Speeds and Data Plans
I'm researching data plans and noticed Cox updated and reformatted their Speeds and Data Plans page. A couple notes:
Gigablast Package & Maximum Limit. Cox defines an area with "periods of sustai...
Forum Discussion
You're original question was
Monthly data plan. How does 1.25 TB equal 1,280 GB? Do you mean 1.28 TB or 1,250 GB? At which threshold would Cox start "automatically" charging $10 for exceeding a data plan: 1.25 TB or 1,280 GB? It's only a difference of 30 GB or 2 UHD movies. Why can't Cox be "StraightUp" with us?
How 1.25 TB = 1280 GB has been explained enough.
You're other concern was losing 30 GB of data. So I'll back out of the 1280 to get you to the 1250 you want to see. (This should look familiar. I'm just going in the other direction than in the earlier post).
1024 * 1 billion * 1.25 = 1280 Billion
1000 * 1 Billion * 1.25 = 1250 Billion
1024/1000 = 1.024
1280 Billion / 1.024 = 1250 Billion
For the math to work, we've determined that the 1280 GB referenced is actually 1280 Billion bytes. 1280 GB is 1310.72 Billion bytes. The website author probably failed to make that distinction (or didn't expect anybody to fact check it). But if you were expecting a 1250 Billion byte data limit, you're getting an extra 30 Billion bytes.
See? You're not losing any data. Had Cox simply omitted the "(1,280 GB)", you would have been fine. Ironically, including that bit of explanation appears to have been Cox trying to be "StraightUp" with us.
A kilobyte is and will always be 1024 bytes because computers can more easily calculate 210 than add up individual bytes. You can look it up. There are a few bazillion websites that mention it.
I don't have a problem with the math. Your math is good. ✅
I want Cox to explain, clarify, footnote on this page to the average subscriber what 1280 GB means. The way they're expressing the Data Cap begs a question.
If you prefix storage with "B," it generally...not absolutely...denotes base-10. An average subscriber would compare 1.25 TB to 1280 GB and question: this isn't a factor of 1000.
Even if Cox notated the 1280 as a binary expression, "GiB," it still may not be certain to the average subscriber because...how often do you see "iB" notations? I don't see it much so why express as binary at all? Just keep the storage values consistent on the entire page (mailbox, email size, additional blocks) as base-10 values.
However, for standard billing practices, if Cox needs to provide the actual binary value to justify penalizing you...good, wonderful, well-done. Just notate the binary value with standardized binary prefix: GiB.
Since the average subscriber still may not understand the prefix; tag, link and footnote the binary value as Cox did with decimal storage.
That's it. No math. If one assumes base-10, it's a 30 GB discrepancy.
I only want Cox to avoid the average question. If Cox needs to financially express binary, explain binary storage as they did for terabytes and gigabytes in the footnotes. If Cox needs to express binary, use obvious binary prefixes to distinguish from base-10 prefixes. If Cox doesn't need to express binary, don't.
I don't feel it's a mathematical mistake because it always felt it was a binary expression. I feel it's a clarity mistake. "How does 1.25 TB = 1280 GB? Explain your grammar to me."
