Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bug In Fire TV Screensaver Tears Through 250 GB Data Cap

Posted by Unknown on from the should-have-stuck-to-xscreensaver dept.

jfruh (300774) writes Tech writer Tyler Hayes had never come close to hitting the 250 GB monthly bandwidth cap imposed by Cox Cable — until suddenly he was blowing right through it, eating up almost 80 GB a day. Using the Mac network utility little snitch, he eventually tracked down the culprit: a screensaver on his new Kindle Fire TV. A bug in the mosaic screensaver caused downloaded images to remain uncached.

9 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. It's 2014 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?

    Oh, that's right, greed.

    1. Re:It's 2014 by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?

      Because we still have antiquated data lines and switches and whatnot that can only handle so much total bandwidth.

      I don't care for caps either, but if they protect my paid-for bandwidth from abusers like Mr. Hayes (yes I know, it's not his fault, whatever it's still keeping me from streaming) then I'm ok with it to a degree.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:It's 2014 by e3m4n · · Score: 5, Informative

      you are already paying for this... SEVERAL times the goddamn major TELCO's lobbied congress for additional charges...

      FEDERAL SUBSCRIBER LINE fees
      UNIVERSAL SERVICES FUNDs
      FEDERAL ACCESS fees

      these all exist so the FCC can give ATT more money to build broadband to every home. Yes the USF predates the 1994 telecom act and later laws, but its constanty evolving. The FCC, right this minute, is considering USF charges on your internet connection as well.

      the telcos got government permission to bill you and everyone else extra BILLIONS to build out an infrastructure that was supposed to provide 50Mbps connections to the homes. Instead they rolled out DSL (at the time 1.5mbps x 256kbps) which was a technology they already had and pocketed the rest. To this day you are still being charged these extra fee's for a buildout that was declared 'completed' years ago.

      http://www.newnetworks.com/Sho...

    3. Re:It's 2014 by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?

      Oh, that's right, greed.

      Why does a screensaver, on a TV no less, need the fucking internet?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    4. Re:It's 2014 by e3m4n · · Score: 5, Informative

      That was its old use... havent you read up on the USF being applied to internet connectivity? It currently is only levied on interstate long distance. You do realize that in 2003 it was only 5% and now its 16.3% right?

      I know of one company scamming the USF right now. He claims its all legal, but he sells phone service to nursing homes. Why a phone company should be getting $4000 a month to deliver a single PRI to a nursing home is ridiculous, but he charges for a dedicated line in each and every room of the facility and only drops in a single PRI. The concurrent call count for all the rooms combined is maybe 6 including the nursing staff using the phones. So to defraud the government for all these 'lines' that dont really exist is insane.

    5. Re:It's 2014 by e3m4n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit, I am a small ITSP and I cannot get any USF money. Yet when I go around into government housing I see signs everywhere about 'need a land line? cant afford it?' and those signs are for ATT. They are giving them 'free' phone service and collecting $50 from the USF for that basic residential analog POTS line. The original intent was similar to those rural electrification subsidies. Those days are long gone. Now its just another nightmare like those medicare scams "If you have medicare and want one of these motorized carts, you cant be denied for any reason" even if you happen to be on medicare but just ran the Boston marathon.

    6. Re:It's 2014 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And why do we still have antiquated data lines and switches and whatnot when we are paying through the nose for internet access?

      Because we are using the wrong payment model for internet access. It should be metered like virtually everything else. Then ISPs would have the incentive to strengthen their networks, since more capacity means more usage means more profit. Under the current model their maximum profit is made the instant you pay, before you use a single bit. It's backwards.

  2. Why do we have screen savers? by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?

    I would ask why we still have screen savers. Turning off the monitor automatically after a period of inactivity to save power I understand. Having it still draw power to put pretty images on the screen when you aren't using it is a pointless exercise. Screen burn-in is not a big problem these days, particularly if you have the monitor/tv turn off when not in active use.

    1. Re:Why do we have screen savers? by DraugTheWhopper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would ask why we still have screen savers

      Although it isn't a hard-and-fast rule, screensavers nowadays are less about preventing burn-in and more about utilizing idle displays. For example, on a Linux-based machine, it's not unusual to have screensaver options that let you display the system load and uptime. Photo screensavers are another prime example. If I'm in my home office for an hour at a time, but only using the computer for 10 minutes, why not have my otherwise idle screen act as a large digital photo frame? You are correct in asserting that power consumption is an issue, but display technology has come a long way, so my 24" monitor draws much less power than my 19" CRT. Reducing power usage is a wonderful slogan, but modern society has a very poor grasp on exactly how much power their devices consume compared to their microwave, water heater, air conditioning, dusk-to-dawn lighting, and other amenities. It's great to hear that your cell-phone charger now reduces it's power consumption by 95% when not in use, but do you have any idea how that compares to an running your AC and heat an extra day each fall/spring, microwaving your pre-cooked meal every other night? /rant