|
to bryant313
Re: [ALL] Cox Annual Speed UpgradeYes, Cox has upgraded my Ultimate from 55Mbps down / 5Mbps up to 180Mbps down 30Mbps up. VERY happy |
|
Smith5 Premium Member join:2000-07-13 |
to kenacon
Do you have a home Wi-Fi network with a dual-band wireless router connected? If so, do you have an iPhone 5 or an iPad 4? If you have those, I'm curious what kind of speeds your getting on the 5 Ghz band (using the SPEEDTEST.NET app).
I'm not able to test my iPhone or iPad with the new Ultimate speeds. Because, Cox in Henderson isn't able to provide Ultimate speeds at my apartment.
I would like to know how fast the download speeds are, on the Apple devices, with the new Ultimate speeds. |
|
|
Dougshell
Anon
2013-Feb-17 6:14 pm
Hey i know this seems a bit silly, but can anyone tell me how to see how many channels i have bonded. I show channels 5,6,7,8 so is that safe to say that i am 8 channels down? |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Feb-17 8:42 pm
Yes. |
|
|
|
Why they upgraded those speed to only some areas? but not Socal? |
|
Smith5 Premium Member join:2000-07-13 |
Smith5
Premium Member
2013-Jun-17 9:16 am
Update: I was wrong. It wasn't Cox's fault for the slow speeds, but the cheap ($500) HP laptop I was using. Sorry Cox!
Now, I'm getting over 190 Mbps download speeds with my new MacBook Air. And, over 90 Mbps with my iPhone 5. |
|
ajwees41 Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Omaha, NE |
to Dougshell
said by Dougshell :Hey i know this seems a bit silly, but can anyone tell me how to see how many channels i have bonded. I show channels 5,6,7,8 so is that safe to say that i am 8 channels down? that's only 4 channels not 8 |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
to bryant313
Still waiting and rotting in SoCal. WTF? |
|
|
Yup still no upgrades yet. Could be until early 2014, or there 's no upgrade at all. It's all just a rumor after all. |
|
|
I know effort was being given to where it was most needed. The D3 fairy paid the Roanoke market a visit last night, new speeds available |
|
·AT&T FTTP
|
Is that what the holdup is? You need to get those fairies some plane tickets. Everyone knows the the air-speed velocity of an unladen fairy is already much lower than a commercial jet. Imagine that poor fairy trying to carry all the upgrade hardware as well.
If this about not wanting to pay for the extra checked baggage, Cox just needs to suck it up. Everyone knows that's just a cost of doing business. |
|
|
to CoxTech1
said by CoxTech1:I know effort was being given to where it was most needed. The D3 fairy paid the Roanoke market a visit last night, new speeds available Chris, you know damn well these cox customers in the CA market, could give a damn less what is happening in the VA Roanoke market. Just like customers in our market of HR could care less. But seeing changes like this in the smaller VA market's like Roanoke, and not happen here yet blows my mind. As I was pretty much right on top of knowing all the D3 upgrades that have happen here. Yet with a good amount of time that has passed, still nothing has changed for customer's below ultimate tier in the HR market. |
|
1 recommendation |
I don't know about the rest of you, but I love paying the same amount as other markets and getting 1/3 of the speed or less. |
|
JmGx join:2003-04-08 San Diego, CA |
JmGx
Member
2013-Jul-17 2:23 pm
said by skaforey:I don't know about the rest of you, but I love paying the same amount as other markets and getting 1/3 of the speed or less. This, lol ;(. |
|
OldGeek join:2013-04-12 Encinitas, CA |
to skaforey
said by skaforey:I don't know about the rest of you, but I love paying the same amount as other markets and getting 1/3 of the speed or less. I agree. It's rewarding to know better service is going to those who are obviously in more need/worthy than I....at my expense. Makes me feel like I'm really making a difference. Hmmm....I wonder if I could get my gas station to charge me $4/gallon and only give me a quart....now THAT would feel good! /sarcasm |
|
|
to skaforey
A lot of times this isn't necessarily the fault of Cox (or whatever ISP). In some cities, particularly the more liberal ones, you're often under heavier burden from city ordinances, taxes, etc, that aren't items that can be itemized to the customer. The city governments can and do stick it to the ISP's ass when it comes to laying infrastructure, which will either A) Raise the price B) Make upgrades take longer or C) Both.
