I don't understand, Bob. It must be doing more than this to monitor usage. This looks more like a speed test to me.

Wagstaff

That's the Epitiro log. Just to show you what they are all crying about.

I presume you read my other post just before that one - I didn't edit into it in case you were already reading.

So this is when all the so-called "client data" is passed from TBB to Epitiro.
How does the software actually monitor usage? I presume it runs as a background process and switches on each time Internet access is actioned - and switches off when the access is terminated.

I don't think I saw your last post, unless it was a question about my exchange which I didn't understand.

Wagstaff

Ah - getting myself confused as well!

The last post was the one before the exchange one.

The exchange one is just asking what exchange you are on.

tbbMeter runs constantly, with a timer that you set at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 or 5 seconds. It doesn't send or receive to the internet most of the time, it just gets information from your network card at those intervals.

So for knowing your usage the 5 second reading would be fine. To see what is happening to speed on the real-time graph I use the default 1sec. Very interesting when doing a speed test! It also has a built-in file download system for speed testing which will run multi-threaded if you ask it. Quite useful.

Once a day it uploads your statistics to the tbbMeter web page. That is quite good as it has better graphing than the tool itself, and it also allows you to see the totals of multiple machines if you have it running on more than one, and have registered all copies. Though that is compromised at the moment because of including LAN traffic as I think I said before.

You could spend virtually all day on YouTube and be hard pressed to use 1GB.

Without a doubt (in my mind) it was "except perhaps the tv downloads." which lead to the excess usage charge. Downloads on iPlayer give the size.

Having seen the posts that have come in on this thread, I think I've more or less reached that conclusion myself.
TV downloads must take a very big bite out of the allowance, and yet the various tv channels are almost encouraging you to participate in this costly activity.
How are the ISPs, which offer "unlimited" access, coping with this increase in demand?

Wagstaff

Some of the big ones keep complaining that content providers should subsidise the ISPs. That's a daft idea and imagination the complexity of working out who with a web site should pay something to whom?

For instance - what about this guy.

The fact is we don't have the infrastructure to support everybody downloading and/or streaming their TV programs. My personal view is that it is completely irresponsible of the BBC and ITV to encourage people to do so.

The simplest answer would be for all ISPs to get together and offer these services as a paid extra - that way I don't have to subsidise folks who are too stupid or forgetful to be able to operate a PVR.

BBC now offer HD downloads.

I am not stupid and only occasionally forgetful and quite capable of operating a PVR (four on the go at the moment) thank you. But you cannot completely cover the bases when the broadcaster screws up and as I refuse to pay the Murdoch Tax my only access to Eurosport for the superbike racing is online.

I don't see why my particular pattern of internet usage should incur a premium when yours does not. Smacks of extreme selfishness on your part.

That really starts a whole new debate on Internet usage.
Perhaps ISPs should end the practice of offering "unlimited" deals and move to a two-tier method of charging, where those who want to download video and audio should pay extra for so doing.
It would surprise me if this topic hasn't already been discussed before on this forum.

Wagstaff