|
to 88615298
Re: 1GB =1000mbsaid by 88615298:WRONG. OK first B is BYTES and b is BITS So no 1000 megaBITS does not equal 1 gigaBYTE. 1000 megaBITS =125 megaBYTES
Also it's 1024 MB = 1 GB The K/M/G/etc. prefixes are defined in the SI measurement system and officially recognizes only the powers-of-1000 definitions. The powers-of-1024 definitions are technically an abuse by computer science circles, albeit a widely used one for convenience's sake and it has landed companies into courts several times over the years. The Ki/Mi/Gi prefixes were created to resolve this ambiguity but most people still choose to continue abusing the SI prefixes instead. |
|
|
Nice way...to raise prices; just say you used more and charge you, even if you only used half of the cap. If the info is proprietary, then there's no way to prove they are wrong. |
|
|
to InvalidError
Re: Weights and measuressaid by InvalidError:The difference is that weights, volumes, lengths, etc. are physical measurements that can vary with temperature, humidity, physical wear, No they don't. A kilogram is a kilogram, whether on the Earth at the North Pole or on the bright side of the moon. Same for a meter, same for a liter. said by InvalidError:Another possibility is your IP address getting spammed by portscans and other activities which AT&T cannot really tell apart from regular traffic in which case the only way to avoid it is to turn off the modem when not in use. With Uverse, modem off means no TV. Not even being able to watch already recorded shows... |
|
koitsu MVM join:2002-07-16 Mountain View, CA Humax BGW320-500
1 edit
1 recommendation |
koitsu
MVM
2012-Nov-14 12:15 pm
Hmm...Possible root causes that I have seen within companies (corporations) and in the minds of some engineers: Someone's calculations being wrong when polling data from network devices. Most network devices count the number of octets sent/received across an interface. 1 octet = 1 byte, and 1000 bytes = 1 kilobyte (keep reading). When it comes to network traffic, you're supposed to calculate things based on a fairly obvious calculation formula which a lot of people don't use. Instead, they try to do things like go off of the number of kilobytes (which means you've lost granularity). Note in the reference material how all the calculation methods involve multiplying by 8. As I said above: 8 bits to a byte. This brings us next to the whole Kilobyte vs. kibibyte thing. God I hate this. It didn't used to be this nonsensical. As a computer programmer, a kilobyte, to me, has always been equal to 1024 bytes (2^10). That's how computers calculate data on a bit level: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024. xkcd took a jab at this too. And I say all this knowing quite well that the prefix "kilo-" has always meant 1000 -- it's just that the term when used in computer usage has always referred to numbers with a base of 2. Anyway, purists complained/bitched that "kilobyte" should actually refer to 1000 bytes, not 1024 bytes like it had up until that point. Hard disk manufacturers I'm certain had a role in this too, since they began claiming (on packaging, manuals, etc.) that 1000 bits = 1 byte (when in actuality on the hardware itself it doesn't work that way -- this was done purely from a marketing perspective to allow hard disks to look like they have more capacity than they really do (2.4% more, in fact). As such, the term "kibi-" was created to refer to 1024. And let's not forget this annoyance too, which is common for folks unfamiliar with network devices or telecommunications (speaking in general terms here). Anyway, the question then becomes: when converting into a unit like kilobytes, do you go with dividing by 1024, or do you go with dividing by 1000? When it comes to network devices, you're supposed to use 1000, and you're always supposed to measure things in bits. When I say "measure things in bits", I'm referring to the fact that all calculations should be doing things in bits, and save the large-unit-conversion for the very end. The difference, when given large amounts of data, can be pretty substantial. Some real examples. Note that I'll either round down or up based on if the fraction is >=0.5 or not (duh). 