Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Typo Penalizes Wrong Customer For Data Usage (arstechnica.com)

Posted by timothy on from the well-that's-just-not-right dept.

ShaunC writes: Soon after Comcast implemented its data caps in Tennessee, one customer began getting calls warning that he was approaching his monthly usage limit. The company's data cap meter was ticking up rapidly, even attributing 120GB of use — almost half of the monthly cap — to a period of time when he was out of the country. After months of back and forth and troubleshooting by the customer, Comcast finally admitted that a typo in a MAC address was causing another customer's usage to appear on his account. With data caps like Comcast's carrying a real financial cost in terms of overage fees, how can we trust providers to accurately track customers' bandwidth usage?

124 comments

  1. Déjà vu by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What was his name then: Buttle or Tuttle?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Déjà vu by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Does his file say anything about a heart condition?

  2. Can we trust Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with anything?

  3. You're doing it wrong by grilled-cheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're hand typing MAC Addresses, you're doing it wrong and should get a better captive portal setup.

    1. Re:You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my first thought. My second thought was about the poor saps who have to do this, "WURSTEST JOB EVAH!" Can you imagine?

    2. Re:You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hex numpads?

    3. Re: You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what happens when the FBI comes raiding his house because of what the other guy downloaded?

    4. Re:You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even worse that a "tech" company is doing this in 2015. I was a bit disappointed when a retailer got my address wrong when ordering something online over 10 years ago. My first thought was I made a typo, but a quick check of the confirmation email I got showed the correct address.

    5. Re:You're doing it wrong by Cramer · · Score: 2

      Really. I don't buy their lame excuse. If his modem works, they have to have the correct MAC in the system. Why would the money printer, err, bandwidth meter have to have shit entered "by hand"???

    6. Re: You're doing it wrong by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      When that happens, the officers will shoot the family dog, then shoot the home owner and then shoot each other for good measure.

    7. Re:You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're hand typing MAC Addresses, you're doing it wrong and should get a better captive portal setup.

      Let's take this a step further, for the sake of consumer protection.

      Any system that meters the customer will be 100% automated. Any manual process is illegal and unenforceable.

      Tough shit if that costs money.

    8. Re:You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree more.

      I recently relocated to XX (not a knock on the country, just manual data entry and the state of things) and I was shocked at all the data entry errors I faced:

      - Wrong border entry code (found this out when getting my SSN).
      - Countless Bank errors, but most painful were name, password number and home address (which prevented paying with credit card at the gas station).
      - Height on my driver's license (6'11 instead of 6'1, an extra 1).
      - Car import date date, which was gonna cost me $2,500 if I hadn't double-checked.
      - Date of birth typo at corporate credit card provider, which got traced to data entry error at employer level (and thus temporarily all over the place)

      It took me about 2 months before I was in the clear. But I was surprised that with all the IT systems there are still so many opportunities of data entry errors. The most hair pulling were the repeated bank errors and the most potentially critical was the SSN problem.

    9. Re:You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's pretty much a manual process over there at Comcast. For a long time even though my modem was registered correctly (even getting updates to new bandwidth speeds), my data usage wasn't being tracked correctly (or at all actually). They still track the old modem I had prior to purchasing my own. Before that, my modem wasn't throttled at all (the mis-assigned whatever package I was supposed to be on, and I got the full theoretical bandwidth my modem could handle). Obviously, I never complained about either.

    10. Re:You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Okay, I can partly answer this! When I was doing this, :

      A) There were three main account systems. One was some old billing thing in regions I had nothing to do with, so I never touched that, but apparently it also handled some provisioning-related things. One was the main billing system, which was also linked to cable TV provisioning, and to modem provisioning in most regions. One was linked to the trouble ticketing system, and modem provisioning in some regions. Typically you had two deal with at least two systems for anything you did to any account unless it was purely billing.

      B) Modem provisioning was automaticish. Most of the time the modem had to be added to the customer's account at some point, even if they were going to use the 'automatic' provisioning. This means that someone entered it into their account - maybe they did it before mailing or handing over the modem, or maybe it was a tech in the field doing it. Maybe someone forgot and the customer had to call in to get it typed in. Any one could have required manual input, and could have been mistyped.

      C) Users can bring their own modem. The automatic provisioning typically doesn't work there. You need to call in and have the MAC entered manually. Typos can happen.

      D) There's several scenarios where someone might have accidentally assigned a modem to the wrong account while not totally invalidating either user's provisioning. For one, again, there's two systems in play; something could have been messed with in one, but not the other. Someone could have added a second modem to an account incorrectly when working on a billing or provisioning issue, and may not have noticed; in fact, they might have thought they did good, because something else entirely fixed the issue (like if they had the customer power cycle modem at the same time). Someone might have typo'd the MAC the first time, yanking the modem from the other user, then left that entry there and added another modem, giving them two users' modems (and several markets would happily provision both).

      E) A modem could be pre-typo'd, or already existed on another user's account, such as when a user returns a modem because they cancelled service or moved or had a technical problem. Maybe the provisioning on that other user's account was still active. Maybe the tech or CSR who was adding the modem to the new customer's account got scared by the "you can't add this, it's already on an account!" message but noticed the provisioning was working anyways and didn't press the issue.

      Lots of room for screw ups. I just don't get why it was so difficult for them to correct it. I corrected a few accounts with similar problems and never argued against the customer about it. Some people are too stupid or apathetic about the job to think outside the (multiple choice, computerized) script, though, and the training didn't help.

    11. Re:You're doing it wrong by antdude · · Score: 1

      My previous and current cable companies used barscode scanners. :/

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  4. How can we trust providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are companies run by human beings; they are not perfect. Some mistakes are going to be made. When they realized their mistake they fixed it. What else do you want?

    1. Re:How can we trust providers? by chipschap · · Score: 2

      These are companies run by human beings

      You sure that Comcast is run by human beings or just greedy clones?

