# Comcast Is Cheating People On Monthly Data Usage!



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2019)

Every month I get the alert from Comcast that I've used 90% of the the 1TB data limit on my internet.  I know I use a lot of data, but I didn't think I was using 1TB that quickly.  So I installed a router that tracks bandwidth usage and let it run for a few months.  The results are interesting.

This is my monthly data usage according to Comcast:






And this is my monthly bandwidth usage according to my router:





This is the break down of daily bandwidth usage for January:





Every single month since I installed the router and started tracking my actual data usage, Comcast has said I've used more data than I actually have.  This month is the worst, they are saying I've used 160GB+ more data than I actually have.

So I just wanted to give a heads up to people that Comcast hits with monthly overages.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2019)

Is it possible that the extra is traffic being blocked by your firewall? When I was running a gateway server there was actually a good amount of traffic that my firewall was blocking and since it's blocked after it gets through the cable modem, that traffic would be counted on their end, but it won't be counted on your end if it's only accepted packets being counted.

I'm not saying that's okay, but it could be a possible reason why the numbers are substantially different. I'm also assuming your gateway is the only device connected to the modem.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Is it possible that the extra is traffic being blocked by your firewall? When I was running a gateway server there was actually a good amount of traffic that my firewall was blocking and since it's blocked after it gets through the cable modem, that traffic would be counted on their end, but it won't be counted on your end if it's only accepted packets being counted.
> 
> I'm not saying that's okay, but it could be a possible reason why the numbers are substantially different. I'm also assuming your gateway is the only device connected to the modem.



I'm not going to say it is impossible, but not likely. Also, I think that data would still be counted, as it still travels over the WAN port on the router that is being monitored, it just isn't allowed to travel through to the LAN side.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm not going to say it is impossible, but not likely. Also, I think that data would still be counted, as it still travels over the WAN port on the router that is being monitored, it just isn't allowed to travel through to the LAN side.


That's not how it worked on my gateway server. My firewall would block traffic on the input iptables chain on the WAN interface and would never make it to the input or forward chain on any of the LAN interfaces. If it was already an established connection, only then would it get blocked on the forward chain on the wan interface.

All I'm saying is that it depends on how iptables is configured if it's a linux based router. I would tend to agree with you though that it seems unlikely since >100GB of unaccounted bandwidth is highly suspicious.

This tempts me to setup a gateway server again though because the numbers I'm seeing from Comcast seem a little inflated on my end as well, I just don't have anything to check it against.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 27, 2019)

Any chance one device is measuring in KiB and Comcast is measuring KB ?

https://xkcd.com/394/


----------



## hat (Jan 27, 2019)

Aren't KiB and KB (not Kb) the same?


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jan 27, 2019)

Not surprised. Spectrum does the same thing.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 27, 2019)

There will always be some "handshaking" "overhead" going on between the modem and the ISP. This will be data exchanges that do not go through the router. IMO, that should not be counted against the customer. But since most (probably all) ISPs will always put profit over doing what's right for the customer, Comcast could be counting that overhead traffic against you too. 

Not sure how you could determine that without unplugging your router (your entire network) from your modem for 1 month and then see what they are counting against you. Can you go "off the grid" for a whole month? Can you track what Comcast is reporting in 24 hour increments instead of a whole month at a time?


hat said:


> Aren't KiB and KB (not Kb) the same?


No. It is the same thing as happens with hard drives where, depending on who you talk to, 1 kilo is 1000 or 1 kilo is 1024. In pure mathematics and science, 1 kilo = 1000. In data and data storage, 1 kilo (or in this case 1 KiB) = 1024. 