193859387214 bits = 24232423402 bytes Now let's apply the stupid kibi vs. kilo ordeal: 193859387214 bits = 189,315,808 kilobits (1000) 193859387214 bits = 193,859,387 kibibits (1024) 193859387214 bits = 24,232,423 kilobytes (1000) 193859387214 bits = 23,664,476 kibibytes (1024) 193859387214 bits = 193,859 megabits (1000) 193859387214 bits = 184,879 mibibits (1024) 193859387214 bits = 24,232 megabytes (1000) 193859387214 bits = 23,110 mibibytes (1024) 193859387214 bits = 194 gigabits (1000) 193859387214 bits = 181 gibibits (1024) 193859387214 bits = 24 gigabytes (1000) 193859387214 bits = 23 gibibytes (1024) Technically the difference between the two (1000 vs. 1024) is 2.4%, and the reporter says he's seen differing amounts of up to 20-30%, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Maybe someone is doing something stupid like trying to calculate a volumetric total from bits-per-second, which is incorrect -- the latter will result in an average, while the former will result in an aggregate total. If they're doing this, shame on them. I have seen people do this before, and I have also seen open-source projects screw this up too, so it's not limited to just big corporations. And finally, god forbid if they're using something like RRDTool to store the acquired data, in which case this would actually work in the customer's favour, since RRDTool averages all the data (every row in its database) every time a new row/data point is inserted. (Yes, there are ways to turn this off (use LAST instead of AVERAGE) but even that has had some bugs in the past if I remember correctly). This whole thing reminds me of the Verizon billing fiasco, where morons (even managers) couldn't understand the difference between 0.002 dollars and 0.002 cents. There's also the possibility that the device AT&T is getting their statistics from is something that's post-encapsulation. I don't know if ATM is used or what, but that tends to add quite a bit around every single frame (think packet, just to keep it simple), so if they're not subtracting that from the usage, again, shame on them. Otherwise they need to increase their permitted monthly totals by the encapsulation percentage delta to make up for it. I say all this as someone who partakes in the Tomato/TomatoUSB project, and should probably go look at the back-end scripts and Javascript used to calculate the aggregate total of network traffic per month... Let's face it: the problem could be there. I'm trying very hard not to apply Occam's razor to this... |
|
|
en103
Member
2012-Nov-14 12:15 pm
DSL - ATM overheadI almost suspect that customers are being charged for AT&T's ATM overhead of ~15% on both inbound and outbound. Basically - AT&T is charging you for their encapsulation bits on 'their' end, not the actual bits that are on the LAN side. |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Nov-14 12:28 pm
Who is being charged?For all the populist ranting we read here nearly every week, has anyone actually been assessed an overage charge and had to pay it, or been disconnected?
Wired caps are an inexpensive tool to influence behavior, not create additional revenue. Telco knows well how inaccurate they are. It doesn't matter.
They will be unenforced in the interim, and will go away when "network neutrality" nonsense fades from view.
But if you all push hard enough, who knows, maybe we'll have a national modem standard that includes federally certified usage metering.
Be very careful what you wish for. |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to koitsu
Re: Hmm...I do have to wonder, why did computer science go with divisions of 8?
as in why was a byte not engineered as 10bits.
figuring at some point in the design of electronic computers somebody had to decide to use base 8 instead of base 10 which would have allowed computer data to fall in line with the metric system. |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
to koitsu
said by koitsu:1 octet = 1 kilobyte 1 octet = 8 bits. |
|
koitsu MVM join:2002-07-16 Mountain View, CA Humax BGW320-500
|
koitsu
MVM
2012-Nov-14 12:45 pm
said by TomS_:said by koitsu:1 octet = 1 kilobyte 1 octet = 8 bits. Yep sorry, typo on my part. Too many units + editing jobs going on at once. I'll fix. Thank you. |
|
jap Premium Member join:2003-08-10 038xx |
to InvalidError
Re: 1GB =1000mbsaid by InvalidError:The powers-of-1024 definitions are technically an abuse by computer science circles |
|
|
to plencnerb
Re: If ISPs are gonna do meters....One difference is that you are measuring it from YOUR side of the modem and I think this is part of hte problem.
If they add something like this and then only track the LAN side of their modem they will not measure all the crap passed from the modem. However, they also wont be able to filter out crap that is "firewalled" if a customer is just using their modem in bridge mode.
