Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Cox Clobbers Competitor's Customers

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:27:45 AM PDT

If you're one of those lucky folks who has a real choice in broadband providers, savor the moment while you can. As one reluctant Cox customer just discovered, the "last mile" cable and/or phone monopolists aren't going to give up their stranglehold easily.


"Cox Cable bought the local CableAmerica company in the Phoenix area this last summer," the reader wrote. "Cox was not buying new territory, as the vast majority of CableAmerica customers here also had Cox available and had made a decision to NOT buy Cox's services. As far as I know, there were no public hearings, no advanced notices, etc. -- it was just announced as a done deal. We had just been sold to the evil empire and that was it. Sigh."

The reader, who had both cable and Internet service through CableAmerica, tried to get information on what the acquisition would mean for his account. "After the announcement, I tried calling both companies to find out just what would happen. Would we be able to keep our current e-mail addresses? Would we keep our current station lineup? To these and more questions, the answer was 'We don't know.' I was out of town for an extended period. When I returned my e-mail boxes were full of e-mails telling me that I had until October 18th -- then just 10 days away -- to activate my Cox email account as ALL CableAmerica accounts would cease as of that date. I called Cox and was told that everything would be shut down -- i.e. no forwarding or anything after that date."

Cox reps told the reader they'd started sending out the notice. 30 days in advance of the shutdown deadline. Even if he'd had the additional 20 days to make the transition, though, the reader would have been in a difficult situation because of Cox's decision not to forward CableAmerica e-mails after the deadline. The reader asked Cox why it couldn't forward the old addresses for a year or so -- as would be the normal practice -- but didn't get a very satisfactory explanation.

"All I could ever get out of them was a lame excuse that the CableAmerica equipment and infrastructure was too old and wouldn't allow for forwarding," the reader wrote. "It doesn't ring true since all of the infrastructure for CableAmerica was put in at least five years AFTER Cox put their system in. The worst-case scenario is that they could have allowed us six months to a year to run both email systems so we could do a smooth transfer. Maybe it would have cost them a little more, but they're charging us more, too."

As it was, the reader had to scramble to do the best he could before Cox's deadline. "I spent the whole weekend and many more hours trying to remember all my contacts and companies that are using my CableAmerica e-mail addresses," the reader wrote. "Some have been sending me information every so often for many years, but not always on a regular basis, so remembering them was not easy. And after all of this, I know there must be quite a few e-mail contacts that I have missed."

Even after Oct. 18th, Cox had more grief in store for the reader. "When Cox changed the e-mail system, they also changed the way the whole broadband network operated. All of a sudden, the modem I was using for CableAmerica was dropping the connection at random times and for random periods. When I finally called Cox they wanted to schedule an appointment and charge me $50 plus the cost of a new modem. By the way, CableAmerica had free repair calls and would have replaced the modem for free. I persisted and found out that I had been scheduled -- unbeknownst to me -- to have my modem replaced some time in late November as it was not compatible with the Cox network."

After some argument, the reader was able to get Cox to get him a replacement modem sooner without charge. In the process, though, he also found that Cox is making some other changes. "They have already cut the number of TV channels and raised the total monthly bill by $7. I also found out that they will no longer repair any of the cable lines that both they (I had Cox originally many years ago) and/or CableAmerica had installed in my house. Anything inside will be a $50 or more repair bill."

So less service for more money seems to sum up what Cox is offering its newly acquired, or re-acquired, customers. "If you want to see how a monopoly works, just look at Cox," the reader wrote. "Customer service is a concept they would have to look up as they really have absolutely no clue. Cox should have never been allowed to purchase a competing cable company. Now, they can do just what they want and the customer has no options. Lack of customer service plus their increased rates rank them up there with such giants of customer service as Micro$oft, Symantec and Qwest."

The reader has also struck out in terms of finding any public servants who will temper Cox's retribution on those customers who spurned them before. "The city cable office says they have no control about any of this," the reader wrote. "They only collect fees and make sure the cable companies restore any damage they might have done in installing the cable. The FCC doesn't care at all and will do nothing. Believe me, I did try. You can bet that I will be talking to my city councilperson about the licensing agreement with Cox the next time it is up for renewal. I think it would be a great time to hit Cox with a shrinkwrap-type license agreement. Now, that would be justice."

