Cox Expands 50 Mbps Availability Now pushing tiers into Arkansas and Kansas Several users have written in to note that Cox continues to expand the availability of their 50 Mbps down, 5 Mbps up "Ultimate Internet" tier. Like other cable operators, Cox is pushing the faster DOCSIS-3.0 based service into markets where they face competition from faster services like AT&T's U-Verse or Verizon FiOS. The company has now expanded the $99 monthly tier into parts of Kansas and Arkansas. The service, already launched in parts of Rhode Island, Arizona, Northern Virginia, and Lafayette, Louisiana, varies by price depending on the level of local competition. In Lafayette, Louisiana -- where Cox competes with a municipally built fiber operation (and symmetrical 10-50 Mbps service), the price for Cox's 50 Mbps tier has dropped as low as $90 a month.
|
 iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Who are they competing with? Windstream?
Also, is $99 their new price point for 50/5 service? not complaining, but it used to be $140 or so in some areas. | |
|  | | | Re: Who are they competing with? It's usually different depending on local competition. $90 in Lafayette, $110 elsewhere. Not sure if it tops out at $140 anywhere. | |
| | | | their primary target is u verse in Kansas and Arkansas. | |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
 ·Cox HSI
| Come on Cox...where is the love for OC Still waiting for DOCSIS 3 in Orange County. I had some hope when I saw a post that someone in San Clemente had DOCSIS 3 but that was months ago.
The Quik bunny said patience is a virtue but screw that, Yoda sees 100Mb PB in Kansas while I slum it at 30 
--
"Our goal (was to make) a billion phones Flash-enabled by 2010...We're actually going to get 1 billion Flash-enabled phones by 2009." -Adobe Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch in Nov 2008. | |
| |  Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: Come on Cox...where is the love for OC When oh when is Cox going to take over Time Warner? Sheesh stuck with lousy speeds and Cox users are slammed out 50 Mbps... Someday.... Someday...
--
Lampwrights.com | |
| | |  Xizer
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY | Re: Come on Cox...where is the love for OC COX has usage limits... be careful what you wish for. | |
| | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Come on Cox...where is the love for OC They're not enforced that I can tell. I've blown through my supposed caps on numerous occasions without so much as a peep from Cox.
Can't say the same for Roadrunner which had enforced caps in the past and has had recent usage based billing trials in a few areas.
--
"Our goal (was to make) a billion phones Flash-enabled by 2010...We're actually going to get 1 billion Flash-enabled phones by 2009." -Adobe Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch in Nov 2008. | |
| | | | | Xizer
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Come on Cox...where is the love for OC said by Z80A:They're not enforced that I can tell. I've blown through my supposed caps on numerous occasions without so much as a peep from Cox. Can't say the same for Roadrunner which had enforced caps in the past and has had recent usage based billing trials in a few areas. Actually, you CAN say the same for Road Runner because they ended cap trials in all markets well over a year ago. They have no bandwidth caps in any of their markets and I can attest to that - I consume over 2 terabytes a month. | |
| | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Come on Cox...where is the love for OC By that measure, neither does Cox since they also apparently don't enforce their AUP. | |
|
| chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Cox & Speed I'd be happy if Cox in my middle Georgia area would just deliver the speeds it advertises. The local area is still Docsys 2, and you are lucky if you can get reliable download speeds equal to 1/2 the advertised "up to" speed for your subscribed tier. Upload speeds are variable, with up to 3x the advertised speed, although any upload of more than a few seconds is likely to be throttled down to just above the advertised upload rate for your subscribed tier.
( Middle tier 1M up 10M down in this area)
Download speeds seem to be "network limited" to no more than ~18M in my specific local area.
It would be just slightly "unfair" to not mention that part of the download speed limitations seem to be related to the IPs that cox routes to when going to areas that are outside of the local network. Such things as faster upload than download speeds, for instance.
Just to add fuel to the fire, the recent merge of Cox Florida and Georgia operations will undoubtedly have some repercussions.
| |
| | chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Cox & Speed 7/20/2010 ~ 7:50 AM
This is a large change for the better from earlier tests to the Chicago area.
