Cox: People Just LOVE Their TiVo Tuning Adapters > No way to really know how problematic they are

reply to Z80A

Re: No way to really know how problematic they are

High is a matter of opinion.

reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

Except when it comes to Comcast's rather high cap

Uh, I HAD their highest tier for awhile (not an entire month) and didn't use 250GB.

By my calculations of your calculations, then I have four and some hours of "use time" on my 12M connection. Or is that eight and some hours?

In either case, I'm not just pulling down, nonstop, data so I never actually come close to 250GB. I know people who do get over the cap, then are asked politely to back off or upgrade to biz class, and they've backed off rather than paying more money or switching providers. This particular bunch was using newsgroups, though there are definitely legitimate uses for 250GB of data in a month.

Your analogy is like me saying that my cell phone plan only has 500 minutes of usage per month, therefore it's a total ripoff and I should have someone's head and the government should regulate such horrible companies out of existence. Thing is, I've gone over my allotted minutes ONCE in the three or so years I've been with my cellular provider. Could I go through them in a little over four hours by holding a three-way call? Yep. Have I ever done such a thing? Nope.

Could I get unlimited service on the same carrier for a similar price to what I'm paying now, if I wanted to give up "unlimited" (1+ GB per month is what I've used at times...and I used 9GB or so on my Evo for the three weeks I had that) data on a smartphone? Yep, I could. Just like people with Comcast cable can switch to their uncapped DSL provider who offers service at a slower speed. Or they could move to business class.

If you don't like a service that a company provides *that* badly and the competition fixes the probem you're having with your current provider, vote with your wallet and move. When Comcast stops gaining broaband customers who would rather have 12 Mbps with a 250 GB cap than 3 Mbps with no cap...well, then they'll raise the cap or kill it altogether, citing miraculous advances in network awesomeness.

I would love to hear your explanation as to why Cox does not need any cap at all when fiber is near by. Does it change the state of the universe? Do bits somehow travel cheaper. Somehow I think you will dodge that one again.

This is how not so clever people try to distort and lie. Add a little of the truth into the lie. Cell phones have a massive bandwidth crunch, where as many wired systems are a self-induced super oversold cash grab, which is easily eliminated when competition arrives, IE - FIBER.

This is also a petty excuse, because one service does it, its ok for a completely different service to do it...Right....

So McDonals should offer an all-you-can-eat buffet for the price of their combo meal?

The analogy isn't stretched as far as you think. Broadband companies are for-profit entities. They'll do whatever they think will pull in the most revenue. If that means caps, then they'll tend to go that way. If it means killing caps, they'll tend to go that way. Believe it or not, despite their duopoly status, this isn't wrong. It just shows that someone hasn't had the guts to come up with something better.

Before you start railing about how coming out with something better is impossible, Chattanooga EPBFi is an excellent system, built in the face of Comcast and AT&T. Greenlight is an excellent system built in the face of TIme Warner Cable and CenturyLink. LUSFiber is an excellent system built in the face of Cox and AT&T. Oh, and on the private side NTS Communications' fiber projects (15/3, no caps or throttling) are excellent systems built in the face of Suddenlink and AT&T.

My point is that competition should solve the problem of halfway-decent caps, not two dozen people complaining. If it was five thousand plus people complaining, with news coverage and people threatening to drop service because their bills are now 2x higher then it becomes a PR nightmare for the corporation capping and they have to fix things, otherwise their competition will start advertising that they have no caps (e.g. Frontier vs. Time Warner Cable) and will start winning customers.

I'm all for muni fiber buildouts. I'm all for competitive carriers and breaking down regulation barriers to make them easier to start. However yakking about caps that don't even apply to you is a waste of everyone's time.

Understand my position?

reply to DataRiker

said by DataRiker:

said by iansltx:

Except when it comes to Comcast's rather high cap

250GB represents about 5 hours of use time on their highest tier.

Cox's highest bandwidth tier in our state has no caps. Funny when competing with fiber the technical necessity of caps vaporizes.