    2. Re:How can we trust providers? by Bugler412 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It took them more than three months and required essentially a "research project" on the part of the customer combined with contact and assistance from a tech publication site to get them to "discover" the typo and admit it was their fault. What would I want? To not have to bludgeon tech and billing support people with data and connections to get a proper response.

    3. Re:How can we trust providers? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      What are you whining about? This is just another example of private industry doing it better than the government.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:How can we trust providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are companies run by human beings; they are not perfect. Some mistakes are going to be made. When they realized their mistake they fixed it. What else do you want?

      Kinda like the Nazis...

    5. Re:How can we trust providers? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can't trust them. Reports are that their billing code (and that of most telecom companies) is horrific. This is not surprising considering the billing code I've been able to look at myself.

      In other words, make sure you look at your telephone bill and make sure it's correct, because often it won't be.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re: How can we trust providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We want them to not create the problem in the first place with their damned data caps.

      The people who thought this whole idea up losing their jobs and never finding employment again would also be nice.

    7. Re:How can we trust providers? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      It took them more than three months and required essentially a "research project" on the part of the customer combined with contact and assistance from a tech publication site...

      (emphasis mine)

      I think at that point I would have sent Comcast an invoice for my time.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:How can we trust providers? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      Hey Sparky... Looks like you missed the part that said "After months of back and forth and troubleshooting by the customer, Comcast finally admitted...." .. Sounds like you think its "oh gee, they make mistakes, and they fixed it... no harm/no foul"..... You'd be right IF they had done a check, said "oops our bad" and fixed it, but Comcast (and most other large companies) like to assume that they are always right and the customer is always wrong, and its up to the customer to fight as long as it takes to fix whatever problem big_corp decides to dump on said customer.... How much does Comcast pay you to astroturf /. ??? Whatever it is, you should get a raise, you do it sooooo well....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    9. Re:How can we trust providers? by sjames · · Score: 1

      What else do you want?

      Not requiring months of back and forth to get things fixed, ACTUALLY calling back when they promise to call back, not suggesting patently absurd "fixes" or excuses. The actual ability to monitor their own network's condition and communicate that to their representatives in a timely manner. Need I go on?

    10. Re:How can we trust providers? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      What are you whining about? This is just another example of private industry doing it better than the government.

      You think the government wouldn't just outsource to Comcast?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    11. Re:How can we trust providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you whining about? This is just another example of private industry doing it better than the government.

      You are correct. Had this been the government, it would have taken govt agency A several years to fix. In the meantime, regulatory fines pile up plus interest. Eventually govt. agency B gets involved and retrieves the money owed and alerts govt. agency C which assumes you're up to no good with all that data and civil asset forfeitures your computer equipment and maybe your house. Maybe you'll get all that back, maybe not.

    12. Re:How can we trust providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true with just about any service, even with competent companies. Comcast may be a terrible company, but an anecdote about a MAC address snafu doesn't exactly point to evil here. Would a story about a positive Comcast experience change any minds? Just a waste of time.

    13. Re:How can we trust providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What else do I want? If a complaint is lodged by a customer, I want the company to assume fault until evidence proves otherwise.

      Mistakes like these can cause actual damage (credit score, collections, court fee, etc.,...). Not that they often do but the potential is there. Currently, 'the company' will say 'sorry' and fix the original typo. 'The company' will NOT take care of any of the other problems their original mistake may have caused.

      In this case, the customer figured out the problem and Comcast said sorry - what about the time/effort spent by the customer to prove the problem was on Comcast's end? Another poster said they would have billed Comcast which would have been fair if Comcast would have actually paid it - as if that would have ever happened.

    14. Re:How can we trust providers? by KingRatMass · · Score: 1

      Hello Brian L. Roberts! We know you are not a human, you're probably a dingo... Just like Tom Wheeler.

    15. Re:How can we trust providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about they make shit that works? How about they don't impose data caps on networks that they refuse upgrade despite taking money for upgrading? How about they don't pay their call center people so poorly that the feel it's okay to name their customers horrible names on their accounts? What I want is for them to cease existing and actual competition to exist or for the government to nationalize it and make it cheaper.

    16. Re:How can we trust providers? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would a story about a positive Comcast experience change any minds?

      No, because fiction doesn't count.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:How can we trust providers? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      This 100 times!

      Example / Anecdote: I dropped AT&T Wireless in the early 2000s because they screwed up when I upgraded my phone and changed my plan from 1000 minutes to the bare minimum plan, then promptly disconnected my service without contacting me after they claimed I went more than $1000 over my credit limit in overages! They had put me on the wrong plan when I upgraded my phone!When I pointed out that I had the same plan for years and it made no sense that I would suddenly drop to the minimum just because I switched to a GSM phone (again, early 2000s) they claimed that they have no way of knowing that and since the system says I chose the bare minimum, that must be the truth! After several escalations they finally agreed to fix the problem as a 1 time courtesy for me. I wasn't too happy about their wording, but whatever; it was fixed, right? Wrong. Next month, same thing happens. They never actually changed my account over to the correct plan; they merely "credited me" their $1000.00 mistake and left the wrong plan in place! When I called them to address the issue they actually told me there is nothing wee can do. We already credited your account last month as a one time courtesy !!! I couldn't frgging believe my ears, and worse yet, they simply wouldn't admit their mistake, holding to the line that they have no way of knowing if I switched plans or not and their records indicate that I did, so I did, and I owed them $1000! Needless to say I told them to pound sand, switched to T-Mobile, and remained with them happily for several years, until they eventually tried to screw me :-(

      It might be interesting to note that I was a very early cell phone adopter, being one of the first people I know to use solely a cell with no land line. Almost every company that I have used: Cellular One, Cingular, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T Wireless (lest we forget), and one or two I can't recall have all tried to screw me over the years. My current provider, Virgin Mobile, isn't great either, but so far their transgressions have been service related; going with Prepaid tends to avoid the problem of over-billing :-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  5. Uh, the same way it's always done? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    how can we trust providers to accurately track customers' bandwidth usage?

