 levity
join:2008-09-19
Toronto, ON |
levity
Member
2012-Oct-31 9:38 pm
[Internet] Bell charging for wireless "intranet" usageIn the last few days my internet usage jumped to as high as 51gb uploads a day and so I have gone over my limit in a very expensive way. I suspect it is the Foscam security camera that I set up and had left open a streaming wireless connection to my laptop. I did not use an internet address (dyndns) but used port forwarding on the intranet (192.168.2.16:2442) to access and view the camera. Both Bell Level 1 tech and the billing department confirmed that my internet usage charge comes from activity recorded by the modem (Sagemcom Fast2864) and that despite the activity being "intranet" not "internet", their charges are valid. The billing department staff stated that if the connection to the camera had been via ethernet cable instead of wireless, apparently I would not be charged. Interestingly, the Bell website does not refer to intranet activity, but only to internet use. » service.sympatico.ca/ind ··· _id=6661 » service.sympatico.ca/ind ··· _id=6666I can connect the camera to another wireless router on the network and so avoid the charges in the future as the router is ethernet connected to the modem. Any suggestions on how to contest the charges? Bell is quite insistent that the charges are valid even though their website only refers to internet use? Richard |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
2 edits |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-1 12:16 am
Re: [Internet] Bell charging for wireless "intranet" u |
|
| |
to levity
Where are you viewing the camera from? If you need a port forward that implies you are coming from outside of your LAN which would certainly be internet traffic. If you are inside your LAN then why do you need a port forward?
It sounds like you are viewing this camera over the internet and as such are streaming a lot of data as an upload of your modem's point of view. |
|
 ukd
@teksavvy.com |
ukd to levity
Anon
2012-Nov-1 9:48 am
to levity
|
|
 HiVolt
Premium Member
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON |
to levity
Wow, this is brutal...
In any case, you can just buy your own router, and use the sagemcom simply as a bridge modem. Turn off the wireless, remove your B1 login from it, and plug any of the LAN ports into a new router's WAN port, set it to PPPoE, enter you login info and off you go. |
|
| |
to levity
Not funny ...
But one question for you.
Did you ever considered changing to an indie ISP which allows more usage or even unlimited?
Bell is going to increase their prices in January again. $3 for internet, $3 for TV and $2 for phone ...
Just saying ... |
|
 dillyhammerSTART me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON |
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:Wow, this is brutal...
I'll say. I've seen a lot of disgusting things from Bell over the years, but that's right up there. Mike |
|
| dillyhammer |
to levity
1. Switch to an indie ISP on another pair using your own router and modem, cancel ALL Bell services.
2. Never go back.
3. File complaint with CCTS. Internet usage is packets that move across the WAN port. Even the dumbasses as the CCTS will be able to figure that out.
Mike |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-1 11:56 am
Actually, since caps & overages are economic ITMPs, you'd wanna file an ITMP complaint with the CRTC. » www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM ··· m&lang=EAdd as much info as possible with ticket numbers, CSR names, any conflicting info CSRs gave, including the fact that the CSR stated intranet usage was counted. Chances are it'll be a bug with the firmware or something that Bell will 'suddenly' have found & fixed. |
|
dillyhammerSTART me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON |
said by resa1983:Actually, since caps & overages are economic ITMPs, you'd wanna file an ITMP complaint with the CRTC.
»www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM ··· m&lang=E
Add as much info as possible with ticket numbers, CSR names, any conflicting info CSRs gave, including the fact that the CSR stated intranet usage was counted.
Chances are it'll be a bug with the firmware or something that Bell will 'suddenly' have found & fixed.
Great info. This should definitely be pursued by the OP. Mike |
|
levity
join:2008-09-19
Toronto, ON |
to bigddybn
said by bigddybn:Where are you viewing the camera from? If you need a port forward that implies you are coming from outside of your LAN which would certainly be internet traffic. If you are inside your LAN then why do you need a port forward? Hi Nokia, I setup port forwarding to allow the possibility of accessing the camera from the internet, but was careful not to use internet access except to test the connection. I was aware of the bandwidth issue. What was open frequently and may have been left open was the intranet address. It may be that just setting up portforwarding on this modem triggers any traffic to be counted as internet usage for my account. |
|
| levity |
to ukd
thanks ukd. I had done a search of the forums before posting, but did not see that one. Haven't had a chance to read all posts. I had always assumed traffic data was read at CO not from the modem, but the Bell staff were clearly saying it was from the modem. I tried within both depts to speak to higher level staff. |
|
| |
to levity
The way to contest these charges is to tell them go f themselves.
They are not allowed to charge you for traffic on your internal (local) network.
Unless the traffic is being bounced over the internet and back (which is harder to detect because 10mbit upload is FAST), they have absolutely no case. |
|
| |
to levity
Bell no charge intranet Usage |
|
| |
bottybot to levity
Anon
2012-Nov-2 10:51 am
to levity
Port forwarding your camera basically opened up your firewall... now all the bots probing IP address ranges know your IP is "live" because they are getting a response on the port you are forwarding... not a smart move.
Basically you had all your doors and windows locked before port forwarding and now you left one window wide open with the light on for all the baddies out there to come peep through... they might not have video access to your cam , yet, but they know there is a device responding.
Turn off your port forwarding and educate yourself on firewalls and Internet security...
You are probably getting probed up the yinyang from the sounds of it Cartman... |
|
2 edits |
If he has 51Gigabytes/day, it would be surprising that the ports are only probed. He should check for some trojan, his cam might be controlled from someone else on the internet. It's also surprising that a vga cam, even if running 24/7 would consume 51Gigabytes of downloads in 1 day.