If anybody pays attention to Google fiber's rollouts, you can note how they picked the cities with the fewest legislative burdens. KC, it turns out, was by far the most open when it came to allowing deployment.
You can also end up in situations where the city politicians are corrupt and grant favors to incumbent providers - though this is often difficult if not impossible to prove.
In addition to all of the above, you also have unions and tight labor laws to deal with in some areas that make deployments more expensive. Sort of a strange value we all hold on this sort of thing - we don't like it when companies have monopolies on products or services, but we like it when labor unions have monopolies on the supply of labor. Can't have it both ways though - you as the end user ultimately pay those wages. |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Jul-18 5:35 am
This is not new deployment. |
|
|
to bryant313
I haven't seen any down speed increases in connecticut for a couple years now, but upload has certainly improved, right now bonding 4 upstream channels. |
|
|
to skeechan
You don't get it man. It's the local liberal governments and unions lol. I would be it has more to do with local competition rather than dealing with local governments. What incentive is there for Cox to give speed upgrades if there is no competition in the market? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the prices increase for all markets at the same time earlier this year. I don't even mind Cox bumping the price up a couple of bucks to recoup hardware, upgrading the network, etc but I think they shouldn't have passed those prices down to the consumers until after the upgrade had finished. I've been paying the same for close to 6 months now for an inferior product and to me that means they don't value me as much. It also has to do with the fact that the vast majority of their consumers have no idea they are getting speed upgrades. I'm pretty sure if Cox was getting hammered everyday from people threatening to leave their service and questioning where the speed upgrades are we would be able to get better dates rather than "soon" and better explanations rather than this is hard. |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Jul-18 10:19 am
I agree...I should not be paying $100 per month for 1/3 the speed. They should eliminate the do the do the tier rename and sell me the 50Mb service I am getting for the price they are charging for it in other markets. But alas they don't have to since I will NEVER switch U-Verse...ever. I'd rather go with WiMax. |
|
1 edit |
to nola504
said by nola504:You don't get it man. It's the local liberal governments and unions lol. I would be it has more to do with local competition rather than dealing with local governments. What incentive is there for Cox to give speed upgrades if there is no competition in the market? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the prices increase for all markets at the same time earlier this year. I don't even mind Cox bumping the price up a couple of bucks to recoup hardware, upgrading the network, etc but I think they shouldn't have passed those prices down to the consumers until after the upgrade had finished. I've been paying the same for close to 6 months now for an inferior product and to me that means they don't value me as much. It also has to do with the fact that the vast majority of their consumers have no idea they are getting speed upgrades. I'm pretty sure if Cox was getting hammered everyday from people threatening to leave their service and questioning where the speed upgrades are we would be able to get better dates rather than "soon" and better explanations rather than this is hard. In Arizona, Cox's only competition is CenturyLink. Let me tell you right now - that isn't even competition. In most of the valley, the fastest speed they offer is around 12mbit, they have no video services, they require a 2 year contract for just about everything they offer, latency and jitter are crap, customer service is horrible (as a network engineer, I've had the misfortune of dealing with their business services all too often, and it sucks miserably - I've even had their CS people themselves admit to me that it sucks) and last but not least, the price isn't very good either. With cox I currently pay $32 a month for a 50/10 pipe for my home internet connection, and I just cut the cord so that price doesn't stipulate buying video or phone with it. In fact, my total bill to Cox every month is just $32 exactly. After January 2014 my bill goes to $64 a month, which is still a pretty good deal relatively speaking, but at that time I'll be able to negotiate another similar deal to the one I already have (maybe not quite as good, but still good.) Or I'll be able to do ultimate with a 150/30 pipe at $70 a month. So yeah, clearly competition is required to get a good deal on anything. Or you could take the word for it from somebody who actually understands broadband deployment that competition doesn't dictate how well the infrastructure is built. Lots of stuff goes into it - customer demand and deployment costs being huge factors. It costs more to deploy broadband services in some areas than it does in others, and those cost differences almost always come down to city ordinances and labor rates. said by skeechan:This is not new deployment. No shit. Sure, the coax running from 20 years ago is ok for the last few feet from the CMTS to your house, but the fiber links that run between there and the head end don't just magically acquire more bandwidth over time, nor do they get to sit underground or run alongside the grid for free. |
|
|
quote: No shit.