Any company that will only give customers 30-days notice that long-time e-mail addresses are being eliminated sure seems like one that thinks it can do whatever it wants. "From here it looks like a pure convenience and/or profit motive for Cox, and the customer can just live with it," the reader concluded. "Where else do we have to go?"

Where indeed? And how do any of us, wherever we live, make sure that we'll have more and better broadband choices in the future rather than what the last-mile monopolies like Cox want to offer us? You tell me. Post your comments about this column below, write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com or phone my voice mail at 1 888 875-7916.

< Making Noise About Audio Support | Botnet Spam Getting Out of Hand >


Display: Sort:
Cox Clobbers Competitor's Customers | 71 comments (71 topical) | Post A Comment
About that email forwarding problem[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by talmy on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:07:38 AM PDT

I've had email for about 25 years now, and many addresses over that time. It was on the job that I realized the fraility of email addresses as I ended up with several addresses in those early years without ever changing jobs! Personal accounts change too often as well. So I finally "solved" the problem by buying a domain name. Now I've got control and I can use that name at any of thousands of servers. As long as I renew the domain name, I've got an email address for life. Now if only I could get rid of the spam.

[ Reply to This ]


personal domain name[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 12:10:37 PM PDT

Yes! I did the same thing. To hell with the big companies and their aribtrary rules and changes. They can kiss my a**!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


A further solution[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Bri on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:09:06 PM PDT

Aside from having my own domain(s), I added a hosting provider as well (Datapacket.net) which has very good spam filters, actually better than on my Google account. Every one comes in marked on the subject line and setting up a rule to route them to a spam folder in Outlook 2002 was a piece of cake since there is, extremely rarely, a false postive. I fully expect more consolidation in the years to come so having peace of mind is worth the ten cents per day. Looked at that way, the web hosting is free ;-).

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#72)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:40:24 PM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous User on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:59:47 AM PDT

無料アダルト動画無料アダルト動画無料アダルト動画無料無料無料アダルトアダルトアダルト動画動画動画盗撮盗撮盗撮動画動画動画無料動画無料動画無料動画無料無料無料動画動画動画中出し中出し中出し動画動画動画無料アダルト動画無料アダルト動画無料アダルト動画無料無料無料アダルトアダルトアダルト動画動画動画無料アダルト動画無料アダルト動画無料アダルト動画無料無料無料アダルトアダルトアダルト動画動画動画熟女熟女熟女動画動画動画ビデオビデオビデオエロ動画エロ動画エロ動画エロエロエロ動画動画動画エッチ動画エッチ動画エッチ動画エッチエッチエッチ動画動画動画無修正動画無修正動画無修正動画無修正無修正無修正動画動画動画

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Gmail[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:41:44 PM PDT

It works decently, it allows POP, and it's free. (Versus getting a domain name, which is expensive and produces recurring yearly bills. As if we don't already all have enough bills to pay, and not a lot of money to pay them with!)

A long-term email is invariably a spam problem, however acquired. Gmail filters lots of it (without, to my knowledge, any false positives). If you use Mozilla Thunderbird to POP it, you can filter out more with Bayesian filtering. (Unmark the trash bin icon from false positives, and mark it on false negatives, before hitting delete on the latter. Before long, it's rarely making errors. Unfortunately, there's one notable exception -- my copy still doesn't seem to have learned that every email, without exception, that has contained the "black diamond with white question mark" character was a spam, and sometimes still shows one of those as legit. Just about every other email with funny characters or international ones is now correctly categorized though.)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Yep, get you a doggone domain, pardner[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by DavidBSpalding on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 02:56:02 PM PDT

Yep, me too. Getting a domain (or 2, or 3) is the way to control your e-mail, web home page (personal, resume, or family album), et al. Providers are down to $10 a month for tons of storage, mailboxes, throughput, the whole enchilada. For me TW/RR is just the service to my apartment modem. I don't even use their smtp/uutp servers. As for spam, I've had to kill of personal addresses when they were compromised by a) online entities selling them, b) companies I dealt with being acquired and then selling my address, or c) people who had my address sending out spam to the entire address list (so 200-300 people suddenly had my private address), or getting hit by a virus/worm which harvested my address. Solution? Use discrete addresses for each and ever online site, every e-commerce firm, etc. Use multiple contact addresses on my domain (and hiding them with encrypting methods that stymie spiders). Save my truly "personal" addresses for only those who I know use a/v software and "practice safe hex." It's a little bit of overhead, but it works. I don't get spam on my 1st tier, personal addresses.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


