I have the premiere package from COX, 5000/768. It is everything they said it would be.
It's fast BUT is it really worth? I thought about it and I do not reallty think it is
worth $14.99 for a 1000/256 in speed. Will it really make that much of a difference in
Internet travels? Not really. I think COX should bump it up to 6000/1000 or maybe a little
more and then I wouldn't think twice about it.

The regular package is 4000/512 and the premiere is 5000/768. What do you think? I think
COX is not going to get much people to get the premiere package upgrade ofr $14.99.
There's not much of incentive for what you pay.

Lonnie wrote:
Then why do you have it?

Well they certainly got you didn't they?

--
Brian

Lonnie <alienoozeDONOTUSE@cox.net> wrote:
I'd gladly pay $15 more a month if I could get a guaranteed *minimum* speed
(CIR), like with DSL. Heck, I'd even drop down in speed again, if I could
get 1500-3000/256-256 instead of 0-4000/0-512, as it is now.

Regards,
--
*Art

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:30:59 -0400, Brian <home@127.0.0.1> wrote:

}Lonnie wrote:
}> I have the premiere package from COX, 5000/768. It is everything they said it would be.
}> It's fast BUT is it really worth? I thought about it and I do not reallty think it is
}> worth $14.99 for a 1000/256 in speed. Will it really make that much of a difference in
}> Internet travels? Not really. I think COX should bump it up to 6000/1000 or maybe a
little
}> more and then I wouldn't think twice about it.
}
}Then why do you have it?

because they are letting people try it out for free for 3 months. I should have specified
that in my post,sorry.
}
}> The regular package is 4000/512 and the premiere is 5000/768. What do you think? I
think
}> COX is not going to get much people to get the premiere package upgrade ofr $14.99.
}> There's not much of incentive for what you pay.
}
}Well they certainly got you didn't they?

On,Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:27:32 GMT,Lonnie wrote in
news:qv1nj05ancf3tpsgikj457h74p5ukisv6i@4ax.com:

[some snippery to the point of the reply]

It depends on what one does on the Internet. The 5000kbps
represents a 25% increase in download speed, and 756 is a ~48%
increase in the upload speed. For heavy downloaders and gamers,
those are significant increases for what amounts to 50 cents per
day. If all one does is surf the web, read/send e-mail, IM,
limited NG activity, etc., then it's probably not worth it (IMHO).

At least in my area (maybe all areas), Cox offered the Premier
package for the same price as the Premium package for 3 months,
after which the sub could switch back if they desired (at no
cost). I suspect that quite a few of those who took that offer
won't downgrade at the end of the promotional period.

--
MarkT
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you
are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard Feynman

On,Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:16 GMT,MarkT wrote in
news:Xns955BCB833FC70markalso@68.6.19.6:

I _hate_ replying to my own posts ... but I also hate posting
incorrect information. The above sentence _should_ have been:

The 5000kbps represents a 25% increase in download speed, and the
768kbps is a 50% increase in the upload speed.

Sheesh!!! Anyone seen my brain lately? :-)

--
MarkT
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you
are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard Feynman

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:46:31 GMT, MarkT <MarkT@ho-hum.org> wrote:

}On,Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:16 GMT,MarkT wrote in
}news:Xns955BCB833FC70markalso@68.6.19.6:
}
}> The 5000kbps represents a 25% increase in download speed, and
}> 756 is a ~48% increase in the upload speed.

actually it's omly 20% increase 4 dl and only 34% increase 4 ul

4000/5000 .80 = 20%

& 512/768 .666 = 34%
}
}I _hate_ replying to my own posts ... but I also hate posting
}incorrect information. The above sentence _should_ have been:
}
}The 5000kbps represents a 25% increase in download speed, and the
}768kbps is a 50% increase in the upload speed.
}
}Sheesh!!! Anyone seen my brain lately? :-)

Lonnie wrote:

Lonnie <alienoozeDONOTUSE@cox.net> wrote:
You flunked at maths in school, I hope[1].

What you've just shown is that it would be a 20% *decrease* to go from 5000
to 4000, and a 33 1/3% (which, by the way, rounds to 33%, not 34%)
*decrease* to go from 768 to 512.

