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

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?

Comments

Déjà vu

[nospam007]

What was his name then: Buttle or Tuttle?

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

Re:Déjà vu

[Cramer]

Does his file say anything about a heart condition?

You're doing it wrong

[grilled-cheese]

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

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Hex numpads?

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Cramer]

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"???

Re: You're doing it wrong

[GrumpySteen]

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

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You're doing it wrong

[antdude]

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

Uh, the same way it's always done?

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[markana]

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!

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Tailhook]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Coren22]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[msauve]

"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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Cramer]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Moof123]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Obfuscant]

(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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Coren22]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[msauve]

"The bandwidth is already there though."

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

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Coren22]

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.

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[msauve]

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

Re:Uh, the same way it's always done?

[Coren22]

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.

Weights and Measures!

[JimXugle]

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.

Re:Weights and Measures!

[Bugler412]

(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.

Re:Weights and Measures!

[psycho12345]

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.

Re:Weights and Measures!

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:Weights and Measures!

[vux984]

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.)

Re:How can we trust providers?

[chipschap]

These are companies run by human beings

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

OMG, a mistake

[known_coward_69]

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

Re:OMG, a mistake

[Zero__Kelvin]

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

Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it

[mallyn]

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?

Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it

[k6mfw]

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.

Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it

[Shinobi]

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.

Re:Perhaps blame qwerty typing and get rid of it

[toddestan]

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.

I've been the subject of a MAC address error

[zeet]

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.

Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error

[ADRA]

"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).

Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error

[desdinova 216]

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

Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error

[phizi0n]

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.

Re:I've been the subject of a MAC address error

[mallyn]

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 :(

Re:How can we trust providers?

[Bugler412]

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.

Re:Bit sensationlist

[Bugler412]

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.

copyright infringement notices

[Joe_Dragon]

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.

Re:copyright infringement notices

[Zero__Kelvin]

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

seems easy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How can we trust providers?

[phantomfive]

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.

We should be downsizing Big Business

[evilRhino]

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.

Re:We should be downsizing Big Business

[ADRA]

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.

Re:We should be downsizing Big Business

[ADRA]

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.

Re:How can we trust providers?

[Penguinisto]

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.

How? Sue them.

[Virtucon]

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.

Track it yourself, carefully

[Todd Knarr]

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.

Re:Track it yourself, carefully

[Todd Knarr]

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.

Re:How can we trust providers?

[LVSlushdat]

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....

Re:How can we trust providers?

[sjames]

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?

They bill you for ARP data /data sent to modem whe

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Re:How can we trust providers?

[roc97007]

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?

The short answer.

[Chas]

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!

Re:The short answer.

[Zero__Kelvin]

Or more accurately, trust but verify.

Am I missing something?

[Harlequin80]

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.

NEVER trust Comcast billing

[steveglewis]

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!

how can you trust them?

[YesIAmAScript]

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.

Call Terry Gilliam

[Macdude]

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

Re:How can we trust providers?

[KingRatMass]

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

You cant.

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:How can we trust providers?

[mrchaotica]

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

No, because fiction doesn't count.

Re:How can we trust providers?

[Zero__Kelvin]

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 :-)

Router that can track usage

[watermark]

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.

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

[tlambert]

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

Provider solution:

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

Then propose a solution

[Gazzonyx]

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).

Brazil!

[tmjva]

Shades of the movie "Brazil" !

Over which machine did the clerk hit the cockroach?