Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: What To Do About Repeated Internet Overbilling?

An anonymous reader writes "AT&T has been overbilling my account based on overcounting DSL internet usage (they charge in 50 gigabyte units after the first 150). I have been using a Buffalo NFinity Airstation as a managed switch to count all traffic. As you may know, this device runs firmware based on dd-wrt and has hidden telnet functionality, so I am able to load a script to count traffic directly onto the device. I have an auto-scraper that collects the data and saves it on my computer's hard disk every two minutes while the computer is running. While it is not running, the 2 minute counters accumulate in RAM on the device. Power problems are not normally an issue here; and even when they are I can tell it has happened. The upshot of all this is I can measure the exact amount of download bandwidth and a guaranteed overestimate of upload bandwidth in bytes reliably. I have tested this by transferring known amounts of data and can account for every byte counted, including ethernet frame headers. AT&T's billing reporting reports usage by day only, lags two days, and uses some time basis other than midnight. It is also reading in my testing a fairly consistent 14% higher whenever the basis doesn't disturb the test by using too much bandwidth too close to midnight.

AT&T has already refused to attempt to fix the billing meter, and asserts they have tested it and found it correct. Yet they refuse to provide a realtime readout of the counter that would make independent testing trivial. I've been through the agencies (CPUC, FCC, and Weights & Measures) and can't find one that is interested, AT&T will not provide any means for reasonable independent testing of the meter. It is my understanding that if there is a meter and its calibration cannot be checked, there is a violation of the law, yet I can't find an agency that can even accept such a claim (I'm not getting "your claim is meritless", but "we don't handle that"). If indeed they are not overbilling, my claim of no way to verify the meter still stands. My options are running thin here. So that my account can be identified by someone who recognizes the case: 7a6c74964fafd56c61e06abf6c820845cbcd4fc0 (bit commitment).

355 comments

  1. maybe by cirrustelecom · · Score: 3

    Maybe they are counting encapsulation?

    --
    "No, but understanding is not required, only obedience."
    1. Re:maybe by Dr.Zong · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was going to say, ATM/PPPoE encapsulation is approximately 15% of total traffic. Bell Canada and all providers do that up here. I thought everyone knew this, or were able to google it especially if they are able to upload something like DDWRT to their router. Perhaps I had too much faith.

      --

      Party?!? What kind of party is this? Where's the damn keg?
      Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit
    2. Re:maybe by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought everyone knew this, or were able to google it especially if they are able to upload something like DDWRT to their router. Perhaps I had too much faith.

      especially in AT&T if nobody he's ever spoken with about the issue knew enough to mention encapsulation. It doesn't sound like he's a dope, just possibly missed this factor. Somebody there could have simply asked him, "are you counting the overhead of PPPoE and ATM?" and then his post may have been entirely different, if it even existed at all.

      With millions of home users and thousands of techs, the onus should not be on the customer base to understand how the vendor's product works internally.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:maybe by green1 · · Score: 2

      Bell Canada and all providers do that up here.

      Not "all providers up here", only those where you live, in Western Canada I'm not aware of any PPPoE providers.

    4. Re:maybe by Tuidjy · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is exactly what's going on. The company I work for had this problem, at one of our warehouses (not AT&T, different provider, probably subletting from someone).

      The warehouse manager threatened his local rep with a law suit, they laughed at him. The company lawyer mentioned a class action law suit, they fixed our billing the same month.

      When we had to renew, the new contract spelled out that they will bill us for the 'resulting' traffic. It got signed without anyone from my department getting asked, but the funny thing is, months later, they are still billing us the old way i.e. without the overhead.

      As for the original poster - check your contract. If you have not agreed to pay for their internal overhead, you will get amazing results if you remind them that they are overcharging thousands of customers, and that they can be on the hook for millions, when a lawyer agrees to take the case for a percentage. If you have agreed to pay for the overhead... I doubt there is much you can do.

      By the way, I am an IT director ,not a lawyer, so don't go blindly follow my advice, either.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    5. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's like a trucking company adding the weight of the truck to the weight of the cargo. Encapsulation puts zero strain on the network and should not be counted, since almost everything goes back to an IP network once it reaches the DSLAM. Knowing what fuckers these guys are, I'm sure they count it too. However, you would need a lawyer to go through their contract.

    6. Re:maybe by msobkow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you know "Canada" means "Ontario" to those who live there?

      Hell, they barely acknowledge Quebec's existence, never mind the rest of the country.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    7. Re:maybe by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Why should we pay for ATM encapsulation? That is THEIR choice, not what people think they're getting when they ask for internet service.

    8. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't really matter though, you can't charge somebody for bandwidth used to move data, only the bandwidth the end user used. Imagine if you went to buy milk and bought a gallon but were charged for 1.25 gallons because of spillage in the bottling plant. Not legal. Not even a little. You have to work that cost into what you charge for a gallon, and then charge for the gallon the end user buys.

      I say the sane thing to do about this is class action lawsuit personally. Don't charge for something you didn't supply, it's illegal, plain and simple.

    9. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [[That's like a trucking company adding the weight of the truck to the weight of the cargo.]]
      And I would 100% expect that from a cable company. What are you going to do about it? Threaten to switch to the cable company that doesn't do this because this other cable company competes with the first cable company on billing openness?

    10. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      especially in AT&T if nobody he's ever spoken with about the issue knew enough to mention encapsulation.

      More than likely he never asked the right question. He was probably asking if there was any way to verify the accuracy of the meter and most businesses will simply say "No, you'll just have to trust us."

    11. Re: maybe by krlynch · · Score: 2

      It needs to be paid for one way or the other ... it's irreducible overhead to move the data you are asking them to move. You either pay for it with a lower effective cap or you pay a higher price per overhead-free byte. Six of one, half dozen o' the other. ...

    12. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is more like charging for dry goods by weight and including the weight of the container. Spillage is waste, ATM overhead is a necessary evil.

    13. Re:maybe by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think people are missing the point of TFA, why are the "weights and measures" people not interested? If it was a greengrocer with a rigged scale he would be in handcuffs explaining himself to a judge.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:maybe by mauriceh · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Alberta Nucleus uses PPOE
      As I know them pretty well I just called a guy I know there to ask, and he tells me they adjust their metered bandwidth to allow for the "wastage" due to PPOE encapsulation.
      In other words, they do not charge us for it.

      --
      Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
    15. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not "all providers up here", only those where you live, in Western Canada I'm not aware of any PPPoE providers.

      Manitoba and MTS? They use PPPoE. I know, because that's my provider.

    16. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Quebec - Quebec means the country of Quebec not the province of Canada

    17. Re:maybe by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      That 15% is far more from ATM (9.4% overhead) than PPPoE (0.5% overhead), and Bell Canada's newer services (VDSL2, GPON) are unaffected as they no longer use ATM.

    18. Re:maybe by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Bell Canada is the ILEC for the vast majority of Quebecers.

    19. Re: maybe by countach · · Score: 2

      I don't buy it. A petrol station might have an irreducible overhead of evaporation in storage, but the point is when I fill up one litre or one gallon, that's how much I expect to get. If there is irreducible overhead, that's their problem.

    20. Re: maybe by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Except it's not irreducible, it's an explicit choice to use ATM. Many variants of DSL (such as the VDSL2 that is all companies like Bell Canada deploy these says) don't require ATM. Of course, replacing outdated hardware with VDSL2 hardware has a cost too, but the companies should be (and are) doing that anyhow.

    21. Re: maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm providers charge in total bandwidth including overhead in the line. Always have and probably always will.

    22. Re:maybe by jrumney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the electricity company bills me, they bill me for the electricity metered at my premises, not for the overhead that is used by the grid. Why should Internet providers be any different? Yes, technically the ATM packets are coming into the premises, but they are part of the network overhead, not what is used by the customer.

    23. Re:maybe by jrumney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are not interested because they do not understand what is happening. They ask the industry experts they have access to, and they will all give the telco side of the story. It needs someone to sit down with them over a beer and explain it in terms they can understand.

    24. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do charge for the weight of the truck! Heavy trucks take lots of fuel to move (Cargo:Gross weight is usually around 5/8, so 3/8 of the weight that fuel is moving is non-cargo). They also build in the cost of keeping up the truck, paying the driver, etc. All these analogies are stupid, this is more like saying that when you purchase a product at the supermarket, some portion of your purchase price is being used to cover the transportation of the product to market. This is fine! And in this guy's case, it looks like that's all that's going on. However, he believed there was a problem with the meter, and is completely unable to find a regulatory authority who will claim responsibility for that meter, probably because there isn't one. So even though it seems like his ISP is probably on the level in this case, if they added 2-3% to all their customers' meters across the board, that'd be a hefty profit from theft with no apparent oversight to stop it.

    25. Re:maybe by mattack2 · · Score: 2

      But isn't this technically not "spillage at the bottling plant", but "packaging removed by the delivery men"? So it's almost spillage on your front door...

      That is, you're paying for the full weight of the package, including the container.. But when they deliver it, they remove the container and take it away.. So you did pay for delivery of the container, you just don't have it anymore..?

    26. Re:maybe by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Doesn't really matter though, you can't charge somebody for bandwidth used to move data, only the bandwidth the end user used.

      Says who?

    27. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you aren't aware of ANY of the technology they are running at the lower layer, it doesn't have to be PPPoE to have encapsulation padded.

    28. Re:maybe by datapharmer · · Score: 2

      Wrong analogy. It is like buying a 1/4 pounder* (where the 1/4 pound is raw weight). Something is lost to cooking (transfer). I'm sure At&t's lawyers already covered their butts. If you read the small print ATM/MPLS overhead is probably included in the bandwidth calculation. Mystery solved Scooby Doo.

      --
      Get a web developer
    29. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encapsulation takes bandwidth. Yeah it doesn't take much CPU but CPU is not the argument here. It's still gotta be routable via 1483 and LANE or whatever if it goes via ATM core. I definitely know what fuckers those guys are, but they may or may not go back to IP once it gets to the DSLAM.

    30. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hodgepodge of agencies who should regulate it don't understand the problem from a technical standpoint - bandwidth is not something that they can hold in their hands so they can't figure a way to measure it and AT&T (and others) charge for going over their arbitraty limit. What happens if I like Netflicks or Hulu and watch shows - I get a huge bill along with the bill from the movie service. There needs to be someone telling the internet companies what they can and can not do. I am old enough to remember when Ma Bell got broken apart because they got too big for their own good. I hope it can happen again.

    31. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2, Interesting

      my ups and postage is paid for by the ounce/lb, including envelope and carton. I'm not crying because I'm getting charged for shipping the packaging. well yes, i'm crying right now, but it has nothing to do with UPS.

    32. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      when you buy a quarter pounder at mcdonalds how do you verify how much the patty weighed before cooking? are you going to have them weigh it on your scale? no, you'll just have to trust them.

    33. Re:maybe by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I know, that's why I made that analogy.

    34. Re: maybe by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      AT&T did not have to use ATM for DSL, that was a bad choice made by some telecom equipment vendors back in the late 90s, as part of an attempt to create a centralized AOL-like internet for the monopolies, rather than succumb to what was already inevitable at that time and force the monopolies to be common carrier bandwidth providers.

      The idiotic, long lost battle rages on. Bottom line is that ATM is dead outside the central office, it's not the only way to do this, but it's the one they've chosen to invest in. We should not be paying for it, and in a competitive market it'd have been gone 10 years ago.

    35. Re:maybe by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Only the zealots do that.

    36. Re:maybe by Sun · · Score: 1

      If you have agreed to pay for the overhead... I doubt there is much you can do.

      I'm not sure that's correct. "Truth in advertising" and "misleading contract" are two terms that come to mind.

      IANAL
      Shachar

    37. Re: maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > It needs to be paid for one way or the other ... it's irreducible overhead to move the data you are asking them to move.

      No it is not irreducible. The encapsulation does not travel to the internet. It is only between the modem and the central-office/head-end. The data that flows from the head-end to the internet and back is not encapsulated. He is not paying to transfer data with AT&T's head-end, he's paying to transfer data with the internet.

    38. Re:maybe by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter though, you can't charge somebody for bandwidth used to move data, only the bandwidth the end user used. Imagine if you went to buy milk and bought a gallon but were charged for 1.25 gallons because of spillage in the bottling plant. Not legal. Not even a little. You have to work that cost into what you charge for a gallon, and then charge for the gallon the end user buys.

      I had a similar experience in Paris; upon arrival of an ordered taxi, the driver explained that she was going to charge twenty Euros for the drive from her previous drop-off location to our pick-up point in addition to any charge for *our* journey. Is this a one-off or systemic? In the UK, your milk-pricing model is in force for taxis.

    39. Re:maybe by easyTree · · Score: 1

      The GP; duh.

    40. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      just expanding on it. your GGP comment is the second sensible thing to be said this entire thread. the first was, they're going to set the meter according to their rules anyway. just internalize the fact that a "150gb cap" means in actuality 135 gb. either plan your usage accordingly or shop for different service. it's ok to OCD count your bits, but drop the outrage.

    41. Re: maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should it even matter if it did put strain on the network?

      Should taxis bill you for the distance from the previous customer even if you picked them on the fly?

      Should a water company that has 15% leakage on pipes bill you instead of covering it themselves?

    42. Re: maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not irreducible overhead. They can put in ethernet instead. Of course, they'd probably use special firmware to count any extra bits from the physical protocol...
      You argument is like "there's no way we can deliver yoghurt without packaging, so we should sell it per kg and include the packaging for calculating the final price". Everyone would call you insane, amd for good reason, but in tech insanity is normal if it serves to screw over the customer.

    43. Re: maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are countries where selling declared amiunt is controlled by dedicated agencies. If a restaurant says 1/2 pound then it must do so. I suppose all ads talking ip not atm may make his case but then I would not know as I did not read my contract which is flat rate anyway.

    44. Re: maybe by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Whether the analogy holds really depends on how the contract is written. Which we can't know because he hasn't told us which contract he's got.

      AT&T has agreed to deliver a certain amount of data to his house. If the contract says that all data they send to his network counts as "delivered to his house" he's screwed. It's not their fault he agreed to this. If the contract says it has to be data he specifically requested he might have a case.

      Most likely in the US he doesn't really have a paper contract. He has bought a product AT&T advertised, there was an asterisk warning about "terms and conditions" and he doesn't even know how to check what said terms are.

    45. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the beer is irreducible overhead... who should pay?

    46. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But isn't this technically not "spillage at the bottling plant", but "packaging removed by the delivery men"? So it's almost spillage on your front door...

      No that's a different charge, the OP's wife pays for that.

    47. Re: maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Companies upgrading things. The hilarity of it all.
      You know that never happens.

    48. Re:maybe by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      probably yes but more than that for retransmits and just shit people flood into his ip that never make it past his counter or perhaps are never ACK'ed for..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    49. Re: maybe by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I really depends on how at&t represents it on the marketing.

      like "download x gigabytes of movies(MINUS ENCAPSULATION!!!)."

      I seriously doubt that they advertise it like that or lay it out like that even on the contracts.

      furthermore, they could one sidedly change the encapsulation to have gigabytes of padding for no reason at all.
       

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    50. Re: maybe by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      On the other hand postal services and couriours can and do charge you for the complete weight of your package including packaging and they will almost certainly refuse to ship your package if you don't package it to something at least approximating their standards.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    51. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy is flawed. When you ship the container of milk you are charged for the gross weight of the milk including the container. The ISP is shipping bits for you, but they are charging based on the gross weight of those bits including encapsulation.

    52. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better example is parcel services. You pay for packing weight.

    53. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The framing is done on premises. A better analogy is that parcel services bill you for shipping a package including the weight of the packing material itself.

    54. Re:maybe by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Ehhh, fuck you anglais!

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    55. Re:maybe by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And using hard drive accounting where 1 Gigabyte is 1,000,0000,000 bytes...

    56. Re:maybe by omnichad · · Score: 1

      In that case, you're choosing the packages and paying to have it delivered. In this case, you're paying for an x amount to be delivered. Overhead might be part of the cost, but the definition of the metering for all intents is described as what's delivered.

    57. Re:maybe by omnichad · · Score: 2

      When you buy a quarter pounder, there's a footnote on every sign and menu board that reads *Precooked weight. Where is AT&T's definition?

    58. Re:maybe by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      À cause que je parle français je suis supposé être anti-anglais?

    59. Re:maybe by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Yeah right - what if they decide to use some proprietary encapsulation that adds 200% to the original data. Should you have to pay for that? If you should, then it's only a matter of time before someone figures out this could be a nice revenue stream :-(

      I'm not sure, but ToS or none, I doubt this sort of thing would be legal in most of Europe. You can't really be charged a variable amount for something you have no control over. All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere is charging for encapsulation (knowingly or otherwise).

    60. Re:maybe by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Non.

      I was merely echoing an oft-repeated characterization of the Quebecois. You're supposed to hate the English speakers not because you speak French, but because they have the audacity to speak English in Quebec.

      Disclaimer: all I know about the Quebecois I've learned from listening to Canadian stand-up comedy.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    61. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the customer *IS* charged for the spilt milk... Spillage is a cost to the company, and all costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer.

      A company that could spill less, would charge less. At least in a commodity market.

      --AC

    62. Re: maybe by godefroi · · Score: 1

      furthermore, they could one sidedly change the encapsulation to have gigabytes of padding for no reason at all.

      They sure could. Additionally, if you read the T&C, they could do just about anything else they wanted, too (section 10.d, emphasis mine):

      http://www.att.com/shop/intern...

      d. Network Management. AT&T reserves the right to engage in reasonable network management practices, to protect its broadband network from harm, compromised capacity, degradation in network performance or service levels, or uses of the Service which may adversely impact access to or the use of the Service by other customers. Reasonable network management practices that AT&T may adopt include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) a cap on data usage; (ii) a modification of a customer’s serving facility or service technology, and/or (iii) a modification of or a limitation on a customer’s data throughput speed or data consumption.

      Furthermore, the customer agreed to go through arbitration for all "all disputes and claims". This sure sounds like a dispute to me, therefore, what the submitter should be looking for is an arbitrator.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    63. Re:maybe by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Well then they will just add a surcharge. On my hydro bill there is an "adjustment factor" that accounts for line loss. It is usually a couple percent extra. Really there is no difference except for the hydro company being more transparent. However, it is easy for people to understand that there is line loss, so probably not many question it. If the ISPs started adding a "line loss" surcharge called ATM/PPPoE encapsulation most people would think it is some BS surcharge and a way to make extra money. So why not just be easy and incorporate the extra 15% into the bandwidth usage instead.

      Things do get more tricky with caps on whether the 15% extra should be included against the cap or not, and I don't know the answer.

    64. Re:maybe by godefroi · · Score: 1

      You didn't sign a contract with your greengrocer that allowed them to rig the scale in any way they want. You DID (or, at least, the submitter did) sign a contract that allowed AT&T to measure bandwidth any way they want. Furthermore, he/she signed a contract agreeing to take all disputes to arbitration, not the courts. Double whammy.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    65. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Lol u mad bro?

    66. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all costs are passed on, then they should be done so logically.

      I buy a car, I don't want to see a price that says $10,000 per car.
      Then later I get a bill for $17,542.

      I call up the car company irate, and they tell me that the tires were $1244, and that the shipping charges were $592, and the business cards for the parts manager were $75, and a new broom for the maintenance crew was $25.

      FUCK THAT.

      That's a cost to the company, that's passed on to the consumer, FUCKING PRICE IT IN.

      The car costs $22,000 GODDAMMIT, and has all the company's cost priced in.

      UNLESS YOU ARE FUCKING GODDAMN LYING SONOVABITCH OF CORPORATION.

    67. Re:maybe by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      Does it matter that it is a necessary evil? The problem is that AT&T is metering you at their NOC instead of metering you at the POE. This would be like the electric company metering you at the electric plant and charging you for any electricity lost due to resistance. Sure they can mark the product up to make money for the loss, however they can't claim that you used the electricity. The simple fact is that you did not use that bandwidth, if there is an inefficiency on the network that is the networks concern.

    68. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I work for a US regulatory agency at the State level (one of the types mentioned in TFA), and we are only allowed to take actions based on powers enumerated to us by the legislature and codified into the state Administrative Code after extensive multi-agency review.

      Cable and Internet issues are considered NJD (Non-Jursitictional) by my agency and any queries, complaints, or issues are forwarded to the dept of Commerce, who themselves are interested in the issues but lack any authority to write or enforce any rules in relation to the issue.

    69. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually not only can you charge for bandwidth used by encapsulation, you can also get charged for data transfer that fails. It's not JUST the good data that you pay it's every single bit that they push down the line whether your device receives it or not is irrelevant.

    70. Re:maybe by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      I get the pro-business shills, really I do. Every business must cover their cost in order to operate, and that is going to be passed to consumers. I understand that some of the people spouting this even think of themselves as “Free Market Capitalists.” Of course you aren’t, by Adam Smith’s definition of a free-market.
      What they are doing is anti-competitive. By obscuring what is being charged for they make it more difficult for the consumer to act with full knowledge of the market place, a basic and defining characteristic of a free market. There isn't a problem with them charging for fixed costs, or incorporating those costs into what they charge, the problem is deceptively marketing that charge. If your cost per GB is X with Vendor X and 1.10X with Vendor Y, but Vendor X add 15% overhead to their count of GB's they are more expensive then Vendor Y.
      This is a market inefficacy, and this is why Adam Smith called for regulation. The Neo-Con, and Tea-Party version of Free Market diverge from the classical meaning of a Free Market. If you just let everyone lie, cheat and steal, then the market’s get confused. If you regulate against anti-competitive actions, and enforce adherence you get better outcomes.

    71. Re:maybe by Polo · · Score: 1

      Beer - it is required for communication, just like a flag bit or a destination ip address.

    72. Re:maybe by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Nope. U stuck in an SMS?

    73. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not interested because they do not understand what is happening. They ask the industry experts they have access to, and they will all give the telco side of the story. It needs someone to sit down with them over a beer and explain it in terms they can understand.

      Don't be a dick: NIST have some of the most well-informed people on the subject. The problem lies elsewhere, notably the lack of backbone at the FCC and FTC.

    74. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      U just mad cuz ur taking a 10% haircut on ur data cap

    75. Re:maybe by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I don't have a data cap (supposedly 250GB but not really enforced) and I talk in complete sentences. I have sympathy for the people who can't track their usage in any accurate and accountable way.

    76. Re:maybe by omnichad · · Score: 2

      On my electric bill, there's a usage charge AND a delivery charge. But both charges only account for what's used behind the meter - not during transit.

    77. Re:maybe by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Encapsulation takes bandwidth

      What do you define as bandwidth? With DSL, each user has a dedicated pair of wires back to the DSLAM. Any encapsulation is borne by a dedicated link. Spare capacity can't be used for ANYTHING. The DSLAM is backed by fiber to the CO. There is no bottleneck there, so really no reason to worry about overhead. It's only when it goes out on the open Internet from the CO where bandwidth usage matters.

      Cable Internet is the one where last-mile overhead has a true impact. And I don't think they count it toward caps like AT&T seems to be doing.

    78. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      How would you even track it? And how would I know what my cap is?

    79. Re:maybe by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I track it at the router (Tomato installed on Asus RT-N16). That only keeps track of actual delivered traffic. It certainly doesn't cover encapsulation and transit and retransmits (except retransmits from my side).

      To find out your cap, Google it. It's going to be fairly standard if you're with a national ISP.

    80. Re: maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that when you buy that gallon of gas, you're getting a gallon of gas. It doesn't matter that some fraction of a gallon may have evaporated between delivery from the fuel truck to being pumped into your tank. You are paying for that loss, however, in the form of the margin the station owner applies to the price. He pays for gas, rent, electric, and whatever other costs are associated with running that gas station. You pay for gas. The price you pay takes all the costs into account, with a little extra for profit.

      In this case, the OP thinks that he's being charged for a certain bandwidth, but getting less. If the contract states a specific bandwidth with no caveats, he may have a case. If the contract states that it is the advertised bandwidth including overhead, he probably has no case. Much like the previous quarter-pounder example; The menu has a bit of fine print that states "*Weight before cooking", meaning that the finished product is less than 1/4 lb. I'd have no case if I complained about the paltry weight of my patty, even if 90% of the patty had cooked away.

    81. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...they are about 45% of the countries population....but I guess that also means that most Canadians don't live in Ontario.

    82. Re:maybe by Cederic · · Score: 1

      UPS aren't charging you for the weight of the trolley they used to load your package onto the delivery van though are they.

      If I download a web page, I expect to pay for the bytes leaving my router and arriving back at it.
      If I download an encrypted web page, I expect those bytes to include that encryption overhead.

      On neither occasion do I know or care about the encapsulation. That's the ISP's issue, not mine.

      Just like the fuel in the van is UPS's issue, not mine.

    83. Re:maybe by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you find that your quarter pounder from McDonald's doesn't weigh four ounces, you're not getting far in court. Moreover, the meter is not rigged, it's just that the OP and the telco disagree on exactly what it should be recording.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    84. Re:maybe by jrumney · · Score: 1

      It comes down to who is in control. When you send a parcel, you choose your own packaging. When you subscribe to internet service you generally don't get to choose what encapsulation your packets receive. Likewise with electricity.

    85. Re:maybe by sjames · · Score: 1

      But I bet if you ask UPS they'll tell you that.

    86. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      If I download an encrypted web page, I expect those bytes to include that encryption overhead.

      On neither occasion do I know or care about the encapsulation. That's the ISP's issue, not mine.

      cool story bro. att doesn't care. look. att is going to run their business so they cover their costs, make a small profit, and continue to grow their business. they'll do so by charging you a base fee, setting a cap at a certain level, and charging a certain amount when exceeding that cap.

      lets say perfect world you throw a hissy and take them to the international court of justice and they lose, yes they wouldn't charge for encapsulation but they would lower your cap by 10%. it doesn't matter. it's the same thing.

    87. Re:maybe by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It does matter, as it's not the same thing.
      One is open, honest, easy to understand and fair.
      The other is impossible for the customer to interpret or manage and is thus extremely unfair.

      The price and total data transferred may be identical, but the propositions very much are not.

    88. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      But I bet if you ask UPS they'll tell you that.

      cool story bro. put a bird on it.

    89. Re:maybe by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      There are audits, and acceptable variances. For instance, there's this.

      Auditors regularly check the weight of the patties before cooking. While it won't help much with a specific instance, it will prevent systemic abuse like alleged in the article.

    90. Re:maybe by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      While legally that may be correct, from a practical perspective it probably does not matter. AT&T (et all) seem to be above the law, and beyond the courts

    91. Re:maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I want a burger for lunch

  2. complain about it on slahsdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hreh hreh hreh

  3. Where is their meter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you be certain that their accounting measures the same content as yours? Could there be some filtered packets, lost packets, management traffic, or other data which is attributed to your line but doesn't reach your device? This could even include any encapsulation they might use and account to your line, such as ATM encapsulation, or L2 tunneling?

  4. DSL paload + ATM = 16% by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    According to this article: http://blog.ipspace.net/2009/0...

    1. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Lowen_SoDium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats all fine and good except, ATT shouldn't be charging for the overhead on their internal network. The reason that the meter their network usage is to limit how much upstream bandwidth they need, not because the DSL network is saturated.

    2. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by CaptBubba · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the cause. The ATM overhead is being counted by AT&T and it has been a problem ever since they started metered billing.

      Now they *shouldn't* be doing so because that is a bit like the water utility charging you for 11000 gallons when you only used 10000 to account for leaks in their system or the gas station saying you pumped 1.2 gallons for every actual gallon to cover the fuel used to bring the gas to the station, but until they are regulated like a utility and the appropriate regulator steps in there is just about jack you can do.

    3. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Also packet loss can add a percent of two under normal circumstances.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Thats all fine and good except, ATT shouldn't be charging for the overhead on their internal network. The reason that the meter their network usage is to limit how much upstream bandwidth they need, not because the DSL network is saturated.

      Is that what your contract says?

      Most places I've seen measure with encapsulation, because it's easier. The problem's not with the meter, it's with the small print. If your small print states that they measure the TCP packets only though, that's deceptive advertising and also puts them in violation of their contract.

      Considering how hard I have to work to get any data usage stats out of my ISP though, my guess is that the small print doesn't say one way or the other -- which could still be considered deceptive, if you're willing to spend lots of money prosecuting in court.

    5. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well as long as they make is clear what they are measuring.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    6. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      Thats all fine and good except, ATT shouldn't be charging for the overhead on their internal network. The reason that the meter their network usage is to limit how much upstream bandwidth they need, not because the DSL network is saturated.

      this has no bearing on anything.

      tl dr, guy is upset because when ATT said he has a 150GB cap it's actually a 135GB cap. Yes, those are the games people play. My 25MPG car just gets 22MPG on average. My 2x4 lumber is actually 3.5" wide. that's the way that business works in America. people have their thumbs on the scale. Just internalize that you have a 135GB cap and call it a day.