    I hate wired broadband caps with a passion, but this has to be the absolute worst reason not to have them. Somehow electricity companies, water companies, phone companies (traditional and mobile), et al, have survived for decades (centuries perhaps?) despite occasional billing mishaps.

    There's nothing particularly new about this as a problem.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by markana · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those entities are regulated, and generally must use certified measuring devices. And there's always a theoretical appeal to a state agency if there's a dispute.

      Comcast has no oversight of their usage billing, and a financial incentive to cheat a bit.

      Look at it this way - from Comcast's point of view, there's no problem. One account went over, another went under by the same amount. They averaged out, and there was balance in the Force (or at least their billing system).

      Now go back to your TV and stop complaining!

    2. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that just because you don't have the FCC or State Utility Commissions breathing down your neck, you're still required, by law, to bill the right people correctly.

      If that's not the case, I invite you not merely to state how, but also to send me a check covering your past-due $127 payment for SquiggleSlash Services ASAP.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow electricity companies, water companies, phone companies (traditional and mobile), et al, have survived for decades (centuries perhaps?) despite occasional billing mishaps.

      Yeah, they survived for decades cause they basically could say "fuck you, we have the monopoly on water/power/cable/phonelines!" And, if you're in an area that really has different providers/technologys like comcast, fios and dsl, it's basically just a decision if you like ebola or the plague...

    4. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Funny

      squiggleslash..... Dude! This is supposed to be a Comcast bashing topic. A new reason has been found to vent our hate for Comcast, and you come here with your corporate shill excuses, pointing out the long history of generally successful utility billing and try to ruin it! What, exactly, is your problem mister?

      I want you to stop posting for a moment and make an effort to recompense us all for your mistake. First, you are to find a way to pin this billing problem on a Republican. It's Tennessee after all. This should be easy. Then, you are to generalize the matter until you get to Net Neutrality, and show us all how this threatens our future, our liberty and everything. Bonus points if you can find a racial angle, or some other related grievance.

      Don't actually post your effort. It's for your benefit and you're not supposed to be posting stuff for a while. At least till Monday. Give yourself the weekend to reflect on how it is you found yourself deviating from appropriate groupthink and consider ways you might prevent this in the future.

      Thanks.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    5. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that just because you don't have the FCC or State Utility Commissions breathing down your neck, you're still required, by law, to bill the right people correctly.

      If that's not the case, I invite you not merely to state how, but also to send me a check covering your past-due $127 payment for SquiggleSlash Services ASAP.

      No you're not. In fact a number of companies regularly commit billing fraud, pad charges, etc...

    6. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that just because you don't have the FCC or State Utility Commissions breathing down your neck,

      The FCC still regulates Comcast, just not the content part.

      The state PUC or Attorney General is quite interested in Comcast and having them follow the laws, like not fraudulently billing people.

      And our city, at least, has a franchise authority that is quite interested in poking Comcast when they do something stupid. For example, half an hour after I chatted with my franchise specialist about Comcast promising services at one rate and then refusing to provide them, I had the Comcast state consumer affairs manager calling me to work out the problem. Which she did.

    7. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't true. I had a dispute with my business and Comcast and a regulatory agency was able to help me and eventually Comcast was fined. I'm sure it varies by state but in my local it was very clear that the company answered to the state regulators.

    8. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Electricity companies and water companies should be able to bill, it costs more money for them to produce more electricity/water.

      It however costs Comcast $0 if you use 100 GB more data in a month.

      The phone company is a different animal, so I won't go into that monkey barrel.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "It however costs Comcast $0 if you use 100 GB more data in a month."

      That's a red herring. It would cost them a lot more to build out a network where every customer could use 100GB more a month.

      Unless you know of a source for free backbone class routers, switches, and long haul dark fiber, that is.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    10. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      The franchise authority has ZERO power over internet services. (hint: the franchise is for TV services) While complaints about their idiotic bandwidth metering MAY be factored into any franchise renewal, they have no direct power to intervene. If they say you used 100TB, then you used 100TB - period. There's no proving otherwise, and no legal entity will even bother to listen.

    11. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Moof123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can go read my meters for all my "real" utilities. I cannot read my internet usage anywhere. A large amount of my internet usage is crap ads and Windows 10 trying to download itself. I have limited control on a lot of this bandwidth. Netflix does not have an option to set the maximum download rate anywhere I can find (I wish all streaming could be throttled locally). I usually have a pretty good idea why my gas/electricity/water bills are what they are, but I honestly could not tell you what my internet usage is or which devices are the main users.

      The internet grew up without a metered notion to it. Mobile sites went through very small straws and forced the sites to be lean (often to the point of uselessness), so this attempt to close the barn doors is just rather late in the game. To fix it we will need to have some charge-back to companies to incentivize the not go overboard with all the crap. But in reality this is more of a money grab than an actual issue being addressed.

    12. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      (hint: the franchise is for TV services)

      The franchise is for access to the public rights of way. Note that Comcast uses the same rights of way, the same fibers and cables, for Internet and TV. The claim was that nobody regulates them, and that's not true.

      If they say you used 100TB, then you used 100TB - period.

      Well, apparently not, since this guy got the typo and bill corrected.

      There's no proving otherwise, and no legal entity will even bother to listen.

      I've already listed two, and the FTC would be a third.

    13. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      "I can go read my meters for all my "real" utilities. I cannot read my internet usage anywhere."

      Then you are definitely doing it wrong!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    14. Re: Uh, the same way it's always done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. But with water you need to open the water tap yourself.

      With electricity you turn on the light yourself.

      With your phone you get an itemized invoice, and at least in our jurisdiction a bunch of consumer protection rules that puts the companies on the defense.

      Oh with the cable modem it would take me with my cable modem roughly 12 hours to flood away your 120GB cap. Or some device you own decides to download a new os version and has an issue with the check sum and continues with the retries.

