said by Skippy25:
One difference is that you are measuring it from YOUR side of the modem and I think this is part of hte problem.
If they add something like this and then only track the LAN side of their modem they will not measure all the crap passed from the modem. However, they also wont be able to filter out crap that is "firewalled" if a customer is just using their modem in bridge mode.
Their issue is: they should not be measuring overhead and they should not be measuring stuff that is being blocked by the firewall.
In a setup where you have 1 LAN port active, no wireless on your gateway, and all traffic to/from the internet passes that 1 LAN port to your own wireless gateway... THAT should be the traffic you should be charged for, after all THAT is the traffic you requested.
If the Gateway receives 20% more information than you actually requested due to overhead, packet drops and firewall blocks.... you are talking some serious money. What about DDOS attacks? Failed downloads that can't be resumed?
If a malicious user plotting against you would send you continues data for a month at the rate of 1 Mbps.... you wouldn't even notice it, and probably AT&T would either.... but you would be downloading about 20 GB a day that way. That racks up a huge bill at the end of the month without you requesting ANY of that data.
And with the U-verse interleaving.... how much of a percentage of packets are lost just to make sure you get a good data rate?--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"