‘upload to network’?  Is that what it says?  Does that have anything to do with upload to the internet?

And those are definitely MB, not GB?

Not sure how many minutes of video conference you would get from 140MB.  But it’s not many.  5? 

I rather suspect that the Sonos traffic is internal to your network anyway, although not sure about that.

Yea, I could see that amount of data between speakers, particularly in grouped or stereo wireless setup. It’s hard to conceive of that amount of data going outside the local network, for any reason. 

issue got solved 

thankyou!! so much!

*Moderator Note: Modified in accordance with the Community Code of Conduct.*

I have three Sonos Player 1s. I saw old posts with this same topics, but no resolution. I have not used these speakers in a week, yet my home Network with 3 Ubiquity APs running about 30 clients show the top 3 highest upload to network are the three Sonos players. Mind you, I have four professional adults working from home and two kids home schooling. Our work apps and video conferences should be eclipsing any other upload. Why the heck is Sonos showing at 140MB, 100MB and 98 MB upload each yet they are not even in use? What the heck are they uploading? I have ipad * and iphone apps for Sonos, background refresh turned off, but bluetooth and local network turned on.   Version 11.2.4, Build 57.4.83220, Sonos S1.   use alexa, spotify...

issue got solved

*Moderator Note: Modified in accordance with the Community Code of Conduct.*

Solved how, please?

My suspicion is that the Ubiquity network is measuring data transfer between the speakers, and for some reason reporting it as upstream data. Which I don’t ‘think’ it is. Which is to say, so far, I’ve not seen anything posted in these forums that shows that Sonos is actually sending significant data back to another server. Small amounts of data are understandable, you have to be able to initiate streams, etc, but certainly not the size the OP is reporting. But things do change over time, and there may have been a change, so I’m also interested in how this was resolved. If it’s a true thing, it would be an important data point to post in this forum. And possibly seek legal advice over.  

By repeating the original post, and embedding a spam link. 

Mods, please fix.

As ratty points out, this is just a spammer. It seems to be a relatively new spammer tactic, where they copy an original post from a month or more ago, and then insert spam into their replies. This is the original text that they copied, from a month ago:

This method of spamming is being used extensively now, and has been for months - one more tactic to be aware of!

Thanks for pointing out. I have seen a couple of previous examples but it never occurred to me that this might be another example.  We live and learn.

Post cloning by spammers used to be very commonplace on the old user forums.

If the Forum software would block links in posts from new users, most of these spam attempts would be impossible.

That would be logical, and if we've learned anything about InSided, it's that they are not logical.

It’s particularly in quotes of previous posts. I’ve always taken the assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that it was some sort of trojan embedded in their browser that makes it happen, but it does appear to be an odd and obscure case. I flag them as necessary, when I actually see them, but admit that I don’t generally re-read quoted text, since I read it the first time around.