      Even worse are caps with mobile devices: so where exactly is what counted? How do you handle

    15. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No you're not. In fact a number of companies regularly commit billing fraud, pad charges, etc...

      And we still have mass shootings.

      I suppose something happening and what is legal must be identical things.

    16. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The bandwidth is already there though. They already paid for all those routers and peering connections. They are instead of upgrading like normal, charging their customers usage fees to drop usage when the customers have already paid for the service, and likely all the networking gear is already paid off.

      Just remember, they are only doing these usage limits where they are the only game in town. If this was about an actual cost, it would happen where they have competition as well. Verizon FiOS has no trouble keeping up with the users, nor do any of their competitors, but when you have a monopoly, might as well milk it for all it is worth.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    17. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "The bandwidth is already there though."

      Nope. It's just that you don't understand how networks are designed or how ISPs work.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    18. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. So once you buy a OC12 connection into the internet (a peering connection), does the bandwidth cost extra?

      There is a limit at which you have to upgrade, but generally, that is considered a normal operating expense, the network is expanded as part of normal operations to make more money by gaining new customers or selling new features.

      If I use 100 Mbit for a period of time, that is 100 Mbit someone else isn't using, it isn't like it is just gone, it is all flexible. There is no nominal cost to the data, it is a flat fee paid (or not paid in most peering agreements), if the bandwidth isn't being used, it is just money down a drain, and it isn't like additional bandwidth up to the limit costs any more (besides a VERY small amount of electricity).

      Clearly you don't know how networks work. Perhaps you are thinking about metered commercial connections, which is not what ISPs use. You could also be from Australia where there is an actual cost to bandwidth I suppose, but this is talking about the USA, where only Comcast charges these fees, so clearly it isn't true that it is needed to run an ISP.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    19. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Come back when you understand statistical multiplexing and oversubscription. If everyone's use doubles, things break unless the network is upgraded.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    20. Re:Uh, the same way it's always done? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I do understand this thank you.

      You don't seem to understand that NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Their network is still the same network that was handling no caps just fine, but now they need caps? None of their competitors has any issues with it, only them. They are also only doing the data caps in regions where they are the only ISP, but not in others where they have competition, which says it is a financial decision, not a technical decision.

      Come back to me when you understand how to setup QoS which would take care of all of the issues you speak about. The problem isn't everyone's usage doubling, as that is impossible. The problem is that suddenly Comcast wants to charge people for their usage when they did not in the past. The usage hasn't suddenly grown, and their network didn't suddenly shrink.

      If everyone turns on their tap, yes, the water won't flow to everyone, but this never happens, which is why networks of water and data both are designed for over subscription.

      There is no increase in cost, it is a way to extract more money from the existing user base out of greed.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  6. Weights and Measures! by JimXugle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Get the state bureau of weights and measures involved! If Comcast insists on usage-based billing, then its routers and billing infrastructure should be inspected, certified, and sealed just like gas pumps, water meters, and grocery store scales.

    --
    -jX

    Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
    1. Re:Weights and Measures! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS. Because is answer to the OP, I/you/we CAN'T.

    2. Re:Weights and Measures! by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      (no mod point) This! Yes! If it's used for billing then it should be measured by an approved, documented and controlled method, like any other utility.

    3. Re:Weights and Measures! by psycho12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously this. Weights and Measures are the ones who keep honest people honest, by auditing and randomly testing anything that relies on metering. They are one making sure out of town people are not being cheated at the gas pump. If Comcast wants to measure and meter data usage, then they should be compelled to install a tested and sealed device that spits out the data usage to customer on premise.

    4. Re:Weights and Measures! by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously this. Weights and Measures are the ones who keep honest people honest, by auditing and randomly testing anything that relies on metering. They are one making sure out of town people are not being cheated at the gas pump. If Comcast wants to measure and meter data usage, then they should be compelled to install a tested and sealed device that spits out the data usage to customer on premise.

      Exactly.

      First, we need a standard way of measuring the data, because there's a heck of a lot of different ways, so we need to standardize.

      Things like - what headers are included - IP level headers? transport headers? (Some providers charge for DOCSIS headers too!). Then you have to define the quantities - what's 1 GB - 1GB, or 1GiB (10^9 vs. 2^30)? (Cellphone providers use base 10, and many include the OTA headers - add about 5%).

      Next, what traffic do we use? This one is important because there's a LOT of unsolicited traffic out there - do we count it? Or not? Does being the victim of a pingflood mean you'll be billed extra?

      Seriously, these are important questions (especially unsolicited traffic). Comcast shouldn't be the one who defines it. Weights and Measures should - and even if they pick the worst case scenario, at least we know what's being measured and how. So if Comcast advertises 250GB, we know it's probably around 200GiB all said and done, for example.

      Then we can develop measurement boxes that Comcast and others have to use to determine traffic, sealed and inspected like your electric, water or gas meter with a display that's human readable, so when you get your bill (no one said the meter couldn't be electronically readable) you can check against the box.

      Anything measured for trade has to be certified. If you look closely, you'll see seals, calibration stickers and sometimes expiry dates on the meters (be it gas (natural or petrol), electricity, or water).

      And yes, we do this because people have cheated in the past. Scales that were off, calibrated weights (for balances) that weren't correct, etc.

      In fact, because they are so strict, gas pumps generally err on the side of giving the customer too much (read low - you get 1.01 gallons for every gallon indicated) than shorting the customer. Especially in colder climates where the gas contracts a bit so a gallon of cold gas has technically more energy than a gallon of warm gas.

    5. Re:Weights and Measures! by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Gas may pumps may be slightly calibrated in favor or customer - that I couldn't say; but every pump I see claims to be pumping gas volume corrected to a standardized temperature.

      So as gas contracts when its cold, you get slightly less than a gallon for the price of a gallon. (Warm it up to the standardized temperature though, and you'll have all the gas you paid for.)