E-mail polka[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by partan on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 09:07:22 AM PDT

Isn't it sad that all this has to be done, just to eliminate spam and viruses?  What does this say about the state of the Internet?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Hrm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous User on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 06:41:43 PM PDT

"What does this say about the state of the Internet?"

That despite recurrent online doomsday prophecies, it still hasn't been strangled to death by government regulation, thank Christ. It's still a wild frontier. :)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Yeah[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#48)
by NorthFork on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:39:39 AM PDT

Yes, Thanks be to apple pie and Al Gore, The internet is still a wild frontier!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Great Article, i agreee with you[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM PDT

dis j'ai jamais vu de poisson sans ouies........et avec une forme pareille.......Internet Marketing 迷你倉 護膚 .

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


ff[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#78)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 06:50:58 AM PDT

Free YouTube Downloader | YouTube to iPod | YouTube on PSP | YouTube to MP3 | YouTube to MP4 | YouTube to 3GP | YouTube to AVI | YouTube to MPG | YouTube to WMV | YouTube to DivX | YouTube to MOV | YouTube to WMA | YouTube Ripper YouTube to iPod | YouTube to iPhone | YouTube to PSP | YouTube to Zune | YouTube to MP4 | YouTube to Apple TV | YouTube to 3GP | iPod to PC Transfer

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I Use Spamgourmet to do Something Similar[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#40)
by In my humble opinion on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 05:47:17 PM PDT

I've used Spamgourment for over 4 years to do essentially the same thing with increased functionality beyond standard Email addresses (i.e. self-destruct settings, whitelisted sender per Email address, etc.). It has worked well for me and I NEVER use my ISP mail address for ANYTHING (except as the recipient for all Email messages forwarded by my 100+ Spamgourmet addresses).

I've never received SPAM on my ISP address - can you say that ? I did find one Spamgourmet address was being SPAMed, so I deactivated it and the problem was permanently fixed.

Go to Spamgourmet for the details on how the free service works. Highly recommended and I do make annual donation$ because it works well. Take note that I occasionally spend some time with maintenance but it minimal in comparison to the daily chore of weeding the SPAM out of your Inbox.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Tried lots of spam remedies[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#49)
by NorthFork on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:46:53 AM PDT

I have tried lots of spam remedies, and my current setup seems to be pretty low maintenance. I use Outlook 2003, with updated spam filter from Office update, and Junk mail settings at High. It has gotten quite a few false positives over the year I've been using it, but a simple right click is all it takes to label them as safe senders, and they are never falsely marked again, and it catches damn near all of the spam. Now that I have been using it for a while, my false positive rate is down to zilch. I guess if you get emails from lots of new people all the time, this probably won't work for you.

Also, like the above poster, I have a private email that I only give out to actual human beings, and a public email that I give to web sites and people who are going to forward stuff to me. And I use throwaway email addresses at mailinator.com and operamail.com.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


7777777777777777[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous User on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:56:33 AM PDT

Free YouTube Downloader | YouTube to iPod | YouTube on PSP | YouTube to MP3 | YouTube to MP4 | YouTube to 3GP | YouTube to AVI | YouTube to MPG | YouTube to WMV | YouTube to DivX | YouTube to MOV | YouTube to WMA | YouTube Ripper YouTube to iPod | YouTube to iPhone | YouTube to PSP | YouTube to Zune | YouTube to MP4 | YouTube to Apple TV | YouTube to 3GP | iPod to PC Transfer

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Alternative source for TV programming[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:40:11 AM PDT

Hi: If I were you, I'd have Cox out of my life in a heartbeat, and put in a sat dish for TV and get DSL for internet access. If DSL isn't available, I'd go for sat dish for both TV and for internet service. And I'd advertise the fact that I refused to do business with Cox because they won't do business with me. Take it or leave it isn't doing business, it's extortion.

