 
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| 24 hour period Looking at the Cox page...there are no limits on bandwidth...only on personal web page attachments, instantaneous throughput (speed), and email attachment size. The numbers in the letter are completely arbitrary and were manufactured for fit the moment.
There is no mention of a hard limit. But, to be sneaky I went into the Cox tech chat and asked...and they gave me the 2GB/day 30GB/month story...so it's a Cox HSI wide policy. The tech also stated that the abuse mail is a new thing that comes automatically triggered when the user uses more than 2GB over a 24 HOUR PERIOD...not just per day. So even if you start in the evening and ended in the morning...you are still technically in violation. The abuse email is just an automatic thing that no one looks at but if you get a few...you're account could get suspended and you have to call so they can explain the rules of the road "in person".
So much for unlimited access and affecting other users. You could be the only one on your node and you'd still get the stupid letters. But for $40 for 3Mb service, it's not too horrible. My Ultralink is costing me $80 from AT&T and I'm sure they have the same kinda crap.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-11-12 11:53:53] | |
|
 | 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | No more linux RPMs... There goes my downloading Redhat 8... | |
|
| |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: No more linux RPMs... I actually used that example in the chat. The tech told me that I could get the first 2 ISO's then come back and get the 3rd.
Isn't that special...how nice of them.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
|  The Killer Ap needed to spur broadband
Great, so now the limit is 2GB a day. Well, I know most people (myself included) don't hit 2GB a day. However, there HAS been periods where I've gone over that mark, maybe not often, but it has happened.
Once they slap a cap on you, it's only the begining. They quickly figure out how to gouge you for more money.... the cab drops to 1GB... etc etc
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
|
| | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| Re: The Killer Ap needed to spur broadband said by KrK  :
...Is to get rid of the Telephone Companies and Cable Companies "Killing" the U.S.A.'s Internet future.
Who replaces them then?
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
|
| | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: The Killer Ap needed to spur broadband said by Beeper :
said by KrK :
...Is to get rid of the Telephone Companies and Cable Companies "Killing" the U.S.A.'s Internet future.
Who replaces them then?
Broadband by DMV...thanks but no thanks. Nothing is worse than government run ANYTHING.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| | | | 
Grrrrrr
@instantservice.com | Re: The Killer Ap needed to spur broadband Let's get the South Korean government to provide us with broadband. | |
|
| | | | | 
COXnightmare
join:2001-07-16
Burke, VA | Re: The Killer Ap needed to spur broadband said by Grrrrrr:
Let's get the South Korean government to provide us with broadband.
Goooooood idea!!!!!!!!  | |
|
| | | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: The Killer Ap needed to spur broadband I'm up for it... we contract out everything else overseas these days anyway | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Illegal? said by pnh102 :
Isn't "bait-and-switch" against the law?
This tactic is just going to scare away broadband customers. No one likes being nickel-and-dimed to death, and if customer's feel like they are being metered in anyway, they might end up ditching Cox altogether.
Why doesn't Cox just sell speed-limited plans instead? That will solve this problem.
--
DRM == Doesn't Read MP3s
[text was edited by author 2002-11-12 11:43:04]
Problem is their own TOS/AUP says use is unlimited unless it's a burden to them being able to serve others. But this broad brush policy doesn't take into accound the load...only an individual's limits. If you are the only subscriber...you still have the limit even though you aren't affecting anyone else which is the requirement of the TOS/AUP.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Re: Illegal? I think you are right on the money here. It seems this "policy" was constructed to threaten users with disconnection, while at the same time ignoring their AUP, which they claim is what sets the "rules."
Looking at the AUP and its link to "service limitations" no where are the limits mentioned in the letter specified that I can find.
This is the same kind of crap ATTBI plays with home networking, claiming you can only use "approved" equipment, while not even listing the equipment they sell on the approved list.
I think some providers are realizing they perhaps have bitten off more than their networks can chew, and want to blame the users for it.
Moral of the story is don't write checks your network can't cache. 
K.
[text was edited by author 2002-11-12 12:43:25] | |
|
| | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Illegal? OR
The lawyers have their hands in so many pockets that the right doesn't know what the left is doing.
EVERY residential service (as well as most business services) is check floating.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by Count Hogula$ :
Problem is their own TOS/AUP says use is unlimited unless it's a burden to them being able to serve others.
True... but my old dial-up ISP tried to pull this same BS on me. They would actually shut off my account until the beginning of the month because of it. Now, in my view, there is no possible way that my using a 56kbps connection, or even a lot of people doing the same, could possibly suck up more than a negligible amount of their bandwidth, especially when this same dialup ISP provides T1 and T3s to business customers. I'm not saying this isn't true for broadband customers, but when I hear of this kind of tomfoolery from an ISP, I think of it as more of a sleazy business practice than anything else.
