I have almost no complaints about @Home through Cox.
I have only had it for a little over a month, though, and was one of the last beta testers before it was rolled-out to the public in San Diego on May 15.
I have only had one negative experience, and it had to do with an administrative screw-up, not technical. When my service was installed, the installer forgot to submit the paperwork at the end of the day. My account was automatically disabled 10 days later. Getting it restored was a royal pain, as they had to actually set up a NEW account, and didn't quite know how to restore my original e-mail address. Also, my account got shut off TWICE, due to batch processing. (Got shut off by Cox, they restored it, the overnight batch hit at @Home, and then they shut it off again...)
The admininstrative communication channels between Cox and @Home are a bit shakey, and @Home needs a better problem tracking system. Every time I called, I got a different person, and most of the time I had to repeat the whole story all over again, as they had no record of the details of my previous calls. (They knew I'd called, but didn't have a detailed log.)
Despite all this, they were always very friendly and cooperative on the phone. The installation went completely smoothly, though I opted for a less than complete installation. (I had them leave out their software, since it can work without the installation of anything special - my machine was already set-up with an Ethernet card and IP protocol installed.) The installer was willing to help me configure Eudora, which is not a supported product, and was knowledble in answering my questions about the network infrastructure.
From talking to the installer, I beleive they have adaquate bandwidth. There has been some concern with some other installations that the operator was using only one or a couple of T-1 lines to get out to the net. Cox had 10Mb/sec to the net at the time of my install, and the installer said that they would be at 45Mb/sec by the time they got out of beta (so, I presume, now). I'm told that Southwest Cable's Roadrunner across town only has 3 T-1 lines going out (4.5Mb/sec).
The other thing of interest the installer told me is that they plan on increasing the number of nodes, and going from 1000 homes passed/node to 500 homes passed/node at some point when the traffic warrants it. Many other systems have been built to 2000-5000 homes passed/node. (My understanding is that the Roadrunner installation here is 2000.)
They are using local servers here in San Diego for mail, news, and HTTP proxy (which is optional, not mandatory). All are very fast and apparently well-maintained. Usenet news is almost a pleasure at this speed (I've configured Agent *not* to save headers locally - no need), and they have installed a server appropriate for the speed of their network.
There was one occasion when the "cable" light went out on the modem. I hit the reset button and it restored immediately.
The speed (dare I say this? :) ) is, of course, fantastic. I routinely get downloads from the local site at ~7Mb/sec, and to the Netscape site at ~4Mbit/sec (showing that the bandwidth does extend out to the net). You really find out who has the hot web sites and FTP sites that can handle the traffic, and who does not. They have multiple routes to the net, though the bulk seems to get dumped into MCI in Washington, D.C. (I've seen California traffic go through MAE-West).
The cost, $39.95/mo here, is really reasonable when you consider the speed and not need a second phone line. You might save 5 bucks a month with a dialup service, presuming you are using a quality provider and a separate phone line. The cost is MUCH less than what I was paying for an ISDN line and ISP service. And, so far, it's been much more reliable than the ISP. |
