but the letter doesn't say that. it seems to suggest that the reason they don't get involved is there is no legislation regarding internet measurement like the Weights and Measures Act and Regulations, and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and Regulations.A member of another internet related message board wrote them recently and in a nut shell their reply was they have no desire get involved in internet usage metering.
And another article written about the inaccuracy of ISP's usage "meters".Thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciated your prompt response and attention.
However, I still have a few questions, and matters of concern here, which are shared by many people now faced with major incumbents (ILECs) gravitating toward these kinds of usage-based billing schemes. And there is a growing chorus of concerns that these billing schemes and metering are rife with overbilling, counting issues, verifiability, and outright abuse.
To my understanding, is not the onus upon measurement canada, once discovering evidence of inaccurate metering which results in inflated bills, REGARDLESS of the good/service involved, to actually get involved and discover why these inaccuracies exist? The Act may be silent upon throughput measuring devices, but it is not silent upon the principle of fairness of measurement where the unfairness would result in extraordinary additional costs for consumers whose habits have not changed, and where such additional costs are largely based on erroneous and unfair metering.
To clarify, a weight or a measure is a weight or a measure, irrespective of the good or service being provided. When I go to a grocery store, for example, and purchase a quantity of food at the deli, I can always be reasonably assured that the amount of food that I receive is accurately measured and can be independently verified. Why cannot I have that same assurance when I purchase Internet services that the when the provider chooses to bill me via usage that it is in an accurate, verifiable quantity? Why is this different than any other good or service that MC regulates?
Before answering that please remember that the landscape is shifting very quickly in the Internet Service Provider field and many providers did not choose to bill via quantity (UBB) in any material significance until only recently. Does it not behoove measurement canada to re-examine this issue so that fairness to the customer is placed at the forefront?
In light of the facts and evidence, why would MC NOT choose to do so? Why would MC not take this initiative even despite the fact that "other industrialized nations" do not? Do we not want canada to be a leader in technological innovation? Then it would make sense that measurement canada keep ahead of the issues in regards to fair billing and regulation and ensuring a level playing field with regards to these "new" types of measuring devices.
Why would measurement canada not work in partnership with the CRTC to ensure that canada becomes a true and shining example of fair regulation and innovation to the rest of the world?
I and the many people who have read your first response would appreciate your department's reply and rationale and perhaps I'll take this opportunity to suggest that this would be forwarded to those who may take appropriate action on these concerns. Thank you sincerely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegabyteThe kilobyte is a multiple of the unit byte for digital information. The prefix kilo means 1000 in the International System of Units (SI), therefore 1 kilobyte is 1000bytes. The recommended unit symbol for the kilobyte is kB or kbyte.
The kilobyte is often considered to be 1024 bytes in some fields of computer science and information technology. This use has been discouraged by the major standards organizations and a new prefix system was defined by the International Electrotechnical Commission, which defines the kibibyte for this binary multiple and affirms the kilobyte as 1000bytes.
Gigabyte similarily has multiple meanings. It's a bit of a mess.The megabyte is a multiple of the unit byte for digital information storage or transmission with two different values depending on context: 1048576 bytes generally for computer memory; and one million bytes (106, see prefix mega-) generally for computer storage. The IEEE Standards Board has decided that "Mega will mean 1 000 000", with exceptions allowed for the base-two meaning. In rare cases, it is used to mean 1000×1024 (1024000) bytes.
Rogers is saying they track in Megabytes and then divide by 1,024 to get Gigabytes.How can I calculate my additional usage and charges?
The usage tool tracks your usage in megabytes. To convert your usage into gigabytes and calculate your additional charges, follow these steps:
1. Over usage = (“Total Usage” MINUS “Service Includes”) DIVIDED BY 1,024
2. Round down to the nearest gigabyte
3. Over-usage charge = Over usage in GB (from Step #1) MULTIPLIED BY $1.25
Total Usage: 128,522 MB
Service Includes: 90,000 MB
1. Over usage in GB = (128,522 – 90,000) / 1,024 = 37.62 GB
2. Round down to the nearest gigabyte = 37 GB
3. Over-usage charge = 37 X $1.25 = $46.25
said by user
If one definition of a Kilobyte is 1024 bits of data and another definition is 1000 bits of data than it should be clearly defined as to which is to be used as the Standard Unit of Measure. As 1 GB of data @ $2.50 per GB is less costly with a 1024bit kilobyte than that of a 1000bit kilobyte.
There is nothing to be defined there, SI clearly and unambiguously defines scaling prefixes like Kilo as 1000 units of something, Mega as 1 000 000 units, Giga as 1 000 000 000 of whatever unit, etc. This is the only definition that has indisputable legal significance.
The power-of-1024 prefixes are not recognized by the SI since the SI is only concerned with physical measurements, nor arbitrary/convenient computer science definitions so the 1024 bytes KB is invalid. To help resolve the ambiguity from this prefix misuse, the IEC recommended the use of Ki/Mi/Gi/Ti/etc. prefixes for base-1024 prefixes.