Yeah, i.e. DE-CIX is constantly hitting the 4 Tbps barrier for quite some time now and is trending towards 5 Tbps.
Besides being morally wrong to mass surveillance everyone when the current act already allows the intelligence services to monitor the few thousand potential terrorists and spies, it would also hurt the Dutch economy. International companies would move their European cloud infrastucture to e.g. Germany and Dutch startups providing a communication service (i.e. almost any startup) would be less trusted by their users and run the risk of paying for expensive surveillance equipment.
If you are Dutch i recommend reading the reaction of Nederland ICT [1] to the proposed act.
[1] http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wiv/reactie/828d2159-cf3c-...
Also the CTIVD ,the organization that supervises the AIVD (The dutch NSA) has told the law isn't possible to implement in current form.
So the chance that it will pass it pretty small. Though they'll probably juggle around some words and try again so we should stay alert. Luckily it has gotten quite some media attention and people seem to be aware that the law is a bad idea.
http://jam.ja.net/marketing/janet30years/images/gallery/grap...
Or that the total traffic served by the University of Bath's website across all of 1997 was 63MB:
https://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/bucsha/Computing+Service+His...
6310241024 == 66060288 bytes. 66060288/6000000 == ~110bytes/request. That seems too small. The overhead of the HTTP request alone (without content) would be greater than that!
In fact, you can find the server stats from back then: http://web.archive.org/web/19970822145424/http://www.bath.ac...
This says that it transferred "3 599 Mbytes" and there were "728 506" requests. Interpreting "3 599" as 3.599 gives 4.94 bytes per request, which is absurd. It must be 3.6 GB, making each response just under 5 kB. This seems much more reasonable.
So the number on that page should probably be interpreted as 63 GB, which is reasonable if we assume the site became more popular later in the year, as the original source suggests (3.6 GB*12 = 43.2 GB, and the stats are from May).
Also notice the following year (1998) says 126 MBytes and in 1999, 197 GB. That's an order of magnitude jump!
https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-a...
[0] https://www.de-cix.net/about/statistics/ (scroll a bit down)
In the past few years Apple have been embracing public peering much more - according to PeeringDB they are at 37 locations with many having multiple 100G connections.
I always assumed given its age and role that it would have the best peering bar none.