Cox Quietly Reduces Data Cap From 2TB Down To 1TB

[HardOCP News]

Remember last year when Cox raised its data caps to 2 TB (here)? Well, it looks as though, as of yesterday, the company has had a change of heart and lowered them back to 1TB. Although I have never hit the limit on my 2TB data cap, it was still nice to know I had that flexibility available if I needed it. Also, I think it's kind of a dick move to just update the website without telling anyone about the change.

 

[Ocellaris]

Looks like Comcast set the bar on this one, now Cox can just follow along and claim they are being competitive

 

[GotNoRice]

Too bad that companies like Comcast and Cox don't ever have to actually compete against each other. That might actually motivate one of them to provide service that is better than the other. People who didn't like the 1TB limit on Comcast could have switched to Cox. Since that is not an option, they might as well just follow Comcast's lead

 

[DooLocsta]

Too bad that companies like Comcast and Cox don't ever have to actually compete against each other.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[iQuasarLV]

Glad to see someone else actively avoid paying the outrageous Cox rates for anything above 50Mbps. Even that is cringe worthy.

 

[EricVB]

On the plus side it is 1tb across all tiers with the exception of gigablast (fiber) still gets the 2tb. Makes it so you can buy just based on speed again.

 

[Jovian]

What a bunch of Cox

 

[illaghee]

its great to be among all these great pioneering corporations, seriously we do it to our self's by allowing this goonary..

 

[ManofGod]

Well, hopefully, Spectrum will not do this crap in the Western New York Area. (Time Warner is bought and being renamed to Spectrum.)

 

[tetris42]

Too bad that companies like Comcast and Cox don't ever have to actually compete against each other. That might actually motivate one of them to provide service that is better than the other.

Oh don't doubt for a minute they didn't arrange it this way. After all, backroom agreements not to undercut your competitor so you can both raise your prices simultaneously is much more profitable than actually competing!

 

[Balkroth]

I wonder if they're doing this ahead of their DOCSIS 3.1 launch next year

 

[illaghee]

Well, hopefully, Spectrum will not do this crap in the Western New York Area. (Time Warner is bought and being renamed to Spectrum.)

ahh renaming that shit, trying to get the bad taste outa peoples mouths. a dead horse is a dead horse

 

[Tweak42]

We aren't heavy users (Cox 50Mbps Preferred Plan) and had our data cap *raised* from 700GB to 1TB a few days ago. We've only exceeded the cap once when it was around 500GB and my brother and I both had downloaded a ton of Steam games updates that month from OS reinstalls.

 

[hardboner]

I love how companies are competing to set the bar lower.

They never want to be better at anything.

Let's just give customers the bare minimum as long as possible.

I like how Tmobile has been offering more perks lately. Dunno how long they can keep it up though

 

[fadedlogic]

Looks like Comcast set the bar on this one, now Cox can just follow along and claim they are being competitive

I think you meant the other "C" word...COLLUDING

 

[Gweenz]

So much room for fraud here. How do we know that the usage is actually what Comcast and Verizon say it is? I guess everyone will just have to trust them in cases where people go over the limit. Yep, trust a multibillion dollar telecom corporation.

 

[Gweenz]

Let's just give customers the bare minimum as long as possible.

This is the goal of all our stock price obsessed corps, give them just absolute bare minimum you can.

 

[Phatman]

Advertising a cap doesn't really mean anything when it's not enforced. Maybe they just keep it in their back pocket for an excuse to disconnect a heavy user in a congested network segment but according to their data usage tool I have a 'cap' of 700GB but regularly use about 3TB / month and they haven't disconnected me or tried to charge me any extra for overages. To their credit, all they've done is try and up-sell me a faster plan since they see I use a lot of data. I wouldn't be surprised if they were throttling me once I hit the 'cap' but obviously not too harshly if I'm still able to use that much data in a month. I'm totally happy with my experience with Cox High Speed Internet. I just wished they would roll out Gigablast to my neighborhood, I'd actually be willing to pay more to get a symmetrical fiber connection with way more upstream bandwidth than DOCSIS 3.1.

 

[nutzo]

And I'm sure there will another price increase this spring, just like the past few years.

 

[Derangel]

Well, hopefully, Spectrum will not do this crap in the Western New York Area. (Time Warner is bought and being renamed to Spectrum.)

No worries about that for a while. One of the requirements when Charter bought Time Warner and Bright House is that they are not allowed to impose data caps for the next seven years.