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

      This has been debunked several times. Gas is stored underground for a reason, the temperature doesn't change much. Unless its blistering hot out or 20 below and you only buy the gas that's in the pump area (not much more than a gallon or so), AND nobody has bough gas at that pump in several hours (giving it time to actually change the temperature of the gas through all of the insulating rubber and such, THEN you might see a slight change in the volume you get. And you would hardly notice.

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

      In Oklahoma, the gas pump inspector goes to each pump once per year, and dispenses what the pump says is 5 gallons into a volumetric flask. The actual volume dispensed is required to be 5 gallons +/- 6 cubic inches. The inspector writes the pump error in cubic inches on the inspection sticker that is affixed to the pump.

      This way, you can cruise the pumps and only fill up from ones with + stickers.

  7. Wrong Name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tuttle
    Tuttle
    Tuttle
    Buttle
    Tuttle
    Tuttle ... We're all in it together.

  8. Bit sensationlist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look I suffer under the data caps, I think they are BS and loath them. Look forward to getting Google Fiber.

    That said, this whole story is worthy of Buzzfeed and sensationalism. We have had utility billing for a while, and everyone gets it screwed up every once in awhile. One user being scrweed up is not news. 100, or 1000 or an entire state- that is news.

    This is more of "yep, people make mistakes, news at 11".

    1. Re:Bit sensationlist by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      and if they had found and admitted their mistake quickly we wouldn't be talking about it. But instead it took months, repeated calls, a "research project" on the part of the customer, and insider contact from a tech publication site to get them to even look at the issue that turned out to be completely their fault. That's why we're talking about it.

  9. No trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no way to trust companies not to overbill you, accidentally renew your subscription, not mix up your information. Hell, a lot of times you can't even trust McDonalds to put the right damn sandwich in the bag.

    Always read your pay stubs, bills, bank statements and look in the bag before you drive off! And while I'm giving out advice, always make backups!

  10. OMG, a mistake by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    and they fixed it too 30 years ago no one cared about these minor mistakes, but with the Internet,,,,,,,,,

    1. Re:OMG, a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA.

      Comcast made false claims about usage. Customer documented usage and showed Comcast that their numbers were wrong. Comcast replied that customer must be wrong.

      Customer disconnected his hardware. Comcast continued to make false claims about usage even though there was no physical way for Comcast's claims to be true. Comcast told customer he must be wrong.

      Customer involved Ars and Comcast suddenly "discovered" that the customer had been right all along. "Oops, we're sorry we can't start gouging you for the overages you're not actually doing."

      This isn't the first time Comcast has essentially told customers to go f--k themselves until Ars was brought in and then suddenly it's always been "oops, oversight, accident, won't happen again". And yet it does, repeatedly.

    2. Re:OMG, a mistake by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      If you actually read the fscking article you will realize that you sound quite foolish right now.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  11. Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it by mallyn · · Score: 1
    Folks:

    The qwerty typing that we are still using is perhaps outdated?

    I heard that qwerty was deliberately made hard to use because if you typed too fast it would cause the mechanical typewriters of years ago to jam

    If the qwerty system is replaced, would this reduce typos?

    --
    Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    1. Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ. This site is full of idiots.

    2. Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I think it is based on frequency of letters used. You can surf the internet for origin of qwerty keyboard and why it is arranged like that, but may cut into your data usage.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Qwerty was not deliberately made hard to use, there were two dominant factors is the design.

      1) Engineering. Letters with high adjacent usage in words were placed in locations so that the hammers they were attached to would have a safe minimum number of other hammers in between. This is the part to prevent jamming.

      2) Sales. During the layout wars, a salesman had a strong advantage if they could impress the potential user. This lead to certain long and relevant words being parsed and analyzed so that their lettering could appear nice and simple. Things like having a salesman be able to type "secretary" with their left hand while pointing to various details with their right hand during a demonstration.

      Dvorak is slightly superior in certain usage cases, but the numbers you are likely to find are published by Dvorak advocates and show a severe selection bias when analyzed. Average typing speeds will show a benefit to Dvorak, but professional typist speeds will be nearly identical between Dvorak and Qwerty. This is largely due to the casual typist speed being lumped in to the Qwerty number but nearly nonexistent on the Dvorak side.

      As with all forms of UI, use what you like, but stop trying to convince people that you're better than they are because you use what you like and they don't use what you like.

    4. Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He/she/it needs an ABCDE keyboard... http://www.ebay.com/itm/BigKey...

    5. Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Add to that that QWERTY is remarkably efficient in several languages, while Dvorak is uncomfortable for languages other than english, For example, there are, as far as I know, at least three modifications of Dvorak to adapt it for swedish, and I find all of them to be uncomfortable to use, since I type in at least 4 languages, and don't want to switch between multiple layouts, sometimes on a daily basis.

    6. Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably you want to replace it with the Dvorak keyboard layout. Given that there are many millions of people who know and use qwerty (and won't willingly go through the pain of learning a new layout), you're going to have to support two types of keyboards in your organization. It will suck for manufacturers, it will suck for companies that use computers, it will suck for end users of computers (Oh crap, another one of those [dvorak|qwerty] keyboards). I'd suggest trying better typing lessons first.

    7. Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The most common way of doing a Dvorak keyboard is to take a qwerty keyboard and relabel the keys (or rearrange the keycaps if they come off), then tell the OS that it's a Dvorak keyboard. If you're a decent touch typist, you can skip the relabel part and touch type Dvorak on any standard qwerty keyboard after changing the layout in the OS. So you can standardize one keyboard, with both qwerty and Dvorak printed on them, and the users could switch between the layouts as they see fit.

      The big problem with this is that Windows is pretty much broken with multiple keyboard layouts. I don't remember how it was in the 9x days, but Windows 2000 through Windows 7 has the keyboard layout as a per application setting, which is completely retarded (every application has it's own layout setting, and you can't set them all at once without changing the default layout and rebooting). Windows 8 finally made it a global setting (with the option to set it per-application if you really want to). Windows 10 kept that, but for some reason removed the ability to set a default layout(!!!) so it always boots up in qwerty, so you have to switch it on the log in screen, which doesn't apply to your session, so you have to switch it again once you log in.