(5000/4000-1)*100% = 25%, or in baby talk:
A quarter of my current 4000 kbps download speed is 1000 kbps. A quarter of
anything is 25%. Thus, if I increase my download speed by 1000 kbps, I
increase it by 25%.

(768/512-1)*100% = 50%, or in baby talk:
A half of my current 512 kbps upload speed is 256 kbps. A half of anything
is 50%. Thus, if I increase my upload speed by 256 kbps, I increase it by
50%.

[1]: Otherwise, our school system is even more fucked up than I thought.

--
*Art

MarkT --
Lonnie <alienoozeDONOTUSE@cox.net>:
The magic of viewpoint. 5000 is 25% more than 4000, but
4000 is only 20% less than 5000. It depends on which end
of the range you take as the basis for calculation.

Lonnie wrote:

Yes, but 4000 x 25% = 1000, and 4000 + 1000 = 5000.
Therefore 5000 is a 25% increase over 4000.

And 512 x 50% = 256, and 512 + 256 = 768.
Therefore 768 is a 50% increase over 512.

Going from 5000 to 4000 is a 20% cut in speed, and going from 768 to 51
is a 33.3% decrease in speed, but increasing from 4000 to 5000 is a 25%
increase in speed, and from 512 to 768 is a 50% increase.

You want to have fun with this? Tell your you want a 10% pay increase
this week, but you'll be willing to take a 10% cut next week. Sounds
like a wash, doesn't it? Well, let's say you make $10/hour now. A 10%
raise gives you a new wage of $11/hour. Now take your 10% pay cut. 10%
of $11 is $1.10. Your new rate of pay is $9.90/hour. If you work 40
hours the week you're making $11/hour, if you leave before you've stayed
another 10 weeks, you'll come out ahead. (Of course if you stay longer
than 10 weeks, you'll start loosing money.)

Aren't percentages fun? They make it even easier to lie with statistics
because they seem to add context. But if you don't know what that
context is, you're no better off than with raw numbers.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for your Northwest garden:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgarden/index.html

On,Mon, 06 Sep 2004 02:20:18 GMT,mimsy wrote in
news:13inj0dl5evjaa5ro2kqb3ilt9eb0l8v76@4ax.com:

I had a feeling that this argument would follow, and considered
explaining it. But when I specifically stated /increase/ (and not
decrease)in the numbers, I thought that was sufficient. Guess
that I was wrong.

--
MarkT
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you
are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard Feynman

Lonnie wrote:

Duh...it's an increase of 1000 *from* 4000 *to* 5000. 1000 is
25% of 4000, so it is an *increase* of 25%. If it were a *decrease*
of 1000 from 5000 to 4000, it would be a *decrease* of 20%. Yes...
a 25% increase from 4000 is the same amount as a 20% decrease from
5000.

As above, an *increase* of 256 from 512 *to* 768 is an *increase*
of 50% (256 is 50% of 512.) A *decrease* of 256 from 768 *to* 512
is a *decrease* of 33.3% (256 is 33.3% of 768.) Yes, 50% of 512 is
the same amount as 33.3% of 768.

Remember, it is an increase or decrease from a *starting value*.

[Math class is now excused.]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:14:09 -0700, ric <nospam@home.com> wrote:

}Lonnie wrote:
}
}> }> The 5000kbps represents a 25% increase in download speed, and
}> }> 756 is a ~48% increase in the upload speed.
}>
}> actually it's omly 20% increase 4 dl and only 34% increase 4 ul
}>
}> 4000/5000 .80 = 20%
}
}Duh...it's an increase of 1000 *from* 4000 *to* 5000. 1000 is
}25% of 4000, so it is an *increase* of 25%. If it were a *decrease*
}of 1000 from 5000 to 4000, it would be a *decrease* of 20%. Yes...
}a 25% increase from 4000 is the same amount as a 20% decrease from
}5000.

and 100 is 20% of 5000

}
}> & 512/768 .666 = 34%
}
}As above, an *increase* of 256 from 512 *to* 768 is an *increase*
}of 50% (256 is 50% of 512.) A *decrease* of 256 from 768 *to* 512
}is a *decrease* of 33.3% (256 is 33.3% of 768.) Yes, 50% of 512 is
}the same amount as 33.3% of 768.