 

[Deleted member 222586]

Too bad that companies like Comcast and Cox don't ever have to actually compete against each other. That might actually motivate one of them to provide service that is better than the other. People who didn't like the 1TB limit on Comcast could have switched to Cox. Since that is not an option, they might as well just follow Comcast's lead

How is that even possible? Are you telling me that you can't choose between several companies no matter where you live? I can choose between a dozen different companies all around the country. Sure some companies have better reception in some areas compared to the others, but exceptions aside we choose based on price and service. If companies do not compete with each other, why isn't any antitrust going on?

 

[SvenBent]

How is that even possible? Are you telling me that you can't choose between several companies no matter where you live? I can choose between a dozen different companies all around the country. Sure some companies have better reception in some areas compared to the others, but exceptions aside we choose based on price and service. If companies do not compete with each other, why isn't any antitrust going on?

I assume you are not living in the United Corporate of America?.
In the self denial of free market and minimum government interference, the companies roam free to make monopolies and put in limitations and obstacles to actually benefit from free markets.
free market is goo in small scale or as long as you keep en eye out on the huge companies are working in the interest of the consumers. Totally unrestricted free market gives huge companies way to much power

2 years contracts. false claims of "free" stuff. Lack of price transparency requirements etc etc is what is keeping this country slowing down compared to 1st world countries.

 

[Derangel]

How is that even possible? Are you telling me that you can't choose between several companies no matter where you live? I can choose between a dozen different companies all around the country. Sure some companies have better reception in some areas compared to the others, but exceptions aside we choose based on price and service. If companies do not compete with each other, why isn't any antitrust going on?

Cable companies have congress in their pockets, not to mention the local monopolies are due to agreements with cities and states that prevent competition from building new lines. You must not be from the US or just really uninformed about what is going on and has been going on for decades. It's an extension of the crap that started with phone and cable lines. Competition across the US is basically nonexistent in many areas. The companies are even using their power to prevent things like Google Fiber from entering cities or states either by trying to get laws passes banning it or suing the state. They're doing the same thing to stop cities from setting up municipal broadband.

 

[SGTGimpy]

How is that even possible? Are you telling me that you can't choose between several companies no matter where you live? I can choose between a dozen different companies all around the country. Sure some companies have better reception in some areas compared to the others, but exceptions aside we choose based on price and service. If companies do not compete with each other, why isn't any antitrust going on?

Some places in the US you may have a choice of two or more providers, but definitely not all. I live in southern California and most area's you have two or more choices but orange county is a little more well off than most areas in the US.

Now I just went out to the inland empire (about 50+ miles inland from Beach cities in California) last weekend to help a friend move and where they moved to. The only choice for internet was AT&T DSL. Time Warner/Charter, Verizon, CenturyLink, COX and any other provider were not available at their address and the worst part. They are stuck with 5mbps/384kpbs for $60 with 500GB data cap as their only option. Two miles down the road, Time Warner is available with 100/10mbps for $45 p/m no data cap. So, in this case, due to my friends current situation they had no choice in ISP.

AT&T has a lock out agreement with the property management which they get paid to only allow AT&T as the sole service in the complex. This is a good example of why the current ISP's oligopoly in this country need made illegal. Greed will always trump the greater good/common sense.

 

[Ducman69]

Too bad that companies like Comcast and Cox don't ever have to actually compete against each other. That might actually motivate one of them to provide service that is better than the other. People who didn't like the 1TB limit on Comcast could have switched to Cox. Since that is not an option, they might as well just follow Comcast's lead

Industry collusion is far more profitable than price wars, and the domestic telecommunications industry knows it. I am quite confident they have had a sit-down to divide the spoils, just as was done in the LCD industry until that was finally discovered, and low and behold LCD prices fell through the floor with many LCD manufacturers going out of business from the competition, with far lower profit margins.

Capitalism is great, but only with a healthy competitive market, and not government supported monopolies and backroom non-compete deals.

 

[Derangel]

Some places in the US you may only have a choice of two or even just one provider. I live in southern California and most area's you have two or more choices but orange county is a little more well off than most areas in the US.

Now I just went out to the inland empire (about 50+ miles inland from Beach cities in California) last weekend to help a friend move and where they moved to. The only choice for internet was AT&T DSL. Time Warner/Charter, Verizon, CenturyLink, COX and any other provider were not available at their address and the worst part. They are stuck with 5mbps/384kpbs for $60 with 500GB data cap as their only option. Two miles down the road, Time Warner is available with 100/10mbps for $45 p/m no data cap. So, in this case, due to my friends current situation they had no choice in ISP.