At vga resolution, his security cam would consume roughly 400MB/hour or 9.3Gigabytes/day. |
|
| |
plausible
Anon
2012-Nov-2 3:16 pm
You don't believe it possible that 5 bots or persons could already be streaming video from the cam?
Or maybe the cam's embedded web server server has a well known vulnerability, or default admin/password, and there is other software running on it relaying spam to the masses? |
|
| |
upgoesdown to levity
Anon
2012-Nov-2 3:17 pm
to levity
If you uploaded 51gb from one machine on network to another machine on your network you would see 51gb of download as well... video traffic is a two way street...one person sends and the other receives. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-3 4:25 pm
Maybe it still is streaming via intranet, but its also sending to bell? |
|
 vitesse
join:2002-12-17
Saint-Philippe, QC |
to Seb8517
said by Seb8517:Bell no charge intranet Usage
So how do you explain the situation? and I'm still waiting for my answer about density on another Thread  |
|
levity
join:2008-09-19
Toronto, ON |
to glussier
said by glussier:If he has 51Gigabytes/day, it would be surprising that the ports are only probed. He should check for some trojan, his cam might be controlled from someone else on the internet. It's also surprising that a vga cam, even if running 24/7 would consume 51Gigabytes of downloads in 1 day.
At vga resolution, his security cam would consume roughly 400MB/hour or 9.3Gigabytes/day.
After I removed the camera connection and turned it off, the gb uploads stopped. The uploads were 9gb then 51gb and then 46gb until I turned off the camera. Bell does not want to talk to me about usage until the billing cycle ends (in a couple of days). So I will experiment with this again when I have some bandwidth cushion and some time to work on it. I have filed a complaint with the CRTC. And there is the CCTS -- I have not yet filed with them. I use Outpost Firewall Pro, have MS Essentials and check regularly for spyware/trojans with antivirus and antispyware software. And my Windows 7 machine is uptodate with MS updates. Richard |
|
| |
Wow. This thread smacks of ignorance piled upon misunderstanding.
Most probably you were mislead by the tier 1 support and billing. Although, I suspect part of this was you wanting to hear what you said you were told.
I hope your indignation fuels enough outrage that you get away with overages for streaming your webcam over the internet. |
|
| |
to levity
I don't want to be blunt, but, the problem is not Bell, it is the camera configuration which was not done properly by you, the user.
Now, you filed a complain with the CRTC for a problem that you created, not Bell.
How many times and in how many threads, will it have to be repeated, that Bell doesn't charge and does not compile intranet bandwidth?
I think that in this case, the user should eat his socks, pay the extra bandwidth (max $80.00, I believe) and learn from his mistake. |
|
levity
join:2008-09-19
Toronto, ON |
levity
Member
2012-Nov-4 2:06 pm
said by glussier:I don't want to be blunt, but, the problem is not Bell, it is the camera configuration which was not done properly by you, the user.
Now, you filed a complain with the CRTC for a problem that you created, not Bell.
How many times and in how many threads, will it have to be repeated, that Bell doesn't charge and does not compile intranet bandwidth?
I think that in this case, the user should eat his socks, pay the extra bandwidth (max $80.00, I believe) and learn from his mistake.
I will check my camera setup again in a couple of days and let you know how it pans out. |
|
vitesse
join:2002-12-17
Saint-Philippe, QC |
to glussier
said by glussier:I don't want to be blunt, but, the problem is not Bell, it is the camera configuration which was not done properly by you, the user.
CSR said to Customer: Both Bell Level 1 tech and the billing department confirmed that my internet usage charge comes from activity recorded by the modem (Sagemcom Fast2864) and that despite the activity being "intranet" not "internet", their charges are valid. The billing department staff stated that if the connection to the camera had been via ethernet cable instead of wireless, apparently I would not be charged.
So if this is not the problem of customer but a problem of Bell laying to his customer another time. If Bell don't count intranet bandwidth (and we all know they don't) Why CSR keep saying this? and I hear it myself over phone. This is where the real problem Begin. With that kind of answer, the customer try to find a solution based on the fact that Intranet is counting toward bandwith alotement. This one have comme to DSLR so he wonKt buy another router like planned before, but how many don't know DSLR and will buy a new router has a solution? In this case the best solution is to go to a better ISP that has real Customer Service. |
|
| |
Before accusing Bell, I would like to see a recording of that support call. I'm not saying the op is lying, just that there could be misunderstandings. |
|
|
vitesse
join:2002-12-17
Saint-Philippe, QC |
You are right that this maybe a misunderstandings. but with current reputation of Bell on this forum and on general population I would think it's true. |
|
| |
to levity
Everything I have seen indicates that Bell charges for usage based on statistics collected by the BRAS server, not statistics from the modem. There is no reason to believe that Bell is charging for traffic on your internal LAN that passes through the modem as a switch. I suspect the Bell CSR has no idea what the difference between an intranet and the Internet is.
Source: various discussions with internal Bell ops people over the years and CRTC filings during the UBB proceedings. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-5 9:16 am
At the very least since the complaint's already been made, it will set the record straight, and force Bell to provide correct information to CSRs, so they don't spout off nonsense to customers. |
|
| |
said by resa1983:At the very least since the complaint's already been made, it will set the record straight, and force Bell to provide correct information to CSRs, so they don't spout off nonsense to customers.
You actually think that CSRs even with correct information still won't spout off nonsense to customers? |
|
