cox@home
Dave Lister
level-2 approved modem. It was a very good buy ($159).
http://www.com21.com/products/cable_modems/doxport/doxport1110.html
Tonight I find out that this modem cannot be used on the San Diego Cox@Home
system particularly, as it is not on Cox's approved modem list even though
it is @Home approved.
This situation is unacceptable. Cox is a member of Cablelabs. If there is a
problem with DOCSIS certification, it should be addressed by Cox. @Home is
the network provider. If there is a problem with @Home Level-2 that should
be addressed.
In reality, you are choosing to allow an EXTREMELY small subset of the
available DOCSIS certified modems be used on the Cox San Diego network.
This is in direct contradiction with the purpose of DOCSIS and CableLabs to
begin with, namely, that a person who owns a modem in, say Atlanta, can
take that modem and use it in San Diego. The DOCSIS certification SERVES NO
OTHER PURPOSE. IF DOCSIS is pointless, why are people spending thousands to
get certified? Or is this merely another facade as in OpenCable?
Now, I want a GOOD reason as to why you are not supporting modems that have
been put through two rounds of certification directly for YOUR network, and
before you try to blow smoke at me, I have been designing cable modem chips
since 1993.
I want to know why we have the farce of DOCSIS certification, and the
additional farce of @Home approval, if I still can't buy a compliant modem
at will.
Michael Lodman
the spirit of the terms of the DOCSIS consortium, you are engaged in
anti-competitive behavior. If there is a problem with DOCSIS, get it fixed.
YOU are a member company, not Com21, they are merely trying to adhere to the
method of business YOU formulated.
Tell me - did you inform Com21 of the problems with their DOCSIS certified,
@Home Level-2 approved modems? Have you attempted to resolve the issues
withing the framework of your membership at CableLabs?
Cable companies always have had a bizarre way of treating customers. I see
that in your attempt to choke-off the conversation. However, it will not be
dropped at this level, nor any other level I can bring to bear on the issue.
Cox has approved the modems for use by granting them DOCSIS certification.
Now stand behind it and fix your network.
KANA San Diego wrote:
> We're not using them. Providing a lengthy explanation does not change
> this, nor will we engage in a debate about this. We tried them, we had
> problems, we're not using them.
>
> Sincerely,
> SD CCC HSD - Bryan
> HSD Online Support Team
>
> Original Message Follows:
> ------------------------
> This is not a reason.
>
> What is wrong with your servers? These modems have passed both DOCSIS
> and @Home Level-2 testing - what is wrong with the San Diego installation?
>
> I have no intention of letting this matter drop.
> KANA San Diego wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr. Lodman:
> >
> > Thank you for your email. The tests made here in San Diego did not
> > show the Com21 to be realible enough to work on the servers.
Michael Lodman
Me:
What is the "issue"? You have yet to state what it is. As far as this
customer can tell, Cox as a corporation is using DOCSIS modems, is on the
@Home network, and is using Com21 modems in other locations. What is wrong
with the San Diego network?
What corporate decision are you referring to? By the way I am using the
only email that the telephone support gave me last night. If you have a
better one, a more "corporate" email address, please feel free to share it.
You could have at any time, you know.
You have a truly bizarre attitude towards your customers - not to mention a
quite juvenile final riposte.
Cox Customer "Service":
Write in to complain all you want. The proverbial "squeaky wheel" will
not get oiled. That sort of behaviour does not get rewarded here. Some
think that they can resolve their issues through being vocal and
persistent, it doesn't alter the issue. You will not engage us in a
debate, you will only waste time typing. This is a technical support
desk that you are writing and holding accountable for a corporate
decision. Further e-mails from you on this topic will not be answered.
This one was only read up until the third line.
Brian
that way everywhere. If I were you, I would definitely forward any and all
correspondence you have had to their corporate office for review to see if that
is indeed their policy in regards to the modem and their customer service
procedures.
el...@no.spam
Brian <bswi...@charter.net> wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear that type of answer to your problem. Be assured, it isn't
>that way everywhere. If I were you, I would definitely forward any and all
>correspondence you have had to their corporate office for review to see if that
>is indeed their policy in regards to the modem and their customer service
>procedures.
The "corporate office" just filed chapter 11. They might not be too
much help: