[olug] Cox Issues Was: Cox sucks

[Luke -Jr]

On Thursday 19 July 2007 05:21, Sam Tetherow wrote:
> 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.

Supposedly, there is no TOS.

> >> 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.

Again, Cox claims there is no 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?

There's no contract to purchase stuff at retail stores either... I guess it'd 
come down to what you asked for and if you paid the listed price at the 
time...

> >> 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.

Only if you claim that 60GB/mo cap and don't bury it where nobody will see 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.

I'd much rather not be guaranteed the speed. Like I said, there's a difference 
between not performing 12mbit all the time and suddenly coming to a halt at a 
60 GB marker. Basically, I want at least *some* connectivity for a full 
month.

> >> 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

No, but they don't have stupid transfer limits either, nor do they block or 
policy-deny servers. I imagine if every TW customer tried to pull 7mbps 24/7, 
they'd all end up getting closer to 64kbps each, which is an acceptable 
solution to an "up to 7mbit" plan.