I mean shit, I got the same kind of performance from Netzero for free, why pay for this service from a normal ISP? My getting a cable modem only hastened the dropping of these guys as my dialup provider, they would have been out the door soon anyway.
--
DRM == Doesn't Read MP3s | |
|
| | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: Illegal? With the 56K connection...it's their modem connection they wanted back...they don't give a crap if you were able to squeeze 128K out of it.
ALL residential providers oversell and as content gets better (like more P2P and online gaming) more and more people will use the services more and more often. A few years ago it wasn't a problem 'cause content sucked. But now everyone and their dog is running P2P, games or some hobby server.
Here come the tiered services like Ultralink. If AT&T sends me an email complaining about usage when I'm paying $80/mo...they can byte me. I'll switch back to WISPs cause if I'm going to be limited on my usage I might as well pay $25 for 1500/1500 service than $80.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Here is the problem with your "illegal" statement. Their TOS/AUP can be changed at any time without notice.
Also, they do not garantee ANYTHING but can do what they please. They rather spend the little bit of money getting a few people off the network then to do what is right. They are like insurance companies: pay for it but never use it or we will make it difficult for you.
If they count SPAM as part of your usage, then you request they do something about it. More than likely they already sold your email to someone for a few extra dollars even though they promised not to. They claim they need money but it's their failure as a business to properly run their business. | |
|
| | |
| |
|
detth
Onemhz On Aim
join:2000-10-06
Astoria, NY
|  good for cox!
--
B.S Computer Science,CCNP,CCNA,CNA,CCSA,CCSE, A+Network + | |
|
| 
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Re: good for cox! Word. | |
|
|
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| said by detth :
Bandwith costs money - and all the fools who think they can d/l 24/7 nonstop for $40/month will soon find out otherwise. Get a full T1 if you want a high speed pipe running full blast 24/7.
Don't confuse bandwidth with throughput. They pay for the connection but not for content. Whether their connection is full or empty doesn't cost them any different. I see your logic but the AUP/TOS is applied only to clogged nodes. If you are the only one on the node you would get the letter...and bandwidth is like electricity...it's here and then gone whether used or not. These providers are charged for the connections...not the amount of content that passes through the connection.
Cox's original plan was better...on clogged networks enforce the AUP/TOS...on the unclogged ones...let it go. Now it's a broad brush that's in direct violation of their own TOS/AUP which says you can use as much as you want so long as it's not affecting others. This policy obviously skips that point.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-11-12 12:00:43] | |
|
| | |
| | |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Re: good for cox! said by dropshadow :
repeat it like a mantra: "Don't confuse bandwidth with throughput." that sums it up perfectly.
But bandwidth and throughput are the same thing right? Bits per second.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: good for cox! said by dnoyeB :
said by dropshadow :
repeat it like a mantra: "Don't confuse bandwidth with throughput." that sums it up perfectly.
But bandwidth and throughput are the same thing right? Bits per second.
Bandwidth is the connection "size". Throughput is the actual amount going through that connection. Cox buys the bandwidth...lets just say for argument that it's an OC48...not they aren't going to be charged for the throughput...that is...the content then is put through the OC48 connection.
The bandwidth (how fat the pipe is) doesn't change regardless of how much water flows through it. Think of bandwidth as pipe diameter that can flow X gallons per second and through put as the gallons.
So Cox is charged ONLY for the pipe...not for the water. Yet, Cox is putting limits on individual water usages regardless of the total amount of water they need to get through the pipe in any given moment in time.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-11-12 12:49:19] | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Re: good for cox! If it turns out that Cox wants to pull this horsecrap on us, I'll switch to DSL. | |
|
| | | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA | 2X? Try 100X. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | haylo756
join:2002-11-08
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| Re: good for cox! If a provider is buying their back end from a regional Bell company, oversubscription limits are part of the tariff. The current oversubscription limit for on FR/ATM for SBC is at 300%. Example: The back-end for your provider is a DS3 - they can't by tariff install more than 3x that bandwidth going to their customers. The main reason is so SBC can live up to the SLAs they provide. Now, that only speaks for dedicated connections and doesn't take into account dial-in modem banks. Those aren't dedicated and therefore not tracked so I wouldn't doubt at all an 8x to 16x oversubscription rate in total.
IMO it seems to me Cox has gotten themselves into a little unexpected bandwidth utilization trouble and this is a quick stopgap measure. Not a lot of capital involved in threatening your customers vs. building out more network. This type of metered service ultimately didn't work for dialup, but then again dialup was measured in hours not Gb. I only hope this doesn't catch on with other broadband providers. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: good for cox! Seeing as data over coax isn't regulated like telco and CATV...you don't get those regulated install limits.