same as above

}
}Remember, it is an increase or decrease from a *starting value*.
}
}[Math class is now excused.]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:58:39 -0400, Lonnie <alienoozeDONOTUSE@cox.net> wrote:

}On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:14:09 -0700, ric <nospam@home.com> wrote:
}
}}Lonnie wrote:
}}
}}> }> The 5000kbps represents a 25% increase in download speed, and
}}> }> 756 is a ~48% increase in the upload speed.
}}>
}}> actually it's omly 20% increase 4 dl and only 34% increase 4 ul
}}>
}}> 4000/5000 .80 = 20%
}}
}}Duh...it's an increase of 1000 *from* 4000 *to* 5000. 1000 is
}}25% of 4000, so it is an *increase* of 25%. If it were a *decrease*
}}of 1000 from 5000 to 4000, it would be a *decrease* of 20%. Yes...
}}a 25% increase from 4000 is the same amount as a 20% decrease from
}}5000.
}
}and 100 is 20% of 5000

I meant to say 1000 is 20% of 5000

U see my meaning. Don't be so busy looking at the pubic hairs that you don't see the
vagina.

the $15 increase is not worth the higher speed in my opinion. That's the meat of the
thread.
}
}}
}}> & 512/768 .666 = 34%
}}
}}As above, an *increase* of 256 from 512 *to* 768 is an *increase*
}}of 50% (256 is 50% of 512.) A *decrease* of 256 from 768 *to* 512
}}is a *decrease* of 33.3% (256 is 33.3% of 768.) Yes, 50% of 512 is
}}the same amount as 33.3% of 768.
}
}same as above
}
}}
}}Remember, it is an increase or decrease from a *starting value*.
}}
}}[Math class is now excused.]

Lonnie <alienoozeDONOTUSE@cox.net> wrote:
How about you lending me 5000 bucks at your 20% interest rate?

(If I were you, I'd stop commenting more on anything that has remotely to do
with maths or percentages. I'm sure you're good at something, but maths
ain't it.)

--
*Art

Lonnie posted <qv1nj05ancf3tpsgikj457h74p5ukisv6i@4ax.com>, excerpted
below, on Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:27:32 -0400:

I think it's a reasonable offer, now. As others have stated, it's a
25/50% speed increase (download/upload). The price increase is 30% ($15
is 30% of $50) for CHSI alone, 37.5% of the bundled cost of $40 standard
internet plus phone or mid-tier minimum CATV. Thus, the cost increase is
very roughly proportional to the speed increase.

Previously, it was NOT such a good offer. They offered a 33/50% increase
in speed (from 3M/256k to 4M/384k) but at roughly **DOUBLE** the cost ($80
vs $40, I think it was, or $90 vs $50, non-bundled).

However, speeds aren't the ONLY thing in the package. Currently, Cox
doesn't seem to be enforcing bytecaps, but they do have them and had
attempted to enforce them in the past. It has been difficult getting
bytecap numbers for the new speeds, but the old ones were 30G/7.5G (again,
down, up) for the standard package, IIRC 50G/12G for the premium package.
Thus, about a 66% increase. Again, not a good deal at the old
double-price point. However, from a slightly /different/ perspective, not
as /bad/ a deal as a forced upgrade to a biz package (offers here in Phx
ranged from $99/mo for 384k/384k, to $150/mo for 1.5M/256k, to $220/mo for
3M/384k), which HAD been what they were offering as the ONLY alternative
when folks exceeded the 30G/7.5G standard bytecaps, before.

Assuming the SAME bytecaps apply to the /new service, the 30-37.5%
increase in price is quite reasonable, for a 66% increase in bytecap.

Still, that's not the entire picture, as the rest of the package includes
seven email accounts, and seven webspace allotments, each 10MB, so a total
of 140MB of combined web and mail storage. As well, there's the news
service, with four connections of 384kbps each to each of three servers
(when it's working correctly). These features are the same on both
account levels, so a 0% increase in service for (now) a 30-37.5% increase
in price. Of course, the 4Mbps bandwidth /does/ allow you to use more of
those 12 allowed news connections to full effect, since that totals
4.5Mbps of theoretical bandwidth, if the customer side of the pipe allowed
it, but the news servers haven't been health enough to use that since the
speed increase.

