daslog
join:2002-04-10
Milford, NH | Until this gets mainstream press.... Like USA today, CNN(haha) or the NY times, their policy of invisible caps is unlikely to change. That being said, I warn everyone that I know with Comcast to keep it under 100 gigs.
Also, it would be nice for them to provide a Bandwidth meter on their website. |
|
| OK 100 gigs beats Cox with their 40 gigs down/ 10 gigs up per month cap. What a ****ing joke!  |
|
 RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA | At least you know what the cap is even if Cox rarely enforces it. |
|
 intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | reply to nicecaps
how did you discover that cap? I'm not aware of such low cox caps. |
|
RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA
1 edit | »www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp
You aren't aware of it because it's rarely if ever enforced. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Bright House
| reply to daslog
said by daslog:Like USA today, CNN(haha) or the NY times, their policy of invisible caps is unlikely to change. That being said, I warn everyone that I know with Comcast to keep it under 100 gigs. Also, it would be nice for them to provide a Bandwidth meter on their website. Yeah, a bandwidth meter would be nice, but the caps are "floating" caps, and all depend on your area, and the over all usage patterns for the specific node you're on. I download a ton, and have yet to receive a letter, or warning. I am glad they don't have "specific" caps, because then I would be restricted to a specific limit, and thats not cool. I'm sorry if you'd like it that way because you got kicked off for using it too much, but thats your problem. If there were specific caps, nobody would be happy. At least without caps you can keep going until you're warned... If the restriction bothers you, it's THEIR network, go somewhere else if you need more. I can't understand why you EXPECT a company who is known for shutting people off for "using it too much" has to keep being brought into the spotlight. Repetitive news clips about issues that aren't going to change is the reason I read more news from DIGG. We are getting to the point with this topic where we're "beating a dead horse". They aren't going to change their acceptable use policy for less than 2% of their customer base. This is the nations largest broadband ISP we're talking about here. Why would they change if it's not killing business? If it really mattered, people would jump ship left and right. 
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to RideRed
Caps need to be published for competitive reasons Yeah, if everyone published their caps then it can be used as a point of competition in advertising. The way it is now, companies don't like to discuss it, because all of them would like to not compete on this. When they do, caps necessarily match the highest competitor.
Here are the things I can think of that can be competed on:
price
average uptime (95% is probably fine for homes)
downstream bandwidth
upstream bandwidth
download cap
upload cap
average latency
customer service |
|
2 edits | reply to RideRed
Re: Until this gets mainstream press.... Yes, i have Cox and regularly download in excess of 200 + gigs
(usually linux iso's on Bit torrent )
I should also mention i have done this for about 5 years now |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to axus
Re: Caps need to be published for competitive reasons Generally agree. But if providers not only published their caps but also had a 'your bandwidth usage this month' meters, you know many folks would push it to the bare limit. Providers may pick a random number, say 10gb, to trigger a warning but that doesn't mean that everyone doing 9.9gb is ok...
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to Nintendo
Re: Until this gets mainstream press.... quote:
Yes, i have Cox and regularly download in excess of 200 + gigs
(usually linux iso's on Bit torrent )
How many linux ISOs can you possibly need? Even if you wanted to try a new distro every week you shouldn't be pulling 200GB/month.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by djrobx: quote:
Yes, i have Cox and regularly download in excess of 200 + gigs
(usually linux iso's on Bit torrent )
How many linux ISOs can you possibly need? Even if you wanted to try a new distro every week you shouldn't be pulling 200GB/month. Linux ISOs on bittorent, the only PC, non-copy vio thing you can do on Bittorrent  |
|
3 edits | well, I usually keep the bit torrent client on so one Iso will transfer 20 + gigs total for each one
and just in case you are not aware there are a lot of distributions out there 4+ gigs in size
Also in case you are not aware many security distributions used for penetration testing are updated almost weekly, with no update ability (for testing purposes). Agian this is just one example |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to KoolMoe
Re: Caps need to be published for competitive reasons said by KoolMoe:Generally agree. But if providers not only published their caps but also had a 'your bandwidth usage this month' meters, you know many folks would push it to the bare limit. The people who would push it to the limit would only be the ones currently pushing it beyond the limit.
If you only surf, download say 2-3 gigs a month, then why would you suddenly go on a tear and "push it to the limit" if they told you the cap was 50 gigs a month?
I suspect providing the tools would allow people more control over their usage and would enable competition. I think this is the real reason they don't want to reveal the "invisible" caps.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
 FutureMonIs voting for ObamaPremium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Long Beach, CA | reply to axus
said by axus:average uptime (95% is probably fine for homes) Unless my math is on crack, at 24 hours per day, 31 days per month, 95% uptime guarantee also meaning the equivalent of a 5% loss, would be an approximate downtime of up to 37 hours per month.
Nowhere near acceptable to me.
I just wanted to pick on that one point.
- FM
--
Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! Care to challenge me? |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to inteller
Re: Until this gets mainstream press.... said by inteller:how did you discover that cap? I'm not aware of such low cox caps. its on the cox website
Value - 4gb down, 1gb up
preferred - 40gb down, 10gb up
premiere - 60gb down, 12.5gb up
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
 CjaicemanPremium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
kudos:2
·Comcast Business..
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:said by djrobx: quote:
Yes, i have Cox and regularly download in excess of 200 + gigs
(usually linux iso's on Bit torrent )
How many linux ISOs can you possibly need? Even if you wanted to try a new distro every week you shouldn't be pulling 200GB/month. Linux ISOs on bittorent, the only PC, non-copy vio thing you can do on Bittorrent Yes and no, don't forget about the WOW updates that use the BT protocol. While you don't use a standard client, you do use BT to download them, which sucks majorly for people that have an ISP that throttles BT traffic.
But, that is just my 2 cents. Like anybody cares...  |
|
