Cox to Begin Charging $50 Extra to Avoid Usage Caps This Week

rsaotome said:
Goodie, first the Ultimate Package had 2 TB data limit (not enforced at the time), then increases speed, quietly reduces to 1 TB data limit (will start enforcing next month), I use around 1.8 TB - 2.5 TB every month, so guess I better be ready to give up a few other services, oh wait, Cable TV, duh.... :)
Click to expand...

So, I hope you don't mind me asking, but what are you doing to pull so much data?

So the wife and I are alone, the kids are gone.

I wake up a 5AM, turn on my machine, game for an hour, put my wife's phone and coffee on her nightstand at 6AM, then I go back and game while she starts using her phone, which is using the home WiFi. At 7AM, I get my breakfast and stream something to watch while I eat for 30 minutes or so. Then I am off for work, but my wife, she's still online, She's in the kitchen streaming Korean News broadcasts while she's cooking and cleaning or streaming Shanya Twain songs if she is serious about cleaning. She leaves for work around 9:30 AM.

Then I come home at 5PM, spin up my computer again and I am gaming or streaming during dinner until 11:00 PM at night. My wife comes home after 7 PM and she's doing something or watching something until somewhere between 10:30 if she's tired or 2:30 or later in the morning if she doesn't have to work the next day.

We burn about .65 TB a month on average.

So I just have to wonder how someone who's not running a home business is burning through bandwidth like you are.

And yes, I am assuming you aren't running a home business, and NO, you do not owe me any explanation at all. If you don't want to answer that's your business.
 
SomeoneElse said:
I still think there is colluding going on with the cable companies because if there is Comcast/Cox/Charter/TW in an area the rest are not to be found. The only alternative is DSL and in most cases that I have seen people say the all of big names are not a choice in one area for competition....
Click to expand...

I think it just depends. I moved into a brand new community so AT&T was able to wire the whole community with fiber to the home and they came around a few months ago and offered 1gbps up/down + every channel except HBO and Cinemax for $150/mo for 2 years. I can't imagine how many people dumped cox that week.

The hard part about a new entrant to a community coming in to compete is A) the incumbent has bribed the shit out of the city council for years so that B) the challenger can't get permits and C) even though the community might want better stuff, many ignorant people say "I don't want construction" and it's just not possible to lay fresh fiber in most places without digging up the roads
 
Spidey329 said:
I'd just like to point out that Cox has a generous 1Tb limit. I'd be pissed about this if they were using a 200Gb limit.

Also, Cox is one of the few ISPs I know that doesn't tell you to go pound sand if you call to negotiate the price. Every year I call, ask for retention, and the nice lady (usually) drops me like $20/mon. I pay $55 for the $80 package.

You literally just need to tell them their price is too expensive for what you're using and you're going to look at other options. That's it.
Click to expand...

ANY provider who has a data cap needs to go out of business.

In my area, we have ATT, Mediacom, and WOW! available.

WOW! is the only one that doesn't have data caps. Guess which company I have service through?

And to top it off, they are cheaper than ATT and about the same exact price as Mediacom.
 
SomeoneElse said:
I still think there is colluding going on with the cable companies because if there is Comcast/Cox/Charter/TW in an area the rest are not to be found. The only alternative is DSL and in most cases that I have seen people say the all of big names are not a choice in one area for competition....
Click to expand...


Hmmm, so go back like 45 years or so, early cable days. Now put yourself somewhere like here in Arizona and say ... there is no cable, nothing at all but Broadcast TV. Cox Cable shows up and applies for permits and starts running cable for cable TV service. Cox forks out the money for all the infrastructure and no other company can use Cox's cables to transmit their service's because that wouldn't be right. They didn't spend the money to run all that cable and put in all those nodes, Cox did. If another company wants to move in and compete, they need to bury their own cables right?

But then people start complaining cause Cox is a monopoly and there is no choice etc etc. So the Government makes up some new laws and forces Cox to allow other companies to run their services over Cox's infrastructure. They have to pay Cox some cash, but that's not the same thing as taking a huge risk and blazing a trail all on your own dime is it?

And now we are here today and we have internet and it's running on Fiber and Copper and it's still the same issues being played out. Whoever was here first and ran the infrastructure and laid the cables is the one that took the real risks, invested capitol on projects that should turn them a profit, as long as technology doesn't outpace their deployment and pricing schemes and customer adoption rates. Imagine when Dish showed up and they didn't have to run cables at all. Dish just drives out to any home that has a clear view of the Southern skies, installs an antenna, runs some coax. Cox is stuck with miles of cable and fiber run and continued costs to maintain all the nodes but all those drops that don't have paying customers really puts a dent in recovering their outlay and meeting their profit forcats for their stockholders.

No I know this sounds like I am crying a river for the cable companies and ISPs, I'm not. I'm just trying to paint the picture for you that explains why it looks like these companies are all in cahoots with each others. Once a company runs that cable, they really want to hold onto their "turff" and they have good reasons, even after they have recouped their costs. They still have bills to pay but not nearly as many customers on the hook as they had planned back when they were laying all that cable.
 
Edgar said:
I need to start checking my usage. I pay $65 for 150/15 for cox. Centurylink just added my area for gigabit for $85 flat. No cap. Decisions, Decisions.
Click to expand...
That's nice, I pay the same 65, plus fees a month for 50/5 here in east San Diego county. only competition is uverse and I have a hard time believing AT&T will provide anything close to decent service on any level.
 
And I am just sitting here with my 130/6 uncapped service from Charter that is $65 without promos or bundling (I have both so I pay like 2/3 that) laughing at all of the people who have shit for choices. I can even get 1000/1000 for $80 from AT&T if I wanted (also without a cap). My metro area has only 2.2 million people so it isn't that large.
 
Domingo said:
I'm convinced Comcast's data usage tool is wrong, but I'm not about to let them know. There have been months where it would list my usage at 50GB when I downloaded multiple games that border on that amount by themselves. Either that or they simply don't count certain usage (like Steam or Netflix).
Click to expand...

I've noticed if you can force an ip change sometimes it'll fail to add it to your account for 24h and not count any of the usage. i haven't checked my usage in a while but I'll check tonight since I had to redownload 300 gigs worth of games on steam at the beginning of the month.
 
just another way for them to make more money by pretending they are fixing problems with caps. There is no shortage of internet to go around lol. It's a manufactured limit by profit greedy corps.
 
?This is new? It's all under comcast, and you had the ability to pay $50 extra to remove caps for awhile now for comcast, which ofc owns xfinity, cox, spectrum etc.
 
Remember the cable companies in court declaring city or county wide services would be unfair competition. Yea this is what they feared. The inability to do this crap. To rob us blind after charging taxpayers for thier lines.
 
[21CW]killerofall said:
And I am just sitting here with my 130/6 uncapped service from Charter that is $65 without promos or bundling (I have both so I pay like 2/3 that) laughing at all of the people who have shit for choices. I can even get 1000/1000 for $80 from AT&T if I wanted (also without a cap). My metro area has only 2.2 million people so it isn't that large.
Click to expand...

Wow that's crazy good. Where you at?

As for the accuracy of the meter, I turned on metering in my router just to compare and the router and the Cox meter are pretty much identical. Still shocked at how little U use. I suppose if I was a heavy streamer that would tilt the equation a lot but outside of Youtube, I don't really stream at all.
 
lcpiper said:
Hmmm, so go back like 45 years or so, early cable days. Now put yourself somewhere like here in Arizona and say ... there is no cable, nothing at all but Broadcast TV. Cox Cable shows up and applies for permits and starts running cable for cable TV service. Cox forks out the money for all the infrastructure and no other company can use Cox's cables to transmit their service's because that wouldn't be right. They didn't spend the money to run all that cable and put in all those nodes, Cox did. If another company wants to move in and compete, they need to bury their own cables right?