This is Cox not wanting to upgrade a few slow spots and instead slams everyone...in a breech of their own TOS/AUP.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| | | | |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| said by Count Hogula$ :
Bandwidth is the connection "size". Throughput is the actual amount going through that connection. Cox buys the bandwidth...lets just say for argument that it's an OC48...not they aren't going to be charged for the throughput...that is...the content then is put through the OC48 connection.
Seems like you mean "capacity." Looks like they just want to "cut" the product a little thin.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| JonIrenicas
join:2002-06-22
| said by detth :
Bandwith costs money - and all the fools who think they can d/l 24/7 nonstop for $40/month will soon find out otherwise. Get a full T1 if you want a high speed pipe running full blast 24/7.
Actually their 2 GB limit can be reached in about 1 1/2 hours. That's hardly 24/7. Also with the 30 GB/month limit that is only 1 GB per day and that can be reached in 45 minutes. Again, hardly 24/7. | |
|
| 
thecapn20003
join:2002-01-15
Brownsburg, IN
| So ISPs have no responsibility for the speeds that they advertise? If they can use the TOS against you...Then you can use it against them. If the do not put the hard cap in the TOS then some lawyer will take them to task at some point. Bandwidth may cost money. Advertising costs money. Lawyers cost money. Consumers will lose and eventually the company will lose. | |
|
| 
sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
| Yep, it's hard to get excited over this one. The overwhelming majority of users will never approach those limits but still have to pay for the fanatical user's bandwidth usage. They are getting a free ride on the backs of the average user. This is a good case for tiered pricing.
--
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken | |
|
| | 
The Deuce
join:2001-02-23
California
| Re: good for cox! said by sadowski :
The overwhelming majority of users will never approach those limits but still have to pay for the fanatical user's bandwidth usage.
I wouldn't have a problem with these kind of policies if they told their customers up front, before signing up, and they they were to block any unrequested data such as spam and ads.
--
This space for rent. | |
|
| | |
sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
| Re: good for cox! said by The Deuce :
I wouldn't have a problem with these kind of policies if they told their customers up front, before signing up,
Yes, I've never been comfortable with the 'at our sole discretion' part of the TOS either.
quote:
and they they were to block any unrequested data such as spam and ads.
You know as well as I that's impossible and is a policy that would burn in flames if someone did find a way to do it. Dog your legislators about SPAM. ISPs hate it too.
--
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken | |
|
| | |
| | |
sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
| Re: good for cox! Under current pricing, profit and cost is averaged over all the users so those that use more resources are paying less per resource usage than those who use less. Just as those who do not even know what news is (USENET), which is the bulk of users, are paying for that 15% or so of news users for the cost of the feed and server/server maint. and bandwidth used. That is how prices can come downas subscriber volume increases.
--
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken | |
|
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| said by detth :
Bandwith costs money - and all the fools who think they can d/l 24/7 nonstop for $40/month will soon find out otherwise. Get a full T1 if you want a high speed pipe running full blast 24/7.
This has nothing to do with nonstop downloading. Bandwidth is not gas. Their is no per byte charge anywhere on the net. Their is not such equipment that wears out by the Byte. Your network equipment will wear out just as fast used as it will unused. The only cost is maintainance which is NOT related to how many bits passed through it.
So why are the customers charged based on such a trivial moot quality of the service?
BTW, 4 Redhat CDs will put you over 2GB. Its not insane for someone to D/L Redhat or some other version of Linux over their pipe.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| 
some guy$
Mommy What's Irony?
join:2002-11-08
Manitowoc, WI
| said by dnoyeB :
Bandwith costs money - and all the fools who think they can d/l 24/7 nonstop for $40/month will soon find out otherwise. Get a full T1 if you want a high speed pipe running full blast 24/7.
sure does, but that's why customer's pay a monthly fee right?
[text was edited by author 2002-11-12 12:41:15] | |
|
|
detth
Onemhz On Aim
join:2000-10-06
Astoria, NY
| If you are an ISP - you will have to pay for your connections to another ISP(tier one isp)- these are usually T3 pipes or greater. Usually they will have burstable solutions for residential customer pipes. Now - ISPs also rely on OVERSELLING this available bandwith/throughput. There are some users that will abuse it - and will host warez sites, iso sites, pornography (or other stuff) or download/upload the aforementioned nonstop. This reduces the available "leftover" resources for the rest.