    7. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by nwf · · Score: 1

      So, the answer is, contact a lawyer for a possible class action law suit against Comcast for deceptive billing. I'd bet this is just about the OP's only option, since most people would assume network overhead isn't counted. If it is, litigation is likely the only recourse.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    8. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most places I've seen measure with encapsulation, because it's easier. The problem's not with the meter, it's with the small print

      The problem actually is with the meter, if you're not allowed to see the meter.

      "We're going to charge you based on this gas/electric/water/phone meter, but you have no way to verify the reading" is something the PUC wouldn't accept other than in the case of "the Internet".

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Comcast have a "You're not allowed to file a class action suit against us. Hahahaha." clause in their contracts?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    10. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 2x4 lumber is actually 3.5" wide. that's the way that business works in America. people have their thumbs on the scale. Just internalize that you have a 135GB cap and call it a day.

      Bah. And I claim I pay the bill, but in reality, 15% of that money is counterfeit. I guess that is ok too, then.

    11. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Yea, but that's pretty standard these days, as is the "You're not allowed to publish bad things about us, or say them in public." clause.

    12. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Doesn't Comcast have a "You're not allowed to file a class action suit against us. Hahahaha." clause in their contracts?

      Comcast having that in their contracts and it actually meaning anything to a court are two different things.

      Comcast has little reason to NOT put it in there, doesn't mean it would hold up.

      If you find a lawyer willing to file the case, it becomes the job of the Judge to decide if that clause means anything or not.

    13. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by compro01 · · Score: 1

      No-class-action clauses have held up, all the way to the Supreme Court. See AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      So, the answer is, contact a lawyer for a possible class action law suit against Comcast for deceptive billing. I'd bet this is just about the OP's only option, since most people would assume network overhead isn't counted. If it is, litigation is likely the only recourse.

      Hopefully his lawyer will say "Yes, by all means let's sue Comcast because AT&T is overbilling."

    15. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not it isn't. 2x4 is by standard 3.5 inches. 2x4 nowhere claims that it's 2 inches by 4 inches, it's just a name, but if you look up the size, it's required to be I think 3.5x1.75 or somewhere around there. 12 ounce drinks had better have at least 12 ounces in them. If it isn't, the manufaturer is commiting fraud and can be sued. If you go to a gas station, if their pump short changes you more than 1%, that's illegal. If you claim to sell a certain amount, you have to be within a tolerance or you have to be in the customers favor, to not do that is illegal. Source, my brother calibrates petral pumps (gasoline, kerosine, propane, etc) for a living and talks about how the distributors are always trying to get him to put it in their favor, and how he threatens to report them to the state and have them shutdown if they so much as infer such a thing again.

    16. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Every internet contract that I have seen does say that they charge for all of the traffic including protocol overhead. It is my understanding that the charges are normally done with a logging setup similar to what was described in the article where they just dump the switch/router port traffic based on the MAC of the modem and/or your currently assigned IP(s). I do think it is completely wrong that you have no way of seeing this and I suspect that part of why they are not required to have a meter that you can read is because internet service is not a public utility unlike water, gas, and electric that are required to have meters that you can read. I agree that if you are charged for something based on usage then you need to be able to view not only the current usage, but also that you can review exactly how it is being measured and what is being measured.

    17. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I disagree with what you're saying in concept regarding data transmission, but your analogies don't really work here. The cost of transportation of gas is rolled into the prices the stations pay which is rolled into the price per gallon, it isn't like you aren't paying for the cost of distribution a the the end of the line. Same goes for water utilities, the cost of maintenance and leakages is rolled into the utility rates charged in a given region.

      In data transmission situations though if they are billing for encapsulation and ATM costs they are leaving you with no means of self-monitoring and verifying their measurements. With gas you could fill a 5 gallon tank and be sure you'll see 5 gallons on the pump (volume adjusted to whatever temperature your region volume adjusts to).

    18. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2x4 is by standard 3.5 inches. 2x4 nowhere claims that it's 2 inches by 4 inches

      But it used to be 2" x 4". I've been in homes olde enough to actually see real 2x4 studs.

    19. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by countach · · Score: 1

      Errm, if any packets get lost that should *REDUCE* his billing, not increase it.

    20. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      My 2x4 lumber is actually 3.5" wide.

      Only if it has already been dried and dressed, it comes off the greenchain at the sawmill as 2X4 (to within 1/16th of an inch), as it dries the dimensions change, dressing the timber takes an 1/8th of an inch off each side. If a lumber yard attempted to sell you undressed timber as 2X4 that was actually 3.75 X 1.75 then the weights and measures people would definitely be interested. Here in Oz dressed timber is now advertised with real dimensions not it's undressed dimensions The practice goes way back to the days when most buildings used undressed timber for structural purposes. These days carpenters don't normally build frames on site, it's all prefab frames and roofs that just bolt together, for that technique to work it needs the more consistent dimensions of dressed timber.

      Nobody is scamming you out of useful timber, the industry terminology is well defined and is not hidden from the customer. The point of TFA is that comcast's network metering methods are hidden from customer scrutiny and nobody at weights and measures seems to give a damn.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by countach · · Score: 1

      Or at least, losses incoming and outgoing should cancel each other.

    22. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having done a 'bit' of work in some old houses, I can tell you for a fact that they really did used make a true '2x4'. It's pretty rare, I admit, but I've definitely seen them.

    23. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I would have thought "weights and measures" was the appropriate authority, they are quite capable of enforcing fair and transparent measures on non-utility businesses such as petrol stations.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    24. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Umm, well the packet would get sent again. And the packet still took up bandwidth before it was lost in transit.
      For example. If a plane takes a trip around the world, from the US, to Africa, to Asia, to Europe, and back to the US. And crashes on the return trip over the Atlantic. It used approximately the same amount of fuel that a plane the made it all the way would have.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    25. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most places I've seen measure with encapsulation, because it's easier. The problem's not with the meter, it's with the small print

      The problem actually is with the meter, if you're not allowed to see the meter.

      "We're going to charge you based on this gas/electric/water/phone meter, but you have no way to verify the reading" is something the PUC wouldn't accept other than in the case of "the Internet".

      Not really. The discrepancy is within encapsulation overhead, so you do have a way to verify the reading, it just involves knowing a lot of how it works. But knowledge is necessary in order to verify, so that will never fly as a law suite (IANAL, but really, you wouldn't expect anyone to get convinced that any layman should be able to verify).

      If the difference was 100% or something really obvious, you've got tampering or misreading. So, verification is served well enough by using well trained professionals for the job.

      Still, it makes little sense to count the overhead, and that's what has to be contended in court. It depends on the contract not mentioning they do and that you abide by their decision, and it does depend on what people expect when told their limit is 150GB.

      For instance, most monitoring software will count without encapsulation, so it's reasonable to demand they account for their known internal overhead when advertising billing policy. Not doing so would be deceptive advertising, and that could be contended in court.

    26. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My local power company multiplies measured usage by a percentage to account for losses on the line.

    27. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by ShaunC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of TFA is that comcast's network metering methods are hidden from customer scrutiny and nobody at weights and measures seems to give a damn.

      The best part of your comment is that TFA is regarding ATT's practices, and has nothing to do with Comcast. Yet even someone in Australia knows how fucked up Comcast is, and has mistaken another carrier for Comcast because the story is about ripping off a customer. If that doesn't show the incredibly awful nature and reputation of Comcast, I'm not sure what does. It's too bad the FCC won't see this thread.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    28. Re: DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Break out the Godwin!

      In all seriousness, I'd argue that the Supreme Court deciding what you say, how you say, would be tantamount to the dreaded F word.

      It's long been a precept of contract law that it's impossible for a contract to modify or nullify a right granted by a higher authority, be it explicit or intrinsic. IANAL, but I'd wager there's precedent that lawsuits are frequently the only acceptable redress for injury (something about rail accidents springs to mind...). So now the Supreme Court says it's a-okay to sign away your only form of redress?

      Not that I disbelieve you, of course. Unfortunately this scenario is entirely plausible in this day and age.

    29. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by countach · · Score: 1

      It would only take bandwidth if it crossed the divide between ATT and the customer, and then was lost. But if there are packets getting lost at that point, one would presume an equal number would be lost going outwards, in which case the customer would record them sent, but ATT would not. In other words, any packet loss should be a net nil.

    30. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      tl dr, guy is upset because when ATT said he has a 150GB cap it's actually a 135GB cap.

      Reminds me of conversations I used to have with people buying 160GB hard drives. Does ATT consider 1KB = 2^10 or 10^3 bytes?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you dont know what you are talking about, just keep quiet.

    32. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also think the free market is giving you a good deal eh? All the things you mention are fraud almost everywhere else than USA (except 2x4, because it does not mean what you think it means. the *average* of 22mpg is also not disproving being capable of 25mpg, you probably just drive bad). Seemingly you consider fraud as business as usual. sad sheep :(

    33. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      For a 2x4 yes the finished ones are 3.5"x1.75" but if you get the rough ones they are actually 2"x4" the rest is removed by the planers they are sent through so you don't have the rough finish from sawing.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    34. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't even be able to file the suit,
      Their contract probably requires binding arbitration, removing your access to the courts.
      Those are enforceable and you can't appeal it.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

    35. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      And the 3.5x175 is on cut, not after the moisture evaporates from the wood and shrinks it more.

    36. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You can sue to nullify the binding arbitration clause... :)

      You can always file a suit... it comes down to the judge and what he/she wants to do, and of course what he/she thinks might get turned over on appeal.

      The legal system doesn't work the way most people think it does.

      Sadly, he who has the most money, often wins (unless both sides have lots)

    37. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably 10^3, seeing as "k" is a metric prefix, meaning, "10^3".

    38. Re:DSL paload + ATM = 16% by sjames · · Score: 1

      Best solution: Have all 100,000 claimants file in small claims court instead.

  5. Most DSL is transported over ATM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and ATM has about a 10-15% overhead for TCP. So they are likely billing you based on the ATM traffic that crosses their routers, not the ethernet traffic you are passing.

    1. Re:Most DSL is transported over ATM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if they decide to tack on a couple percent more overhead for the last mile, he has to pay for that too? BTW, this should be a lesson to everybody. If you don't want to haggle over volume billing with your ISP, demand unlimited data. I recommend unlimited to everybody, especially to those who actually use very little but couldn't control or troubleshoot bandwidth hogging applications if a problem occurred.

  6. ATM encapsulation overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have you thought that probably AT&T use PPPoA (point to point over ATM) that basically cause an overhead of 15% between your IP traffic and the traffic actually happening on your DSL line ?

  7. DSL overhead by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://pflog.net/dsl_overhead/

    Looks like they're counting ATM frames, not your IP traffic.

    --
    GStreamer - The only way to stream!
  8. What to do? by Lowen_SoDium · · Score: 1

    Change providers instead of putting up with this abuse... Oh wait...

    1. Re:What to do? by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A less drastic, but equally annoying solution might be to just turn it off for a month. See what they bill you then.

      "It was turned off" is a lot more likely to persuade a small claims court to your side than "I was overcharged by 14%, and here are the dozen esoteric ways I can prove it".

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:What to do? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Actually ignore that. In my naiveté I expected them to be transparent about the PPP stuff.

      I wouldn't have a problem with paying for that... if they were honest about it.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:What to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was off for a day. They billed a number so small that day it could be the router's own NTP client alone.

    4. Re:What to do? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      A less drastic, but equally annoying solution might be to just turn it off for a month. See what they bill you then.

      "It was turned off" is a lot more likely to persuade a small claims court to your side than "I was overcharged by 14%, and here are the dozen esoteric ways I can prove it".

      Fuck small claims. Find one of the uncountable hungry lawyers in the US and go after a class action suit based on overcharging and lack of transparency.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    5. Re:What to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while you are at it, make a class action to subways for not having scales to show their sandwiches weight more than 50g as they announce.

    6. Re:What to do? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      A less drastic, but equally annoying solution might be to just turn it off for a month. See what they bill you then.

      "It was turned off" is a lot more likely to persuade a small claims court to your side than "I was overcharged by 14%, and here are the dozen esoteric ways I can prove it".

      How do you as a consumer prove conclusively it was turned off when AT&T will say "Nuh uh. He was using it the whole time!". Then it just gets into "He said/She said" territory and I can assure you that judges hate that kind of stuff. Plus, we had another poster make the good point that even if you try to go after AT&T, they'll use their army of highly paid lawyers to argue "Change of venue" or try to show how your contract allows them to get summary dismissal. A lot of companies now have clauses that state that you agree to arbitration, which means you can't go to small claims court against them. And they can ask for the arbitration in a location as far away from you as possible so unless you're insane and willing to spend thousands of dollars to maybe win a few hundred back, it's just not worth it. I am having a hard time understanding how this is a constant problem for the original poster though unless he's trying to run a business via what is supposed to be a residential connection or he's the king of torrents. I've had AT&T for years and I've never exceeded my limits even once. Going to Uverse, as suggested in another post, is also a good idea as AT&T is known to deliberately degrade their DSL service anyway. Uverse is so much better than the old DSL service they had, I really don't think it's rational to stay with DSL if you can possibly get Uverse where you live.

  9. Simple Solution... by pastafazou · · Score: 1, Funny

    switch providers. Problem solved.

    1. Re:Simple Solution... by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

      Obviously, that's not an option for this person. What prompts you to type this and click preview, and then click submit, without considering this? Do you think you're the one who's stating an obvious point? You're not. You're the one who is proving he doesn't think before he types.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    2. Re:Simple Solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > switch providers. Problem solved.

      You are joking, right?

  10. little known trick for ATT by netsavior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you have Uverse, pay the extra 15 dollars a month for their most crappy TV service. The TV bandwidth is through the same series of tubes, and paying their 15 dollar a month television fee removes their ability to charge you for overages. But like all ATT services, be sure to manage your own DNS settings, as their default is so horrible that all my neighbors thought their "internet was down" when it was just a DNS server from hell.

    I don't actually know for sure that the TV vs Bandwidth thing is a fact, but I can tell you that I no longer get charged for overages, and my Router's stats tell me I am using more than ever, and the only change is I signed up for "limited basic" or whatever it is called + HBO (for HBO Go) and the TV receiver is sitting in shrink wrap in my closet.