But then people start complaining cause Cox is a monopoly and there is no choice etc etc. So the Government makes up some new laws and forces Cox to allow other companies to run their services over Cox's infrastructure. They have to pay Cox some cash, but that's not the same thing as taking a huge risk and blazing a trail all on your own dime is it?

And now we are here today and we have internet and it's running on Fiber and Copper and it's still the same issues being played out. Whoever was here first and ran the infrastructure and laid the cables is the one that took the real risks, invested capitol on projects that should turn them a profit, as long as technology doesn't outpace their deployment and pricing schemes and customer adoption rates. Imagine when Dish showed up and they didn't have to run cables at all. Dish just drives out to any home that has a clear view of the Southern skies, installs an antenna, runs some coax. Cox is stuck with miles of cable and fiber run and continued costs to maintain all the nodes but all those drops that don't have paying customers really puts a dent in recovering their outlay and meeting their profit forcats for their stockholders.

No I know this sounds like I am crying a river for the cable companies and ISPs, I'm not. I'm just trying to paint the picture for you that explains why it looks like these companies are all in cahoots with each others. Once a company runs that cable, they really want to hold onto their "turff" and they have good reasons, even after they have recouped their costs. They still have bills to pay but not nearly as many customers on the hook as they had planned back when they were laying all that cable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, im not crying a river.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5839394
 
bandwidth is super cheap. They already have the backbone to support all the leechers.

But it's about fucking the customer, and pleasing stock holders with every extra dollar earned. Squeezing blood from stone
 
lcpiper said:
Hmmm, so go back like 45 years or so, early cable days. Now put yourself somewhere like here in Arizona and say ... there is no cable, nothing at all but Broadcast TV. Cox Cable shows up and applies for permits and starts running cable for cable TV service. Cox forks out the money for all the infrastructure and no other company can use Cox's cables to transmit their service's because that wouldn't be right. They didn't spend the money to run all that cable and put in all those nodes, Cox did. If another company wants to move in and compete, they need to bury their own cables right?

But then people start complaining cause Cox is a monopoly and there is no choice etc etc. So the Government makes up some new laws and forces Cox to allow other companies to run their services over Cox's infrastructure. They have to pay Cox some cash, but that's not the same thing as taking a huge risk and blazing a trail all on your own dime is it?

And now we are here today and we have internet and it's running on Fiber and Copper and it's still the same issues being played out. Whoever was here first and ran the infrastructure and laid the cables is the one that took the real risks, invested capitol on projects that should turn them a profit, as long as technology doesn't outpace their deployment and pricing schemes and customer adoption rates. Imagine when Dish showed up and they didn't have to run cables at all. Dish just drives out to any home that has a clear view of the Southern skies, installs an antenna, runs some coax. Cox is stuck with miles of cable and fiber run and continued costs to maintain all the nodes but all those drops that don't have paying customers really puts a dent in recovering their outlay and meeting their profit forcats for their stockholders.

No I know this sounds like I am crying a river for the cable companies and ISPs, I'm not. I'm just trying to paint the picture for you that explains why it looks like these companies are all in cahoots with each others. Once a company runs that cable, they really want to hold onto their "turff" and they have good reasons, even after they have recouped their costs. They still have bills to pay but not nearly as many customers on the hook as they had planned back when they were laying all that cable.
Click to expand...

Regardless of who put the internet line in. This is the exact reason why the FCC regulates the internet.
What you are really saying is because the company laid the lines they can do what they want with it. Oh and BTW they didn't pay for it out of the goodness of their heart. They"invested" infrastructure to gain customers, and now every other subscriber who uses Cox paid for it and then some. If everyone had this mentality about their service we wouldn't have any service areas that spanned outside of the city. Those in rural areas wouldn't even have an option to get internet (some still don't).
This is exactly why NN laws need to stay and not be stripped away. So these billion dollar companies can't shutdown their section of the internet because someone else's traffic runs across it. The initial backbone for the internet was not installed by any company but was something the government started and allowed other companies to build on and expand it.
 