@newtekie1 - you need to research how your router counts bits. Looking at your screen shot and the note at the bottom, it would seem Comcast uses 1024 = 1K.   Ummm, nevermind! In thinking about this, if your router used 1000, your router logs would show higher numbers so, assuming Comcast uses 1024, it is not that. So I am back to the modem's overhead issue, or Comcast is just flagrantly cheating. I doubt that as there are just too many watchdogs out there for them to risk intentional criminal activities.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 27, 2019)

Guest Wi-fi hotspot traffic ?
They Claim that OTHER CUSTOMERS use of Wi-Fi Hotspots do Not use your Bandwidth and your not Charged

worth checking router settings (and a wi-fi Sniffer )


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> Guest Wi-fi hotspot traffic ?
> They Claim that OTHER CUSTOMERS use of Wi-Fi Hotspots do Not use your Bandwidth and your not Charged
> 
> worth checking router settings (and a wi-fi Sniffer )


This actually is an excellent point. Now that I think about it, I remember this thread that @newtekie1 made. Perhaps it's possible that this traffic is actually metered against you?


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 27, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> Guest Wi-fi hotspot traffic ?


Thought of that too. But as noted, that traffic does not (or is not supposed to) count against your limits.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Thought of that too. But as noted, that traffic does not (or is not supposed to) count against your limits.


I wonder if Comcast explicitly calls out how bandwidth gets monitored for usage. I feel like they would have some fine print somewhere that would spell all of this out. This is the only thing I've been able to find so far and the only things it says it doesn't include is TV and Voice plans and that anything, regardless of source, is counted. The verbiage seems to indicate that everything is counted. It also seems to be the case the the list of states for which the Terabyte cap is enforced doesn't include NH which I find intriguing. Not sure if I want to test that though.


----------



## Readlight (Jan 27, 2019)

Looks like 50 GB game  and highy quality movie download user. why wired internet haw data limit? i get for 2 euro unlimited slow mobile internet free sms and voie calls. and if i want optic i drive to other home.


----------



## natr0n (Jan 27, 2019)

Watch youtube in 720p so you can lower your data usage.

It works.

Also....ARRRRRR


----------



## qubit (Jan 27, 2019)

I've noticed how the ISPs measurements are consistently more than what I measure when I used to compare them, but these differences seem way too large to be a reasonable margin of error.

Having tried telling them about it and seeing what response you get? Even if it's a fob-off, you can sometimes still glean something from it.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 27, 2019)

Readlight said:


> why wired internet haw data limit? i get for 2 euro unlimited slow mobile internet free sms and voie calls. and if i want optic i drive to other home.


 This thread is not what you claim to get for 2 euro's ( which i do not ******) but what Comcast bill and deliver


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I wonder if Comcast explicitly calls out how bandwidth gets monitored for usage.


They do, but the consumer finding it may be a challenge. 

See this ars Technica article and note the following:


> *Will the homeowner be accountable for visitors' data usage via the XFINITY WiFi Home Hotspot on the homeowner's wireless gateway?*
> 
> No. The data usage of visiting users (over the *xfinitywifi* network signals) is tied back to the visitors' accounts, not the homeowner's. Homeowner's activities and data usage on the Home Hotspot are tied to the homeowner's account.
> 
> ...



Now the phrase I find troublesome is "Not currently".


----------



## Static~Charge (Jan 27, 2019)

hat said:


> Aren't KiB and KB (not Kb) the same?





Bill_Bright said:


> No. It is the same thing as happens with hard drives where, depending on who you talk to, 1 kilo is 1000 or 1 kilo is 1024. In pure mathematics and science, 1 kilo = 1000. In data and data storage, 1 kilo (or in this case 1 KiB) = 1024.


When you're talking about computer storage/memory/data transmission, KB and KiB _are_ the same thing:

"1 KB" means 1024 bytes (as Windows would report it, traditional usage)
"1 kB" means 1000 bytes (as Mac OS would report it, IEC usage)
"1 KiB" means 1024 bytes (unambiguous, but perhaps unfamiliar terminology)

*Files size units: "KiB" vs "KB" vs "kB"*
https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/13815/files-size-units-kib-vs-kb-vs-kb


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> This actually is an excellent point. Now that I think about it, I remember this thread that @newtekie1 made. Perhaps it's possible that this traffic is actually metered against you?





Bill_Bright said:


> Thought of that too. But as noted, that traffic does not (or is not supposed to) count against your limits.



