50% OFF COX cable services!!!

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

To be honest, I couldn't and still can't tell the difference between Cox's telephone and when we had AT&T.

Sorry, no thanks.  AT&T will never have this customer back.

You won't. It's not that the signals are compressed either. All phone calls are digitized at some point in the transmission chain, VOIP calls get that conversion earlier than a pots line.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Radio

quote:Originally posted by laloca65

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

. . . from one that is overcharging you 100% Sure! Hey, at least call and give 'em a scare.

U-verse offers 4 video feeds per receiver and 40HD channels, which means four sets can access different content at the same time (or, 4 DVR streams).  Plus, it is already rated at 1080 p HD which is crazy clarity.  10,000 movies on demand. Mapquest maps on yer tv screen via yellowopages.com. DVR controls from your wireless phone. The TVOIP is an entirely different deal than DSL.  Plus, no contracts!

I talk to people all the time who are promised a certain speed by cable but in reality are getting far less.  One fellah yesterday even checked his 'Cox 10MPS' and was pulling 1.5! You are lucky to have a consistent speed with Cox!

The difference between what Cox offers and what U-verse offers is the difference between a bag phone and an iPhone.

4 feeds per receiver (only one can be HD) and the exact same number of HD channels as COX which does 2 HD streams per receiver and no limit on the number of receivers. I currently have cable in 6 rooms.

Loss of HD functionality? Loss of # rooms?
Additional rooms $5/mo each? HD is $10 extra? Only one DVR allowed? A whopping 1.5M download with their LARGEST package?

PUHLEEZE

Wake me up when you're serious.

TextTextText

Verse. So if Cox phone is so bad then why would ATT be going to the same system? Plus if you weren't aware, Cox provides the phone services for 911 in Tulsa as well as your schools, goverment offices, hospitals, and so many other very important business as well as homes.
And as for any company, if your smart of course your going to try to save your customer from making a mistake and keep them as a customer when they call in to disconnect.

Uh... No.

911 gets its service from AT&T for their 911
system.  Cox does not have the capability to provide that service, and be very careful of your facts when you come back with the "Yes they do" line.

Cox may tell you they provide service to the
911 center, and yeah, they may provide cable to the 911 center, but not the 911 phone lines and trunks.  Pay closer attention during the sales meetings.

Insofar as VoIP - That is simply the technology.  Don't think for a moment that Cox was first with it.

Actually....in this market, as far as CLECs or ISPs are concerned, they were first with it.  Cox initially rolled out their PacketCable technology (read that as VoIP) in two test markets.  You guessed it, Tulsa was one.  The other was Hampton Roads, Virginia.  And no, I don't consider Vonage (or any of the other piggyback carriers) a REAL CLEC.

They shouldn't be considered a CLEC unless they have local switching, which I don't think Vonage ever does. That's also why they have real issues with 911 service.

[Radio]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

Actually....in this market, as far as CLECs or ISPs are concerned, they were first with it.  Cox initially rolled out their PacketCable technology (read that as VoIP) in two test markets.  You guessed it, Tulsa was one.  The other was Hampton Roads, Virginia.  And no, I don't consider Vonage (or any of the other piggyback carriers) a REAL CLEC.

I guess my point was that VoIP is sort of like the internal combustion engine.  Almost everyone uses it to propel their cars, does it really matter at this point who used it first?

Just like with engines, everyone has modifications - but the underlying physics are still the same.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

at&t's U-verse uses a different method of compression that gives better sound quality to VOIP.  A convenient battery back-up supplies power for five hours of talk time during outages.  The voice service provides a 500 number call log and unified messaging with multiple mailboxes.  More on U-verse voice here.

pancakes is going on with you? You get the facts wrong and keep posting crap? U-Verse doesn't use VoIP. It uses POTS through the remote terminal, just like at&t/SBC/SWB's voice has been for the last 20 years. When the battery in the RT dies, so does your telephone service.

That is, unless you happen to be hooked directly to the CO, which since around 2001 has been unlikely unless you're closer than about a mile. Once you switch to U-Verse, you will certainly be fed through an RT, thus subject to battery drain after a while.

That said, Cox has a lot more batteries to charge than at&t, so it's much more likely that at&t will get a portable generator out to the RT before they crap out than Cox does. And of course Cox depends on the battery in your modem not going out, which takes around 12 hours from what I hear. If you have it on a dedicated UPS, the battery in the UPS will of course lengthen that time considerably.

Also, at&t's Internet speeds, even over U-Verse are abysmal compared to Cox. The only saving grace there is that their abysmal speeds are almost always rock solid reliable. Cox has been that way for me, though, since I switched.

If it weren't for the limitation on multiple HD streams and the inability to use my TiVos, I'd at least consider U-Verse. As it stands I've got 6 HD tuners in my apartment. (2 dual tuner HD TiVos w/CableCARDs and one of Cox's DVRs that I need to take back to them sometime)

Of course, it's not available to me (I'm in an at&t serviced area in south Tulsa), so the service might as well not exist, anyway. Even if it did, they never could get 6Mbps DSL to work, so why should I expect them to be able to get 25Mbps DSL to work? (the DSL remote terminal is only about half a mile away from me, which happens to be where they put in a new U-Verse RT a couple of months ago)

And just out of curiosity, is there a single U-Verse FTTP build in Tulsa? I know there is at least one subdivision in the OKC area, but I haven't heard of any here.

[sgrizzle]

Thank you Nathanm. I was feeling isolated on geek island.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm


pancakes is going on with you? You get the facts wrong and keep posting crap? U-Verse doesn't use VoIP. It uses POTS through the remote terminal, just like at&t/SBC/SWB's voice has been for the last 20 years. When the battery in the RT dies, so does your telephone service.