Additionally, a cable modem is a best effort solution - and can in no way compare to a leased or dedicated line. The whole concept is SHARING THE RESOURCES.
Cmon - do you really expect to be able to transfer gigs upon gigs for $40 a month? eventually this will change.
Do you expect to run 10 second 1/4 miles from a honda?
No, thats why you get a ferrari.
--
B.S Computer Science,CCNP,CCNA,CNA,CCSA,CCSE, A+Network + | |
|
| |
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by detth :
Bandwith costs money - and all the fools who think they can d/l 24/7 nonstop for $40/month will soon find out otherwise. Get a full T1 if you want a high speed pipe running full blast 24/7.
1. Bandwidth is overpriced. This fact directly from the mouth of a Tier 1 provider CEO.
2. The cost to the ISP doesn't change if you download 10GB in a month or 20GB in a month. Downstream is not the problem.
3. Cost does get incurred to the ISP when users upload to a location outside of their ISP's network. This is the only cost which goes up and down with usage.
For a person with that many letters and certs I figured that you would have known this though. Of course this ubergeek might be wrong and maybe you didn't.
--
root by day... raver by night...
fluorine.org : Check out www.homestarrunner.com | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| The beautiful thing about throughput is that its self regulating. If you try to use too much it will automatically throttle. Its like trying to rush home during rush hour. It aint going to happen. If that slowness is too much for you, you switch to DSL or wireless.
Their is NO need for Cox to do anything. A web user (most of their users are of this sort) will NEVER notice this congestion.
They are trying to cut out the top users so they can oversell their capacity even more. Plain and simple. The more profit they want, the more people they will cut so they can oversell even more.
I know CEOs and I bet they have circulated letters detaining how they wish to cut their capacity requirement by x% over the next year.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
|
Orwell1984
@rr.com
| Strange that 2 Gigs is about what it takes to download a movie from the new LEGAL video on demand service. I cant help wondering if Cox has a VOD like I get from TWC. They call it I Control (can pause,rewind,fast forward,or start over for 24 hours). I suppose if you download a movie from the cable companies competition.Then you aren't allowed to use your internet connection for 24hrs. What if I want to watch 5 movies a week. I would be a bandwidth hog. Great business plan. Try to find killer apps to sell more broadband but dont let anyone use them. It will only get worse as it gets better. | |
|
| 
Dragasoni
We're All Mad Here
Premium
join:2001-12-14
Rotonda West, FL
| This is bull. Plain and simple. Time to say: "Don't be a Cox sucker" I saw that in someones signature and I though it was cool.
Then again, some people think "harass" is two words I think those people are running this ISP.
-Dragasoni-
--
Visit my site at: »www.dragasoni.com | |
|
| 
magister
join:2001-02-26
Fayetteville, AR
| 2GB per day and/or 30GB of downloads per month.
???
i'll be the first to admit that my math has gotten a little rusty since high school, but 2gb per day comes out to approximately 60gb per month. this just seems like a sneaky way of saying "You can download 2gb per day!! we reserve the right to half that amount at any given time without notifying you." | |
|
| 
IceTheMan
join:2002-11-02
Walnut Cove, NC | well... if you pay for a service, like say tv do you realy want someone to tell you how much your allowed to use it... no???? i thought not | |
|
| zcreep
join:2002-10-23
Cambridge, OH
| Ok, first off I own an ISP, so of course this is from a business point of view.
The cable industry has one major advantage over traditional ISPs. They already own the infrastructure; their network for the most part was already physically in place, minus capital upgrades and support costs. All they had to do was enable it (no small feat though) any other ISP has to either get PRI's for dialup (300-700 a month for a bank of 23) or if you are doing strictly DSL you have the cost associated with the DSL Loop (20-30 a month each) and with either of those two choice or both you must have DEDICATED bandwidth available. A T1 that pushes 1.5Mbs cost roughly 600-1000 in most areas unless you are very close to a fiber ring...
Anyway, do the math with 1 T1 at even 500 a month and 10 DSL customers paying 20 a month to the ISP... (ISP only makes whatever is over about 25-30 on the total cost to the subscriber) that’s only 200 a month and the isp is giving the 10 subscribers a 384/128 connection the connection is already saturated at 4 subscriber that want to dl every waking (and sleeping) hour. so what does the isp do? He has to buy another T1 to give them bandwidth??? I think not... hes already loosing his ass
The ISP model has always been oversubscribing to make a couple bucks. (And I do mean a couple) Versions Net Loss of their internet division was around 30 BILLION last year, why, because the bandwidth is undersold. For those of you that say there is a surplus of available bandwidth, try to buy some of it... Go order a FULL T1 and see what kind of prices you get. That’s your 1.5 connection you want...