Even if that was the case, I haven't used the Xfinity Hot Spots this month, other than maybe my phone connecting from time to time when I'm way from home, but I can't see my phone using 160GB+ of data.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 27, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> Even if that was the case, I haven't used the Xfinity Hot Spots this month, other than maybe my phone connecting from time to time when I'm way from home, but I can't see my phone using 160GB+ of data.


Not a Comcast customer so I have never used them. But it seems to me this type usage _should be_ a separate line entry on your bill (or in an app on your phone) so you could see the breakdown of your charges - kinda like "roaming" charges used to be (and may still be in some areas) listed separately.



Static~Charge said:


> KB and KiB _are_ the same thing:


Except they aren't - at least not consistently. Look at your own reference. What the heck is kB anyway? To Apple it is 1000 and to others 1024? That's nonsense.

For sure, it should be consistent, but sadly, companies seem to do what they want. And to your comment about "storage" specifically, hard drive makers were often the biggest offenders!  Why? Because by using 1000 instead of 1024, they could market their drives as larger than they really were. 

The problem is, of course, if the company uses the decimal system or binary. Decimal is 1000, binary 1024. 

Did you know CD capacities were measured in binary while DVD capacities were in binary?


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> Even if that was the case, I haven't used the Xfinity Hot Spots this month, other than maybe my phone connecting from time to time when I'm way from home, but I can't see my phone using 160GB+ of data.


What about late last month? I suspect when they say "January" or "December" that they're talking about billing months, not real months. The month probably represents the month that the bill was created in. Having worked with systems that do time-based billing for reporting purposes, it makes a ton of sense if Comcast did it this way.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 27, 2019)

hat said:


> Aren't KiB and KB (not Kb) the same?



Yup, they are different. Not sure if Comcast says exactly how they are measuring. Also, as noted in another post, I wonder if @newtekie1 's router is only measuring payload and not headers?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 27, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> Yup, they are different. Not sure if Comcast says exactly how they are measuring. Also, as noted in another post, I wonder if @newtekie1 's router is only measuring payload and not headers?


This.  Comcast is likely counting the entire size of every packet where router is only counting packet payload.


As also mentioned, there could be a GB vs GiB thing going on.  Comcast's figures are most likely GB (billion bytes) but the router might be GiB (2^30 bytes).
965.77 GiB = 1,036,987,641,364.48 bytes

They also might not be counting the same packet types (e.g. pings) against bandwidth.

Comcast might not be counting lost packets (how could it?) which is why your router, assuming it's GiB, is higher than Comcast's GB figures.

If your WAN port is connected to a hardware device before reaching Comcast's network, it's possible that you're seeing some packets related to communication between the two devices that don't reach Comcast's figures (they're still intranet).


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 27, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This.  Comcast is likely counting the entire size of every packet where router is only counting packet payload.
> 
> 
> As also mentioned, there could be a GB vs GiB thing going on.  Comcast's figures are most likely GB (billion bytes) but the router might be GiB (2^30 bytes).
> ...



Can anyone find anything official on how they measure???


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 27, 2019)

It would be in the service contract legalese.  Networks almost always go by decimal system though because binary units really have no use in network transmissions.  I assume his router is using some flavor of Linux which loves binary units.


----------



## hat (Jan 27, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> Yup, they are different. Not sure if Comcast says exactly how they are measuring. Also, as noted in another post, I wonder if @newtekie1 's router is only measuring payload and not headers?


D'oh... of course... not sure how I missed that one. I should have known better!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This.  Comcast is likely counting the entire size of every packet where router is only counting packet payload.
> 
> 
> As also mentioned, there could be a GB vs GiB thing going on.  Comcast's figures are most likely GB (billion bytes) but the router might be GiB (2^30 bytes).
> ...



The router is reading LOWER than Comcast not higher.

And Comcast use 1024, hence they say 1TB=1024GB.  The same is true of the router.  This is not a binary vs base10 issue.  I have never seen anything network related use base10, that is a storage thing to make drives look larger than they really are for marketing.

The router is measuring all data going through the WAN port, if anything it should be higher than Comcast, not lower.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> I have never seen anything network related use base10, that is a storage thing to make drives look larger than they really are for marketing.


