Want to learn how to use the Support Forums?
Read the forum guidelines
I was just wondering when or if cox will start supporting the amazon alexa or google home as well as providing 4k content and receivers? Both dish and directv have 4k receivers and offer 4k content so I was wondering why cox hasn't joined in on that yet?
Can't imagine they'll be offering 4K content any time soon. With the current bandwidth limits, all their customers who wanted to watch 4K broadcasting would have to upgrade to at least their Ultimate package and even that would be pretty limiting if you wanted to watch more than a few 4k movies each month, along with everything else. Definitely a case of bandwidth caps stifling innovation.
If broadcasters (ABC, CBS, FOX) offered UHD programming, Cox would provide it via their CATV Distribution System and not as an Internet service. Meaning, no data cap with cable UHDTV. Unless, of course, if you'd be streaming UHD.
Bandwidth limits? Do you need more than 1000 Mbps? Are you waiting for Terablast Internet from Cox? I'm sure you meant Data Limits.
Internet Ultimate? Why would you need 300 Mbps to stream UHD? Or, more precisely, how many devices in your household would be streaming UHD...at one time? Even the greediest recommendation for UHD on 1 device is 25 Mbps. 2 devices 50. 3 devices 75. It would take 4 devices streaming UHD at one time just to reach one-third of 300 Mbps.
All Cox Internet plans cap at 1 TB, so that wouldn't dictate your choice. You need to determine the number of devices that'd be streaming at one time. If you have 1 device, you only need Cox Essential 30. 2 devices could use Preferred. 12 devices would be Ultimate.
Fighting the Data Limit is another story.
I don't tend to think of "bandwidth caps" as speed caps, but no, I wasn't referring to speed limits.
I'm not sure about the whole CATV distribution thing, but I imagine it would require a cable box, which would necessitate a separate box for each room you wished to watch HDTV? I suppose that extra cost would be preferable to paying for the data, but I could still see a lot of households exceeding their cap as a result.
They could eventually adopt Hybrid Log Gamma or something similar to help keep broadcast bandwidth down, but even then I'm not sure how much that will help with customers who would choose to watch everything in 4K.
The bottom line is they've kind of dug themselves into a hole with their caps (or "data limits,' if you prefer). I mean, if they were to offer HDR as an internet service, for example, they COULD just exempt that data from counting against your cap/limit, but the problem with that is it would make a lie of the claim they've been making for years (along with other ISP's) that bandwidth is this precious, finite resource that needs to be sparingly parsed out to customers in the interest of "fairness" to all. Not to mention they would then be guilty of doing exactly the kind of thing that proponents of Net Neutrality claimed they'd do if those rules were ever done away with - and of course they have been done away with.
They COULD just put more of their billions into improving infrastructure and the bandwidth problems would disappear, but instead they'll likely just keep exaggerating the costs of doing so and charging more and more for the bandwidth - especially as more and more people cut cable because those prices also keep going up more and more.
All I know is that competition is good for customers, and we're getting less and less of that as time goes on, allowing these companies to establish monopolies all over the map; and even in areas where you're lucky enough to have other ISP's available to you it's not really "competition" if they can't offer you comparable services and speeds.