    1. Re:little known trick for ATT by green1 · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for AT&T's implementation, but where I live we also have a TV over DSL provider, and they can definitely tell the difference between TV traffic and non-TV traffic, and therefore can still see what your non-TV traffic totals up to if they want to bill for overage... the plus side is I've never heard of anyone actually receiving an overage bill, but they do reserve the right. This also means that they can limit bandwidth separately for TV and internet services, so for example you could watch 3HD streams (total of approx 18-20megs of bandwidth) but if you turn them all off, they could still limit your internet speed to the 15 meg you're paying for. (often the modem will be trained up at 50-80meg, but you only get the internet speed you pay for with the rest being reserved for the TV's use)

    2. Re:little known trick for ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it seems to me they are extorting business for their crappy TV by enforcing bandwidth limits only for non- TV subscribers. Basically getting revenge on the cord cutters.

    3. Re:little known trick for ATT by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think AT&T isn't yet able to discern actual traffic. They still have not rolled out their bandwidth usage tool although the button for it has been there for at least two years. And I can validate my access as an authorized viewer for some tv channels by using my internet-only AT&T account. I could be wrong, but I suspect they just don't know how much traffic is being used by who and for what purpose.

    4. Re:little known trick for ATT by antdude · · Score: 1

      You don't watch TV? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:little known trick for ATT by netsavior · · Score: 1

      Not through a cable box. The experience is so bad that I would rather pay to stream.

    6. Re:little known trick for ATT by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ah, is it unstable or something from AT&T?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:little known trick for ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curious how the receiver is in shrink wrap when ALL Uverse TV subscriptions require a full-tech install where the box is setup/activated behind your gateway.

    8. Re:little known trick for ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For DNS you can use 8.8.8.8 which is Google DNS.

      Try it !

    9. Re:little known trick for ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curious how the receiver is in shrink wrap when ALL Uverse TV subscriptions require a full-tech install where the box is setup/activated behind your gateway.

      I signed up online and had everything shipped to my house. Set it up myself and when they called to schedule the installer to come out, I said everything was already working fine, so nobody came out. I'm not the grandparent, and I did set up the cable box, but I definitely did not have anyone come into my house to install it.

    10. Re:little known trick for ATT by netsavior · · Score: 2

      Ever since "digital cable" showed up years ago, people have steadily gone complacent to bullshit TV problems.

      channel change lag (change the channel, count to 10, picture materialized out of pixelated garbage) - This is bullshit, VHF/netflix/hulu/hell even youtube kicks the shit out of this, it is a horrible experience
      Fluxuating sound and lag when local commercial overlays are pumped into the service you already pay for, not just advertising, but also making your experience much worse, -- This is bullshit
      Rebooting this bullshit machine takes 5 minutes.
      What did we gain from putting up with a piece of shit hardware box to decode cable signals? A buggy as hell, Ad stuffed "guide"

      This isn't unique to ATT, although their turd definitely does suck. When held to any kind of UI standard, Direct TV, Time warner, comcast, sudden-link, every single cable solution I have seen since "Digital cable" came out has been pure garbage. Bottom line, if you aren't interested in sports you are a masochist if you use Cable, and I am not convinced sports fans are anything less than masochistic, perhaps signal noise and digital picture artifacts are their fetish.

    11. Re:little known trick for ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An increasing number of people don't watch cable. The shows you want to watch cost a fortune to pay for the packages you need to get those few channels, the shows aren't on when you have free time, and online streaming is the exact opposite of both of those things. It's cheap($8 a month for Hulu, $8 a month for Netflix), and you can watch what you want when you want.

      It has nothing to do with the quality of the signal coming out of the coax. It has everything to do with the inconvenience of cable television.

    12. Re:little known trick for ATT by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Or 4.2.2.1 or 4.2.2.2 if you want to go right to the source.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  11. Attorney by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember a group of lawyers caught AT&T in the act of subtracting data from a phone that had been turned off and a class action suit ensued. Maybe do a google search on this and reach out to the same attorneys. It sounds like you have something with merit.

  12. What to do? This is American isp, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I guess there's not much to do. Maybe if you lube it up yourself, they won't notice?

  13. Are you sure of what you are watching? by Pathwalker · · Score: 2

    It sounds like you are watching traffic inside of your network, and not the interface between your edge router, and the ISP device.

    You could be missing many things; incoming traffic that your edge router drops, retransmissions between your edge router and the ISP device, and firmware/config updates for the ISP device.

    We really need more detail.

    1. Re:Are you sure of what you are watching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hahaha your spurious comments are just hilarious. If 14% of his traffic is firmware updates for the ISP device at over 150gb usage then theres a huge problem. An even WORSE problem if 14% of that traffic is retransmits.

    2. Re:Are you sure of what you are watching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he has a point on the dropped traffic...

      A lot of firewalls are setup to drop certain types of incoming attacks (which would count toward the download bandiwdth) - but if you're receiving enough traffic that it affects you that adversely, then someone must be trying pretty hard to piss you off ;)

      This reminds me of the problem where cell companies charge you for receiving unsolicited texts.. there comes a point where it just doesn't make sense to do this, but how do you indicate that you don't want certain traffic routed to you?

  14. court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    how much money is it costing you? Small claims court here in Iowa is $85 to file and if you are right and can show a judge they will give you money to cover what you are being overcharged. They also have to pay you the court costs (85 bucks)

    1. Re:court by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      They also (and this is important) have to show up in court to defend themselves.

      I had billing trouble with the local natural gas company. The billing department took a similarly hard-line stance about my complaint. A year and a half later as I refused to pay, they escalated the matter to a lawyer.

      It took one 5-minute conversation with their lawyer and the matter was resolved. Because I was right? No. Because it was cheaper to let me have my way than go to court, win or lose.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    2. Re:court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T is much different than some tiny company in the boonies.

    3. Re:court by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Washington Gas is neither a tiny company nor in the boonies. And AT&T often doesn't have a local lawyer with offices across the street from your county's small claims court.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    4. Re:court by fruitbane · · Score: 1

      They don't have to show up. They can just lose by default by not showing up. However, they can appeal the small claims court verdict and escalate and by moving things to a larger court screw you over in turn by requiring YOU to show up somewhere that may no longer be quite as local. And if you don't show up for that, you can bet your penalty will be much greater than theirs was to have been for losing that initial small claims case.

    5. Re:court by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      This a thousand times. It is amazing how well small claims court works if you can provide good clear evidence. It is nothing like you see on TV even with shows like Judge Judy, or the People's Court. Gather you evidence, have things in order, and present it clearly, and be sure to have tried to resolve the issue before hand. Also I can speak to Minnesota as being similar to Iowa in that if you win your case you get your filing fee back.

      I had to do this with an insurance company that was didn't want to provide me the fair market value for my car that was totaled. They insisted that the vehicle was only worth about $1200 when every other thing indicated that it was in the $2900-$3100 range. I had attempted to work with them for several months but they refused to budge so eventually I had to sue them. I showed up with an independent appraisal, pictures of the car before the accident, sample vehicles that were for sale, the KBB valuation of the vehicle, the NADA value of the vehicle, and the insurance companies data points and method used for assessing the value of my vehicle. I presented my data showing that the vehicle was worth far more and then went through the insurance companies data points (2 vehicles with lots of unknowns) and method for calculating values. The biggest problem was that the 2 vehicles they chose as data points had no stated information about the mileage, options or condition so the insurance company assumed that for options and condition they matched my car which seems unlikely as min was a California car with all available options and the others were Minnesota cars. Additionally since the mileage wasn't stated on either of their data point cars they insurance companies method went like this:
      1. Assume each vehicle in their set had the same amount of miles as my car as well as options and condition then subtract some value from each one for mileage
      2. Average the 2 resulting values and then subtract mileage again
      3. This is now the base value so subtract mileage yet again

      Also as one of my data points for representative vehicles I found a similar vehicle to mine that was just over the value they were offering. The only problem was that it was a non running one that was really rusty and had over 750,000 miles on it. It was however the same year and model though. After presenting my evidence the judge went to the the representative from the insurance company and asked if my description of their valuation of the vehicle was correct, to which the responded yes. The judge then asked if they had anything else to add, to which they responded no. At this point the judge ruled in my favor and told the insurance company that there was no reason for this to have gone as far as it did any that everything I had requested was entirely reasonable and valid so they should have just settled 6 months previous (just after the accident) instead of dragging it out as it would have been far cheaper and it wouldn't have wasted everyone's time. In the end I got $3135 since I went for the highest justifiable value plus the $35 filing fee and the insurance company had 20 days to pay or appeal. The insurance company still didn't pay within in the required 20 days and it took a phone call to them informing them that I had a judgment against them and at this point I could legally get a court order to have their assets frozen and I would be doing so the next day if I didn't receive my check before the court opened on the following day. I got a hand delivered check 2 hours later.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:court by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Although if you get a default judgment there is usually some amount of time that the the defendant has to either pay or file for appeal. If you do not have to inform them of the judgment then (in my case I didn't) just stay quiet, wait out the period, and once expired raise a ruckus. Judges really don't like it when some entity doesn't do what they say, that whole contempt of court thing. Depending on the laws in your area you may be entitled to freeze or seize company assets. This is usually possible since it takes time and money for them to file an appeal usually requiring someone show up to do things in person at the court the next level up which would still be fairly local in most parts of the US unless you are in the north slope area of Alaska.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:court by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly. The next court up is still a court in your state and they have to actually have grounds for an appeal (an error of law by the judge, not an error of fact. They gave up challenging any error of fact by failing to show up.) They can't even argue venue -- removing it to federal court requires a case whose damages are generally in excess of what the small claims court awards.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    8. Re:court by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Beware that freezing or seizing assets as a result of a small claims judgement is unlikely to work out for you. I worked for a company in which the gruddy lunchroom microwave was "frozen" for 6 months as collatoral for a $150 judgement we were fighting. Basically the police show up, advise that they're required to freeze assets worth $X and then ask your help to determine which assets add up. They slap on an orange sticket and then go away.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  15. AT&T Billing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a friend who used to resell AT&T bandwidth as a whole sale reseller. He caught AT&T overcharging him. He joined with other ISP's and resellers and demonstrated AT&T was doing this to all of them. There was fairly good size money involved in this, north of $10 meg. They filed a class action lawsuit against AT&T. As all the contracts came up for renewal AT&T refused to renew the contracts. It took AT&T about 6 months to these ISP's out of business.

    AT&T is not your friend.

    During their investigation they found that AT&T uses for separate billing systems to collect the same usage data. They found that the systems use the same inputs but all yield different billing amounts. The highest amount can be up to 20% higher than the lowest amount. It turns out they simply select the system that yields the highest number that month and bill the customer.

    1. Re: AT&T Billing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of this should be (and is already, if anyone bothered to actually enforce the laws as written) illegal as shit.

      Unfortunately, somehow AT&T's predecessor was a monopoly when they were the only company that could carry your voice signals, but since it's all digital now, anybody can provide that service! Never mind the frequent de jure prohibitions against competition. Nothing shady here!

    2. Re:AT&T Billing by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who used to resell AT&T bandwidth as a whole sale reseller. He caught AT&T overcharging him. He joined with other ISP's and resellers and demonstrated AT&T was doing this to all of them. There was fairly good size money involved in this, north of $10 meg. They filed a class action lawsuit against AT&T. As all the contracts came up for renewal AT&T refused to renew the contracts. It took AT&T about 6 months to these ISP's out of business.

      AT&T is not your friend.

      During their investigation they found that AT&T uses for separate billing systems to collect the same usage data. They found that the systems use the same inputs but all yield different billing amounts. The highest amount can be up to 20% higher than the lowest amount. It turns out they simply select the system that yields the highest number that month and bill the customer.

      No company is your friend but was there really no alternative upstream for these ISPs? Surely not only AT&T could provide service?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    3. Re:AT&T Billing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate Devils!

      Thanks for this explanation.

    4. Re:AT&T Billing by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      He didn't say what those ISPs were buying from AT&T you assumed it was bandwidth to "the internet", I think it's more likely that what they were buying was bandwidth to "the end user".

      Sure theres lots of competition if what you want is transit bandwidth from a major datacenter in a major city to the internet. Not so much if what you want is bandwith from that same major datacenter to your customer out in the burbs.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  16. Re:What are you downloading? by onproton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does it matter? In my opinion, the fact that they can't provide evidence of usage that could be independently verified is absurd.

  17. DSL Is generally several layers of encapsulation by silas_moeckel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PPPoE and ATM add overhead to about 16%.

    Yup your paying for the encapsulation that never leaves their network.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  18. Call your state Attorney General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your state Attorney General's office has the resources to pursue an issue like this. And in my experience, they get results! While working for a previous employer, we had unresolvable telecom issues and tried everything over the course of months to get them to take some action. A call to the state AG had trucks roliing the next day. It was glorious.

    1. Re: Call your state Attorney General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference being that a state AG is about 9 billion times (I counted) more likely to act when the complainant is a "job creator" than if a few "citizens" claim they're being swindled.

    2. Re: Call your state Attorney General by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Not in all states, in some cases they seem to mostly have a political ax to grind and act only based off of that regardless of weather they complaint is from a few citizens or "job creator".

      --
      Time to offend someone
  19. AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by lionchild · · Score: 1

    The thing to remember about AT&T's DSL and Uverse data limits are that data coming down AND data going up count against that cap.

    So when you download that 4GB movie file, it counts, but when you use Dropbox or Carbonite, those uploaded files/data count against your cap too.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      what about when I email a file to myself?

    2. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about when I email a file to myself?

      It goes onto the truck, and then into the tubes.

    3. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      You are kidding, I hope.

      Unless you are running an e-mail server on your own home network, of course it counts against your data cap.

      The file is encoded, transmitted to an e-mail server somewhere else, and stored there until your e-mail client retrieves it.

      A 10M file can easily count as 60M against your cap, depending on the encoding your client uses. x3 for the encoding, and x2 for the transmission.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    4. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by cerberusti · · Score: 2

      Lies, base64 encoding (as in e-mail) only bumps it up to 4/3. Even when you add TCP, ATM, and all the rest you are likely to run into, it will only be about 1.5x.

      A worst case there and back is more like ever so slightly above 30 than 60. To get 60 on an e-mail you would need to bounce it between a totally stupid number of mail servers to get the mail headers to become 30MB.

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    5. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by mcmonkey · · Score: 2

      And if you're using email to transfer a 10M file, you should be banished frmo the internet.