Geek on, brahs! When at&t's own press releases refer to U-verse voice as a VOIP service, what is the everyday consumer to think? THAT is what is wrong with me. Here, read this press release. Here is a Google search on the topic. Whatev, dude.

Cox offered to price match my services which would have saved me about $200 a year, but I do not have the high-end services which were bringing the 50% offer to OKC customers.  Apparently those of you who spend like $200 a MONTH on their services may get the 50% offer. So you big-spenders out there may be able to save some major bank by merely threatening to switch.

[patric]

Doesnt sound like POTS (plain old telephone service) to me:

"AT&T U-verse Voice is a little different in terms of managed IP-based service. Instead of being delivered over the internet, it's delivered over AT&T's fiber network, which according to the company results in better sound quality and reliability.

But then, how is U-verse VoIP? The voice and wireless voice mail boxes are accessible both online and on traditional phone lines. It also features click-to-call functionality and Locate Me, which allows calls to simultaneously go to up to four wireless or landline phones."
http://www.voip-news.com/blog/20080212/new-voip-service-in-connecticut

If nothing else, competition is good for the consumer.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by patric

Doesnt sound like POTS (plain old telephone service) to me:

"AT&T U-verse Voice is a little different in terms of managed IP-based service. Instead of being delivered over the internet, it's delivered over AT&T's fiber network, which according to the company results in better sound quality and reliability.

What they say is technically true. The service is delivered partially over fiber, just as it has been for 20 years or more in some places.

The new "features" could be offered just as easily without U-Verse. The modifications are pure software on their end combined with some features implemented through their video boxes. (IIRC). The talk path is still the standard voice over copper.

Regardless, it's stupid expensive for what you get. My video bill, including all the premiums, is only about $100 a month. (and that includes taxes) at&t's Internet service is indeed cheaper, but it's also significantly slower. If you don't mind that, why bother with U-Verse? They sell 3Mbps DSL for $20 a month, after all, or the 1.5 they include as part of the package price for $15.

They do have one major advantage over Cox, though. They have HDNet and HDNet Movies.

My point is that you're probably paying too much if you're bundling services. Sometimes Cox and at&t both run specials where the first 6 months are cheaper if you bundle, but the normal price for each component is the same regardless, so after your promotional period is up, you'll be paying full price.

[sgrizzle]

My cox bundle discount ($30) has been active for like 4-5 years.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

My cox bundle discount ($30) has been active for like 4-5 years.

Ditto.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

My cox bundle discount ($30) has been active for like 4-5 years.

Lucky you. They claim to only do 6 month deals now.

[rival178]

so what dollar amount did Cox take off to keep you a customer?

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm



The new "features" could be offered just as easily without U-Verse. The modifications are pure software on their end combined with some features implemented through their video boxes. (IIRC). The talk path is still the standard voice over copper.

Apparently those software mods give voice a better sound than cable or other VOIP services. I dunno.

quote:Originally posted by nathanm



Regardless, it's stupid expensive for what you get. My video bill, including all the premiums, is only about $100 a month. (and that includes taxes) at&t's Internet service is indeed cheaper, but it's also significantly slower. If you don't mind that, why bother with U-Verse? They sell 3Mbps DSL for $20 a month, after all, or the 1.5 they include as part of the package price for $15.

Cox is charging me $40/mo for their 6Mbps and I have been getting 1.5 downstream 700k upstream.  DSL and u-verse should provide the promised speed more routinely (more bang for the buck).

quote:Originally posted by nathanm


They do have one major advantage over Cox, though. They have HDNet and HDNet Movies.

Have you seen Cox's commercial that misleads viewers? It says 'the phone company charges extra for HD.'

quote:Originally posted by nathanm


My point is that you're probably paying too much if you're bundling services. Sometimes Cox and at&t both run specials where the first 6 months are cheaper if you bundle, but the normal price for each component is the same regardless, so after your promotional period is up, you'll be paying full price.

So you still save with bundled services because of the promotional discount, right? Interweb orders for u-verse are offering first month free, so I will save about $104 there, pick up wireless networking 'free' and HD/DVR to boot, still for less than what Cox was charging me.  I am not going to bundle my wireless though BC bundled services are not eligible for discounts on the wireless.

[EricP]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Cox is charging me $40/mo for their 6Mbps and I have been getting 1.5 downstream 700k upstream.  DSL and u-verse should provide the promised speed more routinely (more bang for the buck).

If you are getting 1.5mbit downstream on the 9mbit plan, you have serious signal issues or you need to do a better job of benchmarking your connection.

Let's run a quick test of my 12mbit connection I pay $54/mo for:



Speedboost above and beyond my normal 24mbit: Check. Upstream slightly above my rated 1mbit: check. And this is before even higher speeds come later this summer... All I am saying is don't blame Cox if you have failed to maintain the lines in your house. If you actually wanted speed out of your connection instead of trying to bash Cox, you could easily get it.

Hmm, maybe I need more test sites?

PCPitstop:

Your receive buffer size is currently set at default. The default value does not provide the best performance. We recommend PC Pitstop Optimize to increase download speed.
Download speed: 12455 kilobits per second

Speakeasy.net:

Download Speed: 24227 kbps (3028.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 1026 kbps (128.3 KB/sec transfer rate)

[tim huntzinger]

No bashing, I talk to folk who never got good service from DSL as well.  If I was not u-verse 'eligible' I would stay with Cox (and take the discount for threatening to switch). I had times when I went days without service with cable and FINALLY they sent someone out - no more outages but still slow.   Truthfully, since I do not do heavy lifting on the innerwebs I never really noticed it was slow until I did one of them bandwidth tests.