[olug] Cox Issues Was: Cox sucks

[Sam Tetherow]

Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 July 2007 17:50, Sam Tetherow wrote:
>   
>> No it is exactly what they sold, a connection up to 12mbps with a total
>> transfer cap 60GB/month.
>>     
>
> This is why I was explicitly told at the Cox office that not only were there 
> no ports blocked nor any terms of service, but that there were no transfer 
> limits and I could max out the 12mbit 24/7... Sure.
>   
The office can tell you anything they want (not that it is good business 
practice), but the TOS and AUP are what you agree to when you sign up.
>   
>>>> Most providers do not worry about the cap if the user is not seriously
>>>> degrading the network. But if a user is seriously degrading the network,
>>>> they have to have something in writing (a TOS or AUP) that will allow
>>>> them to either charge the user an additional rate or allow them to
>>>> terminate the contract.
>>>>         
>>> If it degrades the network, then it is the ISP's fault for misconfiguring
>>> things to make that possible.
>>>       
>> No, if it degrades the network and it is outside the TOS or AUP. Then it
>> is the customers fault for breaching the contract. If the customer
>> misunderstood the contract it is still the customer who is at fault. To
>> say that the ISP is at fault for not providing service in excess of the
>> contract is a bit over the top.
>>     
>
> AUP = Acceptible Use Policy
> A policy has no legal binding. Residential Cox has no contract to bind it, 
> either.
>   
An AUP is used to describe what is acceptable as reference in the TOS.

Not a Cox customer so I don't know if they have a contract or not, but 
if there is no contract then how can you tell what services you are 
getting for the money you pay? What ever they give you?
>   
>> Honestly, an ISP tries to provide service at the most affordable rate
>> they can. If keeping the top 5% of bandwidth users off of their network
>> saves them 25% on their total bandwidth cost then it will allow them to
>> provide service to the other 95% at a cheaper rate.
>>     
>
> Except they're NOT PROVIDING THE SERVICE THEY CLAIM. If getting rid of those 
> 5% means the rest only use 200kbit/sec, then your service is effectively only 
> 200kbit/sec!
>   
If I say I am going to provide service up to 12mbps with a 60GB/month 
transfer cap and hold the customer to that I am providing EXACTLY THE 
SERVICE I CLAIM.

If you want to label the service by total amount transferable per month 
divided by the number of seconds in a month you are the one changing the 
definition and not to the benefit of the customer.

I couldn't imagine a residential customer being excited about a 200kbps 
account that they could use 24/7/365, but I know there a lots of people 
that would love to have a 12mbps account that has a 60G soft cap on it.

You will be hard pressed to find any ISP that does not have language 
that either does not guarantee a speed or has some sort of monthly 
transfer limit. If they didn't it wouldn't take much to put them out of 
business.

>   
>> If you want dedicated bandwidth then buy a dedicated connection, if you
>> don't want to spend the money on the dedicated connection then don't
>> complain that you can't get a RollsRoyce for a Yugo price.
>>     
>
> I guess Time Warner is operating their cable internet at a loss, hm?
>   
Are you trying to tell me that Time Warner can provide maximum bandwidth 
(7Mbps) to each of their customers 24/7/365 on their network? Before you 
say yes, keep in mind they have 7.3 million subscribers and then think 
about what it would really take to provide those customers with even 
200kbps of bandwidth 24/7/365

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>
> <a href="http://mail.shwisp.net/spam/dspam.cgi?template=history&user=tetherow&retrain=spam&signatureID=16,469ebe39108197985714595">!DSPAM:16,469ebe39108197985714595!</a>
>
>
>