10/100/1000 is decimal.  e.g. "gigabit ethernet" means 1 billion bits per second.  802.11 also provides bandwidth in decimal units, not binary (54 Mbps = 54 million bits per second).



newtekie1 said:


> And Comcast use 1024, hence they say 1TB=1024GB.  The same is true of the router.


If you're absolutely certain of it then I'll take your word for it that incorrect units are not to blame for the discrepancy.  Most likely it is packet header data then that Comcast counts and your router doesn't.


----------



## Phovenix (Jan 28, 2019)

Do you currently have TV? Aka the x1 voice platform? X1 platform uses updates due to its ability to stream programs like Netflix etc... so having x1 users about 150gb/mo...


----------



## Alittletech (Jan 28, 2019)

On that note about the x1 and Netflix, Amazon Prime and YouTube, they also count against your useage and your counter wouldn't see that.



Alittletech said:


> On that note about the x1 and Netflix, Amazon Prime and YouTube, they also count against your useage and your counter wouldn't see that.



https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/netflix-x1-app-data-usage


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2019)

I do have X1 TV, but I don't use it to stream any internet programming. The only streaming is directly from the X1 platform, items not marked with Internet, so no Netflix/Amazon/etc.

The router not counting header information also doesn't make much sense to me either, as the numbers should be off by the same percentage(~10%) every month, and that isn't happening.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2019)

Vote with your wallet


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 28, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Vote with your wallet



That's amusing.  You must not know how comcast ensures itself to be a geographically monopoly more often than not.

Speaking from experience, yes, they measure on the binary system.



FordGT90Concept said:


> 10/100/1000 is decimal. e.g. "gigabit ethernet" means 1 billion bits per second. 802.11 also provides bandwidth in decimal units, not binary (54 Mbps = 54 million bits per second).



We are talking bandwidth measurements not speed.  Bandwidth is almost exclusively measured in binary units.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Vote with your wallet



I wish I could.  Comcast is the only option with decent speeds.  At my old house AT&T FTTH was just put in, but even that wasn't as fast but cost more and wasn't reliable.  Now where I live Frontier DSL is the only other option, their fastest package is "up to" 18Mbps...


----------



## hat (Jan 28, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> I wish I could.  Comcast is the only option with decent speeds.  At my old house AT&T FTTH was just put in, but even that wasn't as fast but cost more and wasn't reliable.  Now where I live Frontier DSL is the only other option, their fastest package is "up to" 18Mbps...


It would be manageable, unless you & yours are into streaming FHD or bigger content to multiple devices at once, or you have some other bandwidth heavy requirements... there's also QoS rules that can be set up... but I don't think I need to tell you that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> The router not counting header information also doesn't make much sense to me either, as the numbers should be off by the same percentage(~10%) every month, and that isn't happening.


Not necessarily.  Packets can range in length from several bytes up to thousands (especially if jumbo frames).  Games, for example, tend to use a lot of small packets where file transfers and video streams tend to use a lot of big packets.  Average packet size can shift bandwidth usage significantly.



newtekie1 said:


> Now where I live Frontier DSL is the only other option, their fastest package is "up to" 18Mbps...


Oh god!  I used to have "up to 6" from them but could only reach 3 with frequent disconnects.  Last time I called Frontier about something else, they tried to rope me back into their internet service and I asked them to check out of curiosity.  They told me it's not available at my address (good job them).  Pretty sure my neighbor still has them...

Would 18 be enough for you?  You could have them check what's the most you can get at your address.


----------



## dtimyd (Jan 28, 2019)

Former Comcast employee here.

1) 1024 GB = 1TB useage
2) All data that flows over your side of the modem PLUS any data used over ANY Xfinity Wifi hotspot with ANY username on your account is counted toward your data useage. So your cellphone connects to an Xfinity hotspot at Starbucks = counted. Your laptop connected to a neighbor's Xfinity hotspot = counted. Your friend comes over and uses their logon info for the Xfinity hotspot on your modem = not counted.
3) Comcast does have a monopoly in a lot of places, and where they don't, they have a good price-point. For example - Everywhere Comcast and Google fiber overlap, it's amazing the discount you can get on GB service. Everywhere else, bend over and take it is their M.O.
4) Add basic cable as a Double Play = usually cheaper than just internet. I don't even have the cable box connected and I saved $15/no by doing that.

