Cox Launches Their Own Home Security Product Home Monitoring, Security for $30-$40 a Month Thursday Jan 24 2013 14:46 EDT Cox Communications is the latest to jump into the home security and home automation game, following on the heels of similar efforts by AT&T and Comcast. According to Cox, their new Cox Home Security platform is launching first in their flagship markets (read: most profitable) in Northern Virginia. "The technology offers a number of advanced features including email/text alert notifications (can be set to send alerts whenever a door opens for instance, so could notify you when kids arrive home from school)," Cox spokesperson Jessica Carver tells Broadband Reports. "It also features video monitoring remotely via smart phone, tablet or web browser so you can see what your video cameras are seeing 24/7. " There's two pricing options for the service: Essential: Offers users basic home security and monitoring services for $30 a month. Preferred: Offers users basic home security and monitoring, in addition to smoke and heat detection, water and carbon monoxide monitoring, and light and thermostat controls for $40 a month. There's a $100 installation fee for both tiers, and if Cox follows in the footsteps of Comcast there's usually a fairly steep early termination fee attached to these services (though I'm not seeing it mentioned on the Cox website). ISPs have been dreaming of entering the home security and automation services market for years, though success on this front has been minimal courtesy of the recession and the continued real estate slump. |
 MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4 |
Canadian prices seem to be cheaper - for onceRogers, in Canada, has been offering this for about a year. Looks like the same product. » www.rogers.com/web/conte ··· dPricing | |
| silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Jan-24 3:07 pm
Nice...Not a bad service, but the cost is outrageous. | |
|  |  JeepMattC'mon the U
Premium Member
join:2001-12-28
Seattle, WA
kudos:3 ·Xfinity
|
JeepMatt
Premium Member
2013-Jan-24 4:13 pm
Re: Nice...Cost outrageous? Compared to what?
I've had Comcast's product since summer. It's cheaper than my old ADT service that offered nothing but a number pad - and I now can monitor video, pictures, turn on/off lights, etc - all for $40/month.
From that picture - looks like Cox will use the same Gateway.
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!" | |
| | |  Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:6 |
Gone
Premium Member
2013-Jan-24 4:24 pm
Re: Nice...said by JeepMatt:Cost outrageous? Compared to what? The exact same thing has been offered by Canadian cable companies for a while now and it's quite a bit cheaper. I'm surprised, because it's usually the opposite. Then again, the home security market up here seems to be a lot more competitive than it is in the US. Constant TV commercials for it on Canadian TV channels, etc. | |
|
| |
Inaccurate terminology"Monitoring", yes... "security", no (unless you have a link-up to a security company or police so that they'll be dispatched for "alarms" --especially for that price).
Hmmm, what else could it be used for? ...oh, yeah! letting anyone else tap into the system (snoops, hacking, warrant[less], whatever) ...yum!
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
| | |
RogerRR
Anon
2013-Jan-24 3:15 pm
What?Who pays for that?
It should be perhaps one time setup fee. Customers already paying for internet used for monitoring.
Nothing else than milking people on the monthly basis. | |
| | |
Will the installers / contractor have better background cheeWill the installers / contractors have better background cheeks? You don't want this to happen again » consumerist.com/2011/10/ ··· eir-son/ | |
| | | |
Lino
Anon
2013-Jan-24 6:52 pm
Re: Will the installers / contractor have better background cheeI know that in Louisiana (and several other states) to perform work as a Security Technician you do need to pass a criminal history background check. It is usually through the Office of the State Fire Marshal. | |
|
| |
iControlThe company behind these security and home management solutions that the cable companies are offering is an outfit called iControl. Time Warner had their ‘Intelligent Home’ service up and running for about a year now, Comcast came aboard about six months prior, Brighthouse starting offering it last Spring and now Cox has it. » www.icontrol.com/ | |
|  XANAVirus
Premium Member
join:2012-03-03
Lavalette, WV |
No deal.Even if I were a customer of Cox (well, Suddenlink's got the same idea, offering their own service) I wouldn't take them up on this offer.
It's a data grab, that's what this is. I wouldn't let my *ISP* touch my home, at least where automation and security are involved.
Leave home security to the businesses whose entire product is this service.