    6. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

      a Netflix stream is 3mbps. so if I streamed 24x7 for a month it would be 972 MB (bytes not bit). put it another way, if I wanted to download 150 GB in a month I would have to stream at a steady rate of really high.

    7. Re: AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're off by a factor of 1000. 3Mbps is 972GB/month.

      3 / 8 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 30 = 972000

    8. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24x7 at 3mbps for a month = 972MB?

      That, sir, is some terrible math.

    9. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *972,000 MB or (972 GB)

    10. Re: AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by pem · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!

    11. Re: AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by pem · · Score: 1

      Err, that is, mod up the AC parent which shows that the math is wrong, and netflix 24x7 is 972 GIGABYTES per month.

    12. Re: AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      that would be much greater than a 150GB cap! less than a 1TB cap, but I don't know if that's a crazy amount of data. My phone gets 4gb.

    13. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emailing YOURSELF?!
      Dear GOD man, don't do it! You'll kill us all!

    14. Re:AT&T DSL/Uverse Data Limits by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      x3 for the encoding

      The only way you'd get that kind of expansion is using quoted-printable in a case where it's totally inappropriate. If your mail client is doing that you really need to file a bug.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  20. Re:What are you downloading? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Informative

    Trivially easy to do, I've ditched AT&T as a result of being billed for going over that cap. But I have that option, not everyone does.

    I believe my wife watched standard def movies, and I downloaded wildstar and one update during that month. That plus FW updates and normal internet usage was enough to go over. I can't imagine what would happen if we were actually at home enough to really use our internet connection.

  21. There's more to it than just Ethernet frames. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Accounting for Ethernet frame headers alone would not be good enough to approximate the full overhead of a typical DSL connection.

    You'd also need to account for the PPP, PPPoE and ATM overhead etc.

    Short answer: You're underestimating the total overhead of the connection, the value of which is included in most ISP's calculations.

  22. State Attorney General? by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

    If they are overcharging you or miss-measuring, this could be a consumer protection issue and possibly your State Attorney General or possibly the U.S. Attorney's office could help you. But you're going to have an uphill battle all the way, just like Slashdoters roll their eye's every time a judge makes a crazy ruling in technology related cases that's clearly wrong because they don't have a good grasp of the technology involved you're going to be speaking a foreign language to these people and you're going to have a very hard time getting them to understand the issue i.e. "What's DD-wrt?" or even "What's a router?".

  23. Ask your county office? by laughingskeptic · · Score: 1

    It sounds like ATM overhead addresses your issue. However as far as who to talk to, in California measurement enforcement is handled at the county level: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/. In Texas this falls to the Department of Agriculture and I'm pretty sure they won't care. http://www.texasagriculture.go...

    1. Re:Ask your county office? by technoid_ · · Score: 1

      ATT has already bought and sold Texas, so hope you are somewhere else.

      --
      Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do - Lew of GO magazine
  24. Re:What are you downloading? by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its a limit really easy to hit if you do 3 or more of the following things:

    1) run Steam on multiple systems and own lots of games that are all currently installed, and keep them constantly updated
    2) run Linux distros such as Debian Unstable (sid) on multiple systems and don't use a apt-cacher type proxy, but keep them constantly updated
    3) frequently use Netflix streaming
    4) frequently use DirecTV OnDemand services
    5) own any relatively recent gaming console (ps3, ps4, wii-u, xbox360, xboxone) and own a lot of games and keep it constantly updated
    6) listen to streaming music all day long
    7) have more than one recent Blizzard game installed (Diablo III, Starcraft II, World of Warcraft) and keep them constantly updated, especially around expansion release times
    8) have a home office

  25. Re:What are you downloading? by FlyingCheese · · Score: 1

    Not having cable TV and using Netflix/Hulu/HBOGo/etc regularly could EASILY break 150GB a month.

  26. The other provider is even worse by tepples · · Score: 1

    A lot of geographic areas don't have a second provider other than satellite and cellular. In most cases,* switching from a provider with a 150 GB per month cap to a provider with a 10 GB per month cap (source: exede.com) isn't a good idea. Nor is moving to a different town.

    * Watch someone come up with an edge case.

    1. Re:The other provider is even worse by volmtech · · Score: 1

      It's one of those First World problems. I pay $80 a month for 17 GBs of satellite internet and am glad to pay that. I live in northeast Florida but time is passing my little rural spot by.

    2. Re: The other provider is even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Americans really need to get your regulator to stop worrying about Net Neutrality, and rather do something about enabling competition. Like requiring the the access network to wholesale their DSL (using e.g. "IP Connect" or Bitstream).

      Third wirld countries don't have these kinds of problems, just higher prices due to longer, more expensive fibres.

  27. Sounds like you're the fucktard here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why create something you know simply cannot work rather than checking the bandwidth use on the interface? That two minute polling garbage is garbage, and you know it. You're just trying to create a situation of shit by intentionally creating a shitty situation. Your kind makes life unpleasant for everyone around you. As Shatner has said to your kind before, go kill yourself.

  28. Get a different plan... or switch ISPs. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    There are typically four or five ISPs that will serve any area. Many of them are not well advertised. Some of them sublet from the major providers. Find one you can tolerate, contract through them... and try to avoid metered internet plans because they're all bullshit.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  29. Class Action Attorney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Contact one of the big class action lawsuit attorneys. if you can convince them that 10K customers or more are being cheated for more than $100 per year, over a period of years, they will be glad to work for a percent. As a representative of the class you get enough to make it worth your time if you win. Of course they will have to figure out how to break the arbitration clause, but ATT may just settle rather than have the bad publicity.

    1. Re:Class Action Attorney by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Contact one of the big class action lawsuit attorneys. if you can convince them that 10K customers or more are being cheated for more than $100 per year, over a period of years, they will be glad to work for a percent.

      And, if past experience is any indication, that will be somewhere near 99%. When was the last time you heard of a class action getting the complainants anything near full restitution?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:Class Action Attorney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm expecting to get over 50% of what I paid for my Vibram shoes. But that doesn't matter. The point is to hurt the company and stop other companies from doing the same thing. The benefit to the customers is that we're not completely screwed over by every company all the time.

      I like my Vibram shoes and will buy another pair when these wear out. I wasn't hurt by their false advertising so even getting a penny is over full restitution.

    3. Re:Class Action Attorney by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The complainants are welcome to do the work themselves...

  30. switch providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible to switch internet providers to Comcast or Time Warner Cable? Just asking.

  31. Re:What are you downloading? by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    You missed one. The number one bandwidth application on the Internet. YouTube.

    FWIW, our household of four uses an average of 350 GB a month. Despite Comcast's claim that the average account uses 20 to 25 GB a month.

    --
    I come here for the love
  32. another possibility ... by nblender · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it's not the ATM encapsulation overhead as many others have rightly suggested, have a look at the traffic... I had similar concerns with my ISP... I have a Cisco switch between my local firewall and my cable modem... I set one port to monitor mode (copy all packets to a write-only switch port) and captured all of my internet traffic for a number of months... I then analyzed the .cap file and discovered a ginormous amount of SMB advertisements and arp who-has from other cable customers... For those few months, it was on the order of about 10% of my traffic... My ISP has been threatening to bill for over-usage for years so I was gathering data to throw back at them in the event that I ever received a bill. I haven't ever received a bill for over-usage and so haven't pursued the matter.

    1. Re:another possibility ... by niado · · Score: 2

      If it's not the ATM encapsulation overhead as many others have rightly suggested, have a look at the traffic... I had similar concerns with my ISP... I have a Cisco switch between my local firewall and my cable modem... I set one port to monitor mode (copy all packets to a write-only switch port) and captured all of my internet traffic for a number of months... I then analyzed the .cap file and discovered a ginormous amount of SMB advertisements and arp who-has from other cable customers... For those few months, it was on the order of about 10% of my traffic...

      From what the submitter said, all that garbage would be included in his traffic calculations. I would put another vote in for encapsulation.

      Your findings are a good illustration of the value of a local firewall between your LAN and the ISP's network. Who knows what kind of icky traffic is rolling around out there.

    2. Re:another possibility ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARP is going to happen. But SMB is signs of a lousy network. That stuff should not be visible to you if it is not originating on your local network.

    3. Re:another possibility ... by ruir · · Score: 1

      Says the AC who knows everything. Yes, you will see it, and 99.9% of cable operators dont care about blocking it. When I blocked it, my upstream use from then on was half of what it used to be.

  33. Re:What are you downloading? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Yea that's fair. I omitted "automatic Windows updates" too, but you can stuff a lot under the bucket of #8.

  34. Force of Law by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Waltz to your local PD and fill out a complaint for criminal fraud. You probably will have to push a bit but they may have no choice other than to investigate and those charges may well rock Att"s world. If that fails file a suit in court. You might claim loss of use and enjoyment of your home. A lawyer may help. But realize that ATT must mount a response and sanity may rule the hour as mounting that defense will cost ATT a fortune. Quickly settling with you may prevent them from having to produce quite a few witnesses, pay lawyers, pay for travel and lodging in your town and numerous other expenses. If a judge finds merit in your claim he just might slap ATT really hard and that possibility may cause them to pay. Also make certain the press gets step by step updates as the publicity for over billing may cause its won horror show for ATT

    1. Re:Force of Law by soren42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the type of approach most of us "law hackers" (aka "armchair attorneies") would try as a next step. The flip side (and the down side) is that AT&T will never allow the actual issue to appear before a judge. They will:

      - parade out yours terms of service agreement as a contract and request sunmary dismissal
      - cancel your service
      - bury you in motions: change of venue to their HQ state (which is likely in those terms of service), dismissal insufficient standing — you're not an expert, you hacked your gear to obtain incorrect figures, et cetera

      At the end of the day, they can simply outspend the average user, and it's in their best interest to do so. Lending any sort of credibility to such a lawsuit would expose them to similar suits from other users — up to a potential class action. The lawsuit will never even make it to anyone technical for review of it's merit. They have an in-house legal team and many firms on retainer to deal with just such suits.

      It all sucks, but that's the real world view for the little guy in our legal system.

      --

      "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
    2. Re:Force of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you want to get political, you might try this:

      http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=congressmerge&lang=en&commcode=hcommerce_tech

      or this:

      http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=congressmerge&lang=en&commcode=scommerce_comtech

      Contact the chair and vice-chair of each committee. If your local representative is on one of these committees, even better.

    3. Re:Force of Law by davecb · · Score: 1

      Engage a lawyer familiar with class actions *before* speaking to the police. You're an individual engaging in trial by battle with a huge company, and you need someone with the same degree of hitting power on your side before you start. They can advise on what's most effective in your jurisdiction. In Canada, the fraud squad is effective against enemies of moderate size. I don't see case law from them going after companies the size of a small country (;-))

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    4. Re:Force of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A suit won't get as far as summary judgment, (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56)
      The contract certainly requires binding arbitration, so it will be tossed with (FRCP 12b6) which happens even before the defendant has to file an answer to your complaint.

      ---AC JD

    5. Re:Force of Law by soren42 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarity - it's much appreciated!

      --

      "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
  35. Re:What are you downloading? by Sowelu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's "average" for you. If a majority of households use it mainly for email and Facebook...

  36. Re:What are you downloading? by PNutts · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does it matter?

    You must have missed the "Out of pure curiosity".

  37. A letter to your state's Attorney General? by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    get the ball rolling on court action for a giant class-action lawsuit by explaining to your AG that you're tracking them, and they're consistently lying on your bill. also start engaging the power of the press by calling your local newspaper, promising them a scoop.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  38. Re:What are you downloading? by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude, thats less than 5 GB a DAY. Thats nothing on the modern internet. I can go through that just uploading my surveillance videos to my offsite. Our infrastructure needs SERIOUS upgrades to handle these loads. Stop asking this question, start asking yourself why you think thats a lot of data, because it isnt.

    --
    Good-bye
  39. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am a software developer and consultant. I download entire system images (4-8GB), client log files (gigabytes), daily system updates for a number of systems (more gigabytes). I download multi-terabytes per month. If I didn't have an unlimited business plan, I would be out of business. Just getting the headers for my system repositories is multi-megabytes per day per system - 3 Linux and 2 Apple, plus updates for 2 phones.

    Data caps are bogus and only serve to fuel the undeserved profits of AT&T and their ilk. I pay for bandwidth, not volume. The bandwidth automatically throttles the volume of data I can access, and if I need more, I'll happily pay for it, but nickle and dimeing me to death because I need to download more data than they want is not an option as far as I'm concerned.

    ISP's should be concerned about bandwidth, NOT the amount of data you use that bandwidth to access. That said, I understand that sometimes there is so much demand for available bandwidth that download/upload speeds slow down (my wife needs to upload data to the lab, and my download speeds to get the latest RHEL distribution slows), but this is a physical limitation of the pipe available, not an arbitrary limitation by the ISP.

  40. Re: What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know. I don't walk around the gym showers asking all the men if any of the are gay. Do you?

  41. Same with Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have noticed the same with their mobile service. On random months a couple of our phones will use double+ the amount of data compared to previous months with no different in usage. When comparing what the phone says to At&t says we will have 2 completely different numbers, with the phone matching our normal usage.

    The only thing that I can think of to cause this type of difference, is that the phone only counts packets that it has received, while At&t counts packets that have been sent. So if there are collisions, errors or other network issues and packets are resent we are getting charged for it.

  42. Re:DSL Is generally several layers of encapsulatio by Yakasha · · Score: 1

    PPPoE and ATM add overhead to about 16%.

    Yup your paying for the encapsulation that never leaves their network.

    So then the answer to his question is: hire a lawyer to look over your contract and determine if the PPPoE+ATM overhead is considered their traffic, or yours.

    The next step after that is to simply dispute a bill and demand arbitration (since we all know that those contracts forbid lawsuits).

    Of course he could skip the lawyer and just submit a dispute/demand for arbitration. But, who pays for the arbitration? AT&T? Customer? "Loser"? Skipping the lawyer might end up costing even more $$.

  43. Re: What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but thanks for asking.

  44. Consumer Protection Agency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a thought - they might be the correct agency to approach, if you want to try one more place before getting lawyered up.

    for California http://www.dca.ca.gov/

  45. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe his family watches an average of one movie per day on netflix?

  46. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If most people use their Internet for email and Facebook, there should be plenty of bandwidth left for "heavy" users.

  47. Re:What are you downloading? by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    I quite likely have, but I am not so crass as to go around asking random strangers in the gym what their orientation is.