[ Reply to This ]


Satellite internet?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:44:15 PM PDT

Satellite Internet is a joke. You may get better download throughput than dial-up, but you get similar latencies (250-400msec, as the data takes a trip up to geosynchronous orbit and back, which is a goodly fraction of a light-second away) and upload speeds.

So much for gaming (terrible latency), p2p (terrible upload speeds), and nearly anything else besides web surfing and email.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Cellular Internet[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#41)
by Fushigi on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 09:05:56 AM PDT

Another alternative would be a cellular data card from Sprint/Verizon/etc. DSL-type speeds for around $60 a month. Not the greatest price and the latency is still worse than cable modems but the throughput is decent and it should be reasonably reliable. And it's portable.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Yuck[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous User on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:36:55 PM PDT

And it's expensive. And it has more hidden terms and conditions attached than all other ISPs in the world combined...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Expensive?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#51)
by Fushigi on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:52:48 PM PDT

Comcast broadband: $57.95 a month. EvDO with Phone-as-Modem from Sprint: $39.95 a month. The data cards may be more expensive but EvDO access can be this cheap. Comcast is faster and has lower latency but Sprint can be cheaper.

As to hidden T&Cs, are the cellular data providers really any different from landline-based ISPs?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 09:03:38 AM PDT

The earlier post said $60/month, vs. 50 or even 40 for non-wireless consumer broadband.

The terms and conditions are also more onerous. ISTR a recent gripe here regarding Verizon's "nothing but web and email" policy, which amounts to "nothing but spam and spam" when you boil it down; increasingly the most useful stuff on the net is forums, filesharing, and other stuff that goes beyond just checking mail and surfing to see who can be the first to gather 100 pop-up windows and crash internet exploder.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Monopolistic behavior[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Wiiiindy on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 12:45:56 PM PDT

Even though the name Qwest is anathema to many in Phoenix, I have had decent luck with them since I moved here 4 years ago. I don't understand why they aren't considered direct competition for Cox. I have internet, phone, and digital TV through them and all have worked perfectly over the 4 year period with high quality and high speed (internet). I considered going to Cox for price a while back but found out that with Cox only the "main" TV receives a digital signal while the others are plain old analog - no interactive directory or HDTV. BTW - Qwest does not officially deal with inside wiring either. However, if you offer a tip (bribe) their service people will usually help you out when they are there. I suspect the same is true of Cox people. So just report a problem and pretend to be clueless until they send someone out and then play it by ear.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


My experience with Cox & Qwest in Phoenix[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:50:08 PM PDT

I had Cox internet for a decade. I couldn't get Qwest DSL because, regardless of how good they claimed their service to be, or how widespread they claimed their coverage to be, the wiring in my condo complex (19th Ave & Thomas) is 50 years old and just wouldn't support it. Cox cable: not a problem. They ran coax to my wall, drilled through (I had a free installation special offer) and everything was good. Fortunately I didn't have to go through an ISP conversion. I've used Yahoo mail for a long time now, and now I have my own site/hosting for my business needs (www.sparebrainsgames.com). I'm now living in New Mexico and have to use very slow DSL. I really miss Cox speeds!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


This is typica for Cox[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 12:19:26 PM PDT

A few years ago, Cox used RoadRunner as it's Internet offering. When they decided to do everything in-house and discountinued using RoadRunner, they did the same thing. The only gave existing Cox customers a few days to switch over their email addresses to the cox.net domain. No forwarding of the old email address was offered. Futhermore, Cox does some nasty stuff that most users do not know about. For example, they block port 25, meaning that if you have a laptop that you use both inside and outside the Cox network, you must set up different profiles in Outlook to be able to access the outgoing (SMTP) server, since Cox's SMTP server can only be accessed inside their network. Lately, they're doing something to block users from sending out newsletters. So if you want to distibute a newsletter from your Cox account, you're out of luck. Luckily, Verizon is offering FiOS in my neighborhood, so I'm about to switch over to Verizon, both cable and Internet, and in the process save about $30 a month from what I'm currently paying Cox. On the other hand, I'm afraid that I'm moving from one monopolistic predator to another...