FWIW, general expectation is that Cox WILL eventually start enforcing
bytecaps again. The main objections before were two-fold. First,
there was no sensible upgrade path for those who exceeded the bytecap
restriction. (Paying more than three times as much, $150, for a
half-speed download, same speed upload, pipe, is *NOT* sensible.) That
one has now been addressed, with a decently reasonable premium service
option. Second, there was no way for users to check on their bandwidth
usage. Most ISPs (and other services such as hosting providers and
news service providers) that enforce bytecaps have a method in place for
the user to check where they are in the month's usage. Cox didn't have
this available. This has yet to be addressed, but it's quite likely
Cox is working on it. If they find a suitable solution, I and some others
expect bytecaps will again be enforced, providing that reason in addition
to the raw speed caps to choose the premium service, over the standard
service.

The caveat in the bytecap thing, however, is that Cox only upgraded speed
in ordered to keep ahead in the increased competition from primarily DSL,
but also (it would seem) to keep ahead of other cable systems such as
comcast, which only recently increased speeds from 1.5Mbps to the 3Mbps
Cox had in most areas for some time. Keep in mind that DSL is available,
if one happens to be close enough to a switching center to get it, up to
6Mbps, now. Also know that while Cox along with most CHSI providers
forbids servers on residential accounts, DSL generally doesn't. That sort
of offsets the generally higher speed for cost CHSI normally offers.
Anyway, DSL generally is *NOT* bytecapped either, and it's entirely
possible that the competitive climate is now such that Cox won't see it
worthwhile to enforce the bytecaps, due to both the cost and hassle of
doing so, and the bad press such a move would trigger, even if, as
claimed, it only affects the top 1-3% of bandwidth users. 1% of several
hundred thousand subscribers is STILL an awful lot of customers to make
angry all at once, angry enough to generate a huge amount of bad press,
even if (as the bandwidth people claim), these folks cost more to support
due to their bandwidth use than they provide in revenue. Thus, whether
Cox will ever attempt to seriously enforce monthly bytecaps again, remains
an open question.

Anyway, what it all comes down to is that the premium service is now an
entirely reasonable value for the speed increases provided, and, if ever
enforced, for the bytecaps as well. Whether that additional speed is
worth more than having that $15 stay in your bank account every month, is
a question only the individual user can decide. Some can definitely use
the additional bandwidth, and won't mind paying for it. Others will find
an additional $15/mo difficult to come up with on a regular basis. Most,
I suspect, are somewhere in the middle, being able to afford the $15/mo
without issue, but equally, not finding the extra speed that much better
for their usage, either.

....

As an aside, I was talking to one of my non-geek co-workers that happens
to have CHSI, and he didn't know there /was/ a cap, before. He thought
the speed, like that when you purchase a regular dialup modem, was limited
by the available technology. Then he gets this mail saying they increased
speeds, and that even /more/ speed is available if you pay them more, and
now he knows they arbitrarily cap speed and /could/ give him more for his
money if they uncapped it. (The technical details of the effects of
uncapping everyone on a shared and globally capped by the technology
network space, and the fact that doing so would force node splits up the
yinyang and those cost money, which ultimately comes from the customer, as
well as the potential traffic jams until all those node splits
occurred, as some are evidently already seeing with the higher 4Mbps
cap, didn't enter into the conversation.)

--
Duncan - Newsgroup replies preferred. See x-munging headers.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin

Lonnie wrote:
the INCREASE from 4000 to 5000 is 1000, which is 25% of 4000. A 25%
increase
Similar method for 512 to 768.
You are calculating the increase to the wrong base.

Lonnie wrote:

increase may or may not be of significant value to you. For my, a 50%
increase in upstream speed would probably be worth a 25% increase in the
monthly charge. For those who upload very little, it probably would not
be a good price structure. Much depends on one's use of the internet.
For someone who checks email, pays a few bills online, checks the
weather, and does some Googling, even dialup is adequate.

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:14:21 -0400, "Arthur Hagen" <art@broomstick.com> wrote:

}Lonnie <alienoozeDONOTUSE@cox.net> wrote:
}>
}> and 100 is 20% of 5000
}
}How about you lending me 5000 bucks at your 20% interest rate?
}
}(If I were you, I'd stop commenting more on anything that has remotely to do
}with maths or percentages. I'm sure you're good at something, but maths
}ain't it.)


neither is your English