Their issue is: they should not be measuring overhead and they should not be measuring stuff that is being blocked by the firewall. |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to cowboyro
Re: Weights and measuressaid by cowboyro:No they don't. A kilogram is a kilogram, whether on the Earth at the North Pole or on the bright side of the moon. Same for a meter, same for a liter. Actually the moon's gravity is 1/6 that of Earth so a kilogram on Earth would be 1/6 kilogram on the moon. Also technically gravity is slightly stronger at the north pole so a kilogram at the equator would be slightly more than a kilogram at the north pole. |
|
maubs join:2010-02-26 Farmington, IL |
to elray
Re: Who is being charged?I've had to pay overages twice now on my 150GB cap for a 6Mb DSL connection. As cord-cutters, we rely heavily on Netflix, Hulu and even stream from the BBC and ITV. AT&T doesn't offer UVerse anywhere near my part of the state, so the cap doesn't even serve to protect their revenue for a TV subscription. I have a wireless router that supports DD-WRT, so I'm thinking about installing that in order to measure the usage on my own. |
|
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to InvalidError
Re: 1GB =1000mbsaid by InvalidError:said by 88615298:WRONG. OK first B is BYTES and b is BITS So no 1000 megaBITS does not equal 1 gigaBYTE. 1000 megaBITS =125 megaBYTES
Also it's 1024 MB = 1 GB The K/M/G/etc. prefixes are defined in the SI measurement system and officially recognizes only the powers-of-1000 definitions. The powers-of-1024 definitions are technically an abuse by computer science circles, albeit a widely used one for convenience's sake and it has landed companies into courts several times over the years. The Ki/Mi/Gi prefixes were created to resolve this ambiguity but most people still choose to continue abusing the SI prefixes instead. Well at&t and other ISPs might do it differently but Verizon Wireless website makes it clear. 1 MB = 1,024 KB 1 GB = 1,024 MB » www.verizonwireless.com/ ··· opup.jspSo having one company measure data one way and another measure it another way is asking for trouble. |
|
SLC 96 join:2005-04-03 Chicago, IL |
to 88615298
Re: 50Mb vs 105Mb technical/install differences?Nope a kilogram is a kilogram no matter what.
However acceleration due to gravity is different on the moon than on Earth. You are thinking of weight which is measured in Kg m/s2, or a Newton (N). |
|
|
to cowboyro
Re: Weights and measuressaid by cowboyro:No they don't. A kilogram is a kilogram, whether on the Earth at the North Pole or on the bright side of the moon. Same for a meter, same for a liter. A kilogram may be a kilogram and a liter may be a liter but the calibration of measurement instruments can drift over time due to temperature, humidity, wear, aging, corrosion, contamination, etc. This is why physical quantity measurement equipment needs to be periodically inspected and calibrated. |
|
InvalidError |
to 88615298
Re: 1GB =1000mbsaid by 88615298:Well at&t and other ISPs might do it differently but Verizon Wireless website makes it clear. The metric/SI prefixes are an international standard and the only internationally recognized legal definition is powers of 1000. Just because Verizon has decided to perpetuate the incorrect definitions does not make it right. |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to cybercrim
Re: hey attsaid by cybercrim :ads and spyware add up to the cap too and if you leave your modem on 24/7 and if you use vonage it goes to the cap ads don't add up to that much unless the cap is ridiculously low. spyware? That's on YOU to prevent that. Vonage? You'd have to talk over 25 hours to use 1 GB. |
|
1 recommendation |
to 88615298
Re: Weights and measuresThis is not correct. A kilogram is a measurement of mass. That is, how much stuff there is in something. A kilogram of carbon will still be a kilogram on the moon, the north pole or anywhere else. What you're thinking of is weight which is not the same as mass.
For example, there are 6.03x10^23 atoms of carbon in 12 grams of carbon. Just because you take that carbon to the moon doesn't suddenly mean there are 1.005x10^23 atoms of carbon (2 gram of C). |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to InvalidError
Re: 1GB =1000mbsaid by InvalidError:said by 88615298:Well at&t and other ISPs might do it differently but Verizon Wireless website makes it clear. The metric/SI prefixes are an international standard and the only internationally recognized legal definition is powers of 1000. Just because Verizon has decided to perpetuate the incorrect definitions does not make it right. If Verizon's overages are based on the "incorrect" formula it certainly makes it right when calculating my bill. I don't care what you say it's 1024 and any ISP charging overages based on 1000 will get sued and lose. |
|
sirwoogieBlah Premium Member join:2002-01-02 Saline, MI |
to NormanS
Re: for classic ADSL, they count all the headersBS. I've re-read the ToS, and nowhere does it mention this "sync" speed you say I didn't bother to see. Go look for yourself: » www.att.com/shop/interne ··· ice.htmlAlso highlighted here: » www.att.net/speedtiers the information for AT&T High Speed Internet Pro states: Downstream Speed Range 1.56 Mbps - 3.0 MbpsSeems a little disingenuous to state the speed range is max of 3.0Mbps when in fact you can NEVER reach that, no matter what the traffic profile is. Stepping into my wayback machine... when I had DSL back in the day of SBC, they over-provisioned speed (and in fact stated this in the documentation to avoid confusion) so you could get the advertised rate. ATT does this crap so they can get away with less while making the customer pay for more, while advertising it as if said customer could actually achieve it. The meter working on this principle is also just another stab in the back and nothing more than a money grab, especially for those of us with no other choice for wired Internet. |
|
|
to maubs
Re: Who is being charged?As the user shows - ~20% extra - I'd expect the same. AT&T uses ATM for packets on DSL (including Uverse), which adds ~18%. » www.clock.org/~fair/opin ··· bad.html» blog.ioshints.info/2009/ ··· ead.html |
|
tkdslr join:2004-04-24 Pompano Beach, FL |
to JT01
Re: DSL MeteringLooks like Do At&T is measuring some other aDSL user... You might try an experiment and expand the power down hours.. see if you can determine the actual cutoff times(GMT,EST,CST,PST,if there are any).. Do some measured experiments.. like download exactly 100 MB in the middle of shutoff period.. 200MB, etc.. Document everything.. If AT&T starts charging you extra.. File a complaint with the FTC after they've received a fair number of complaints... The FTC will sue "AT&T" for "unfair or deceptive trade practices" |
|
|
TelecomEng to Kearnstd
Anon
2012-Nov-14 2:28 pm
to Kearnstd
Re: Hmm...said by Kearnstd:I do have to wonder, why did computer science go with divisions of 8?
as in why was a byte not engineered as 10bits. Because of the binary nature of computer equipment, everything is based on powers of a bit (binary digit). 10 doesn't fall on a whole bit-length, with the closest whole bit-lengths being 3 (for decimal 7, yielding 8 zero-referenced decimal values) or 4 (for decimal 15, yielding 16 zero-referenced decimal values). |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
to maubs
Re: Who is being charged?Sounds like you haven't disputed the charges. Not that you should have to. Sad to hear that they're actually billing now.
Is there a reason you're with AT&T and not one of their resellers?
Have you priced a business connection? |
|
|
to maubs
See if you can get dslextreme. First letter I got from AT&T started me looking for alternatives and that is where I switched. Price is lower and no caps. |
|
maubs join:2010-02-26 Farmington, IL |
maubs
Member
2012-Nov-14 2:07 pm
DSL Extreme is an option, and I have contacted them, but AT&T will only tell the reseller that the line is capable of 3Mb. Also, I'd have to keep the land line I'm only paying for to get better than a 768Kb connection. Also looked into a business connection - they want to see a yellow pages listing for my business in order to qualify. |
|
|
I had 6 with AT&T and still have 6 with dslextreme, so that is a shame with your connection. |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to Kearnstd
Re: Hmm...Early engineers needed to represent the alphabet (upper/lower case), 10 digits, various common symbols (+-/"%$...) and control characters. This required 7 bits and it was the birth of the ASCII character set. An 8th bit was added for parity error correction. Anything more than this was wasteful and in those early days, core memory was ridiculously expensive and in very short supply.
Binary coded decimal (BCD) also requires multiples of four. Even though four bits can hold 16 values, only 10 of the 16 possible values is needed to represent a digit in BCD. However, since 3 bits can only represent 8 unique values, four bits with a bit of waste is necessary. (This is also called packed decimal.) |
|
koitsu MVM join:2002-07-16 Mountain View, CA Humax BGW320-500
|
to TelecomEng
I took what Kearnstd to mean why didn't we go with bit lengths that were a different size rather than 8. Meaning, what's special about the value of 8? Why must a byte range from 0-255 rather than, say, 0-63 (6-bit), 0-1023 (10-bit), or even something strange like 0-8191 (13-bit)? There are architectures (old and present-day) which define a byte as something other than 8 bits. The examples I've seen cited are the Intel 4004 (1 byte = 4 bits), PDP-8 (1 byte = 12 bits), PDP-10 (byte length in bits was variable, from 1 to 36), and present-day DSPs (which often just use the term "word", where a single word can represent something like 60-bits). |
|