The Cable industry only needs to buy a backbone though which does increase the profitability. At the same time, they still pay for their connectivity to the net in multiple places and have to over subscribe their bandwidth to make any money. This in turn gives the consumer a connection that they can get say a 10 mp3 in a few minutes as compared to a few hours, a wonderful thing for the consumer. This isn't supposed to be used for a 24/7 fileserver. I pay for T1's and I do download Red hat at 350k/s, but I pay for that right and I won't get a letter... For all of you who want there own Warez and porn distribution network for 40 bucks a month are complete idiots. these companies are people who work hard for their paycheck and every time I have to add another couple T1's because of 20 warez freaks are congesting my network, I wish I could put that money in the hands of the people that make it possible (my staff).
One more note, if they (Cox) told you that they would limit your total GB or whatever would you still buy it?? Of course not, then how would they bay their bills and pay their employees...anyway...
YOU PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET. If you can't afford a T1 to your house, get another job, just stop the crybaby, I'll get a lawyer it wasn't in your TOS or AUP bullshit.
You pay 40 bucks you get 40 bucks worth of service
Pay 500-1000, you won’t get a letter from Cox and you be notified within 5 minutes if your T1 goes down
Flames welcome!
[text was edited by author 2002-11-15 18:01:05] | |
|
| |
Count Hogula$
Notorious Dog
Premium
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA
| Re: good for cox! But MAJOR ISP's don't run T-1's and larger connections like OC48 per user costs are considerably cheaper. T-1's are great for small ISP's but they don't have the pull to get those "wholesale" prices. They treat small ISP's like WISPs just as bad as any other business with a T-1 and rip them just as hard.
--
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by zcreep :
YOU PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET. If you can't afford a T1 to your house, get another job, just stop the crybaby, I'll get a lawyer it wasn't in your TOS or AUP bullshit.
You pay 40 bucks you get 40 bucks worth of service
Pay 500-1000, you won’t get a letter from Cox and you be notified within 5 minutes if your T1 goes down
Actually, if we got equipment vendors to bring the prices down to reasonable levels and the Telcos stopped trying to rape people on those lines, it would make sense. Cisco gear is expensive because your paying for the Cisco name, etc. After looking at it for awhile, it seems as though the Telco and Carrier market isn't following market economics, but rather inflated pricing, etc. in an effort to try and squeeze the customers, ISPs and end users. Its amazing how in one market a full T1 can be $499 and elsewhere its $800...
--
root by day... raver by night...
fluorine.org : Check out www.homestarrunner.com | |
|
| |
Kaltes
@attbi.com
| ""For all of you who want there own Warez and porn distribution network for 40 bucks a month are complete idiots. these companies are people who work hard for their paycheck and every time I have to add another couple T1's because of 20 warez freaks are congesting my network, I wish I could put that money in the hands of the people that make it possible (my staff).""
#1 The amount of profit that the big ISPs are raking in contradicts your opinion to the contrary. Your area of expertise is in running a small ISP. These are dying out and for good reason. Your argument is like saying small farmers have it tough, then applying that reasoning to massive corporate farms: they are 2 different things.
#2 It sounds like you have an issue not with how much they use their connection but with what they use it for. If you don't like warez and porn, then make it clear that downloading warez and porn will get a users service cancelled, then (if it's even legal to spy on them to verify it) you can go ahead and boot them. If, however, your problem is with high usage, then you can cap it. The cap will make your life alot easier, and in exchange youd better be willing to counteract the harm a cap would do to your marketing by improving your service in other ways. If you can't come up with a workable business model, then go get a job.
#3 Isn't it stupid to make a business model that relies on predicting unpredictable consumer behavior, then punishing the consumer when you turn out to have guessed wrong? If you give someone unlimited access, some people are going to use it A LOT, because they paid for it. It isn't my fault that you sell me unlimited service with the understanding that if I use it too much you'll lose money. Your argument basically comes down to: "Look, you are paying the price of 20 shrimp for all-you-can-eat shrimp, then eating 40 shrimp and that is a bad thing", because "You pay for 20 shrimp, so 20 shrimp is what you get." Do you see how this is absurd? In the very next sentence you say that the same consumers wouldn't PAY FOR capped service. EXACTLY. The cable service offers you a great deal to entice you to buy, then screws you by changing the deal afterward. Others have already mentioned over and over: that is just plain old bait-and-switch fraud.
