel in bits (1 or 0)

>>62379435
To avoid the use of fractions. 3mbit is easier to say than 0.375mbytes/second. you might as well ask why don't we use gallons per mile instead of mpg

>>62379435
Originally it was measured in bauds, and 1 baud = 1bit/second for digital signals(well, it's actually more complicated than that, but whatever).

>>62379815
>wouldn't it fool people more if you wrote mb and then people couldn't transfer that much data?
They do that too, to the extend they can without getting sued. Why do you think the datarates are always UP TO?

>>62380926
They attach the "up to" speed because that's the speed you can get if you've got nobody else on the line. When there's thousands upon millions using the same connection they can't download moar bandwidth.