Regarding the data vs the overhead vs retry vs checksuum vs jumbopackets... I have no idea and you'll never find out unless you have a Comcast network engineer chime in. I asked one time (as a customer service trained monkey) and was told that's above my pay grade.

My town just voted to do municipal broadband and I can't wait for that to go live. Anyways... Hope that helps some.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 28, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 0/100/1000 is decimal. e.g. "gigabit ethernet" means 1 billion bits per second.


I agree! But as I said before, that definition is not accepted consistently or universally.

While 10/100/1000 is clearly decimal, what is a "bit"?

The word "bit" is actually an abbreviation for "*binary* digit"! And by definition a "bit" is the smallest "binary" value of either a "0" or a "1".

What you illustrated is how some hardware makers often use decimal while networking folks use binary.   Clear as mud.

So IMO, the bottom line is this. 1 kilo is either 1000 or 1024 and any reference, paper, citation, comment, or thought (  ) to it should start out by defining which value is being used!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2019)

kilo- = SI = 10^3
kibi- = IEC = 2^10

Under no circumstance should kilo- be used with 2^10 conversion and under no circumstance should kibi- be used with 10^3 conversion.  Units must match the math used to reach it.

The whole point of units is to avoid confusion.

To which...


dtimyd said:


> 1) 1024 GB = 1TB useage


So does that mean 1,024,000,000,000 bytes (1024 GB) or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes (1 TiB) for clarity?



dtimyd said:


> 2) All data that flows over your side of the modem PLUS any data used over ANY Xfinity Wifi hotspot with ANY username on your account is counted toward your data useage. So your cellphone connects to an Xfinity hotspot at Starbucks = counted. Your laptop connected to a neighbor's Xfinity hotspot = counted. Your friend comes over and uses their logon info for the Xfinity hotspot on your modem = not counted.


...might be the answer to the OP's discrepancy between the two measurements.


----------



## dtimyd (Jan 28, 2019)

> So does that mean 1,024,000,000,000 bytes (1024 GB) or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes (1 TiB) for clarity?



It means 1024 GB. Yeah, I know that doesn't really answer the question, however - when looking at the data useage tools (back end or customer facing), the smallest unit of measurement was GB.

I can tell you this: one of the "extreme" troubleshooting steps we could take was to go offline for 72 hours and have a monitor placed physically on the line. If that monitor recorded any data... Obviously there was a configuration error somewhere in Comcast equipment that tied someone else's data to the wrong account. This monitoring was done at the back office or the node (basically the last non-coax step in the line). It had to be authorizated by a maintenance tech supervisor and 9 out of 10 times... It revealed no errant data issues. I'm not 100% on that ratio as I only had it authorizated twice (both times line was clean). It's an extreme test and usually reserved for 2 types of customers - very long-time "loyal" customers or customers with documentable issues. PITA customers never got this offered.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 28, 2019)

Sad state of affairs in the USA...
You guys are getting ripped of by telcos in so many ways... slow speeds, high prices and bandwidth caps. UGH.

On the other side of the pond... 1TB is the amount I transfer every 2-4 days...


But I know people on 1gbit fiber in east-Europe area (Romania, Bulgaria) which are transferring sometime upwards of *3 TB daily* (don't ask on what, not the subject here) on a plan that only costs about *15 USD/month*. No limits whatsoever, and also no censorship. How they can do it and the might USA can't... no clue. (Oh, and 1gbit fiber has been available for several years already, it's not something new)


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 28, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Sad state of affairs in the USA...
> You guys are getting ripped of by telcos in so many ways... slow speeds, high prices and bandwidth caps. UGH.
> 
> On the other side of the pond... 1TB is the amount I transfer every 2-4 days...
> ...