#4 If this country was perfect, all businesses would have small profits, and everything would be cheaper (and more of it). Companies should exist to enhance the quality of life for consumers, not the other way around. Everyone who has posted in defense of Cox has this basic premise wrong. We are not here to make Cox profitable, if Cox wants our money they have to earn it, and out-compete (oops but they have no direct competition! :P) others by providing better service at cheaper prices. It is funny to hear the myopic views of business people talking essentially about how we need to subsidize them. Yeah right. You work for us, the consumer, you greedy *@&%$#^! | |
|
| zcreep
join:2002-10-23
Cambridge, OH
| The telco monopoly is unbelievable
[text was edited by author 2002-11-15 18:47:19] | |
|
| 
ender78
join:2002-10-17
Mississauga, ON
| While ISPs dont pay for data transfered, they do pay for network capacity (measured in megabits/sec). What many people here are not accounting for is that the size of the ISPs link is sized such that it is not overutilized during peak times. Even with 95th percentile billing, and ISP may still need to pay for 50/100/300 ... Mbps (charged at anywhere from $100-500/Megabit). ISPs are trying to leverage peak usage by discouraging use at this time. If all of these big downloaders agreed to only download between 2AM and 7AM, we would have less issues. Users complaining about latency (high ping times) during peak times are seeing the effect of users trying to use their pipes 24/7.
Users are asking ISPs to give them guaranteed throughput as well as unlimited downloads. Such demands are unreasonable at $50-100/month. There is a big difference between buying connectivity and bandwidth. For $50/month you are not purchasing unmetered bandwidth. | |
|
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA
| I think that It's only because of the node they're on, in Herndon VA.
That is probably getting raped.
So, we'll send an email to ALL the customers on that node, and hopefully they'll tone down their downloads.
However, I think it's a easy way of saying "we arent doing upgrades to your area quickly, so why dont YOU folks stop downloading so much?" ... | |
|
Terje
join:2002-10-10
Topeka, KS
·Cox HSI
| Limits = no more cable for me. I actually just got capped about 3 weeks ago from 1.5mbps to 128kbps for going over a certain amount of bandwidth per day. They never (my isp) had anything in writing until they capped me so if I wanted to complain I couldn't. I then promptly switched to dsl and enjoy fast speed with no limits. That expeirence alone was enough to keep away from cable internet forever so to all you cable isp's beware cause I won't be the only one. And to my old isp...BITE ME! | |
|
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Re: Limits = no more cable for me. indeed. customers are not the only ones brainwashed by technology idiocy. The CEOs of these companies that think somehow they will make more money with you off the network are also idiots. They have simply lost a customer. period. They have not gained anything. When they wake up and realize that their lies are not actually generating any sort of profit, they will stop telling them.
I just dont see why they think capping people is going to make more money for them.
I mean if you do a huge download most likely its going to take you away from the computer for a while too. like if you d/l a movie, you will go watch it. If you DL linux, you will go install it, mp3, you go listen to em, etc...
I still have cable because DSL has not felt the need to match the cable price as of yet. When they do I will switch to DSL.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| |
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Re: Limits = no more cable for me. said by dnoyeB :
I still have cable because DSL has not felt the need to match the cable price as of yet. When they do I will switch to DSL.
Bell South has called me several times trying to get me to switch. I have actually nailed them down on a speed guarantee (course we all know how that goes) -- but as of yet haven't seen the need to switch. Once the Comcast-ATTBI merger thing happens...that may change.
K.
--
"We can go from boom to bust, from dreams to a bowl of dust. We can fall from rockets red glare, down to 'Brother can you spare' -- another war -- another waste land -- and another lost generation. . ." | |
|
vknight775
join:2001-12-08
Etobicoke, ON
| This is horsecrap
All these companies are starting to milk their customers for every penny. If they keep this up, they can forget it. People say cable is less expensive than DSL. But with the crappy TOS/limitations, and every increasing cable broadband prices, that line is being blown away.
You're looking at a future DSL customer.
