A few years ago Cox Communications clarified that the company imposes what they call "soft" usage caps, which may or may not be enforced depending on the market. Each market is broken down here, with the caps varying depending on where you live and what the local network can handle. Users in our forums note that Cox has bumped the caps on a few of the company's tiers -- ever so slightly. Previously, Cox featured caps of 30 GB, 50, 200, 250 and 400 on their Starter, Essential, Preferred, Premiere and Ultimate tiers, respectively. The Starter tier has since seen its cap bumped to 50 GB, Essential is 100 GB, Preferred is 250, and Premier is now 300 GB. The nudge comes just as cable's top lobbyist Michael Powell admits that such caps aren't actually about congestion.
So consumers can do what they want like consume as much video as they want even if it is in the 500GB range every month without having to worry about Cox performing anti-competitive tactics like throttling, disconnecting or over charging a consumer that really has no choice in whom they use for their ISP?
2013-Feb-21 12:12 pm: ·
skeechan Ai Otsukaholic Premium join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 kudos:2
Well then they can do it without having a tap in my front yard unless they want to lease the dirt. I'll do it for a mere $250 a month.
If they want to use other people's private property, or public property, they can follow some simple rules including not abusing their market position to promote their own service at the detriment of competing services like 3rd party video providers.
But for now, Cox isn't enforcing caps in my area. I did over 600GB last month.
2013-Feb-21 12:41 pm: ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
Yep. Good thing is, it's their business and they can do whatever they want to, just as consumers can do whatever they want to.
Funny. I can't do anything I want to with my ISP options. So, no. Keep up the shilling, tho. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
its all about money and keeping the video all to themselves. they don't want Netflix or any other video streaming taking over
If that was true the caps would be closer to what the wireless guys have. You can get a lot of video over 300G. Cord cutting/shaving seems to be working just fine and Netflix continues to grow their business. Most of the public data shows usage is WAY below caps even with heavy users.
These Caps are all going away and very soon when the Content Providers start feeling the Pinch and Companys like MicroSoft and Apple start feeling the Pinch from these Greedy ISP's watch how fast these caps disappear.
there is no business model justification for wired caps on broadband. through thick and thin, cable companies never "LOST" money providing telecom and video services alongside broadband. therefore caps should be illegal. most smaller cable companies compete against AT&T or CenturyTel-- not Verizon. For clarity purposes, that is ZERO competition because they offer 1990s style dsl at very high prices. Docsis 2 (LAST GENERATION-- most companies already have docsis 3 deployed) max spectrum is at least 5 megabits higher than the latest Vdsl2 where the lines QUALIFY. Also, it's a crime to deploy fiber optic lines within the last mile and not just deploy it to the premise.. the cost really isn't that much higher based on how close they have to get the additional cost of 5000 feet of fiber on a per customer basis is negligible.
the cost is not the fiber itself, its the hardware to convert from fiber back to something your home electronics can actually use. that's the cost. figure that times a neighborhood of about 1000 homes. that is where the cost is