[olug] Cox Issues Was: Cox sucks

[Sam Tetherow]

Luke -Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 July 2007 22:11, Sam Tetherow wrote:
>   
>> Most users don't come close to using 60GB download a month so it is a
>> reasonable cap.
>>     
>
> Most 7mbit users, maybe. It's unreasonable to be advertising 12mbit when 
> effectively it's really 200kbit! I could understand an effective 2-3mbit, but 
> 200kbit??
>
>   
No it is exactly what they sold, a connection up to 12mbps with a total 
transfer cap 60GB/month.
>> Most providers do not worry about the cap if the user is not seriously
>> degrading the network. But if a user is seriously degrading the network,
>> they have to have something in writing (a TOS or AUP) that will allow
>> them to either charge the user an additional rate or allow them to
>> terminate the contract.
>>     
>
> If it degrades the network, then it is the ISP's fault for misconfiguring 
> things to make that possible.
>   
No, if it degrades the network and it is outside the TOS or AUP. Then it 
is the customers fault for breaching the contract. If the customer 
misunderstood the contract it is still the customer who is at fault. To 
say that the ISP is at fault for not providing service in excess of the 
contract is a bit over the top.

Honestly, an ISP tries to provide service at the most affordable rate 
they can. If keeping the top 5% of bandwidth users off of their network 
saves them 25% on their total bandwidth cost then it will allow them to 
provide service to the other 95% at a cheaper rate.

If you want dedicated bandwidth then buy a dedicated connection, if you 
don't want to spend the money on the dedicated connection then don't 
complain that you can't get a RollsRoyce for a Yugo price.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>