[ Reply to This ]


All ISP's block Port 25[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 12:30:25 PM PDT

Not sure why you consider Cox to be "nasty" with respect to Port 25. All broadband ISP's block Port 25 and have done so for years. Verizon will be no different. I have used Cox for 9 years and I went through the @home transition. It wasn't a major deal and there ws plenty of advanced notice.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: All ISP's block Port 25[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:05:25 PM PDT

Many ISPs block Port 25, not all. What is nasty is when an ISP starts blocking ports without notifying customers in advance of the change.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


You're kidding, right?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:19:39 PM PDT

It's their network, not "yours". Why should they notify you of anything? Yes, I'm being highly sarcastic because I too believe they owe users better communication about network status and setup.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Antispam[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:49:04 PM PDT

This is an antispam measure. Lots of spam originates from infected home computers, and it's sent directly to some remote machine's port 25, rather than to the ISP's mail handler.

Laptop mobility will often require multiple profiles. Annoying, but worth it to reduce spam. (Imagine how much more there'd be without this often being done.)

Cox blocking "newsletter sending" is probably a different, over-zealous antispam feature. Use Gmail's web interface or something instead, to send those.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Who needs port 25?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by BobAz on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 05:33:35 PM PDT

True, Cox blocks outgoing port 25, but only if you're trying to use a non-Cox smtp host. If you want an alternative host, use an alternative port -- like I do with my own domain server (port 2525) and with gmail (port 587). Or get a Cox business class account, that permits you to send on port 25, host a web site, and many things that residential class users complain about not being able to do. You get what you pay for, or what you can figure out.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Regarding the port 25 problem[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:17:15 PM PDT

Get your own domain and you can solve this. The service provider I use for email allows you to SMPT outbound mail on port 25 or port 587 which is an "alternate" port for email. I'd still get your own domain as you ARE moving from one monopolistic predator to another.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Monopolies[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 12:21:25 PM PDT

Boy, that is infuriating, to have achieved competition and then lose it without knowing how. I was feeling sorry for myself when our cable company got bought, but in comparison, my experience was OK. Our small cable company (RCN) sold off their low-density towns to an even smaller cable company (Patriot). The price went up, and I wasn't happy, but at least they gave us 6 months to migrate our email to the new domain name. We may get Verizon FIOS soon to break the cable monopoly, but I don't trust Verizon very far either.

[ Reply to This ]


You do have a choice re TV programming[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 12:27:19 PM PDT

Can't help with recommendations for the broadband connection. I wouldn't recommend DirecWay to anybody who has a choice, unless you thrive on poor service, understand East Indian accents, and can live with slow internet access -- i.e, it's faster than dial-up but it isn't blazing fast. However, for TV, DirecTV satellite is an excellent alternative. Their service is responsive and the price/value way better than cable. If you have the exposure to the sky required, that is a definite alternative and lets you wave goodbye to Cox with a smile on your face.

[ Reply to This ]


Easy (future) fix to the email problem -[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by jared on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 12:57:29 PM PDT

Own your own domain. Many registrars offer a forwarding service, e.g., I use Dotster for my registrar and have mail addressed to me@mydomain forwarded to whatever service I am using; so that whenever I change ISP's, I only have to change the forwarding address at my registrar and the change is transparent to my contacts.

[ Reply to This ]


Forwarding[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 10:06:50 AM PDT

Users should be aware that some ISPs are blocking Dotster and other mail forwarding services from sending e-mail into their networks. This is supposedly due to spam problems. I know that Comcast has a permanent ban on Dotster forwarding (or at least they did recently). As a result, I started paying a nominal amount for hosting and I get my e-mail directly from there rather than trying to get it into Comcast's network. It's ironic, considering Comcast is one the internet's biggest sources of spam.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Bah[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:37:47 PM PDT

Easy fix if you have money. What about the rest of us? All 6 billion of us can't afford our own personal domains. :P

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Who cares?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 12:49:17 PM PDT

Who cares about you, then? Poor people don't deserve  the service. Life ain't free. It costs $ to participate in this capitalist country. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else.

Edwards for president in '08!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Ugh, the gene pool needs cleaning again[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 03:36:19 PM PDT

Elitist pig.

Please do us all a favor and don't reproduce.