    I was just curious. I don't have any good way to find out what my usage is, and I'm guessing it is a lot lower than 150 GB/mo. We do a few hours of Hulu/Netflix a week and a bit of gaming. I have a 2 year old that mostly consumes my non-working waking hours.

  48. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I do a terabyte per month, minimum. Netflix, amazon prime, podcasts(easily a gig or more per episode sometimes) rdio, YouTube, twitch.tv, VPN to work, offsite backups, VoIP, video game playing, downloading games (digital games are easily 30-50gb each), steam auto updating games... Per machine...

    Multiply that by each family member...

  49. What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At one point I was hitting an average of about 600-800GB per month of purely legitimate traffic, mostly Amazon/Netfix/Hulu from both me and my roommate. We did that as a test with no P2P traffic, but lots of legitimate streaming just to see what a legitimate user might show for traffic to discount the ISP saying things like if you use over a certain amount it must be due to illegal downloading. This was right about the time that Cox cable decide to start enforcing limits on internet after we signed up for "unlimited". Currently I think my usage averages around 200-300GB per month mostly Netflix traffic.

  50. Re:What are you downloading? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

    You missed one. The number one bandwidth application on the Internet. YouTube.
    FWIW, our household of four uses an average of 350 GB a month. Despite Comcast's claim that the average account uses 20 to 25 GB a month.

    How is that "despite?" They're not saying that nobody uses that much, just that the average customer does. FYI, Sandvine agrees, they peg mean US broadband usage at 29GB/month. Median is quite a bit lower than that.

    https://www.sandvine.com/trend...

  51. Re:What are you downloading? by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Riiiiight

    From that page, "Google says that the video site reaches almost one out of every two people on the Internet."

    "one of every two" -- so, every other household uses YouTube. When it hits 51%, that would mean the average household uses YouTube.

    Comcast's "20 or 25" as an "average" figure is...unlikely.

    --
    I come here for the love
  52. encapsulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most companies charge you for the encapsulation, because some ISP doesn't own the phone cord. if your ISP and phone company are the same, then they SHOULDN'T charge you for internal network encapsulation, but how can you be sure it's the case? at least in some cities of my country you can choose which ISP you can use in your phone, and the phone company charges the ISP for the use of their phone lines so it's natural they charge the client for the encapsulation (but we are lucky enough to have unlimited plans too to avoid us the trouble)

    you should do the math for the data usage plus encapsulation AND CRC errors (because corrupt packages are still packages to the ISP)... you may have a crappy line that could affect your bill

  53. In California switch to sonic.net by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 3, Informative

    sonic.net has no datacaps and no "artificial" speed limits. [Note: I'm not affiliated with them--just a very happy customer since I switched in March].

    Of course, I'm assuming that when you said "CPUC" that means California PUC. If so, go to http://www.sonic.net/ and enter your AT&T landline number. They will tell you how many feet you are from the sonic CO. Then, go to http://www.dslreports.com/foru... to see what your likely speed with sonic will be.

    I'm 5000 feet to the sonic CO, so I got 1.3 megabytes/second [2x AT&T's elite service]. sonic is also cheaper. And, tech support couldn't be more pleasant or helpful.

    In fact, when you post a tech question to a sonic tech forum, you might just get a response from Dane [Jasper]--the sonic.net CEO

    --
    Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    1. Re:In California switch to sonic.net by mattis_f · · Score: 1

      Seconded - I've used Sonic for about 12 years - couldn't be happier. They've also gotten the big thumbs up from EFF for their privacy practices.

      When I switched my service to DSL2 (should give up to 20Mb / second down) some years ago, they sent a technician to my place. He found that even though the building was close enough to their CO, the old copper wiring in the building meant I wouldn't be able to use the full 20Mb. So instead they suggested a cheaper and slower plan. I gotta say, an ISP who sends out a guy who explains they will take less money from me is pretty rare.

      So, my connection is on paper fairly slow - 6Mbit down and 1 up. But on the other hand, I actually get that speed. It's enough to watch Netflix in HD. If I'm downloading something large (say, a linux image) I see my DL speed top out at about 650Kb/second, which means I am getting the whole 6 MBit. Day or night. (And again, that 6Mbit is because of my building, not because of Sonic!).

      Always always check if you can get Sonic where you live.

    2. Re:In California switch to sonic.net by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 1

      Glad you're getting 6Mb/s. A friend of mine has Verizon [east coast] and barely gets 3Mb/s.

      I'm guessing that when you say DSL2 and expect 20Mb/s down, you're meaning ADSL2+ [max is 24Mb/s vs. ADSL2 which is 12Mb/s]. I don't know how long 2+ has been out, but you might give 2+ a try if you're not already on it. Even with the bad wiring, it may help with some extra speed. Normally, if you're too far away, the extra 2+ frequencies don't help because they get dampened out, but your case may be an exception.

      A couple of other things to try [with building owner's cooperation/blessing]:
      - You can pay to have a telco tech string new inside wiring
      - There are bidirectional DSL amplifiers that can go inline [~$100]. Normally, they're used to boost a DSL signal long haul (e.g. if a subscriber is [say] 20 miles to the CO, these are inserted every mile or so]. Putting one of these "in the cabinet" [where the telco wiring enters the building] might boost the signal enough to overpower the bad internal wiring.
      - I suspect that sonic already thought of this, but if you've got four wires entering your place, trying the "other" pair [inside vs. outside] might be better. I actually had this happen to me, and the tech changed things (e.g. one pair was bad, but the other was clean).

      We both forgot to mention that because of the no datacap, sonic also lets you run a server from home 24x7 [which is a TOS violation for AT&T]

      --
      Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    3. Re:In California switch to sonic.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up in Santa Rosa and met Dane when I was like 6 years old. He is an awesome dude. I can't say enough positive things about sonic.net

  54. Overhead by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine if you went to buy milk and bought a gallon but were charged for 1.25 gallons because of spillage in the bottling plant.

    Or to be more similar: you got charged 1.25, because they determine the price by weighting it and thus are also weighting the glass milk bottles and the hard plastic crate carrying them.
    And when you ask them why you don't get the same amount of gallons that you measure in your kitchen and on their bill, they just answer "No, everything is okay, our bill is 100% right.". Without ever mentioning that you need to take that overhead into account. Without you having any way to check it or control the milkbottle+crate weighting process neither.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Weighting = adding weight to something.
      Weighing = measuring the weight of something.
      Inflating the bill by strapping iron bars to the underside of the carton is a different matter than including the carton in the price.

    2. Re:Overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civilized countries don't allow you to do that. you can only take the milk-price for the actual amount of milk (net vs gross weight). Nevermind having laws that means companies can get punished for such behavior - also for misbilling you

    3. Re:Overhead by Monoman · · Score: 1

      They are charging for the gross. tare + net

      https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    4. Re:Overhead by SalemLowe · · Score: 1

      I had a problem with ATT once where they over-billed my cell phone, I'd call, 'explain' my situatiion, have the person on the other end of the line deny everything, explain again, finally get them to say yes, there does seem to be an error... Then when I'd ask to get the bill fixed they would all reply "We sent you a bill so you HAVE to pay it. It doesn't matter if it's correct or not." It took me about six times to get that bill corrected. I quit using ATT and switched to another company.

    5. Re:Overhead by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      If you think that's bad check out your natural gas billing. They use this little thing called a therm factor. In essence that factor changes regularly, goes down in the warmer months, back up in the cooler months. So in essence, despite what the industry defenders will say how therm factor is a legitimate practice I counter with absolute bovine effluent - it is a markup and the incumbent utilities have the nerve to actually show the markup disguised as therm factor.

  55. Drop them and switch providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To answer teh OP's question. I have been in the same boat with ATT DSL but have not gone to all the trouble of actually measuring my actual traffic. Their DSL service had always been 100% reliable, but their tech support human factor... that's a whollly different story. We're talking about level 2 tech who had no idea what a "port 25" was and what I was asking him to do about it.

    Based on my departure conversation with them, ATT is probably trying to squeeze customers out of the DSL service ("phase out") and push them towards the much pricier U Verse.

    Personally, I had asked them to remove my 150 GB cap (at the time) since my originally contracted plan was called Unlimited. The lady said no cant do, and this is how ATT DSL lost one of their greatest, most intelligent, most attractive customers.

  56. What to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been saying for years that the cable and telecom providers are a legally enforced monopoly (What US law says about monopolies does apply to every one of them) but no one has done anything about it and that is at least part of the reason people in the US pay more than almost any other country for internet that is slower than almost all other 1st world countries. It does not help that the cable and telecom companies have gotten laws passed that make it very difficult to change that.

    I recently moved to Austin, TX and when I was looking at moving I realized that I had either Time Warner or AT&T to choose from for internet... I am pretty sure that I picked the lesser of two evils (TWC) but I am not sure that there really was a good choice to be made there. At least Google Fiber is coming here so I would get that as soon as I can.

  57. Drop AT&T by Coffeesloth · · Score: 1

    My first response would be to drop AT&T. I don't suppose that is feasible in your case?

  58. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Out of pure curiosity" do you shower with gay men?

    Do you like movies about gladiators?

  59. AT&T = Bill Trolls by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    AT&T keeps adding "insurance" charges to our bill without asking. They make up odd excuses to keep adding it back after removal, something like, "Oh, you said, 'Are you sure', I thought you said, "You insure us".

    Reminds me of the browser Spam Bar prompts: "Are you sure you don't want to not add the Ask Tool Bar? _Yes _No"

  60. Re:What are you downloading? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Mine is a single person (Aussie) household with a 200GB/mo cap. I have a RDC open 8hrs a day to work during weekdays, I watch more YT than I do TV and regularly play WoT in the evenings, often with a friend playing on my second PC. My account rarely exceeds 30GB/mo. 350GB/mo would indicate to me that either someone in your household is downloading a shitload of torrented movies (too many to possibly watch in a month), or more likely you have a malware problem.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  61. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im running anywhere from 800-1200 GB/month running netflix on 2x devices in 1080 (most of the time) and 4 phones, 2 tablets, and 2 desktops, with games updates and everything its easy to hit 25-40 gigs/day...

  62. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    also, I am with Suddenlink (texas) and they have a 250gig/month cap and $15/50gigs after 250, when they tried to charge me $200 in overages, i flipped sh!t and kept going up the chain at their call center till i switched from a 15Mbps for $45 to a 6 Mbps COMMERCIAL line for $70 with unlimited bandwidth...

  63. Re:What are you downloading? by Barny · · Score: 1

    "one of every two" -- so, every other household

    Forever alone?

    I mean to say, this is a household of three adults and all three use youtube (on PCs, phones and ps3).

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  64. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just curious.

    Oh quit your sniveling, you silly bitch! Only queers and terrorists are "curious".

  65. Get a life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously... who has the time to configure such an arrangement to measure and figure this shit out?

  66. Re:What are you downloading? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

    I have two computers, two cell phones that default to 802.11 for data, two tablets. Between all of those, I'm at 303 GB for August thus far, according to my router. I'm guessing 2/3 of it was split between Netflix, Amazon Video, and YouTube.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  67. stating the obvious..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like how they do things and calling minimium wage reps treating a lawsuit which really a isn't going to happen and b f it does they can out spend you a million to one why not just switch providers? That's the only thing that means anything to them.. Heck they may even work with you since you're wanting to leave..

  68. This is why I love cox! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is yet another reason I love cox. They keep telling me every month I used 700 GB and my plan has 500 GB, and that I should upgrade to a higher plan. I have the highest plan they have,so there is no upgrading. Yet they never charge you an extra dime, just wanted to let me know I may be happier with higher plan...

  69. Re:What are you downloading? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I quite likely have, but I am not so crass as to go around asking random strangers in the gym what their orientation is.

    This is why I love Slashdot. I discussion of internet overcharging and ATM encapsulation quickly pivots to the etiquette of showering with gay men at the gym.

    Honestly, I love each and every one of you. In a purely platonic way, of course, though given enough vodka and grapefruit juice, who knows?.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  70. Re:What are you downloading? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Just over a month ago, Steam has a sale on some very big games, like Wolfenstein: New Order and Splinter Cell: Blacklist. (maybe it's all the colons that take up the space.

    It doesn't take too many games at over 20gig each, along with Netflix for the wife and streaming music before you're knocking on 150gig.

    Why in the world the Wolfenstein game came out to over 40 gig I'll never know, but sure enough, for the first time I got the email from AT&T that I was at 90% of my limit. Fortunately, it was two days before the billing cycle rolled over, so I didn't have to pay.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  71. Re:What are you downloading? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    Netflix can add up very quickly if you watch shows a couple of hours each day... 150GB is not that hard to do, especially for cord-cutters...

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  72. Nothing by countach · · Score: 1

    Here's what you should do: nothing at all. Life is too short and there are better battles to fight.

  73. Re:What are you downloading? by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Netflix (one person) and two teens tubing, a lot.

    --
    I come here for the love
  74. Re:What are you downloading? by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    In Sandvineâ(TM)s 2014 Global Internet Phenomena Report, the group found that people exhibiting cord-cutter behavior -- those people who had a significantly high amount of streaming media consumption -- the average consumption amount was 213GB per month.

    [Source]

    That is our household in a nutshell -- cord cutters. The teens watch zero TV. Same for my spouse. I use TV mainly for sports, and new Top Gear episodes. No ISO downloads, no torrent use at all.

    Honestly, I'm a bit surprised by our usage. I'll probably install some program to track it for a while and figure out who and what are the biggest users.

    --
    I come here for the love
  75. Weights and Measures by sir-gold · · Score: 1

    You definitely need to press your case further with the Weights & Measures people, because this falls squarely into their territory. At&t is clearly selling you a specific amount of product for a specific price, and the main purpose of the W&M department is to test the accuracy of commercial measuring equipment.

    If you are actually able to get a live person with relative ease, just keep calling back until you get someone that agrees with you.

    If W&M can test the gas pump, why can't they test the internet pump too?

    1. Re:Weights and Measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if they could test you bullshit pump, I would applaud it....

  76. Legislators by Avrice · · Score: 1

    You can always reach out to your legislators office. Give them a list of the executive branch agencies that aren't responding to your requests. (Especially since congress isn't happy with the FCC right now). There is nothing they love more than to have a reason to squeeze executive agencies and the agencies generally respond to questions from congressional offices. Nobody wants to be called up to the hill for hearings.

    --
    Avrice
  77. Re:What are you downloading? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

    This actually made me wonder what I am using in bandwidth.

