Email RE: Automatic Speed Increases - Marketing Error or Generous ISP?

Really? Your trying to get Cox to give you 100Mbps when you don't subscribe to that Tier? I think any non bias reader would see that for how it's meant, the TOP speeds are increasing UP to 100Mbps, Do you subscribe to the TOP tier? Even if you did, the speeds promised are UP to 100, not "giving me 100 Mbps down".  Normally if someone wanted to dispute a add I would be all for it but

1. I don't personally find this claim valid

2. The name dropping and the MSPaint arguing semantics seems over dramatic.

3. This seems like a attempt to take advantage of something generous (a free upgrade) and trying to abuse it for selfish gains.

4. This is a technical forum, not one where price increases should be discussed/debated. 

You WILL get a speed increase. The amount you get depends on your tier. If you pay $99.99 a month for "Ultimate" your speed will increase from 50mbps to 100mbps. If you pay for a different tier, your tier will be upgraded as follows:

"Yes, our nationwide speed upgrade has finally made it, and those numbers are all correct. Essential goes to 1m up/5m down; Preferred to 5m/25m, Premier-D2 to 3m/25m, Premier-D3 to 10m/50m, and Ultimate to 20m/100m." -Posted by KipK  on 1 Oct 2013 3:45 PM

Greg, you're getting a free upgrade, way to look a gift horse in the teeth! =X

Trikein, 

1. That's what I was looking for, I needed someone to check my biased interpretation. (You should have stopped here)

2. I used OSX Preview to edit the screen shot. I used it to better communicate the areas that stood out to me. I was name dropping my own school to speak towards ethos of the source.

3. I don't expect to get anything for free. I just do not like being misled by an advertising campaign. I was asking for a redaction, not an exception.

4. Should I copy your comment about this being the wrong forum to all of the other post discussing the exact same issue with less clarity?

Thanks for your 'help', 

-Greg

Celsian, 

I understand that, I was being hopeful when I first read it. I stand by my overall point that the ad is poorly worded. The way you explained it makes it clear - the ad does not.

-Greg

Hi Greg, 

I apologize that this email was so confusing! Cox High Speed Internet users across multiple markets are receiving free speed increases this year. Your new internet speed is dependent on your current internet tier.

Based on your CNU reference, I'm going to guess that you are in Hampton Roads. HRD customers who subscribe to the Cox Preferred Internet Tier and have a DOCSIS 3.0 modem will see speeds up to 50 Mbps. If you email my team at coxhelp@cox.com, we can confirm your current internet tier for you!

Becky, 

Thanks for responding so quickly. I just have been receiving mixed messages and wanted clarification. 

Keep up the good work, 

-Greg

Greg Morris,

1. You specifically asked your fellow customers to "Please tell me what you all think". I interpreted that as you wanted our opinion on all aspects of your posts. Not just those that agreed with you.

2. I guess I misunderstood the ethos. 

3. "My point here is that either Cox's Marketing team has made a mistake or that I expect to to upgrade MY internet speed to 100 Mbps without me having to pay more." How is that not expecting something for free? I think you very clearly stated your intentions. 

Your welcome. 

Becky,

The real question Greg meant to ask was WHEN do you expect these upgrades to be completed? We are all waiting with baited breath!

Trikein, 

1. I did want to know what everyone thought. That's why I partially liked your reply. The first bullet to be specific. 

2. Perhaps you don't understand what "ethos" means in that context. 

3. That is what we call a "False Dichotomy" to make a point. I knew the former was more likely and the latter was simply a dream. 

You're* welcome, 

-Greg

Removed after reconsideration.

Trikein, 

I don't think so but It's up to the readers. I just wanted to know what everyone else thought of the email. I knew I was biased and anyone receiving that email would be. 

I thought you came across abrasively (I mean, come on, you called me selfish and dramatic in your first post) so I had an attitude back. I obviously don't have anything against you. I actually checked some of your other post to make sure you weren't a Troll and happen to agree with you: Cox shouldn't waste time (money) offering what Google does. 

Thanks again for the input, 

-Greg

Re-reading your posts, I agree, I was too abrasive. I too thought "you" were trolling or just trying to create drama on the forums. I am a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. So my apologies. I must have woken up on the wrong side of the keyboard today.  I welcome you to stay, check out some other threads and give your input. Im usually not such a mean guy.

BTW, I think the separation of upgrade and price increase is intentional. A upgrade happens because of upgrades already done to the network (probably previous price increases?) while a price increase is probably to reimburse expected increase to overhead. They also don't want to set a expectation that every price increase will come with a upgrade, or every upgrade will require a price increase.  

Fair enough, no hard feelings. 

Yeah that makes perfect sense since they are a business. I watched a lecture on iTunesU by a prominent figure in Computer Science (I forgot her name) and she advocated doing away with a tiered system by ISPs. I was hoping Cox was making this move and giving 100 Mbps down all around. I was being hopeful... 

Oh. I hadn't even considered that. I think the problem is finding a new way to share the cost of the service relevant to amount of use. Maybe make speed fixed, and charge for different bandwidth caps? Verizon tried with its FTTP by investing a huge amount and hoping that market share would turn the profit margin in their favor. Google got it done by not having a profit margin. I think Cox could do it by being one of the first major cable providers to drop cable and phone and focus mainly on data. Or maybe join forces with Google? Would the FCC even allow that? LOL