There's a difference between "cost" and "price", by the way. You will find that I mainly object to expensive suggestions people make here where whatever they suggest either shouldn't be necessary or its cost (in parts and labour) is far less than what is actually charged for it.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Already have[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 03:54:19 PM PDT

Oink oink!

Edwards '08.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Cox's Call Center Mgmt is The Worst![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:17:31 PM PDT

I lead a global technology company's contact center arm so know what I am talking about here.

Call Cox for support and an IVR front ends the call - if you aren't calling from your account phone it prompts you for that number.

"To protect your privacy, please enter the last four digits of your social security number"

You make your choice of Internet or cable support, then they do a Transfer Connect (caller hears two tone digits) to a call center.

When you eventually have your call answered by a live representative, "what is the phone number for your account? What are the last four digits of your social security number?" AND THEN...... "Do I have permission to access your account?" HELL NO YOU DORK! I CALL COX JUST TO PLAY AROUND WITH YOUR ROTTEN TECHNOLOGY!

Of course, I don't abuse the poor reps. However I would love to punch the Sr VP of Cox's "Customer Service" into the next century.

This article honked me off so much that I am going to forward it to the Arizona Corporation Commission and ask them how they can allow monopolties to be created on their watch.

Eat my shorts Cox!

[ Reply to This ]


Same at SBC[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by foxyshadis1 on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:03:14 PM PDT

SBC did the same thing for a long time. Eventually I just started jamming on random numbers until it redirected me to a real person - until they fixed that, and it'd just hang up on you if you tried a bad combination. They eventually got their phone system integrated, but why the two-year joke? No one in IT realized reps still had to ask for the info? I canceled all of our SBC contracts over poor service some time back, anyway.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Ugh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 07:38:16 PM PDT

I don't know who it was that said money was the root of all evil, but whoever it was, he was a complete idiot.

Anyone who's used any tool that contains a microchip knows by now that money isn't the root of all evil. Call centers are the root of all evil. :P


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Ugh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous User on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:48:01 PM PDT

Tell me about it. I heard they're building a 100,000 square foot call center in the city where I am. Besides creating who knows how many stressful, awful, minimim-wage McJobs, the bogon flux from a call center that size is sure to foul up every computer within a six mile radius. Here's hoping they decide on an East End site...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Get off your high horse.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#52)
by foxyshadis1 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:46:35 PM PDT

Wow, it's not often you see someone hoping that the economy in their area is depressed by eliminating hundreds or thousands of jobs, mediocre or unfulfilling as they might be. Whether work that pays $10-20 an hour is a McJob is debateable (most call centers pay well over minimum wage), but the fact that many of those potentially employed would be working 2-3 real minimum wage jobs to make up the difference, essentially wasting any technical talent they might have (given that most techies turn to call centering only as a last resort), isn't. Your moral NIMBYism is repugnant, childish (bogons? come on), and illogical.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 09:01:23 AM PDT

Eh, what? Whether they work a McDonald's or at a call center their technical talent is not appreciated -- especially if they work at a call center.

Now if they set up a "call center" with people that actually cared about whoever was on the phone and solving problems, were permitted to think for themselves, and weren't pressured into an early grave by their bosses to "process" as many calls as possible as quickly as possible, thereby actually providing a useful service, using those technical talents, and not dragging down the economy by burdening the community with an extra 10,000 stress-related illnesses and their associated health care costs a year, then that would be another matter entirely.

But it wouldn't be a call center, not as the term is generally applied. :)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Try the DPUC[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by DSchaffer on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:37:17 PM PDT

I don't know exactly what Arizona has but the Public Utility Commission or Dept. of Public Utility Control -- whoever regulates electric and telephone companies -- would be the people to complain to who might have some clout with the cable company.
David Schaffer There Must Be A Better Way Information at http://www.ThereMustBe.com Sales at http://ThereMustBe.Rite2U.com
[ Reply to This ]


I would put more blame on CableAmerica [ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:49:59 PM PDT

Since Cox did not purchas all of CableAmerica, including it's domain, then it would be rather complicated to filter out certain email addresses as Cox customers without the support of CableAmerica. It's possible that due to incompatible systems, they both decided not to it. I would put more blame on CableAmerica since they could have kept the accounts active as long as they needed. On a positive note, when Verizon bought my ISP General Telephone (GTE), they allowed all of GTE's customers to keep their email and website addresses and gave them Verizon equivilants. Even today, several years after the 'merger', I can use my GTE.NET email and web address. Not bad for one of those large corporate entities.