Connected to: miranda.ctd.anl.gov -- Using IPv4 address
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
checking for firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client-to-server [C2S]) . . . . . 3.31Mb/s
running 10s inbound test (server-to-client [S2C]) . . . . . . 17.58Mb/s
The slowest link in the end-to-end path is a 45 Mbps T3/DS3 subnet
Information: Other network traffic is congesting the link
[S2C]: Packet queuing detected
WEB100 Enabled Statistics:
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
checking for firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
running 10s outbound test (client-to-server [C2S]) . . . . . 3.31Mb/s
running 10s inbound test (server-to-client [S2C]) . . . . . . 17.58Mb/s
------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows 7, Architecture = x86, Version = 6.1
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.6.0_20
------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
45 Mbps T3/DS3 link found.
Link set to Full Duplex mode
Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.
Web100 reports the Round trip time = 97.51 msec; the Packet size = 1460 Bytes; and
There were 39 packets retransmitted, 829 duplicate acks received, and 809 SACK blocks received
The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time
S2C throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 27.39%
This connection is sender limited 34.76% of the time.
This connection is network limited 65.24% of the time.
Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON
Server 'miranda.ctd.anl.gov' is probably behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port failed]
Client is probably behind a firewall. [Connection to the ephemeral port failed]
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [98.184.8x.xx] but Client says [192.168.0.xxx]
WEB100 Kernel Variables:
Client: localhost/127.0.0.1
CurMSS: 1460
X_Rcvbuf: 16777216
X_Sndbuf: 16777216
AckPktsIn: 2019
AckPktsOut: 0
BytesRetrans: 56940
CongAvoid: 0
CongestionOverCount: 0
CongestionSignals: 1
CountRTT: 1081
CurCwnd: 251120
CurRTO: 288
CurRwinRcvd: 1256960
CurRwinSent: 5888
CurSsthresh: 521220
DSACKDups: 0
DataBytesIn: 0
DataBytesOut: 19023980
DataPktsIn: 0
DataPktsOut: 13010
DupAcksIn: 829
ECNEnabled: 0
FastRetran: 1
MaxCwnd: 760660
MaxMSS: 1460
MaxRTO: 360
MaxRTT: 164
MaxRwinRcvd: 1404416
MaxRwinSent: 5888
MaxSsthresh: 521220
MinMSS: 1460
MinRTO: 280
MinRTT: 76
MinRwinRcvd: 65536
MinRwinSent: 5840
NagleEnabled: 1
OtherReductions: 77
PktsIn: 2019
PktsOut: 13010
PktsRetrans: 39
RcvWinScale: 8
SACKEnabled: 3
SACKsRcvd: 809
SendStall: 0
SlowStart: 0
SampleRTT: 92
SmoothedRTT: 88
SndWinScale: 8
SndLimTimeRwin: 0
SndLimTimeCwnd: 7307389
SndLimTimeSender: 3893523
SndLimTransRwin: 0
SndLimTransCwnd: 334
SndLimTransSender: 334
SndLimBytesRwin: 0
SndLimBytesCwnd: 8404360
SndLimBytesSender: 10619620
SubsequentTimeouts: 0
SumRTT: 105412
Timeouts: 0
TimestampsEnabled: 0
WinScaleRcvd: 8
WinScaleSent: 8
DupAcksOut: 0
StartTimeUsec: 33867
Duration: 11205143
c2sData: 4
c2sAck: 4
s2cData: 4
s2cAck: 4
half_duplex: 0
link: 0
congestion: 1
bad_cable: 0
mismatch: 0
spd: 13.59
bw: 13.03
loss: 0.000076864
avgrtt: 97.51
waitsec: 0.00
timesec: 11.00
order: 0.4106
rwintime: 0.0000
sendtime: 0.3476
cwndtime: 0.6524
rwin: 10.7148
swin: 128.0000
cwin: 5.8034
rttsec: 0.097513
Sndbuf: 16777216
aspd: 0.00000
CWND-Limited: 276.05
minCWNDpeak: 36500
maxCWNDpeak: 760660
CWNDpeaks: 53
The theoretical network limit is 13.03 Mbps
The NDT server has a 8192.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 1312.64 Mbps
Your PC/Workstation has a 1371.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 109.88 Mbps
The network based flow control limits the throughput to 59.51 Mbps
Client Data reports link is 'T3', Client Acks report link is 'T3'
Server Data reports link is 'T3', Server Acks report link is 'T3' | |
| | | chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA | Re: Cox & Speed Things were better today, higher speeds than normal. Lets see how long it lasts! | |
|
| | so what the net these days has to catch up as a whole. The only thing that can take full use is P2P. I have FIOS had 25/25 went down to 15/5 can barely tell(though its more like 20/5 for some reason). The net now needs to catch up with these screaming downloaders. Sometimes i wait for ever to dl HD on youtube its a waste. | |
|
| |
|
|
