Is Cox Communications taking advantage of customers?

Recently, a number of people I know have let me know they had to upgrade to a faster internet connection with Cox . They said their tv was messing up while watching videos online. Cox support told them they needed a faster internet connection. After upgrading to a faster internet connection the tvs began to watch content correctly.

I asked a few questions.

1) Did they down grade their internet speed any time in the last year? They said No.

2) Did they change their tv in the last year? Answer was NO.

3) Are they using other internet connected devices while watching TV ? They said NO.

I pointed out the tv had worked fine at the original internet speed.

Did the internet speed they were paying before slow down?

The only thing that had changed in the last year was Cox's definition of internet speed. On Cox website every speed you can get is described as "Up to this speed level" . It does not say how often you will get that speed level.

Is Cox slowing down customers internet connections to push them towards upgrading to a speed level they cannot even provide and is not needed?

This as another reason the Cox monopoly is bad for consumers.

At&t does not count as a high speed internet provider since they are using cables that existed before the internet even existed resulting in slow / internet connections.

In my discussions with the city, they stated the reason we are stuck with Cox is because Cox owns the cables under ground. My solution was to have the install conduit in the streets whenever street work is being done as a specific depth and distance from the curb. This way multiple fiber optic cables could be installed easily and at a lower cost. As a side benefit, Having fiber optic cabling connecting street lights would allow the city to utilize services coordinating signal lights with the physical location of cell phones in cars to make stopping in traffic less of a problem. Currently, street lights are times based upon data from one or two years ago.

Some people point out putting conduit or cables in the ground costs money. That is correct and at one point Cox will have to upgrade their underground cabling. That will cost money what will be collected in the bills to customers. I would rather the City own the conduit allowing for competitive bidding on who offers internet service to the residents of our city.

Here is what Cox offers:

Price* Download speeds up to Upload speeds up to

$39.99/mo. 50mbps 3 Mbps

$59.99/mo. 150 10 Mbps

$79.99/mo. 500 10 Mbps

$99.99/mo. 940 35 Mbps
I do not think Cox infrastructure can really handle the 500mbps and 940 mbps consistently is at all for most locations.

Lets compare Google Fiber

Package
Name Starting Prices Google Fiber Speeds

Fiber 100 $50/mo. 100Mbps

Fiber 1000 $70/mo. 1000Mbps
WEBPASS $60/mo. 100 Mbps to 1000 Mbps, depending on location

Now lets see bit rates needed for streaming video. I researched and youtube listed the most demanding video range. probably since they are also allocating bandwidth for ads running on their pages. see https://support.google.com/you...

1080p @60 fps

Resolution: 1920x1080 Video Bitrate Range: 4,500-9,000 Kbps

4k / 2160p @60 fps

Resolution: 3840x2160p Video Bitrate Range: 20,000-51,000 Kbps

While most streaming service do not stream at these rates , it gives a reference point for most bandwidth needed for streaming per tv.

High definition / most TVs , computers more 5 years old are usually this (1st 4k tv ever sold was in 2012)

so at 1080p 60fps resolution max needed to operate at highest resolution is only 9 Mbps

At 4k, it is 51 Mbps

Since uploading videos requires bandwdth by the streaming service, I personally doubt most streaming services automatically send videos at the highest settings. More like a combination of User settings, bandwith user has, number of users online, number of active simultaneous connections by a user, video quality of the original video itself. and probably other factors I missed.

So from this, a single 1080p TV should easily work at maximum quality with a 15 Mbps connection. Provided Cox actually delivers the speed being paid for. But sadly it appear it cannot.

If I had 5 1080 Tvs streaming at the same time, I would need only 50mbps

I did notice a person commenting on this article appears to be an employee of Cox pretending to be some expert stating Cox is great. Yet fails to provide supporting data on speeds needed for Streaming.

I would like to mention I am running for City Council in Lake Forest and would love to have this investigated, not by a Cox representative , but with input from residents.

I am not afraid of Cox.

As for wether or not I win the upcoming election I have already won because it forces correctable issues like this to be shown to the public allowing for change.

Frank Wagoner.