--
"There is only one thing I hate worse than a lawyer. And that's a lawyer who has a seat on Capitol Hill." | |
|
jessdub99
join:2002-05-29
| You have got to be kidding me Everyone wants to complain about unreliable service, but what's the point of reliability when you're only allowed to use it for a few hours a day. If you can d/l 2 gig's in 1.5 hours, for them to say you're only allowed that much in 24 hours is just insane. If i had cox i'd start a movement against this policy and burn it to the ground... I hope people of cox do something to stop this, because it sure as hell wouldn't happen in my house. | |
|
| rix1999
join:2002-05-26
Las Vegas, NV
| Re: You have got to be kidding me Im with COX and Sprint, Sprint offers 6 mbs, with no limit, Cox offers a 3mbs speed with Bandwidth limits and all my ports in UDP are blocked for residential customers, it means, I am screwed to run a webserver or anything else, which is stupid coz the upload speed is really weak anyway. Now, if you really want to overcome these problems with COX, which is possible, u gotta pay 200 dollars a month and you still would be limited around 45 Go a month. So what now ? I am not gonna work to pay only my bills, there is a real big problem here. And why does Cox do that ? They want your money, it seems like COX took its customers in hostage, so don't be dumb, go choose another ISP. They wanted me to subscribe as a business customer to unblock my UDP ports, what a priviledge. COX made a choice between its residentials and its business part, its clear to me, if you want the service, then you gotta pay the price. Useless to say I live in a very busy area and I don't really have the speed I want, it slows down as hell on the cable. I cancelled my subscription with them. But it seems like its all the cable-operators who do that SIGH. | |
|
|
DR Slammy Wammy
@adelphia.net
| Download Cap??? I agree! I can't beleve that they are planing or have already implemented this. Isn't the whole idea of a broadband connection to have downloading superiority over dial up? I mean, that's why most people would get a broadband connection. There are limits such as uploading capabilities on most broadband services (like adelphia, which I belong to) which is understandable, but a cap on the amount of data downloaded? That is just as one indivdual put it "horsecrap". | |
|
damonlab
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI
clubs:
| They don't know what they are talking about. said by cox:
"for example 2GB
of content is equivalent to about 60,000 pictures, 2000 minutes of MP3 music or
3 to 4 full-length movies.
60,000 pictures... each picture would average 33kb.
2,000 mp3s... each mp3 would average 1mb.
4 full-length movies... each movie would average 500mb.
Picture at 33kb, mp3 at 1mb, and movie at 500mb. Huh? Come again?
I feel sorry for anybody that gets such crappy pics, sounds, and vids. From my experience, I think that good quality pics are above 100kb, good quality mp3s start at 3-4mb for short songs and can be much larger, and good quality movies start at about 600mb for divx and can be as large as 3gb for a 4 cd svcd. | |
|
| 
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ | Re: They don't know what they are talking about. It's minutes of MP3's, Not individual MP3's........... | |
|
| | |
| |
DSLTech
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA
| Throughput does cost, too ... I don't know how COX's network is setup, but it is not always correct to assume that throughput is cost-less, and that the only price paid is that of the OC3/OC12/etc.
ISPs interconnect at the boundaries of their own network, where it hits the internet. Often they need to pay to route their traffic out onto the internet. Not sure if ATT, COX, etc have to pay but smaller ISPs that use larger networks (such as Level3, WCOM) colocation facilities as exit points do pay for throughput at those points. As well, once the OC3 going from YOUR TOWN to the main POP gets congested, either a new one has to be ordered, or provisioning has to stop in your area, or there's oversubscription. There is peering as well, but thats another story.
I don't think that download limits should be in place. However, speed limits are a good idea. I like ATTBI's stance.. if people want to be hogs, no problem, pay $80/mo. Folks ARE willing to pay for more, but what COX is doing now is not going to be popular at all.
With new services like mp3 subscription sites, movie subscription sites (over 700mb per movie) and the like, it is certainly not the time to start limiting. | |
|
| rix1999
join:2002-05-26
Las Vegas, NV
| Re: Throughput does cost, too ... I agree with you, except Cox will not even move up bandwidth hogger to a business account, which is the same bandwidth than residential account, and an extra 80 Gigz for more than $200 a month. I know what Im talking about, I tried to negotiate with them. Let's hope that Cox won't ban bandwidth hoggers like AT&T did before, It's DAvid against Goliath. I don't really see their strategy here, it seems like they need more money and they want to take their customers in hostage, that would make sense, there is a lack of communication from Cox here. After all they are in a monopolistic situation in some cites But it will happen again and again, next time with another ISP, or with landlords, or gazoline. Here is the real problem: What is going on with prices inflation in the US?
And why does the government doesn't rule that sensitive area ? Who is guilty ? I know people who have been working for 10 years in the same company without a raise, I wish some companies could do the same.... | |
|
|
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: Seems fair. Those low caps of 1GB usually refer to upload throughput.\
In fact used to only apply to uploads as that's where the ISP actually incurred a cost if usage went up. | |
|
| pkust
join:2001-08-09
Houston, TX
| It could only be considered "fair" if the rate cap was reasonably published before people either signed up or renewed their service; this does not appear to be the case here. If a condition is not contained in the version of the AUP and TOS that customers are able to view, then customers have been denied the opportunity to accept or reject the condition.
A foundation legal principle derived from English common law is that "silence presumes consent." If a service provider alters the terms of service, and the customer continues to use the service, the provider can reasonably argue that the customer has consented to the alteration--because the customer did not speak out.