[ Reply to This ]


Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:51:45 PM PDT

At this point, CableAmerica and Cox are the left and right hands of the same agency. So blaming CableAmerica is still blaming Cox.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Simple, really.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by foxyshadis1 on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:09:41 PM PDT

I think the poster you replied to thought that only the city's customers changed hands. No, Cox bought all of CableAmerica, every city they operate in, and totally shut down their web presence.

You want to know how hard it is to keep a second domain? Log into the registrar, change the IPs to the new company's mail servers. (Transfer the domain to your preferred registrar if you really want to.) Log into your primary spam filter box, add the domain name. Log into your exchange/whatever box, add the domain name. Wait a few minutes or hours for your settings to replicate across your farm. Poof, you are now running another domain's email - and I know Cox already has several domain. No, they were actively screwing customers over by forcing them to market the company via cox.net email addresses.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Not all are bad[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 11:34:29 AM PDT

I still have a ClassicNet e-mail address even though the company's gone through 2 name changes.   They are SuddenLink now.   As far as I can tell, they've kept the old e-mail accounts of other domains as well.  So they are not all evil.   Suddenlink's service is not perfect, but it is good.

That being said, I have used a free YaHoo e-mail account for everything for close to 10 years now.  I have setup everyone I know on these for the same reasons as the OP.   I do own my own domain names and I do get e-mail on those also, but most things go to the free YaHoo account.   YaHoo has a very nice webmail client.  Check it out.  If I wanted to I could pay YaHoo to host my domain e-mails as well.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



A moment of silence[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 02:52:14 PM PDT

This confirms it

The Sherman Antitrust Act is dead ... long live the Sherman Antitrust Act.

[ Reply to This ]



Competition[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by foxyshadis1 on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:14:38 PM PDT

As far as the FCC is concerned, competition is alive and thriving as long as you have one phone company, one cable company, and one satellite company competing. Regadless of how little actual "competition" there is. Just like the FCC is content as long as Clear Channel doesn't buy up the last small station in municipalities. If you really want that policy changed, you'll have a chance to make your voice heard in a few days, and until then you can use your influence to talk to other people.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Why Cable?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 10:13:07 AM PDT

Why not cancel the cable TV portion of your service? Do you really watch that much TV? (If so, maybe you can change your viewing habits and use that money you saved from cable TV for something else?)

I find that the three stations I get with an antenna are more than enough. Two of those stations have mostly trash on them. PBS is about the only station worth receiving.

There are many other forms of entertainment, and other sources of video.

[ Reply to This ]


Why cable?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 07:33:58 PM PDT

Well, right now, if you want to watch the latest Stargate SG-1, Jericho, or what-have-you, you probably need either cable or satellite. Unless you are willing to go the dubious-legality bittorrent route, that is.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Email[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by drcmg on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 06:48:44 PM PDT

I am fortunate. BellSouth has thus far provided excellent DSL service. I don't watch television so I need no cable company. My alma mater provides a universal email address. Auburn University started providing an email forwarding service for it alums almost two years ago. I use the email address that the auburnalum.org provides and it forwards it to whatever real email address I provide. If my real email address changes I can login to my auburnalum account and have the email forwarded to the new address. The change will take place within 24 hours. So far I have had no glitches there either. Our state has what is called the Public Service Commission and over the last 35 years I have had to call them once about a telephone problem. I got results the next day. I also threated the water system in my home town with calling them and got result in hours. I don't know how powerful they are in other states, but ours carries a big stick.

[ Reply to This ]


Free advice about cable phone[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:34:06 AM PDT

As we found out after Katrina/Rita, the Cox solution for their cable wiring leans rather heavily on the power grid. Since some areas were without power for weeks (ours wasn't), the cable was also out for weeks. We had power but no cable. If you use Cox services for the phone, any significant power outage (i.e. over 15-20 minutes) will take out your ability to make and/or receive phone calls. Those with Cox internet and Vonage phones are in the same boat. My phone and DSL connections didn't go down, even when we lost power. We invited our neighbors