  12. I've been the subject of a MAC address error by zeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comcast won't let me activated the modem that I purchased brand new from Amazon and used to have active on a Comcast account in another state. They say they own it. I have the box and receipt from the purchase. After a couple of hours talking with various people they admitted that perhaps they had made a mistake, but couldn't fix it as it involved two different 'regions' of their service. They said it might be fixable in a customer service center, but at that point I was disgusted with it and instead bought a new modem.

    1. Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      well if they want to make so you can only use there hardware then it better be part of the base price.

    2. Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I've been without cable for most of the month because my neighbor plugging in a cable modem he bought on ebay directly from China. The amplifier in the basement caught fire...

      Sounds like it was the 'amplifier in the basement' that was complete crap. We've had this thing called 'fuses' for nearly two centuries now.

    3. Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error by ADRA · · Score: 1

      "I purchased brand new from Amazon and used to have active on a Comcast account in another state" We if it was activated in a prior state, it wasn't brand new, so I'm not sure where you're with in your synopsis.

      As the maintainer of a huge ugly telco provisioning system in a past life, this surely is a use case worth of concern. Unless the system was specifically coded into the provisioning system to support device de-authorization, then they would have a problem dealing with your case. My original few cable modems were granted as a rental and were never offered for ownership. One was offered to sell (avoid the rental costs) but never actually belonged to me for 'valid' transfer. I have Cat5 to my appartment these days, so who knows what they do now. The most obvious but retarded problem would come in if they tied the customer's first provisioned device's MAC with the service provided to the customer. In that case, the only way they could de-authorize the device would be by stopping service with the old customer's (upgraded modem) service.

      Read the modem terms of use. If you're actually leasing the device, its very possible that they aren't transferable period (we're talking about one's terms of service, not the physical hunk of metal/plastic here) so buyer beware. If the device is transferable, you may still run into issues with the broken provisioning system listed above. In those cases, the telco should've swapped out yours with a valid one if they have any sort of customer service backbone (which is arguable).

      --
      Bye!
    4. Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said it might be fixable in a customer service center, but at that point I was disgusted with it and instead bought a new modem.

      Good, because that was a lie. When phone support can't fix something, they tell you to go to a customer service center. When the customer service center can't fix something, they refer you to phone support. And so on, and so forth. I dealt with this when my cable modem stopped working right and I had another one that had been on a different account that I thought I could just swap in. As in your case, they couldn't register it because it was showing up as active on another account. Then things got weird. A trip to the customer service center with the bills from the other account and the holder of said account revealed that they no longer had any record of the other account. They could tell that the modem was associated with an account, it just wasn't associated with an account. Apparently, when the account was closed, instead of closing the account, they deleted all trace of it from the system. Except for one flag in their MAC address database. The customer service center couldn't edit the database without access to the account info, but maybe phone support could do something...

      I bought a new cable modem when I moved, but I was never able to use it. Comcast explicitly stated that they offered service at my new address. When the tech showed up to do the install, he couldn't find a Comcast line on the pole. Neither could the supervisor who came out a week later. There was a Verizon FIOS line though, but that's a different set of customer service nightmares...

    5. Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I thought the reduced reliability was from avoiding spending money on maintenance unless it's legally required.

    6. Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error by phizi0n · · Score: 1

      You fail at basic reading comprehension. They bought a modem brand new on amazon, they used it for a while in one state, then they moved to another state and tried to keep using it but weren't able to because comcast's systems are shit.

    7. Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error by mallyn · · Score: 1
      Wait a minus dear . . .

      You're saying that because the neighbour plugging in a modem caused an amplifier in your basement to catch fire?

      That's like the neighbour plugging in a toaster and causing my bedside radio to catch on fire??

      I know the dark force is awakening, but this is going a bit far :(

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    8. Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I distinctly remember my parents calling the day before UK Mother's Day to England back in those good old reliable days.

      Want to know why? No? Well, I'll tell you anyways. Do you know what a fast busy is? It's what you get when you want to call a destination on a popular day. All day. Because that ultra-reliable telco that is charging $3.99 a minute and requires you call them to hardwire their phone in a different location of the house believes in only laying enough copper or buying enough satellite links to cover the average number of calls, not the peak. In other words, this ultra reliable phone system reliably would require you to dial the number about 1000 times hoping that you'd get one of the dozen overseas links milliseconds after someone else hung up.

      Lather, rinse, repeat for every single other holiday.

  13. Bypass Cap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have a Comcast modem, bought my own. But I know Comcast supplies "xfinity" free wireless on their customers' wireless router when they are renting one. I've connected to one before, and it is "outside" the home user's network....but still behind the modem I would assume. Does this usage count towards the cap? If not, does anyone know if they have the "feature" which adds the bandwidth used to the person's account who signs in? I'm just curious because I wonder if a way around the cap would be to connect to the xfinity wifi, at least for your Netflix usage or web based video consumption. Anyone tried it who has caps and the "xfinity free wireless" ?

    1. Re:Bypass Cap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone know the answer to if the data over the xfinity wifi is counted towards the owner, user, or not at all?

      -jeebz

    2. Re:Bypass Cap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you connect to an xfinity wifi hotspot, you get a few choices. One is to login using your own Comcast credentials; if you do that, then yes, the usage is supposed to be counted towards your own account. Another option is to purchase a temporary session, this is billed to whomever you enter payment information for and shouldn't get reflected on anybody's Comcast usage. The last option is to use a complimentary 1-hour free session, which is supposedly restricted to two sessions per month per macaddr, but I dine out frequently at places who use Comcast Business and have never been denied a free 1-hour session on my phone. There were months when I've used 20 or more of these free sessions in a month and the hotspot doesn't give me grief.

      In all of these cases, the user whose router/equipment is being used should not be getting billed or have their usage added to. The usage is supposed to be tallied on the actual user's Comcast account, if they logged in with one, otherwise it's just overhead to Comcast.

