[olug] Cox Issues Was: Cox sucks

[Luke-Jr]

On Wednesday 18 July 2007 17:50, Sam Tetherow wrote:
> No it is exactly what they sold, a connection up to 12mbps with a total
> transfer cap 60GB/month.

This is why I was explicitly told at the Cox office that not only were there 
no ports blocked nor any terms of service, but that there were no transfer 
limits and I could max out the 12mbit 24/7... Sure.

> >> 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.

AUP = Acceptible Use Policy
A policy has no legal binding. Residential Cox has no contract to bind it, 
either.

> 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.

Except they're NOT PROVIDING THE SERVICE THEY CLAIM. If getting rid of those 
5% means the rest only use 200kbit/sec, then your service is effectively only 
200kbit/sec!

> 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.

I guess Time Warner is operating their cable internet at a loss, hm?