Sure, the coax running from 20 years ago is ok for the last few feet from the CMTS to your house, but the fiber links that run between there and the head end don't just magically acquire more bandwidth over time, nor do they get to sit underground or run alongside the grid for free.
Please if you are going to quote me do it on my actual statements and not someone else. I never said that competition dictated how well the infrastructure was built. My point is that if there is no competition what incentive would there be to upgrade the infrastructure as quickly than in another market with competition. I'll be honest and say I don't know much about local competition in other markets and frankly don't care about those. I can only speak from my experiences in my areas. For instance, in Lafayette, Louisisana there is LUS Fiber which offers competitive rates and quality to Cox. Go figure that they were able to receive their upgrades months earlier than me in New Orleans. Please, you are telling me their network was in so much better shape than our network. Which brings me to my earlier point that if that is the case, I want Cox to explain that and how they are improving it to increase their service. Also if different markets local deployment cost are so varied, how was Cox able to estimate a blanket $3/month increase across the board. They must have some good bean counting estimators. Too bad they weren't able to help estimate their deployment schedule as well. I don't want to come across like others on this forum who just don't like Cox no matter what. I really enjoy their service and have had it for almost 10 years now. I just want them to better communicate to their consumers their plans and not pass on additional cost until the job is finished. Why should I pay the same amount as someone in Arkansas or wherever for a inferior product? If each market had their own pricing I could understand, but unless I'm mistaken most seem to have the same packages as far as cost. |
|
|
said by nola504:Please if you are going to quote me do it on my actual statements and not someone else. Editing mistake, apologies. said by nola504:My point is that if there is no competition what incentive would there be to upgrade the infrastructure as quickly than in another market with competition. Plenty, really. It justifies rate increases for one. In Arizona, there hasn't been any need to catch up with Clink as they've already been ahead for a long time, yet they continue to upgrade anyways. said by nola504:Which brings me to my earlier point that if that is the case, I want Cox to explain that and how they are improving it to increase their service. I think if you read these forums with any frequency, you'd note that many of the cox employees are tight lipped about what the status of their network upgrades are. One of them mentioned something to the effect of talking about future deployments being a terminable offense. There's generally a good reason for this. If you've ever participated in any software projects, or provided any kind of service or done anything that has a build and development time, even when the work you do is for free, you often want to be careful about discussing what is coming down the pipe. All too often projects can get ruined by promising things to come, and then falling short of the goals when either they can't be met in a timely fashion, or can't be met at all. Emphasis again this even happens with projects that are done for free. Look how world of warcraft players react when promised features don't make it. I remember their lead developer saying he had to learn to talk carefully like a politician because it's so easy for people to misinterpret his words. said by nola504:Also if different markets local deployment cost are so varied, how was Cox able to estimate a blanket $3/month increase across the board. They must have some good bean counting estimators. I'd imagine. said by nola504:Too bad they weren't able to help estimate their deployment schedule as well. You know what they say: Shit happens. said by nola504:I don't want to come across like others on this forum who just don't like Cox no matter what. I really enjoy their service and have had it for almost 10 years now. I just want them to better communicate to their consumers their plans and not pass on additional cost until the job is finished. Why should I pay the same amount as someone in Arkansas or wherever for a inferior product? If each market had their own pricing I could understand, but unless I'm mistaken most seem to have the same packages as far as cost. Did you know that a big mac in NY costs more than a big mac in AR? Exact same big mac made to the exact same spec. It's true. |
|
2 edits |
Rakeesh, All fair points. quote: I think if you read these forums with any frequency, you'd note that many of the cox employees are tight lipped about what the status of their network upgrades are. One of them mentioned something to the effect of talking about future deployments being a terminable offense.