      I have multiple neighbors broadcasting an xfinity wifi hotspot, but I haven't tried to use those as I've yet to exceed my own monthly Comcast cap. I'm sure it's not hard to tether into one of these, use use a script to change your macaddr every hour and get a fresh session. I haven't had the need to try, so far.

    3. Re:Bypass Cap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the reply!

  14. copyright infringement notices by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    With errors like this what does this say for the copyright infringement notices that want bypass courts / rights and tell people pay up or we will sue you for big $ with out much prof.

    1. Re:copyright infringement notices by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I for one can't even tell you what youjust said :-(

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  15. No excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A typo in the day and age?! What, is Comcast using IBM Selectrics?!

    And if there are that prone to such idiotic mistakes, then one has to wonder how they messing up their account.

    Comcast's complete disregard and contempt for customers has me sticking with their only competitor in my area - ATT. And when one finds ATT to be a better alternative, you really need to look at your business.

  16. seems easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How hard would it be to make a usage meter for dummies?

    Just a piece to plug in the line that gives a couple up/down subtotals, etc. on a simple (2 line?) display. Independent device , just plug-n-play. Add a couple buttons to select from a few memory locations/subtotals and a reset. I suppose we'd have to add a way to track certain dates too.

    It would track everything so there couldn't be a reason for higher charges, bill could only be for less.
    If they start with exempting this,that, and the other thing, then we will probably never know for sure if they are right.

    1. Re:seems easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add a couple buttons

      Too complicated, it needs to just werk

  17. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm personally surprised Comcast admitted they were in the wrong, especially since how much of a bunch of greedy bastards they are.

  18. We should be downsizing Big Business by evilRhino · · Score: 1

    As corporations become larger and more bureaucratic, they become more dysfunctional. The only solution is to punish them for it. There should be penalties for behavior like this that scale up for the number of complaints received. Companies could either shape up and not commit so many errors, or split up so that the quantities of hits decreases to a manageable amount. We shouldn't be killing large dysfunctional corporations, but shrinking them to a manageable size to where we could easily drown them in a bathtub.

    1. Re:We should be downsizing Big Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As corporations become larger and more bureaucratic, they become more dysfunctional.

      Exact same thing can be said about governments.

    2. Re:We should be downsizing Big Business by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Is there proof that large companies are intrinsically less efficient than small nimble companies (when scaled up to large company size)? I -feel- like large ugly mega-corps certainly are wasteful, but ultimately leverage more overall efficiency than N small players. The small player scenario only plays out if they're in direct competition from one another instead. Take two examples:

      Telco Megacorp is broken up for some reason (Anti-competitive, etc..).
      1. You can break up based on geography which is by far the simplest option.
      2. You could break up between retail / infrastructure (possibly a not for profit on the infrastructure side), allowing for any number of retailers to market the same components of the infrastructure build-out. The infrastructure side leases service universally to all qualified retailers and simply worries about maintaining service and expanding coverage.
      3. You could also break it up requiring mandatory build-outs for competing lines, but that's so expensive, I couldn't see that ever happening (unless the break-up was due to seriously neglected infrastructure).

      With #1, each individual carrier essentially does what momma-corp did. We see this today with the baby bells. Are the babies more functional than their parent was? Probably not. The reason why these guys remain as bad as ever is that they lack any sort of competitive drive to retain good customer relations, etc.. ultimately, quality is poorly linked with customer retention.
      #2 is the opposite. With the same sunk costs in infrastructure and basically no friction from changing retailers, the retailers are constantly fighting over customer loyalty / price.
      #3 would also be ok but not ideal, since there's still legitimate competition in the marketplace, but it would require a lot of double deployments. Switching between retailers also requires new build-outs.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:We should be downsizing Big Business by ADRA · · Score: 1

      And before you jump down the throat of option 2 being impossible/impractical, ask yourself how Airports/Airplanes talk to one another... and then do some research.

      --
      Bye!
  19. How? Sue them. by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    With data caps like Comcast's carrying a real financial cost in terms of overage fees, how can we trust providers to accurately track customers' bandwidth usage?

    You can actually. There are laws that protect you from billing errors/problems but there's also lawyers. Sue the companies in court, present your evidence and sue for damages. I've had to do this with Bank Of America, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile in the past. It works because eventually you get somebody up the food chain who actually understands that they're fucking you over and try to fix it. Unfortunately in some companies there is not intelligent life to be found so I've found that judges can usually get to the bottom of things quite quickly especially when legal briefs start flying. Sure it costs money but if it's a small claims type of thing you can usually win by default because I can't see Comcast paying $500/hr for a lawyer to deal with a $300 bill.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  20. Track it yourself, carefully by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    I think the only way is to not trust the ISP, do your own tracking of usage. Unfortunately the bandwidth usage tracking in most routers is all but useless for this, it tracks all traffic on the WAN port regardless of whether it's yours or not. You'd need to flash DD-WRT into the router and use a custom tracking solution that'd separate out ARP/RARP, DHCP, broadcast traffic and other outside traffic from the actual traffic you generate. And of course even if it's 100% accurate the ISP will just say it can't be accurate because you aren't them. You'd have to be... aggressively litigious to get them to cave if they're actually wrong.

    1. Re:Track it yourself, carefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why separate out DHCP? It is traffic that you generate. (I doubt their DHCP server is going to be handing out addresses before anything starts requesting an address.)

      Just because ARP may be required, does not change the fact that it is data. Some of this data might even require more resources, because it must be processed beyond just being routed off to another piece of equipment. Instead of forwarding the data, calculations and processing needs to occur to generate the response before outgoing data (given back to the client) can be sent out the device.

      Perhaps this data is required for their service. Perhaps this data is not useful for any purpose other than to be able to use their service. That doesn't mean that it is impossible to bill for, or even senseless to bill for. Comcast can simply argue that this type of data uses a rather small amount of the overall data, and that was part of the data they used to calculate how much data is provided by each cap.