The USA has a unique system of government in which the people who own the telecom companies also get to make the laws regarding telecom companies. This results in state-sponsored monopolies in certain areas (but they split territory up amongst themselves which they somehow think wards off non-competitiveness). As a result, they don't have to compete with each other for customers because they have legal territory monopolies. Which means no investment into infrastructure, but they instead invest in yet another crappy carrier-locked streaming service. The very regulation that people think is supposed to prevent monopoly (the large infrastructure must be shared among them) also makes sure they don't have to spend any money to maintain and upgrade it. 

Combine that with the ridiculous size of the USA in terms of population distribution over landmass, and you have a recipe for crappy service. Some other countries like Canada and Russia have huge landmass too, but populations are largely condensed, whereas the US has very few places that aren't at least somewhat populated. We're VERY spread out over the area of the country. Russia, Canada, Australia, all have places you can drive for a couple of days without seeing civilization. That's highly rare in the USA, if even possible.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 29, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Sad state of affairs in the USA...
> You guys are getting ripped of by telcos in so many ways... slow speeds, high prices and bandwidth caps. UGH.
> 
> On the other side of the pond... 1TB is the amount I transfer every 2-4 days...
> ...



The USA is a gigantic kick-ass country with lots of different telecos and laws. Where I live I actually get really cheap FIOS fiber and unlimited bandwidth per month but where others live like OP options are fewer because of local law restrictions or because competition does not see it profitable. This is way off topic but in the US we have a much older system (part of being the best and the first in all things tech) so we have a lot to maintain. I will take living in the US with slightly more expensive internet over living in a EU any day of the week! MERICA!!!!!


----------



## cdawall (Jan 29, 2019)

It's weird how they have Comcast setup. With att when you purchase the TV package with the internet it's unlimited internet no extra charge.


----------



## hat (Jan 29, 2019)

cdawall said:


> It's weird how they have Comcast setup. With att *when you purchase the TV package* with the internet it's unlimited internet no extra charge.



Hmm, I wonder why that could be... perhaps because data caps were invented largely as a means to discourage customers from ditching their TV package (cutting the cord) and relying on cheaper and higher quality streaming services (Netflix, Hulu etc) instead?


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 29, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> Combine that with the ridiculous size of the USA in terms of population distribution over landmass


I think this is the bigger factor, rather than your monopoly point. The fact people living in rural areas are protected from having to pay 3, 4 or 5 times more than those living in densely populated areas makes investing in those sparsely populated areas very expensive with little to no room for profits. That is particularly true when it comes to laying fiber.

The point about monopolies really is not valid - these days. If it was, it would apply to power too, but as seen here, the average price per kWh in the US is pretty low compared to other countries.

There are some places still where no cable Internet is available - only DSL (and satellite). But in recent years, where there is cable, there is usually DSL too. And Internet-over-cell service is becoming more and more available. So is fiber to the home (FTTH).

The problem is, having alternatives should, IMO, be driving prices down. But it doesn't seem to work that way.  I note the cost of my service has never gone down, only up. When I first subscribed to cable Internet over 25 years ago, that was my only choice in my 100+ year old neighborhood. Now DSL and 4G are available and 5G is coming.

On the plus side, my speeds keep going up. I pay for 50Gbps up and 6Gbps down but get over 115Gbps and 8Gbps.

In a bit of irony, World War II played and still plays a big role in the communications infrastructures. That infrastructure was rebuilt from the ground up all across Europe and Japan after the war. Here in the US, none was destroyed so much is still pre-war and is not getting upgraded because those resources are going towards "new growth" and expansion.


Papahyooie said:


> whereas the US has very few places that aren't at least somewhat populated.


That's all relative. Wyoming is huge (10th largest state in size) yet has only 6 people per square mile. Montana (4th largest) has just 7 people. New Mexico (5th) just 17. You may not be able to drive for days (except in Alaska with 1 person per sq mile) but you sure can drive for hours upon hours. Having lived in Arizona and New Mexico for much of my life, once you get out of the Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff and Albuquerque/Sante Fe areas, you are way out in the boonies.

New Jersey, for contrast, has over 1200 people per square mile. India, btw, has 386! Japan has 339, and France just 100.