However, consent is impossible without prior knowledge. A condition that has not been stated cannot be consented to, not even by implication through the customer's silence.
What is troubling here is not the capping itself, but the method of publication of the cap. Cox' dunning notice to customers uses language that presumes the cap has always been a condition of the service, and that the customer has thus already consented to the cap. However, the specifics of the cap do not seem to be found anywhere except in the dunning notice itself. A cap is a precise limitation; without publication of specific parameters, there can be no prior knowledge of the condition necessary for consent.
A condition cannot be considered fair if the customer is not afforded the opportunity to consent to it prior to its imposition. Neither the propriety of caps in general nor the size of this cap in particular is relevant; Cox is sending dunning notices to customers for violating a condition they apparently have been denied even the opportunity to accept or reject--and Cox, by not publishing the cap going forward, is in effect continuing to solicit customers with terms of service that do not mention a cap. The cap is thus imposed arbitrarily only on certain customers, despite all customers being presented with the same terms of service.
The manner by which Cox is attempting to impose this cap is emphatically not "fair." It is arbitrary. It is capricious. It is deceptive. It is wrong.
--
Cordially,
Peter Nayland Kust
pkust@tekmedia.com
TEKMedia Communications
www.tekmedia.com | |
|
|
|
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Re: Kinda Off-Topic but... yea, there goes half of New York. | |
|
| |
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Kinda Off-Topic but... said by Dragasoni :
Oh deary, those OOL users would go insane.
Only the ones who do speed tests all day and frequent this website LOL.
--
DRM == Doesn't Read MP3s | |
|
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | thats bs why dont they try offering a decent service around here before capping our bandwith. cox needs a wake up call, otherwise its time for dsl. | |
|
COMMAN
Plug Me In
join:2000-07-17
Mount Juliet, TN
·Embarq
 ·Vonage
| NEW Tier Limits Just some info for ya'... Cox IS listing monthly limits in their product descriptions here in Las Vegas; this appeared as of Nov. 1st when they began offering tiered service here. (And even the highest level offered doesn't give us 30 gig/month.)
_________________________________________________
3Mb Service
Service Rate Leasing Modem without Basic Service
$69.99
Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Lease
$59.99
Service Rate with Modem Purchase** without Basic Service
$59.99
Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Purchase**
$49.99
Downstream
3 Mbps***
Upstream
256 kbps***
Number of Email addresses
7
Number of Computers
1
Each additional computer connected at this speed
$4.95/mo
Maximum of 3 computers
For non-commercial use (15 Gigabyte transfer limit per month.)
________________________________________________________
1.5Mb Service
Service Rate Leasing Modem without Basic Service
$59.99
Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Lease
$49.99
Service Rate with Modem Purchase** without Basic Service
$49.99
Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Purchase**
$39.99
Downstream
1.5 Mbps***
Upstream
128 kbps***
Number of Email addresses
5
Number of Computers
1
Each additional computer connected at this speed
$4.95/mo
Maximum of 3 computers
For non-commercial use (7.5 Gigabyte transfer limit per month.)
__________________________________________________________
128Kb Service
Service Rate Leasing Modem without Basic Service
$49.99
Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Lease
$39.99
Service Rate with Modem Purchase** without Basic Service
$39.99
Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Purchase**
$29.99
Downstream
128 kbps***
Upstream
128 kbps***
Number of Email addresses
3
Number of Computers
1
For non-commercial use (1.7 Gigabyte transfer limit per month.)
| |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
| Problem is the limits are not supported by the ... service
For example I can't select what e-mails I want to down load to my local machine and yet I get THOUSANDS of e-mails a day as a COX cable customer.
So in effect as well their web based e-mail goes down faster than a $5 whore...so what am I left to do. | |
|
|
| |
| |
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
|  Remind me not to use Cox...
Of course this is the kicker. It doesn't cost them any more if you have downloaded 10GB or 20GB per month, but that's downloading only. It does cost them more money if you upload 10GB to a location outside of the Cox network.
As well, it costs them no more if you have one computer or a whole network off of your cable connection, you can't use more than your service is provisioned at.
And throughput is cheap. The CEO of Level3 is quoted as saying that throughput, etc. is all overpriced. And based on the GLUT of capacity, bandwidth should be much cheaper. I think network providers need to do some math... They charge a fortune when their networks are empty, even though things are suppose to cost less when you have "excess"... And then they charge even more when they have sold to capacity, which makes sense, things are more valuable as they become available. Of course the whole concept of charging for throughput makes no sense...
--
root by day... raver by night...
fluorine.org : Check out www.homestarrunner.com | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
|
|
|
·
Seems fair.
Kinda Off-Topic but...
·