    A quick look at my bandwidth usage last month as per my DDWRT router gives me

    (Incoming: 331873 MB / Outgoing: 51237 MB)

    So 331G incoming last month, and I have a somewhat large home network.

  78. Typical day of usage for me by Xian97 · · Score: 1

    Download 4.69
    Upload 0.40
    Total 5.09
    This is what a typical day looks like when I check my online usage with AT&T DSL. Those totals are in GB, so they are saying that I am uploading 400 MB, which is BS. Other than the occasional picture attached to an email, I upload nothing, no torrents, no facetime/skype, nada, yet they say I do nearly 1/2 a GB a day. That's about 10% of my download ratio, so they have to be measuring network overhead. That ovehead adds up to about 12 GB a month, so my 150 GB cap is really in the 130+ range.

    1. Re:Typical day of usage for me by ruir · · Score: 1

      I know it very well, when I managed an ISP, and as it was not *that* large, we gave hourly usage web interface to customers, I used to ignore traffic in the hourly range 500 KB just to avoid the hassle of my helpdesk and my customers being clueless it was background traffic, and having spurious claims of "your meter is broken, I was off for two weeks". The only way of not having it is actually (in some cases) switching off all equipments, modem included. And your router counts as a PC, so if you have a router, you are never off.

  79. Re:What are you downloading? by mattack2 · · Score: 2

    But that doesn't really make sense.

    Lets say someone wants Netflix access, but doesn't use it that much (a couple shows a week).

    They need the bandwidth, but don't need all that much total data. They can't choose a lower bandwidth, since then that would mean not getting HD quality, or not even being able to get it at all.

  80. Re: What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I looked at my usage on my bill a couple of weeks ago and was suprised to see we used 400Gb then I looked back over the previous months, one month we hit 800Gb. So I installed some monitoring software. It's basically netflix, YouTube and steam. On a quiete day we will use 12Gb no problem. I'd be toast with a comcast type cap

  81. Re:What are you downloading? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    I am a software developer and consultant. I download entire system images (4-8GB), client log files (gigabytes), daily system updates for a number of systems (more gigabytes). I download multi-terabytes per month. If I didn't have an unlimited business plan, I would be out of business. Just getting the headers for my system repositories is multi-megabytes per day per system - 3 Linux and 2 Apple, plus updates for 2 phones.

    If you didn't have a fat pipe you would still be in business only difference you would be smarter about how you use the limited resources you could afford.

  82. Small Claims Court by WorBlux · · Score: 1

    Keep track of the overages and when they add up to enough to make it worthwhile file a claim into small claims court. Send a letter to legal now explaining your issue and warn them you will file if the meter is not accurate into the future. The advantage over not paying that bill is that you can show your actions were taken in good faith, and even if you lose there aren't going to be debt collectors callling you or bad reports on your credit score. Other option is to start your own ISP.

    1. Re:Small Claims Court by ruir · · Score: 1

      And after he starts an ISP he will found out this differences are pretty normal.

  83. Re:What are you downloading? by ediron2 · · Score: 1

    I get pretty close to there, especially during summer and christmas breaks. Teens, multiple netflix/hulu/youtube/etc streams, gaming and my telework via VPN. The perfect storm. Streaming 5G on a day off isn't incredibly hard. Three simultaneous feeds makes it trivial.

    FWIW, my ISP briefly was selling a 50Mbps service with a 50G monthly cap.

  84. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easier summed up with no homo.

  85. Re:What are you downloading? by SirCowMan · · Score: 1

    I'm on FTTH which includes IPTV, I seperate the VLAN's on a headswitch and use my own gear over the wireless router they provide. Given a heavy use of Netflix for kid shows, I sort of figured that would be the biggest bandwidth driver, but turns out the IPTV traffic absolutely dominates by raw numbers. 830 GB in the last roughly month is just IPTV streams, and that's with just the one box/PVR and kids off on summer vacations. Total traffic is over 1 TB. (The IPTV traffic is multicast though).

    A point of history, had a short-lived 4G connection on an external antenna to grab a signal from a distant and marginal tower. It connect, but do so slowly and frequently disconnect. Had a bill for what was an impossible amount of data, even if it could stay up and maxed out 24/7 at the best indicated rate. I believe they were counting errors, retransmissions, etc., all those failed packets they'd see from their side as part of the total data amount, which there was a lot of.

    --
    !Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
  86. Re:What are you downloading? by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    Ok, I downloaded NetSpeedMonitor and ran some tests.

    Netflix on "auto" quality settings, watching "Weeds" for a minute, translates to 60 GB/month (per 1 hr/day). We quickly dialed that back to the middle setting.

    YouTube is about one-tenth of that, for regular quality video. HD was triple the regular amount (but it will depend on what you watch). So, 6 GB/month (per hour watched/day) for standard quality. 18 GB/month (per hour watched/day) for High Def. YMMV.

    --
    I come here for the love
  87. Re:DSL Is generally several layers of encapsulatio by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    I can't believe they're still using ATM. I mean, seriously what is this 1996?

  88. Re:DSL Is generally several layers of encapsulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Article Poster here. I read the contract. There is zero mention of overhead anywhere and AT&T pays the cost of arbitration (but not my lawyer).

  89. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jeezus, get off your fat ass and do something besides rot on the couch

    Why? What the fuck is it to you what other people do with their time?

  90. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would move to Canada like burger king

    Why? So you can get bent over and screwed without lube by Bell, Rogers, Shaw, etc?

    We pay a premium up here for the crappy service we get because the CRTC, which is supposed to be on our side, is whoring itself out to Bell and Rogers.

  91. Not Valid Measurement and this is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All ISP (here in OZ) measure the traffic intended for your IP address, we had someone a while ago on a dynamic IP who was subject to a DDoS which pushed more traffic than his line can handle, this data was counted towards his quota. I think it's a crappy idea how it is billed, this means that data arriving at your modem is only a fraction of your total data "usage", as anything that your ISP blocks heading to your modem is included, any UDP traffic that exceeds the total capacity of your line (common with torrents maxing out), etc IS countered even when you do not receive it.
    DrE

  92. Re: What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally some insight. 150GB is trivial for a "modern" family, and would easily be dwarfed if comcast billed their "cable" as "data."

    The real problem is that we need internet access provided and regulated as a utility. No, i don't much relish the thought of paying per-(prefix)byte, but I'd rather have an enforced system where everyone pays a rate that reflects what the service actually costs than the current hideously broken regime.

    For example, here in downtown seattle, I can get uncapped internet essentially as a dumb pipe in 100mb or 1gb flavors for approx 100$/month. The rest of the state gets to squabble between centurylink and the cable guys. All this does is further exacerbate the "knowledge gap" (really, wealth) between those who can afford to live in one of the country's most expensive areas and everyone else.

    Sometimes I think this might be by design =\

  93. Is there a pure usage metering odometer? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    I suspect that SuddenLink is fudging its usage numbers, but my router doesn't do usage accounting. Even if it did, I'm sure the reaction from the ISP would be "We don't trust a user device to check our figures." What we need an an Internet odometer, a single-purpose traffic counter that plugs into the Ethernet between modem and router, and is sealed so the user can't tamper with it, and which would track the total time it was in-circuit so a user couldn't evade the count by just temporarily disconnecting it while downloading every Simpsons episode.

    Does such a device exist, and do any ISPs trust its use as a check on their own accounting?

    1. Re:Is there a pure usage metering odometer? by ruir · · Score: 1

      Yes, the device exists and is called a "modem" or a "router". Cable modems count all traffic that goes through them. Cisco routers also have some technology that is called Netflow. Some pop&mon ISPs that take the counting from the modem everyday can be fooled by the user resetting the modem indeed. I knew a major one from a nameless country that took the stats from the HTTP page of the modem. We where the competition and did it trough netflow in our backbone.

    2. Re:Is there a pure usage metering odometer? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      When most users measure traffic locally, it's with a router function. But as I said in Parent, a user's router measurement is not going to be trusted by the ISP. There is a need for a single-purpose device that objectively measures traffic independent from router and modem functionality, in the same way that an odometer or electric meter does.

      I did omit another item such a device would have to log continuously: the current IP. Matching this with the ISP's records would reveal any attempt to place the odometer 'downstream' of the edge signal. Just detecting internal IPs is not enough, because some ISPs issue these to users as the IPv4 space runs out of addresses.

    3. Re:Is there a pure usage metering odometer? by ruir · · Score: 1

      They already measure it in the backbone, and give you a web interface to look at it. I would not want yet another box drawing power that ultimately I am the one paying it. Are you being obtuse in purpose, or it is just me that cant see the point of it? By the way, the numbers would not be the same between the box and their internal measures, probably a 10% deviation.

  94. If there is no way to test the meter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is no way to test the meter, then AT&T can have their thumb on the scale. I would expect a court challenge would be required for the government to be coerced into 'expanding their scope'. On the other hand, Right-Wing governments absolutely hate the idea of policing corporations, even if there is strong suspicion that the company is cheating, lying, stealing. I would suspect it would be the FCC that should be setting up seals/weights/measures for the electronic domain. But they don't want to.

  95. Re: What are you downloading? by kevinking.psyd · · Score: 1

    You seem like a fun person.

  96. Re: What are you downloading? by kevinking.psyd · · Score: 1

    LOL.

  97. Re:What are you downloading? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    What's the grapefruit juice for?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  98. Can't find a government agency that is interested? by they_call_me_quag · · Score: 1

    I can think of two government agencies that might be interested in this...

    The Attorney General of your state might take this up. In some states the AG has taken a very aggressive stance on abuses by telcos.

    It also occurs to me that the Postmaster might consider this to be mail fraud. (That is, if your bill is being delivered by the USPS.)

    Good luck.

  99. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > If you didn't have a fat pipe you would still be in business only difference you would be smarter about how you use the limited resources you could afford.

    Translation, you'd spend more time and effort figuring out how to manager your internet connection that you could have spent earning money by doing productive work. Arbitrary bandwidth limits are a clear-cut drag on productivity.

  100. 2x AT&T's elite service? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    AT&T UVerse is 26-36mbit if your system has their FTTN upgrades. And if you can get sonic.net, chances are it has them.

    sonic's tech support is truly fantastic, but I can't deal with the slow speeds anymore. The upstream speed is particularly glacial.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  101. Class Action Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three words, see title.

  102. Re:What are you downloading? by drkim · · Score: 1

    "Out of pure curiosity" do you shower with gay men?

    Do you like movies about gladiators?

    Well, this part of the thread explains the ">150 GB per month" part.

  103. Pretty normal - please read by ruir · · Score: 1

    I wrote accounting software in the past for ISPs. In my opinion, having a 10% or 15% difference is pretty normal, and it can be justified in front of a court, be it big or small. Either encapsulation, or the fact that the traffic is being measured at their side, and not in your inside network can account for lost packets too. Some small oscillations about other systems on the net trying to attack your IP will be put into your accounting too. If you are doing p2p, after you close it, the peers will try to contact you for a while too. If you are measuring the traffic passed, also I bet your calculations are only *without* the TCP/IP headers, whilst netflow methods at the data center account for everything. Often depending on the method, you can have problems too with fragmented packets, whilst netflow again does not. Hell, in a pop&mon ISP if you switch for doing the account from iptables to netflow the numbers *will* be different. Another chance is if you are using routing or bridging on you home router, you often only count what is bridged/routed, and you can be missing some traffic. I also have had colleagues that took the traffic data from the modem itself, and then control and monitoring traffic for the internal modem network work properly will be taken into account, and you will never see it. I also often found customers trying to contest data based on MRTG or cacti, without a minimum understanding what an average does to number, which is not apparently your case. The accounting is not only done for you, but for many customers too. Depending on the software, the modus operandi of it can be hourly, bi-daily or daily. Good luck on getting it realtime. There is a high probably the accounting data is written only in RAM (redis, memcache) and then passed off to databases at some wee hour of the night, when they have lower loads. Could the HQ be in a different time zone too? The bottom line of all this, is nobody is caring because it you creating a mountain out of a molehill, and because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are looking at a tree, and forgetting you are part of a forest. (my linked.in https://www.linkedin.com/pub/r...)

    1. Re:Pretty normal - please read by ruir · · Score: 1

      And someone also remembered very well about ARPs and NetBT traffic from other customers. I used to block all the non-IP and SMB traffic in the modem itself, it can be done, but normally they do not do it.

    2. Re:Pretty normal - please read by ruir · · Score: 1

      A last note too, for the ones suggesting small courts whatever... ISP side ... oh yeah, we capturing the traffic with Cisco that well known brand, using Cisco software to store it, and this software made in germany from those ISP specialists which cost millions, and our quality processes are reviewed by KPMG, and our consultants reviewed the merits of this client and have not found a problem...you...I whipped out at home some software in my open source box and do not agree with them.

  104. Re:Can't find a government agency that is interest by ruir · · Score: 1

    No, you wont. Read my thread "Pretty normal"

  105. Re:What are you downloading? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    These days average is watching hours of streaming video from Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, Hulu and all the others.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  106. not shocked with ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel like I have pretty high usage on my ATT wireless phone... makes sense now. Not shocking they got some formula that nobody understands and even more not shocking nobody seems to care or hold them accountable to explain their process.

  107. Take 'em to small claims court. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Take them to small claims court.

    Ask for the difference between the billing tier your meter says you should be in and the one they charged you for. Dump your data in a reasonably clear format and show and explain it to the judge. Be prepared to swear that it is correct.

    If they overcharge you next month, do it again.

    Keep it up until they fix the meter so the agreement is close enough for you to be happy with it (or until the judge gets tired of it and issues an order - either to you or them - to make the cases stop.) It's not barratry - no matter how vexing to the utility - if the suits are legitimate, with real grounds asking for restitution for real damages, nor if the the suits are repeated because there are new instances of the tort.

    First time through, ask for all the months for which you have data that shows overcharging. (If you can demonstrate a rule for the systematic overcharging, ask for the overcharges back to the instalation of the system, but be prepared for the judge to reject that.) Up to the small claims price and time limits, of course.

    Be polite to the judge. Assume he's smart enough to understand this if you explain it clearly. (Judges don't get to be judges without being smart and good at figuring these things out.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Take 'em to small claims court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey have used a mobile app to count the km and my car is spending more than 1L at 8km as the manufacturer promised. Yes, your honor, this is absolutely correct, and I know best than people who have work in this industry for decades.