Easy Rhino said:


> I will take living in the US with slightly more expensive internet over living in a EU any day of the week! MERICA!!!!!


Me too. And for the record, I have lived in the UK, Portugal, and Germany so it is not just patriotic chest thumping.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 29, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> I think this is the bigger factor, rather than your monopoly point. The fact people living in rural areas are protected from having to pay 3, 4 or 5 times more than those living in densely populated areas makes investing in those sparsely populated areas very expensive with little to no room for profits. That is particularly true when it comes to laying fiber.
> 
> The point about monopolies really is not valid - these days. If it was, it would apply to power too, but as seen here, the average price per kWh in the US is pretty low compared to other countries.
> 
> ...



Bigger factor or not, legal monopolies are still a factor. I experience this every day. Local governments will contract with a single provider to run lines, and they're granted exclusive rights to residential customers. My own home town is in this exact situation. There is precisely ONE cable internet provider. All others are legally excluded.  FCC rules are supposed to prevent this, but due to some legalistic loopholes, it's allowed. They have no incentive to upgrade or maintain anything. Which is fine... I'm a staunch capitalist. Nobody should be forcing them to to do so. But my problem is with the fact that other providers and startups are prohibited from playing. They aren't even allowed to run their own lines. I'm lucky that I'm able to get what I do (150meg down/8 up) but it's not stable at all. And I couldn't take my business to another provider if I wanted to.

Sure, population is relative to the specific part of the US... I never said otherwise. Also, population per square mile is a useless metric for this discussion without also taking into account TOTAL population and TOTAL size. France may have just 100 people per spare mile, but the entire country is smaller than many of our single states. That makes it easier to have good communications infrastructure across the entire country, when you're comparing the entirety of France vs the entirety of the US, so population density is only part of the story.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 29, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> Bigger factor or not, legal monopolies are still a factor.


I am not saying they are not there. I am saying the don't have the clout they used to. They still have too much, but not as much. It is getting better. Not fast enough, but it is happening.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 30, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> I am not saying they are not there. I am saying the don't have the clout they used to. They still have too much, but not as much. It is getting better. Not fast enough, but it is happening.



Yes and the long term solution is community fiber setup. I know it isn't for every community and comes with its own problems but if a rural town wants it enough and people are willing to take the minor tax increase then they can get that local ISP monopoly off their backs!


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 30, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> Yes and the long term solution is community fiber setup.


I agree - but sadly, there is little incentive for companies to go back into old, established neighborhoods and tear down existing copper to hang, pull and/or bury new fiber. For example, there are just 5 houses on my street. Across the street is a church. To the south, a school playground. To the west, a big hill. Behind me, a 6 unit apartment where the building is actually on the historic building registry (100+ years ago it was the main building of the first college in the state). So that building cannot be razed or even modified to make room for more paying customers.

It is not really a matter of the residents being unwilling to fund a bond or whatever to get one of the telecommunications in there - it is just that it is still not financially worth it to those companies. 

And I agree it would be a minor tax increase for most of those small rural towns - but they are already burdened with "small tax increases" to improve 911 service, to improve local emergency (fire/police/rescue) services, to improve local schools, to fix the potholes in the streets, to improve local sewer/waste management, to improve _____________ [fill in the blank]. 

In most cases around here, if want fiber, you have to move to a brand new housing development, where the fiber was laid long before the first neighborhood street was cut or the ground was broken for the first house.  I suspect it is that way across much of America.


----------



## Jeriath (Jan 31, 2019)

I registered just to try and remove a couple things from the possibilities. I too have a router that counts data, and I too see a huge discrepancy in data usage. This month comcast has be using over 50 GB more than what my router says. Its definitely not TV usage (i don't have TV) and its not wifi usage (I don't use their modem/router with their xfinity service broadcasted). There's no way there is that much data in header information either.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Feb 12, 2019)

I'm not one to take what Comcast as to say for fact - I've had a few screaming matches with customer service over stupid shit. So, I was curious about what you guys are claiming for Comstast reporting higher usage. After running the data collection app on my ASUS router for monitoring download/upload for the last 2.5 weeks, the data reported by Comcast when I log into my account is almost spot on with what my router reports for data usage.