This is a good example of why the current ISP's oligopoly in this country needs to be killed off and made illegal.

Yep. Where I live I can only get Charter. About a mile down the road in town there are two options to pick from. Charter and a local competitor. The local competitor offers gigabit up and down. Charter offers 60/4. Charter has been paying to make sure they are the only ones allowed in this area, preventing the competition from offering any service out here.

 

[Seventyfive]

I have Cox. Pretty disappointing but at least, for now, the caps don't mean anything...

Will I be billed if I exceed these plans?
Cox began implementing Data Usage Billing in Cleveland, Ohio in 2015. In all other markets, Cox does not currently charge additional fees if your data plan is exceeded.

Will Cox throttle my speeds if I exceed my data plan?
There will be no change to the speed or quality of your Internet service if you exceed your data plan.​

 

[tetris42]

How is that even possible? Are you telling me that you can't choose between several companies no matter where you live? I can choose between a dozen different companies all around the country. Sure some companies have better reception in some areas compared to the others, but exceptions aside we choose based on price and service. If companies do not compete with each other, why isn't any antitrust going on?

If you honestly think you have your choice of provider anywhere you go (in the USA), you might want to do some more research, or try living outside a major city sometime. I've lived in multiple places where my options were either Comcast or dial-up. As for why it happens, the reasons are many. Often it's regulatory capture, where they lobby to block new entry. Other times, no one wants to invest in running any other lines to farther locations. However, most of the time, it's because they meet up with the other ISPs and agree to carve up a map of where they will and won't compete, then keep their rates comparable, so EVERYONE has to pay more. Competing for your competitor's territory at razor thing margins isn't nearly as attractive as just splitting things 50-50 and charging 5x what you would in a competitive market.

As for why there's no anti-trust enforcement, it's regulatory capture. The head of the FCC is a former lobbyists for the cable companies. It's all revolving door favors now, not actually enforcing the law if it disrupts a lot of big companies.

Too bad that companies like Comcast and Cox don't ever have to actually compete against each other. That might actually motivate one of them to provide service that is better than the other.

To quote a friend of mine: "I've never heard of a company that's more interested in competing than they are in making money."

 

[Nobified[H]]

You can always disconnect! 'murica!

 

[Deleted member 245375]

Well shit on me, they apparently just changed the cap on the service I'm sharing with my neighbor (his account). It's been 750GB for a long time now, even well past the point where they bumped the speeds from 100 to 150Mbps earlier this year. I just checked it not 2 days ago and it was still 750GB but I checked it again a minute ago and now it's showing the 1024GB aka 1TB cap which is pretty awesome AND IT TOOK FUCKING LONG ENOUGH TO GET AROUND TO IT considering the 50% speed bump was months ago.

Guess I need to get that VPN back in action.

 

[ir0nw0lf]

I know a friend who hoovers from the "spuorg-swen" like a pro and is probably not going to like this change.

 

[Mozgus]

300GB here on Cox in Kansas at about $82 a month. Not thrilled about it but it's better than AT&T's worse cap.

 

[DukenukemX]

I'm here in Jersey with FIOS unlimited data. I also have the choice of Optimum with unlimited data. Don't know what you guys are bitching about, just switch to the company with unlimited data. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to take a ride in my giant robot car.

 

[Zepher]

150/10 here with Cox.
With the upgraded cap, we shouldn't go over as much,

 

[Wierdo]

Too bad that companies like Comcast and Cox don't ever have to actually compete against each other. That might actually motivate one of them to provide service that is better than the other. People who didn't like the 1TB limit on Comcast could have switched to Cox. Since that is not an option, they might as well just follow Comcast's lead

That would require line sharing, good luck with that, pushing common sense net neutrality was hard enough as watered down as it was.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Advertising a cap doesn't really mean anything when it's not enforced. Maybe they just keep it in their back pocket for an excuse to disconnect a heavy user in a congested network segment but according to their data usage tool I have a 'cap' of 700GB but regularly use about 3TB / month and they haven't disconnected me or tried to charge me any extra for overages. To their credit, all they've done is try and up-sell me a faster plan since they see I use a lot of data. I wouldn't be surprised if they were throttling me once I hit the 'cap' but obviously not too harshly if I'm still able to use that much data in a month. I'm totally happy with my experience with Cox High Speed Internet. I just wished they would roll out Gigablast to my neighborhood, I'd actually be willing to pay more to get a symmetrical fiber connection with way more upstream bandwidth than DOCSIS 3.1.