Seventyfive said:
I think it just depends. I moved into a brand new community so AT&T was able to wire the whole community with fiber to the home and they came around a few months ago and offered 1gbps up/down + every channel except HBO and Cinemax for $150/mo for 2 years. I can't imagine how many people dumped cox that week.

The hard part about a new entrant to a community coming in to compete is A) the incumbent has bribed the shit out of the city council for years so that B) the challenger can't get permits and C) even though the community might want better stuff, many ignorant people say "I don't want construction" and it's just not possible to lay fresh fiber in most places without digging up the roads
Click to expand...
I have heard some rumors (not sure if its true or not) but where i am supposedly the city signed a lifetime contract with comcast and will not allow anyone come in for competition. I question the validity of that and the legality of a "lifetime" contract. Either way we get screwed because verizon won't put FiOS in and no other company can provide cable internet. We have Mediacom in the areas around here but not in the town. Not that Mediacom is a great provider but at least its competition.
 
Kdawg said:
bandwidth is super cheap. They already have the backbone to support all the leechers.

But it's about fucking the customer, and pleasing stock holders with every extra dollar earned. Squeezing blood from stone
Click to expand...

Cox is a private company
 
Verge said:
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL


Big stock trader?
Click to expand...
Actually no and given your sarcasm, apparently you are? Just looked up to see what it was and that's what showed up. Still proof that not everything that shows up is not 100% accurate. Still not really part of the topic, so remaining on topic this is still F-ing over the customer. Thank you for your insight though.
 
SomeoneElse said:
Actually no and given your sarcasm, apparently you are? Just looked up to see what it was and that's what showed up. Still proof that not everything that shows up is not 100% accurate. Still not really part of the topic, so remaining on topic this is still F-ing over the customer. Thank you for your insight though.
Click to expand...

Did you edit your post?

Because the first URL you posted was a Japanese company trading on the Japanese exchange. Hence my over the top response.
 
I caved and am paying the extra $50/month with Comcast. Got tired of walking on a razor's edge during the last week or two of every month.

This goes out to all the telecoms:
Code: 
    ________   __    __    _______   __    __
   |        | |  |  |  |  /       | |  |  /  /
   |  ------' |  |  |  |  |   ____| |  | /  /
   |  |___    |  |  |  |  |  |      |  |/  /
   |   ___|   |  |  |  |  |  |      |     /
   |  |       |  |  |  |  |  |____  |     \
   |  |       |   --   |  |       | |  |\  \
   |__|       \________/   \______| |__| \__\

                                     _____
                                    ||   ||
                                    |\___/|
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                               _____|<--->|_____
                              /     |     |     \
                         /    |     |     |     | \
                         |    |     |     |     |  |
                         |    |     |     |     |  |
                         |                      |  |
                         |                      |  |
                         |                        /
                         |                       /
                          \                    /
                           \                  /
                            |                 |
                            |                 |

                                     ____     ____  _________   ___     ___
                                     \   \   /   / /         \ |   |   |   |
                                      \   \ /   /  |  _____  | |   |   |   |
                                       \       /   | |     | | |   |   |   |
                                        \     /    | |     | | |   |   |   |
                                         |   |     | |     | | |   |   |   |
                                         |   |     | |_____| | |   |___|   |
                                         |   |     |         | |           |
                                         |___|     \_________/ \___________/
 
It's very easy to hit when you're downloading 100 GB XBONE/PS4 games. Per 50GB is severe though, should be for each additional 200GB or something. +$10 for every 5% over quickly gets you an absolutely ridiculous charge.
 
Verge said:
Did you edit your post?

Because the first URL you posted was a Japanese company trading on the Japanese exchange. Hence my over the top response.
Click to expand...
No it changed for some reason.....like I said not the internet is not %100. I think the site is has changed, now it shows absolutely nothing hence the confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top