This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why do internet providers advertise in bits and not bytes?

#101GoldninjaPosted 8/8/2014 9:44:05 AM
Worknofun370 posted...
Goldninja posted...
That's it? That's quite a chunk of change.


You're going to have to support that claim, cause I'm not buying that at all.


I can't bring in physical proof, but I know plenty who have bought into plans/services that they normally wouldn't buy into if they knew what they were getting. Just the sheer amount of computer illiterates I've dealt with makes me a bit pessimistic (some good people but wouldn't know the difference between MB or Mb if their lives depended on it). Multiply that by a mil or two and that's a lot of profit they'd lose if these people knew what they were getting.

Yes, is it technically a case of PEBKAC? Probably. And that's why I would prefer that they advertise actual download speeds with the download connection they're advertising.
---
You guys just took a dump on my soul - mastahjebus
#102Worknofun370Posted 8/8/2014 9:48:23 AM(edited)
Goldninja posted...
I know plenty who have bought into plans/services that they normally wouldn't buy into if they knew what they were getting.


I don't necessarily disagree with that. I disagree with the notion that a TON of those people wouldn't opt for the higher speed (vs not getting any service at all) if they knew it would fit their needs better.

In-turn, making advertising in mbps a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
---
hasa diga eebowai
#103OreoBoy206Posted 8/8/2014 9:57:42 AM
SinisterSlay posted...
OreoBoy206 posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
OreoBoy206 posted...

Yeah that's odd, it might be a possibility that Canada rates the fuel economy the way you describe but in USA the vehicle is attached as explained in the link below..

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/28004-epa-fuel-economy-explained1.htm
Link^^^


Oh look, its MPG is down to 41.
http://www.dodge.com/en/dart/
And it's still lying as it gets 35 at best like every other dodge for the last 10 years.


The 41 MPG HWY rating is for the 1.4L engine and the link you posted from fueleconomy.gov shows that the 1.4 Dart comes very close to that. Everyone will not get the same exact MPG because everyone doesnt drive the same.. Some people have a heavier foot, while some lay off the gas and coast along and many other variables apply as well..

The 2.4L is rated at 35 MPG HWY on Dodges website and again the link you posted from fueleconomy.gov shows the 2.4L coming very close to the 35 MPG HWY rating.

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg//bymodel/2014_Dodge_Dart.shtml


Oh, good catch.
Also, pathetic... My 2007 Eclipse 2.4 gets 38 city and 42 highway, even more on American fuel. And I drive like an idiot with my pedal to the floor half the time.


According to fueleconomy.gov, people in the US with the same car as you only get 20 city and 28 hwy max... Are you from Canada? If so, I think that's where all the confusion is coming from.. According the site below, the tests Canada does for fuel economy are less strenuous than the ones in the US, which results in better fuel economy ratings..

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1088832_why-gas-mileage-in-canada-is-very-different
Source^^^
#104SinisterSlayPosted 8/8/2014 9:59:35 AM
Actually i was talking real world driving.
Japanese cars seem to underestimate.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#105Killah PriestPosted 8/8/2014 10:02:59 AM
My 02 lancer gets much better mileage than that site reports.
my 12 lancer gets much worse mileage than that site reports.
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.
#106SinisterSlayPosted 8/8/2014 10:04:37 AM
Killah Priest posted...
My 02 lancer gets much better mileage than that site reports.
my 12 lancer gets much worse mileage than that site reports.


Cvt?

Cvts seem to kill milage and power, at least in mitsus.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#107Killah PriestPosted 8/8/2014 10:09:16 AM(edited)
I know the 02 had some sort of thing that "learned" the way you drove and adjusted the gears accordingly.

the new one I don't know, that one gets like under 20 tho for sure its a damn guzzler.

edit: actually looks like neither have "CVT"
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.
#108SinisterSlayPosted 8/8/2014 10:10:14 AM
Killah Priest posted...
I know the 02 had some sort of thing that "learned" the way you drove and adjusted the gears accordingly.

the new one I don't know, that one gets like under 20 tho for sure its a damn guzzler.

edit: actually looks like neither have "CVT"


Which engine? The 2.4?
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#109OreoBoy206Posted 8/8/2014 10:14:31 AM(edited)
Killah Priest posted...
I know the 02 had some sort of thing that "learned" the way you drove and adjusted the gears accordingly.

the new one I don't know, that one gets like under 20 tho for sure its a damn guzzler.

edit: actually looks like neither have "CVT"


Yeah, was about to say if you have gears it's not a CVT.. CVTs should actually save gas as they have no gears and can always find the sweet spot for best power to fuel efficiency ratio. It's the reason almost all hybrids uses CVTs or something based off a CVT.
#110Killah PriestPosted 8/8/2014 10:13:55 AM
02 = OZ edition (2.0L)
12 = SE 2.4L AWC
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.