      If their lawyers are going to be able to get that traffic treated as data, and that is how the pricing plans are defined, then the tracking that you suggest will serve no point. Who cares who the data is for, if there is no available benefit to making the distinction?

    2. Re:Track it yourself, carefully by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      DHCP, as well as ARP/RARP, involve broadcast traffic. That means that your router will see not just your traffic but the traffic from everyone on your segment. 99+% of that traffic doesn't belong to you and isn't intended for you, and dropping the small fraction that does introduces far less of an error than including all that traffic that doesn't. And then there's all the Windows networking broadcast traffic I see on my segment from everyone else's directly-connected Windows boxes that're treating the segment as the local LAN, and the IPv6 homegroup traffic from the same set of boxes. If the ISP wants to charge that traffic against the originating subscriber that's one thing, but they don't get to bill each subscriber on the segment for the full amount of that same traffic too.

    3. Re:Track it yourself, carefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your ISP seriously hasn't figured out how to mask and isolate your broadband traffic by 2015, then you must by signed up with a phenomenally incompetent provider. Given that this is the kind of things ISPs learned about in the mid 1990s when broadband was new, and based on your two posts prattling on about such nonsense as DHCP and ARP traffic (both of which are utterly trivial in volume) I must conclude that you're someone trying to pass himself off as technically competent when nothing could actually be further from the truth.

      Maybe you should apply for a job with your ISP, you sound like you'd fit right in.

  21. They bill you for ARP data /data sent to modem whe by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    They bill you for ARP data / data sent to modem when it off / data resends / overhead / management data / etc.

  22. The short answer. by Chas · · Score: 1

    With data caps like Comcast's carrying a real financial cost in terms of overage fees, how can we trust providers to accurately track customers' bandwidth usage?

    YOU CANNOT!

    PERIOD!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:The short answer. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Or more accurately, trust but verify.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  23. Re:How? Sue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't see Comcast paying $500/hr for a lawyer to deal with a $300 bill.

    No, they would send a trained monkey to read from a script.

  24. Am I missing something? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    But I would have thought the first part of the billing process would be around username and password in the modem. If that is then moved to a MAC system internally surely that would be done automatically when connection was negotiated.

    1. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no username and password in the modem. I have no clue what my comcast username and password are. When they come install your cable modem, the tech (or you) type it in one time, that tells the system to provision whatever modem is in use, and you never need it again.

  25. NEVER trust Comcast billing by steveglewis · · Score: 1

    A couple of years ago, we switched over to Comcast, because their rates were better than what we were getting from a different provider. The picture quality was very bad. The picture kept freezing and breaking up into a pixelated mess. Since our contract said we could change at anytime, we changed back to the previous provider. Comcast came out and picked up our cable modem, DVR, and set top boxes and the tech gave us a barely readable NCR copy of a receipt for the equipment. A couple of months later, we received a bill that was close to $800 for telephone, Internet, and cable service AFTER we disconnected from them. The bill included charges for not returning their equipment. I had to get our county utility commission involved to get things straightened out. About 1 year later, they sent us a copy of the same $800 bill, with a demand to pay up. I still had the receipts and had to get the county involved again to get this harassment stopped. If they can't even count up 4 or 5 pieces of equipment, how can they count into the billions to bill people for going over their arbitrary data caps. I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that Comcast says!

  26. how can you trust them? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    You trust them as much as you trust your electric meter to not put the wrong usage billing on your account.

    This is making a mountain out of the molehill.

    Relax. Accidents happen and that's why companies have mitigation paths for them.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  27. Call Terry Gilliam by Macdude · · Score: 1

    Call Terry Gilliam, this story just gave me a terrific movie idea...

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  28. You cant. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    When I called in for a service problem with my cable modem being slow I had to be transferred to 4 people 4 times because my mac address was all zeros. Yes it was working just fine but it kept dropping because of comcast's craptastic wires they refuse to replace.

    The phone support people were unable to figure out to simply ASK me what the mac address was printed on the bottom of the modem. Comcast is not known for hiring the best or brightest.

    And yes I used to work for them as a DBA.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  29. You are asking how do you trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greed. You cant.

  30. Router that can track usage by watermark · · Score: 1

    Buy a router that supports DD-WRT and install that. It keeps track of monthly usage.

    They probably won't care if your usage measurements contradicts theirs, but you'll have piece of mind that you're right and they're wrong.

  31. "... trust providers to accurately track ..." by tlambert · · Score: 1

    "... trust providers to accurately track ..."

    Provider solution:

    Bill both customers for the usage. Problem solved. There's even precedent (Netflix extortion, etc.).

  32. Then propose a solution by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    How, exactly, would you automatically enter the MAC address of my own provided cable modem (which could be from any company, with or without ':', in any font of any size, on any number of labels), using only the gear the installer has out in the field? Bonus points for methods that can be proven to be fail safe all the way to the back end database (we'll pretend it's immutable once there, even if I upgrade my gear and it automatically is corrected for argument's sake so that a rep. can't accidentally fat-finger an overwrite).

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  33. ISP's can't do QoS, so data caps are the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With net neutrality rules preventing ISP's from using Quality of Service to charge more for higher speed pathways, data caps are the next logical step to force content consumers to throttle their own speeds or else end up in more expensive data plans with higher caps.

    The ISP's know there is more than one way to skin a cat.

  34. Brazil! by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Shades of the movie "Brazil" !

    Over which machine did the clerk hit the cockroach?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  35. Such a well run company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What competent employees they have over there at Comcast. I especially like the "down and dirty" approach of having a human being manually enter a MAC address (I mean, what could possibly go wrong when typing in 12 character hex strings all day long?) instead of using one of a multitude of impersonal automated processes to accomplish the same task.

    Just because something can be in milliseconds, with zero chance of error, using trivial coding knowledge, doesn't make it the "right" thing to do, does it?

    I hate my ISP, but they are rock stars when compared to Comcast Cable.