[olug] Cox Issues Was: Cox sucks

[Sam Tetherow]

Luke -Jr wrote:
> On Thursday 19 July 2007 05:21, Sam Tetherow wrote:
>   
>> Luke-Jr wrote:
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> The office can tell you anything they want (not that it is good business
>> practice), but the TOS and AUP are what you agree to when you sign up.
>>     
>
> Supposedly, there is no TOS.
>   
http://www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp is what started this thread.

>   
>>>> 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.
>>>       
>> An AUP is used to describe what is acceptable as reference in the TOS.
>>     
>
> Again, Cox claims there is no TOS.
>
>   
>> Not a Cox customer so I don't know if they have a contract or not, but
>> if there is no contract then how can you tell what services you are
>> getting for the money you pay? What ever they give you?
>>     
>
> There's no contract to purchase stuff at retail stores either... I guess it'd 
> come down to what you asked for and if you paid the listed price at the 
> time...
>   
At a store you are buying goods and the store has a return policy as 
well as the manufacturer.
>   
>>>> 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 I say I am going to provide service up to 12mbps with a 60GB/month
>> transfer cap and hold the customer to that I am providing EXACTLY THE
>> SERVICE I CLAIM.
>>     
>
> Only if you claim that 60GB/mo cap and don't bury it where nobody will see it.
>
>   
>> You will be hard pressed to find any ISP that does not have language
>> that either does not guarantee a speed or has some sort of monthly
>> transfer limit. If they didn't it wouldn't take much to put them out of
>> business.
>>     
>
> I'd much rather not be guaranteed the speed. Like I said, there's a difference 
> between not performing 12mbit all the time and suddenly coming to a halt at a 
> 60 GB marker. Basically, I want at least *some* connectivity for a full 
> month.
>
>   
>>>> 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?
>>>       
>> Are you trying to tell me that Time Warner can provide maximum bandwidth
>> (7Mbps) to each of their customers 24/7/365 on their network? Before you
>> say yes, keep in mind they have 7.3 million subscribers and then think
>> about what it would really take to provide those customers with even
>> 200kbps of bandwidth 24/7/365
>>     
>
> No, but they don't have stupid transfer limits either, nor do they block or 
> policy-deny servers. I imagine if every TW customer tried to pull 7mbps 24/7, 
> they'd all end up getting closer to 64kbps each, which is an acceptable 
> solution to an "up to 7mbit" plan.
>   
So at what point would this not be an acceptable solution? The 
difference between the two plans is who is in control of your crappy 
connection. If the bit cap method all control is in your hands. If you 
don't exceed the bit cap you get your speed.

In the other scenario you have no control over your speed, it is reliant 
on the behavior of your neighbors. If everyone on the block starts 
running bittorrent 24/7 sharing the latest DVD your connection is going 
to suck.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>
> <a href="http://mail.shwisp.net/spam/dspam.cgi?template=history&user=tetherow&retrain=spam&signatureID=16,469f7115240361182711961">!DSPAM:16,469f7115240361182711961!</a>
>
>
>