swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind
I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process.
--
Block Accounts | UseNet Now |
|
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?" |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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." |
|
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. |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22 | reply to swintec
Okay, wow, that is just super fscked up. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Yes it is. Somebody, sue them NOW. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