    2. Re:Take 'em to small claims court. by ruir · · Score: 1

      I bet you also measure by the bucket the water at your home, or you car mileage, or how shoes are made, and you go to court swearing you are an expert on the filed and the guys that do the work, their consultants, and the millions they have spent on brand recognized names and RFC protocols to provide this service do not mean squat to you. It seems a brilliant strategy. You should build an ISP.

    3. Re:Take 'em to small claims court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is going to go no where unless he can get an independent expert to certify that his measuring technique is accurate.

    4. Re:Take 'em to small claims court. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      This is going to go no where unless he can get an independent expert to certify that his measuring technique is accurate.

      We're talking small claims court here (where proceures are much more relaxed due to the small amount of the dispute) and civil procedure (where the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

      Also: A suitable expert shouldn't be THAT hard to find, and (with open source and things like the Raspbery Pi and Beagle Bone available for platforms), independently engineering a meter to check the first one should be quick work - and something a customer of another ISP might want to do, as well.

      Heh. Once it's done it could be published open-source, bringing the tool into the hands of the technically-literate masses. A couple thousand small claims cases a month might be more effective than a class action suit for getting their act cleaned up.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:Take 'em to small claims court. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      A couple thousand small claims cases a month might be more effective than a class action suit for getting their act cleaned up.

      Did I just invent an open source / populist / minarchist alternative to the class action lawsuit? B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    6. Re:Take 'em to small claims court. by ruir · · Score: 1

      I still am the opinion the ISP is acting in good faith, and this difference is pretty standard across most of the ISPs around the world...

  108. FTC not FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Federal Trade Commission deals with this kind of thing, not the FCC.

    Same guys that go after confusing credit card bills, misleading packaging etc.

  109. Gib vs Gb 1024*1024 is 105% the 1000x1000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1024x1024 vs 1000x1000... that's only 5 percent... or a third of your measurement...

    but that could be a part of it...

    Also, it would be funny if your monitoring script accidentally sends data over the network causing the other over use..

  110. Neither should internet by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Civilized countries don't allow you to do that

    Hence the complaint of some users.
    If you don't weight the container when buying goods (glass bottle isn't counted as milk),
    why should ISP do it on their network (they count in the overhead by the particular technology that they happen to use between your modem and their servers, instead of only counting the bandwidth to/from the internet (the things that they themselves need to pay and for what they need the money) )

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  111. Re: What are you downloading? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    Finally some insight. 150GB is trivial for a "modern" family, and would easily be dwarfed if comcast billed their "cable" as "data."

    Cable is for the most part a broadcast system though.

    The real problem is that we need internet access provided and regulated as a utility. No, i don't much relish the thought of paying per-(prefix)byte, but I'd rather have an enforced system where everyone pays a rate that reflects what the service actually costs than the current hideously broken regime.

    You'd have to be pretty careful how the system was set up through. In particular the definition of "what the service actually costs"

    The real cost in providing internet access is replacing infrastructure. When you build new infrastructure you (if you have any sense) build it with ample bandwidth but gradually the bandwidth becomes less and less ample. Most people still get their internet through infrastructure that was really designed for phone calls or broadcast TV and has had patchwork upgrades.

    The people at the telcos/cablecos look at the cost of the forklift upgrades to handle the growing traffic and get sticker shock. Then they look at the usage patterns and find that households like your ""modern" family" are the exception not the rule (and I fully admit that i'm probablly part of said exception). Then they put in place measures so that those households either reduce their usage or pay more.

    I fear with a "cost based" model the utilities would be prone to keep running old (and expensive per-(prefix)byte) infrastructure to an even greater extent than they do today. Why install more modern (and cheaper per-(prefix)byte) infrastructure when it just means you get to charge less for the same data.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  112. Division of Consumer Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have been fighting with AT&T at work for the last 9 months. They installed a circuit but have get to get the stuff in order to move our services over to the new circuit. Since the circuit has been installed, we have been receiving bills for services that we cannot use. They finally threatened to disconnect all of our services if we didn't pay the bill for the circuit that isn't operational.

    In addition to filling a formal complaint with the FCC, we also contacted the PUC to file a complaint there. The problem we found is that the PUC in Florida no longer handles telecom issues. We were referred to the Division of Consumer Services. Once we contacted them, they were more than happy to help us out. Less than 12 hours later, AT&T managed to finally get their butts in gear.

  113. yo by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    The fact that they are consistently 14% higher than your measured usage should have tipped you off that they're not just making numbers up, but measuring some sort of overhead you're not privy to. You're not ever going to get them to bill you like you want to be billed, since whatever they're doing is something they're doing for all their customers. I doubt their systems are set up to allow automatic scaling of certain users' bandwidth by some factor (e.g. 0.85). So if you can't live with the extra 14% I suggest moving to another network provider.

    1. Re:yo by ruir · · Score: 1

      It is pretty standard what he is seeing. I bet he is also counting the routed traffic at his box, which is quite different from the traffic that arrives at his box. It is pretty standard the backbone of providers, specially cable provides having extraneous traffic in the customers areas. Some take steps to clean it, some do not. And even the linux kernel of his router can drop packets. As I said in other threads, the guy is overreacting. It is like you are putting the police in court because their speed traps have a 10% error.

  114. Who you gonna call? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, why wouldn't you try your Attorney General? Isn't this his job?

    Remember, he's a politician in a position to make a name for him/herself by sticking up for "the little guy" against "big business". If he's not able to sort this himself, he'll certainly know where and be able to corral the necessary clout to either change things or require a darn good explanation for the apparent inconsistencies.

  115. Re:DSL Is generally several layers of encapsulatio by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    Why not? A significant portion of their infrastructure is based off of ATM, if there isn't a need to completely scrap their infrastructure why replace it even for something that might squeak out a bit more performance.

  116. Have you tried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Submitting a Better Business Bureau (BBB) complaint with the information in your article? I had an issue with a provider forcing me into a metered plan (for various reasons) and after I did seemed to be overbillied constantly. I filed a complaint and then they decided to work with me to resolve the matter. Before the complaint I just got the run around and was told it was nothing they could do and I was stuck for 2 years.

  117. Re:DSL Is generally several layers of encapsulatio by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    It can actually be baked into their resale bit. You know where they charge a 3rd party near as much as you or more to resell the DSL send the connections to them via an overpriced ATM circuit and they still have to deal with internet transit etc. All so they can say to the regulators that nobody else wants to sell DSL in their area or that since they have a couple token providers they are not a monopoly.

    Often with AT&T they use this to separate the phone company side from the ISP side and suck the profits from the ISP side. Yup AT&T overcharges itself so it can cry poor and get rate hikes through.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  118. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike most of the other responses to this, I don't have a one-off excuse for needing more data. I play video games, and I watch Hulu/Netflix. That's pretty standard for my generation, and my monthly usage ends up anywhere between 230GB and 340GB. Since I have no data cap, that's not an issue, but it might be if more ISPs start putting on data caps.

    Just for Netflix, the usual 1080p stream uses ~3Mbps. To reach 150 GB that's about 4.63 days of streaming, or 111 hours. 111 hours may sound like a lot, but if your billing cycle is 30 days, that's a cap of 3.7 hours per day. There are two adults in my home, which means at most we can each watch ~1.85 hours of netflix a day. And that's considering *just* Netflix. Last night I kicked off a download of 60GB on Steam for 4 video games that I bought, and that seems pretty normal for games these days. I put Steam on a 2 TB drive because "Lol, I'll never have that much video game" and now I'm sitting at 85% capacity(granted, this also includes the entirety of my game collection that was previously sitting on disc carousels, but those are a minority of the data).

    Then there's internet radio streaming(seems minimal, tbh, I use it on my phone ~30 hours a week at work and I use little more than 1 GB), online video games, hulu, browsing reddit(high resolution pictures and gifs really does add up over time), occasional youtube videos, etc. It also doesn't include any uploading traffic(syncing/downloading music from google/itunes/etc).

    It can be pretty easy to hit 150 GB in a month. I checked my billing history and I have never been under 220 GB while at my current location(~2 years). I imagine for families where kids are off doing their own thing it's even easier.

  119. Re:What are you downloading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're a consultant, you should switch to the Business class, since that has uncapped bandwidth. I'm also a consultant/dev (sorry, long time lurker, never bothered making a /. account) -- and I had to do this for the *EXACT* same reason as you. Usually the Business class is only $10/20 more a month, and you get unlimited bandwidth, better speeds, and much better support.

    An example -- I have Comcast business (fastest I can get, and we're locked into duopoly of Comcast/AT&T). I pay $50/month for 50Mb/25Mb down/up in Houston. A nice Comcast employee put me onto a grandfathered connection type when I signed up (and they'll send actual employees -- not contractors). Even before, he wanted to test out the speeds I paid for -- I believe 12/1 or 10/1, and I was getting that MINIMUM. He was saying that they ensure you get AT LEAST that much as a minimum service -- I was pulling closer to 25/6 when we tested (and when he said, "I think we can do better..." and put me on the older grandfathered plan). No weird blast or other crap -- so I get constant throughput, not just the first 50MB or whatever they claim.

    I hate the current state of ISP's, but if you pay just a little extra (especially if you're "going over" and they charge $5 extra -- you'll break even and be way more happy), it leaves you feeling less pained. To give an idea -- I burnt through 17TB of transfer last month on Business class with torrents, backups, imaging, etc. No complaints, problems, etc. imo, most tech professionals would be much happier -- the only downside is that they'll send you mailers every few days wanting to discuss your "services" and how they can help improve them. I seriously have gotten at least 60 in my 1.5 years at my new service address (home).

  120. Re:What are you downloading? by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

    Out of pure curiosity, what are you doing that gets you up to >150 GB per month?

    I can answer this. Since my experience with Concast in 2007 I've been monitoring ALL my traffic and recording it. Now I'm averaging around 125-180 gigs a month according to vnstat depending on the month

    What are we doing?

    Streaming hulu
    Streaming Amazon Prime videos and now music
    Video games
    Streaming music
    Streaming Internet everything

    And we have a large family on kindle fires plus several computers. After monitoring in detail our network usage I find it's not all that unusual for a highly technical family to be hitting that munch monthly.

    --
    Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  121. Re:What are you downloading? by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

    There is plenty of infrastructure. Caps aren't about infrastructure they are about monetizing usage.

  122. Re:What are you downloading? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    What about the option of not cheaping out on the connectivity plan and instead getting one that matches your actual usage?

  123. my 2 cents worth surprisingly 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suggest you find 3 or so other screwed over individuals and find yourselves some aggressive tech lawyers and go class action

  124. Re:What are you downloading? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    I did! I got unlimited internet from their competitor. Also more bandwidth. And I also cheaped out and am paying the same money.

  125. Bad news by whitroth · · Score: 1

    a) change providers, or
    b) talk to a lawyer. Really. See if they'll take it on spec. If not, it might be worth paying some money, since *sometimes* all it takes is a lawyer letter to their legal service address to get them to move.

                      mark

    1. Re:Bad news by ruir · · Score: 1

      c) learn more a bit about networks, IP and traffic accounting?

  126. in europe: Base+Use by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Well actually NOT *MY* gas billing.
    I happen to live on the opposite side of the Atlantic pond (if my b0rked english grammar wasn't already a telling sign).

    Here around the utilities are billed in 2 separate steps: capacity and consumption.
    - You get a fixed base, that's for paying the infrastructure no matter how much you use (i.e.: you pay a fixed base because you live in a 4-person house and the city has made certain that the water-distribution infrastructure has enough capacity to support the 4 of you).
    - In addition you pay the used volume (you pay X per cubic meter of water).

    The municpality's utilities don't need to fudge the price with "out of their arses" factors, their fixed costs is covered by a separate entry in the bill.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  127. Re:What are you downloading? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    I thought I'd log into my modem and find month after month of > 150GB. I don't use as much as I used to. I'm really shocked that I haven't peaked above 100GB in the last year. My Netflix usage is way down lately, and I'm not downloading a lot of ISO files, but 150GB still isn't hard to do. It's only double my average usage, and my wife and I are a household of only 2.

    Date, DL, UL, Total
    2014-07 75.69GB 13.27GB 88.96GB
    2014-06 67.32GB 16.88GB 84.20GB

  128. Re:DSL Is generally several layers of encapsulatio by Yakasha · · Score: 1

    Article Poster here. I read the contract. There is zero mention of overhead anywhere and AT&T pays the cost of arbitration (but not my lawyer).

    Zero mention of overhead could still put it on you as it is "your" modem (seems to me in most cases: inside your house is your problem, outside your house is their problem). Off hand it seems sketchy to charge for the overhead... but then again, the USPS doesn't provide free envelopes & the weight of your packaging is included in the cost of shipping... so non-internet tradition says it is your problem. But this seems to leave you with the same solution: arbitration will get you an answer.

    The lawyer part then is just so you can try to predict what the arbiter will say, and what you should present and/or say to convince the arbiter that AT&T should pay for their own overhead.

  129. Re:What are you downloading? by jon3k · · Score: 1

    One Netflix stream = 5Mb/s = 0.625MB/s * 60 seconds/min * 60 min/hour = 2.19GB/hour

    150GB / 2.19GB = 68.5 hours of HD Netflix per month. That's a single user, assuming it's not a family of four, five, etc.

    That comes to 1.3 hours per day of Netflix. That doesn't include any web browsing, gaming, nothing else just a SINGLE Netflix user.

  130. Re:DSL Is generally several layers of encapsulatio by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    Well look at it like the modem analogy. Dial up days you "paid" for the overhead as well the PPP overhead effectively reduced your max connection speed/throughput.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  131. Re:What are you downloading? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Translation, you'd spend more time and effort figuring out how to manager your internet connection that you could have spent earning money by doing productive work. Arbitrary bandwidth limits are a clear-cut drag on productivity.

    In the real world we must all deal with arbitrary bandwidth/resource limits there is no escaping it ever.

    Every situation must stand on its own merit. It is possible under specific conditions for laziness in the form of insufficient effort to reduce resource utilization end up costing more in productivity and that what you think is freeing you from having to care is actually propagating a sub-optimal working environment.

    Deciding to transmit bulk geographic data in XML because we can or implementing RFC3252 with a straight face is just plain wasteful.

    Our modern 30-100 Mbit pipes as impressive as they are after you factor in analytic URLs, endless javascript libraries complete with senseless abuse of xmlhttprequest, ad networks, market intelligence and god knows what is in the several dozen calls to other sites when loading a single page from a single site these days and look web sites don't load any faster then they did 10 years ago despite significant investment and improvement in systems and networks over that time.