An ISP should be a pipe to the Internet, not a complete home monitoring system. There's no potential for this, especially given its convenience factor (which is what they're banking on and selling the commercials about).
I have no need or want to remotely control my lights, nor do I need the ability to monitor video remotely either.
Besides, remotely-controlled lights and video feed monitoring do not a security system make.
Think of the exploitation potential!
People taking over the home video feed, watching and recording the times you're at home in order to plan when they break in to steal your stuff or kidnap your kids or you.
People remotely turning off your lights while you're at home. People remotely accessing the video feed to watch all sorts of acts being done in your home, with you as the actor for them as the audience.
Oh sure, maybe Cox (or insert-ISP-here) will secure their system using some sort of proprietary system you can't just access from a web browser -- but knowing people, convenience trumps security, so they'll probably set it up on unsecured HTTP with no authentication or something.
And finally, the grand finale, making a mobile app!
Sure, it'll definitely require a username and password, but most people don't adequately password-protect their phones anyway (figuring they'll always have it with them or if it did get found that someone would be able to use it to reach them on a house phone to give it back).
Who's to say the inevitable mobile app for this service won't just communicate in plain text over insecure HTTP or something, or store the credentials on the phone in a reversible from in plain text somewhere - then the potential attacker-person can just install the app onto their phone and use it whenever to monitor everything that goes on.
And so, for these reasons I wouldn't touch this service with a ten-foot pole (or Suddenlink's, or anybody's).
Plus, why would you want to give even more money to your ISP, for a service you don't need? | |
| |  cork1958Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26 |
cork1958
Premium Member
2013-Jan-25 6:58 am
Re: No deal.said by XANAVirus:Even if I were a customer of Cox (well, Suddenlink's got the same idea, offering their own service) I wouldn't take them up on this offer.
It's a data grab, that's what this is. I wouldn't let my *ISP* touch my home, at least where automation and security are involved.
Leave home security to the businesses whose entire product is this service.
An ISP should be a pipe to the Internet, not a complete home monitoring system. There's no potential for this, especially given its convenience factor (which is what they're banking on and selling the commercials about).
I have no need or want to remotely control my lights, nor do I need the ability to monitor video remotely either.
Besides, remotely-controlled lights and video feed monitoring do not a security system make.
Think of the exploitation potential!
People taking over the home video feed, watching and recording the times you're at home in order to plan when they break in to steal your stuff or kidnap your kids or you.
People remotely turning off your lights while you're at home. People remotely accessing the video feed to watch all sorts of acts being done in your home, with you as the actor for them as the audience.
Oh sure, maybe Cox (or insert-ISP-here) will secure their system using some sort of proprietary system you can't just access from a web browser -- but knowing people, convenience trumps security, so they'll probably set it up on unsecured HTTP with no authentication or something.
And finally, the grand finale, making a mobile app!
Sure, it'll definitely require a username and password, but most people don't adequately password-protect their phones anyway (figuring they'll always have it with them or if it did get found that someone would be able to use it to reach them on a house phone to give it back).
Who's to say the inevitable mobile app for this service won't just communicate in plain text over insecure HTTP or something, or store the credentials on the phone in a reversible from in plain text somewhere - then the potential attacker-person can just install the app onto their phone and use it whenever to monitor everything that goes on.
And so, for these reasons I wouldn't touch this service with a ten-foot pole (or Suddenlink's, or anybody's).
Plus, why would you want to give even more money to your ISP, for a service you don't need?
I am probably one of the very few that will agree with you here!! Can't believe you even thought about the "inevitable" happening!! Who thinks about that stuff? Let's just live for the moment!! Don't know if Charter has this (or thinking about it) but if they do, I SURE AS HECK WOULD NOT let them monitor anything of mine! Yeah, they are my ISP and are monitoring some of my stuff, I'm sure, but that one can't be helped if I want HSI. --
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects ··· amonkey/ | |
|
 stevek1949We're not in Kansas anymore
Premium Member
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA |
Posted two days ago | |
| | |
Kara
Anon
2013-Jan-25 11:39 am
outages and no security duhMost people don't get it when cable outage on the node and internet or phone don't work and long power outages too. Battery backup only goes so far and cable outage it not going work anyway. Same as AT&T Uverse look at the past week.... | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
·
