More tax.. yey...

[John C]

its about right. You download in megabytes but connect at megabits, so you have to devide your connected speed by 10 to give you roughtly your download speed.

Wouldnt it be 8?

 

[Bon]

Wouldnt it be 8?

Its actually some realy weird number, but 10 is easy to work out

 

[John C]

Ah I thought it would just be 8 bits to the byte.

But then a computer thinks a thousand is 1024 (silly computer) is that where the difference comes from?

 

[Missy-Q]

Ah I thought it would just be 8 bits to the byte.

But then a computer thinks a thousand is 1024 (silly computer) is that where the difference comes from?

I just tested this. I used the calculator on my computor, asked it to generate an answer for 750 + 250, and it gave me the answer of 1000. I tried it again twice, using the basic 500 + 500, and then even 1367 - 367, and both times it gave me the answer of 1000. I'm now confident that my computor does not think that 1000 is 1024. You should get yours checked, or change your post to :

But then my computer thinks a thousand is 1024

Glad I could help.

 

[paintball_scots]

Theres 8 bits in a byte.

 

[Bon]

The problem is "industry standards" are different

eg hard drive manufacturers consider 1 Megabyte to be 1,000,000 Bytes when actually the standard more commonly accepted is 1,024,000

this can even come down to ADSL routers using different versions ect ect ect


Like i said, its just easier to divide by 10 and use that as a rough estimate.

 

[paintball_scots]

ahh fair enough.

 

[JamesH]

The problem is "industry standards" are different

eg hard drive manufacturers consider 1 Megabyte to be 1,000,000 Bytes when actually the standard more commonly accepted is 1,024,000

this can even come down to ADSL routers using different versions ect ect ect


Like i said, its just easier to divide by 10 and use that as a rough estimate.

And we all think bon has 1,000,000 brain cells when really he has 0.1024 ^^

 

[Game]

No, it's simply the fact that they're media that are directly enforced by law. There's no choice, you HAVE to fund them, not to mention the fact it's nearly £150 a year per address.

And I don't doubt that they provide a quality service, though I happen to watch very little BBC nor do I listen to any of their ten+ radio stations. I do, however, have to fund the BBC if I want to watch any other television network (which is an almost ridiculous prospect when you consider how many channels you receive when you're on digital, or any other package television).


I don't dislike the BBC, I'm just miffed about how they get their revenue.

happy to pay the license fee just to get some add free tv cant remember the last time i ever watched a advert love sky+ unless it was on henrys nick junior ect but it still annoys me to have little breaks

 

[Hash47]

I havent read all the comments but saw some at the top of this page talking about mb and Mb. This is 2 Mb so it will be 32mb! thats a pretty darn good connection out of all honesty.

Also the tax only applies to those with copper phone lines, so it will be mostly the people with the poor net connection atm who are paying the relitivly small amount of £6 a year.

But i wonder if the goverment pay for this, will the private companys who provide the internet be made to provide these kinds of speeds. If not cant they just do what their doing right now. Saying you can get UP to 10mb, but you actually get like 0.5mb