Router is blamed in Internet, cable crash

Posted: November 14, 2012 at 4:12 a.m.

More than 100,000 western and Northwest Arkansas cable customers who hoped to chill out in front of their television or surf the Internet on Monday night got an unwelcome surprise from franchise service provider Cox Communications.

This story is only available from our archives.

Business, Pages 28 on 11/14/2012

I question how committed cox is to customer service? After reading this article, my husband did call this number; first they tried to tell him that the outage was the network's fault--then it was suggested that if we subscribed to their more expensive, on demand service we could watch what me missed at another time, and therefore no adjustment to our bill was necessary. Sadly, when I try to think of service companies that can fail to provide a service and yet still expect to collect all the money, only phone and cable services come to mind; that's unfortunate that in a capitalistic society these companies enjoy such unfair advantage.

Posted by: Fayettevillelocal

November 14, 2012 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


We do enjoy life in a "capitalistic society". Change your service.

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 14, 2012 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


You'll probably enjoy even greater freedom if you stop watching TV.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 14, 2012 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Im not sure what exactly you're looking for in a bill adjustment. In a 30-day month, there are 720 hours. Service was down for 3 hours. Thats an up rate of 99.6%. You want a .4% reduction? Basic cable is ~$30 these days... so thats ~$0.12 reduction?

If that is really all that off putting, change service providers.

Posted by: nwlocal

November 14, 2012 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


I called cox because of the following info from article:

"Customers who experienced failures may be eligible for a credit on their bills for the missed service. More information about the credit is available by calling Cox at (866) 719-9419."

If they weren't interested in such an adjustment then why mention it in this article; also who says I have basic cable? Try a cost that is more than twice $30... And 24 hours of time is not all prime time--so csclculations based on that are not relevant. Ask advertisers if prime time is valued the same as say, 2 in the morning ?

Posted by: Fayettevillelocal

November 14, 2012 at 4:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Really! We went so far forward as a society when we moved to cable 'without commercials' if you remember, and that is why we were paying for the service that had always been free to that point. We needed more band with so we forced digital on the nation, and offered them a $49 coupon for a digital antenna. The other route for them was to subscribe to a 'Franchise' that was supposed to be regulated in the best interest of the community by the local governments, then we turn around and state if they can't live up to their committments, we can let them pay 12 cents? If that is the case, then they shouldn't ask, just adjust all 100,000 customers that this happened to without asking if they wanted or needed an adjustment, and do it for the entire day lost because as Fayettevillelocal points out, their advertisers won't pay for what didn't get aired during that time, and the cost is more for that time than any other time of the day. Shows aired that you can't even get on line, so these people missed something they can't get back. Get Real!

Posted by: Experience

November 14, 2012 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Even at a $200/month subscription it only comes to about $0.80.

Advertisers pay and compete for specific time slots, consumers buy general network access - they don't equate with one another.

You are correct thought.... I don't know why they mentioned it, probably a look good at face value sort of thing. Coupled with, "We would discuss that with them individually" doesn't usually indicate anything is really going to be done though. My point is really just that it's not a battle worth having over 3 hours of outage. Sometimes things break - they got it fixed pretty quickly for an off-hours incident.

Posted by: nwlocal

November 14, 2012 at 5:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fact is phone companies and cable companies have something called, "high switching costs" so it is even more imperative that they look out for the consumer; it is notes easy as suggested to just switch if you don't like their service;,also try shortchanging them on your payment by a few cents or dollars and see if they choose to ignore it. Fair is fair and they command a great deal of power over consumers--that comes with a responsibility. In addition, it is likely that bc the article states this was an equipment failure the cable company will expect reimbursement from the vendor and will get some kind of adjustment on that side of things.

Posted by: Fayettevillelocal

November 14, 2012 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If you don't like the way today's giant telecoms face NO LOCAL REGULATION, other than granting access, then complain to the Republicans who wrote and passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

That bill exempted telecoms from local regulation and in many cases, state regulations:
"Preemption. One key provision allowed the FCC to preempt state or local legal requirements that acted as a barrier to entry in the provision of interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."

Siloam Springs had the opportunity to do what other Ark communities have done and takeover operation of the local cable company. After a scare-media campaign by Cox it was defeated in the local election.

Conway and N.Little Rock have municipally owned cable systems and their rates are half of what we pay to Cox. My brother in NLR gets twice the channels as we do and pays half as much.

Cox is not a good deal for anyone. It's a racket. Encourage your city to take over their own cable when contracts expire. School children need internet access at affordable prices. Information is now a basic commodity.

Posted by: cdawg

November 14, 2012 at 10:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )