TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

Author	All Replies
TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ ·Sprint Mobile Broa.. ·Comcast	TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind The above from the bill. I always thought that 27.56 - 20 = 7.56 But, evidently TWC has their own unique math system where 27.56 - 20 = 9.59 The TWC accountants must use fuzzy math & fuzzy logic where outcomes can be in a range of values, instead of based on discrete values. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Mathematics -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 13:43:30 ·
swintec Premium join:2003-12-19 Alfred, ME	I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process. -- Block Accounts \| UseNet Now
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 13:49:10 ·
NetAdmin CCNA join:2008-05-22 1 edit	said by swintec : I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process. If that's case, it would not be that far off. For there to be that big of difference between the bits number and the bytes number, you would have to be talking about much more than 30GB. -- "This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 13:58:05 ·
swintec Premium join:2003-12-19 Alfred, ME ·RapidVPS ·surpasshosting ·Sprint Mobile Broa.. ·VoicePulse ·RoadRunner Cable	said by NetAdmin : said by swintec : I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process. If that's case, it would not be that far off. For there to be that big of difference between the bits number and the bytes number, you would have to be talking about much more than 30GB. From the Consumerist story: Here's how their math works - their definition of gigabyte for your cap is 1 GB = 1000 MB = 1,000,000 KB, = 1,000,000,000 Bytes However, your usage was measured using 1 GB = 1024 MB = 1048576 KB = 1073741824 Bytes so, anyway, by their definition, you used up 27.56 GB * 1024^3 (GB / Btye) = 29592324669 Bytes. Then they subtracted your allowance of 20000000000 Bytes, and converted back using 1000^3 Bytes / GB to get an overage of 9.59 GB. It's the whole 1024 vs. 1000 issue that's shown up in all sorts of various memory rating areas (like why your 250 GB hd isn't really 250 GB) So it looks like they also round up to the nearest GB to, at a dollar a gig. -- Block Accounts \| UseNet Now
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 14:03:52 ·
en102 Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA	Where there is another carrier... call and complain. If they won't do anything about it - switch carriers. -- Canada = Hollywood North
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 14:17:07 ·
shadow700 join:2004-08-05 Collegeville, PA	reply to TKJunkMail If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out: 20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes 27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes 29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes 9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 14:17:28 ·
iria64 join:2003-04-14	reply to swintec So they are using two definitions of GB for the calculation. This smells ripe for some sort of suit. Based on this above calculations the actual cap is 18.62GB, 2x10^10 / 1024^3. If calculations posted above are correct when the usage meter show 19gb used you are already over the cap.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 14:24:41 ·
TACSPEED Premium join:2001-04-14 Tacoma, WA	reply to swintec Then why are they not using 20 GB * 1024^3 (GB/Btye) = 21474830000 Bytes? Giving an overage of 8.12 GB Seems they should be consistent.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 14:26:22 ·
Corydon Cultivant son jardin Premium join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO clubs: ·Comcast	reply to swintec Ugh....now cable companies are using that sneaky "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" definition? It was bad enough when the hard drive manufacturers started in with that. Can't we please, PLEASE settle on one definition? Ideally the traditional definition which applies the prefixes to exponents of 1024? Running with two separate definitions ON THE SAME BILL is just plain stupid, and the discrepancy just gets worse as storage and cap sizes increase (the billion byte GB shortchanges you by more than 70 MB and a trillion byte TB shortchanges you by more than 92 GB or over 9%) -- "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 15:24:42 ·
RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY	said by Corydon : Ugh....now cable companies are using that sneaky "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" definition? It was bad enough when the hard drive manufacturers started in with that. Can't we please, PLEASE settle on one definition? Ideally the traditional definition which applies the prefixes to exponents of 1024? Running with two separate definitions ON THE SAME BILL is just plain stupid, and the discrepancy just gets worse as storage and cap sizes increase (the billion byte GB shortchanges you by more than 70 MB and a trillion byte TB shortchanges you by more than 92 GB or over 9%) I agree about the usage of two different systems (but calling both GB) is wrong. If you want to define the caps (and short the customer) by using 1000 based counting (as oppose to the correct 1024 based system) then the usage and overage MUST be measured and displayed using 1000 based math also. BTW: GB is 1000 based in ALL cases since if you want 1024 based it is supposed to be shown as GiB.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 17:40:59 ·
NetAdmin CCNA join:2008-05-22	reply to swintec Okay, wow, that is just super fscked up.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 18:03:13 ·
iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO	Yes it is. Somebody, sue them NOW.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 18:36:41 ·
BF69 join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN	reply to swintec said by swintec : said by NetAdmin : said by swintec : I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process. If that's case, it would not be that far off. For there to be that big of difference between the bits number and the bytes number, you would have to be talking about much more than 30GB. From the Consumerist story: Here's how their math works - their definition of gigabyte for your cap is 1 GB = 1000 MB = 1,000,000 KB, = 1,000,000,000 Bytes However, your usage was measured using 1 GB = 1024 MB = 1048576 KB = 1073741824 Bytes so, anyway, by their definition, you used up 27.56 GB * 1024^3 (GB / Btye) = 29592324669 Bytes. Then they subtracted your allowance of 20000000000 Bytes, and converted back using 1000^3 Bytes / GB to get an overage of 9.59 GB. It's the whole 1024 vs. 1000 issue that's shown up in all sorts of various memory rating areas (like why your 250 GB hd isn't really 250 GB) Nope the math is still off. The bill is just plain wrong. besides it doesn't matter if you say a GB is 1 billion bytes or 1,073,741,000 bytes. The limit, amount used and overage are all using the SAME method of calculating useage so it shouldn't matter. The cap says it's in GB not bytes. the overage fees are per GB not bytes. The cap is 20 GB. His useage meter says he used 27.56 GB. So his overage is 7.56 GB. It doesn't matter how it's calculated. besides if they were going to base the cap on 1000 and the useage on 1024 that is slightly illegal.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 20:16:19 ·
BF69 join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN	reply to shadow700 said by shadow700 : If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out: 20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes 27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes 29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes 9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB That''s illegal to do by the way.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 20:17:45 ·
swintec Premium join:2003-12-19 Alfred, ME ·RapidVPS ·surpasshosting ·Sprint Mobile Broa.. ·VoicePulse ·RoadRunner Cable	said by BF69 : said by shadow700 : If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out: 20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes 27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes 29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes 9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB That''s illegal to do by the way. have you taken notice of how hard drives and other memory devices are sold? Do you know what a GB is broken down into, in it smallest form? It isnt "illegal" in any sense, marketing at its finest? Yes. I challenge you to provide the law that says it is illegal. -- Block Accounts \| UseNet Now
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 20:51:06 ·
BF69 join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN	said by swintec : said by BF69 : said by shadow700 : If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out: 20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes 27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes 29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes 9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB That''s illegal to do by the way. have you taken notice of how hard drives and other memory devices are sold? Do you know what a GB is broken down into, in it smallest form? It isnt "illegal" in any sense, marketing at its finest? Yes. I challenge you to provide the law that says it is illegal. it is illegal. Selling a HDD is different. They are caping you with one definition and metering you with another. say your electric company had a cap. you could use up to 1500 kilowatts a month at 10 cents per kilowatt then you get charged $1 per kilowatt. Your 1500 kilowatts and your overgae is based on 1000 watts per kilowatts but your meter was based on 1024 watts per kilowatt. I'm 100% sure you would NOT be ok with that. And I'm 100% that electric company would have the governemnt on their ass.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 21:35:16 ·
BF69 join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN 3 edits	reply to shadow700 said by shadow700 : If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out: 20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes 27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes 29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes 9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB Al the guy has to do is take it to court and I can guarantee you 12 normal people on a jury are NOT going to side with TW. They'll see 20 GB cap 27.56 GB useage and see that overage is 7.56 GB. Pretty simple. You can't cap based on 1000 and charge overage based on 1000 then meter based on 1024. You CAN NOT do it. It HAS to be the same. If they want to base thing on 1000, fine. If they want to base things on 1024, fine, but the base has to be CONSISTANT. By the way the caps are based on GIGABYTES not BYTES unless you can show me otherwise. 27.56 GB ( whether it's based on 1000 or 1024 doesn't matter ) - 20 GB ( once again doesn't matter what it's based on ) = 7.56 GB. The overgage is based on GB not bytes. It says $1 per GB not $1 per billion bytes. Once again unless you can show me otherwise.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-09 21:39:35 ·
Rogue Wolf Is Kind Of A Big Deal In Yemen join:2003-08-12 Troy, NY	reply to TACSPEED Because consistency doesn't make them as much money as fuzzy math does.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-03-13 21:39:13 ·


Friday, 04-Dec 12:11:45	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com. republican-creole page compression OFF