I didn't actually mean the foot soliders but upper management. I could understand before they started upgrading their speeds to not spill the beans, but at this point all of their competitors in their respective markets know the upgrades are coming. They should be able to reasonable forecast schedules. I'm an engineer and we always forecast and estimate with many variables. You always give yourself cya (cover your __) time. I would love to be able to tell my clients it will be done "soon". quote: Did you know that a big mac in NY costs more than a big mac in AR? Exact same big mac made to the exact same spec. It's true.
I understand your point and realize this local cost issue, but what Cox is selling me is not the same specs at a different price? I'm paying ~$68/month for premier with 25 Mbps Down here in New Orleans while someone in Omaha is getting 50 Mbps Down for ~$68/month. Now if they were selling us both 25 Mbps Down with $70/month for New Orleans and $50/month for Omaha, I could understand the same analogy. I realize it's all semantics but I understand your point. |
|
|
Rakeesh
Member
2013-Jul-19 12:59 am
said by nola504:They should be able to reasonable forecast schedules. I'm an engineer and we always forecast and estimate with many variables. You always give yourself cya (cover your __) time. I would love to be able to tell my clients it will be done "soon". I promise you they do that, but they keep it internal for many very good reasons. said by nola504:I understand your point and realize this local cost issue, but what Cox is selling me is not the same specs at a different price? I'm paying ~$68/month for premier with 25 Mbps Down here in New Orleans while someone in Omaha is getting 50 Mbps Down for ~$68/month. Now if they were selling us both 25 Mbps Down with $70/month for New Orleans and $50/month for Omaha, I could understand the same analogy. I realize it's all semantics but I understand your point. Remember, Cox has bills to pay too. They have to pay their ISP, and they have to pay their employees. It's possible they can't afford to have higher speed links there. I'd imagine New Orleans being partially under sea level could play into it as well. |
|
ARRIS SB8200 Asus RT-AX58
|
to CoxTech1
said by CoxTech1:I know effort was being given to where it was most needed. The D3 fairy paid the Roanoke market a visit last night, new speeds available I love how you ignore us all here in SoCal and pretend we don't exist. |
|
|
said by DarkFlow:I love how you ignore us all here in SoCal and pretend we don't exist. I think if they wanted to ignore socal they'd probably try to sell that market to another cable company. |
|
|
to Rakeesh
quote: I promise you they do that, but they keep it internal for many very good reasons.
To me that means they aren't confident in their estimate. As far as the markets that haven't received the upgrade yet, we may never get the upgrade. At this point, I'm not sure if Cox is willing to say the year it's coming. As a company, you can't raise our rates without any increase in service, tell us an upgrade is coming "soon" to help fund this upgrade, and then expect us not to become frustrated when no timeframe is set for the upgrade to take affect. None, not a single timeframe. At least tell us Q4 2013 or something. Their competitors know they are doing this so it won't be a surprise either way. Ha ha got you U-Verse you didn't expect this to happen when they roll it out sneak attack style on Oct 1 or whatever. It's not the other companies aren't on notice and planning their own upgrades. |
|
|
to DarkFlow
said by DarkFlow:said by CoxTech1:I know effort was being given to where it was most needed. The D3 fairy paid the Roanoke market a visit last night, new speeds available I love how you ignore us all here in SoCal and pretend we don't exist. Patience, you're not being ignored. |
|
|
to bryant313
If you have ever worked with Telco providers you know that install dates for data line NEVER happen on time. I have had a T3 that was installed 7 months after the promised install date. There was nothing we could do we just had to wait. Even simple T1's were a month or two late in getting installed. When we use to own North American Internet here in Connecticut we NEVER paid for an install of a data line as the Telco never installed the line on time. I wonder how much in install fees the phone company lost over those years just from us alone. I am upgrading to Ultimate this weekend, not because I need faster speeds, but because my teen age son is into making (and watching) a lot of Mindcraft videos, and last month for the first time we went over our bandwidth cap. But now with the talk of speed increases coming I am excited, especially since the past few nights my internet has gone down at around 2am and has come up at 4am and now my modem is bonding to 8 downstream channels and 4 upstream channels. If COX boosts ultimate here in CT like they have in Rhode Island then I am going to be a very happy guy. |
|