We cut COX after 6 months . Awful awful experience.

 

[nutzo]

Some places in the US you may have a choice of two or more providers, but definitely not all. I live in southern California and most area's you have two or more choices but orange county is a little more well off than most areas in the US.

I live in south orange county, right in the middle off one of the larger cities, yet my only choice is COX or my cell phone.
Years ago I could have gotten DSL (3mb max) but even that is no longer available.

As much as I hate government intervention (as it's government intervention that lead to most these monopolies), this really needs to change.
There should be a law that REQUIRES 2 or more high speed internet providers to be available to most customers, otherwise there should be heavy handed price controls put in place for any company that has a monopoly.

 

[Deleted member 222586]

I assume you are not living in the United Corporate of America?.
In the self denial of free market and minimum government interference, the companies roam free to make monopolies and put in limitations and obstacles to actually benefit from free markets.
free market is goo in small scale or as long as you keep en eye out on the huge companies are working in the interest of the consumers. Totally unrestricted free market gives huge companies way to much power

2 years contracts. false claims of "free" stuff. Lack of price transparency requirements etc etc is what is keeping this country slowing down compared to 1st world countries.

As a non-USA resident this is something that surprises me. If Standard Oil was split due to anti-trust regulations... why nothing is being done in the telecomms industry when they are clearly raping said laws? I thought anti-trust was all about forcing competition in an industry by any means necessary, even to a point of forcing companies split.

Here, our energy and comms industry were born after the big national companies were privatized. As it is, at the moment the biggest provider is forced to share its infrastructure with any other company that wants it. Mind you, only existing stuff, so they can invest money in better things (like fiber) and they can have it for themselves for a time. This is why you can select between a dozen providers whereas there is only a single line infrastructure in place. In some specific places of the country you can select different providers that have actually their own infrastructure.

Cable companies have congress in their pockets, not to mention the local monopolies are due to agreements with cities and states that prevent competition from building new lines. You must not be from the US or just really uninformed about what is going on and has been going on for decades. It's an extension of the crap that started with phone and cable lines. Competition across the US is basically nonexistent in many areas. The companies are even using their power to prevent things like Google Fiber from entering cities or states either by trying to get laws passes banning it or suing the state. They're doing the same thing to stop cities from setting up municipal broadband.

Failed to mention I'm not a US resident.

Shouldn't the comms industry be declared a utility instead of a commodity? Like the fuel or energy industries?

Industry collusion is far more profitable than price wars, and the domestic telecommunications industry knows it. I am quite confident they have had a sit-down to divide the spoils, just as was done in the LCD industry until that was finally discovered, and low and behold LCD prices fell through the floor with many LCD manufacturers going out of business from the competition, with far lower profit margins.

Capitalism is great, but only with a healthy competitive market, and not government supported monopolies and backroom non-compete deals.

Everybody knows that collusions translates into higher profits, which is why collusion practices are regulated pretty much everywhere. It seems that the comms industry is safe from anti-trust regulations, for some reason?

If you honestly think you have your choice of provider anywhere you go (in the USA), you might want to do some more research, or try living outside a major city sometime. I've lived in multiple places where my options were either Comcast or dial-up. As for why it happens, the reasons are many. Often it's regulatory capture, where they lobby to block new entry. Other times, no one wants to invest in running any other lines to farther locations. However, most of the time, it's because they meet up with the other ISPs and agree to carve up a map of where they will and won't compete, then keep their rates comparable, so EVERYONE has to pay more. Competing for your competitor's territory at razor thing margins isn't nearly as attractive as just splitting things 50-50 and charging 5x what you would in a competitive market.

As for why there's no anti-trust enforcement, it's regulatory capture. The head of the FCC is a former lobbyists for the cable companies. It's all revolving door favors now, not actually enforcing the law if it disrupts a lot of big companies.

To quote a friend of mine: "I've never heard of a company that's more interested in competing than they are in making money."

Sucks then. Again, I didn't mention that I'm not a US resident.

You should give your politicians hell for all that crap. Just as we should for the $1,50 i'm paying for a single liter of 95 octanes petrol

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Glad to see someone else actively avoid paying the outrageous Cox rates for anything above 50Mbps. Even that is cringe worthy.

I'm paying ~$75 for 150Mbps. What's normal these days?

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Comcast or DSL here and DSL sucks a donkey nut in most places... Fiber is an option once they build it out to where I am...