Cox → Re: [NV] Received email of a Cox Data Usage Notification

That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read on the internet, and that's saying something.

While I dislike service caps, and am for Network Neutrality, as a Cox subscriber you agreed to their Terms of Service - which outline data usage limitations.

The general idea behind data caps and limitations is a cheap business practice in order for an ISP to rake in more money. Period. When we first ordered Cox@Home (I believe it was called that back then), it was marketed as "unlimited internet" and it still should be. Bandwidth is cheap and there is no reason to have usage caps.

Oh, and please watch the personal attacks here on DSLR. In fact, I'd probably edit your comment to remove it if I was you - it's pretty immature. We aren't children around here.

The cost of Bandwith isn't the issue here. We are all on a shared medium (A Node/CMTS) That has capacity limits.

And yet, there always seems to be plenty when the market will support a higher tier.

yup. I am also looks forward to the DOCSIS 3.1 that supports higher bandwidth scaled as up to 10Gbits/2Gbits as it is in the development status.

EDIT: I shall replaces the two docsis 3.0 cable modems with a new a two docsis 3.1 cable modems when it comes out.

The point I'm trying to get across - why would they go crazy over a small amount? Doesn't make sense.. oopse, cents..

-Rob

I'm willing to bet all the money in my pocket versus all the money in your pocket that it's an automated system which automatically sends an alert once you go over the threshold.

Exactly. I remember when LUS fiber rolled out, their highest tier was offered uncapped.

Funny how they can offer faster speeds with no caps when competition is around.

You are right, but I don't know if all the cox markets are using this system atm. They do indeed have a system in place, where once you have reached or went over your bandwidth cap. A email is sent to your account letting you know. However if cox try's to use someone going over there cap limit by a small amount, as one of three strikes before kicking them off for a year. That would be really bad business practices on there part, because you shouldn't be getting rid of a customer. Unless they are really abusing the limits, or if they are causing bandwidth issue's for other's in there area.

Also the email you received, kind of pisses me off. How they mention upgrading to a faster tier. I am a ultimate tier customer, and there isn't a higher tier of residential services. As for going to a business class service, that a big no. Because then we are talking about a lot higher priced service, less speed, and high ETF, if you agree to a contract to lower monthly price a bit. I don't like these caps myself, and think cox has to start thinking about raising them. As this is no longer 2010, it's about to be 2013. So if cox wants to keep the caps, be a fair company to your customers, and offer extra bandwidth that is decently priced. Without forcing a customer to a business account, they don't want, or need any of the features a business account offers. Except no monthly caps, and sorry that's not enough to be forcing a customer to switch.

The whole capping thing is stupid, and I have a feeling it won't last, there's too much of a hurdle to get to the bandwidth meter (logging in twice.. for example) and when/if google launches their service in more (cox) cities, watch the caps go bye bye and the bandwidth go up.

It's due to lack of competition, while I'm not against Cox making a profit, I'm more for the little people because, the rates keep going up, soon the people won't be able to afford internet.

Cox has been really good to me and I do not mind paying for American jobs, and keeping them HERE. However, this little thing called a data cap churns my stomach.

-Rob

Totally agree! And what further 'churns our stomachs' is their double login PERIOD. Now we can't even login to web mail using anything but Opera (and that is a double login also) - see latest thread on the new insanity we are now dealing with.

I've seen several people mention a "double log in" which I don't understand. Can someone post a screen shot?

I go to webmail.cox.net (usually with Chrome) and it redirects to a log in page (East or West depending on my location and traffic). I log in and it takes me right to my inbox.

Yeah I simply click the sign in to webmail under find it fast on the main cox page. I sign in, then click on internet tool. Which takes a second to load, then click data usage. I use chrome myself, and never have to double login to reach my data usage meter.

Yes, same. Internet Tools are accessible on the left side, without exiting webmail or logging in again.

... for me.

Consider yourselves lucky... entered that address,
redirected to the east login, logged in and bang! registration page.
You probably never even saw that page... we'll post screen of it when we can.

This is really maddening...

There's plenty of examples of other countries were the ISP's typically do NOT cap bandwidth and they have no problem with all the supposed bandwidth "congestion" that we're always hearing about here - and yes, I'm talking about densely populated areas too, so please, I don't want to hear about how it's because we have so many more people. This is really all about money. If you had unlimited bandwidth you might get all your movie and TV needs satisfied online and cut your crappy cable television subscriptions, with their outdated and money-gouging tier system, along with a dozen taxes.

If you are interested in cutting your cable, though, or just have a little extra money to spend, then you can get what I consider a decent deal on a business account. I signed a contract for three years to get business internet at $99 a month, no taxes.

It's no such thing. All ISP's oversubscribe their bandwidth, anywhere between 10:1 to 50:1 is common depending on the level of service they provide to most customers (ISPs that provide lower bandwidth connections tend to go with a higher oversubscription ratio.) The reason they do this is because nobody uses their whole pipe continuously 24/7. If they were to buy enough bandwidth to not oversubscribe, it would cost a LOT more, and you'd be paying more as a result.

This works because most people don't have their internet connection at full throttle 24/7.

Truth be told, if you must do that, then you're subscribing to the wrong service. What you're looking at doing is more in-line with what a business might need if they are hosting their own services. This is why cox's business services cost more, because that level of service is intended for what you are doing. So if you must do that, switch to their business tier.

Compare it to having a LAN where on one side of your network, you have 5 computers connected to a switch, that switch has a single trunk port to another switch, and that other switch has another 5 computers. With this setup, you are working under the assumption that those computers won't all be going across the trunk at full throttle all the time.

But what if that does end up happening? Well, you're going to have to replace both switches with more expensive ones that support port channel, and then you're going to have to pay (with either your time or somebody else's time) to run additional wiring between those switches.

Realistically though, such a scenario will probably never happen.

In the case of an ISP, sometimes you end up with people who assume that because they are given a 30mbit pipe, that means they can run it at full throttle 24/7. It doesn't work that way for an ISP any more than it would work for the situation I described above. If you intended on adding port channel, you'll pay for it. Only in the case of a WAN, it's not so simple. When you need more bandwidth, you have to pay for more bandwidth. Likewise, when an ISP needs more bandwidth because you need more bandwidth, they have to do the same thing.

It doesn't stop there though. If you eat up that bandwidth in your node, then it might be necessary for them to do a node split. But why would they pay several thousand dollars for a node split just to accommodate maybe 5 people when a node split is otherwise completely unnecessary? It makes more business sense to just tell those people to get another ISP. Your ISP isn't a charity. They're in it to make money just as you do work at your job to make money.

Now you mention cox@home, well if you remember, in the early cox@home days you often had very unreliable service in most areas. They did a really miserable job at managing network resources. Needless to say, that changed.

Complaining to the FTC or the FCC won't do you any good. Any competent network engineer will explain what I just did above, and they'll basically ignore you.

that is exectly correct. Well said! who anyone thinks that cap is bad business practice things then complains to the FCC or FTC in this matters won't do any good at all. that's why i am paying a more for two premier tier lines. that is pure and simple.

EDIT: who complains about bandwidth hogs on the node unit, it is more costly to make a necessary splitting the node up that is makes a sense.

however, with DOCSIS 3.0 and above that have more channels that makes splitting unnecssary to save the thousands of dollars.