Over the past 2.5 weeks my download data usage, according to my router, is 320GB in real time reporting. Logging into my Comcast account it shows slightly less data usage of around 312GB. Comcasts makes note that the data reported is 24 hours behind, so that 8GB difference may be from data not shown yet via Comcast on my usage because of the delay.

If I remember, I'll check my entire month of February against what Comcast reports and post back....that is, if I remember.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 12, 2019)

Well, I decided if Comcast was going to ding me for going over my limit, and I was going to use one of the 2 "free" months that Comcast allows, I might as well really go over the limit.  Because screw Comcast.

Once I use the two free months I'll probably just sign up for the unlimited plan, because I'm tired of limping along the last week or so of the month to avoid going over the limit.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Feb 23, 2019)

Things seem pretty good so far.

Comcast is claiming I've hit 511GB so far this month:






My router shows from 1/29/19 to current date, usage of 587.98GB.





The first three data points are for:
35.98GB (1/29/19)
25.90GB (1/30/19)
19.46GB (1/31/19)
Total of: 81.34GB that are not part of February.

Remove those 81.34GB from  the 587.98GB total shown above and I have 506.64GB usage this month. There's about a 1% discrepancy between what Comcast shows and what my router shows. I'd say that's well within an acceptable margin of error.

It doesn't seem like, at least in my case, they're cheating me out of data. Don't get me wrong, I hate Comcast's shade, shitty customer tactics and support, but at least they seem to be doing okay on this aspect of things and showing proper data usage.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 23, 2019)

neatfeatguy said:


> Remove those 81.34GB from the 587.98GB total shown above and I have 506.64GB usage this month. There's about a 1% discrepancy between what Comcast shows and what my router shows. I'd say that's well within an acceptable margin of error.


Some of that "discrepancy" may be data your router sees but your ISP does not "count" against you. For example, if they send you electronic billing statements, Comcast spam... err... marketing promotions, etc., they may not "count" those datapackets towards your monthly limits.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 23, 2019)

Do any of you with data discrepencies use their "Xfinity Mobile" cell plan by chance?

Just a thought.  It'd be amazing if the "unlimited" option on their cell plan counted towards a TB limit on your cable internet.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 23, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Just a thought. It'd be amazing if the "unlimited" option on their cell plan counted towards a TB limit on your cable internet.


I would think it would count against it - simply because the ISP would see those data package as coming from the router and your network and not your cell phone and a cell tower.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 24, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> I would think it would count against it - simply because the ISP would see those data package as coming from the router and your network and not your cell phone and a cell tower.



They are an MVNO of Verizon.  It's literally coming from a cell tower.

So, if it is being tallied on the cable plan, it shouldn't be counted that way.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 24, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> They are an MVNO of Verizon. It's literally coming from a cell tower.


Okay - but it is still coming via a different account if the phone is now using the wifi side of of a wireless router connected to an Internet connection. 

That said, this does not make it less confusing - for me anyway. I use Cox cable for my home Internet and Cricket for my cell. When home, my cell uses my home wifi network for data transfers. I am just saying, I am not totally versed (and really have no desire to dig into it further) how Comcast does things. 

As I said above, if your phone is using your home wifi network, "_I would think_" (in other words, I am guessing!) it would count against your monthly data limits. But I could be wrong.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 24, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Okay - but it is still coming via a different account if the phone is now using the wifi side of of a wireless router connected to an Internet connection.
> 
> That said, this does not make it less confusing - for me anyway. I use Cox cable for my home Internet and Cricket for my cell. When home, my cell uses my home wifi network for data transfers. I am just saying, I am not totally versed (and really have no desire to dig into it further) how Comcast does things.
> 
> As I said above, if your phone is using your home wifi network, "_I would think_" (in other words, I am guessing!) it would count against your monthly data limits. But I could be wrong.



I'll agree it's convuluted at best.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 24, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I'll agree it's convuluted at best.


Well, at least it means folks have options. If they have caps on their data usage with one, they may be able to flip to the other - at least until they use up that limit or run out of month.


----------

