--=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure that I would label Cox Broadband a monopoly as they do > have competition from DSL and satellite. Also, to be frank here, it's > their cable. At worst you can argue a breach of contract if they are > restricting service that you have already paid for. I would bet though > that they have a clause in their customer service agreement or AUP > about the use of bandwidth and privileged ports. All of them do. I personally have always thought restricting ports is a foolish and worthless exercise. I've argued this fairly high up. The primary concern for cable operators is limited available upstream bandwidth spectrum. (simple explanation: cable was designed to send information out originally. not bring it back in) Far better to set some monthly bandwidth usage guidelines and let subscribers see where they stand. (ie view MRTG graphs) > Also, I think that it's becoming more evident every year that $40 a > month for this kind of service is not making anyone rich. From what > I've read $40 a month really just covers the cost of providing the > service for any broadband provider. Anyone else have any data on this? > Scott? Profit on the broadband side is definitely minimal. Only folks with a long established footholds in large markets are in the black on their broadband. Cable ops subsidize the broadband side with profits from the traditional TV business. And the rate of adoption has generally not been as high as some might have predicted. =2D-=20 Scott Harney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "...and one script to rule them all." gpg key fingerprint=3D7125 0BD3 8EC4 08D7 321D CEE9 F024 7DA6 0BC7 94E5 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+iZ3f8CR9pgvHlOURAsINAJ9B4hCv7IpvmczYwddMI+TqcVqG+QCfRSzk qYM6U1YzhcycjEa1ESaeVbQ= =ZadR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
