Review by alback 
member for 2.1 years, 59 visits, last login: 74 days ago
updated 2.1 years ago
 undisclosed location
 $64 per month "Major infrastructure, little down time." "Expensive, advertised high speed, throttle up and down, poor modem line" "As soon as another cable supplier is available in the Barrie area - I will change."
| Pre Sales information:
Install Co-ordination:
Connection Reliability:
Tech Support:
Services:
Value for money:
(ratings below consensus)
|
I've been Rogers customer for years, the plans have become more expensive as the actual performance continues to drop.
I find it hard to believe that a company is allowed to advertise and promote super download speeds, then limit those speeds to a fraction of its potential because you share files. The plan description on their site states that extreme, plus, and ultimate plans are for those who wish " to share large files"!
Rogers claims to throttle upload not downloads, yet my experience is that they limit download speeds substantially. This along with caps, is under the premise of saving bandwidth - meanwhile a computer remains connected for hours, even days as it pings thousands of connections for many hours during the slow download. How does taking 10 times longer to pass along increased data save bandwidth?
Rogers also limits capacity, they charge extra $ for going above your cap?
I don't believe the CRTC is correct in allowing Rogers both the ability to cap and to throttle. I agree with others that this has become a worthy election issue - its time to stop this monopoly manipulation of our internet system in Canada by Rogers and Bell.
Policies are the main problem with Rogers. This is a huge company that has lost its connection with its customer, The best way to pay them back is reduce your plan, (throttle limit speeds are the same on all plans) and leave Rogers when it suits you. Write your MP.
Comments:
 | | Arrogance Have you noticed that Rogers doesn't even have a direct forum .They don't care stockholders are making a killing | |
| koreybReplace the CRTC NOW
join:2005-01-08
East York, ON Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
 ·voip.ms
| Rogers can Rogers and Bell can throttle and CAP their own retail customers if they wish... What I don't think they have a right to do is cap customers of Wholesale where they only supply the END USER NETWORK to and from your home and your provider... not the internet.
It would be wrong in my view to have the GOV or CRTC dictate what they can and can not offer on their own services.. but in the case of wholesale, they are not providing internet, they are only providing a connection between you and your provider. This is where it becomes anti-compeditive. | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·WIND Mobile
2 edits | Re: Rogers can I don't see the difference between direct Rogers customers and customers of wholesale companies.
Like any wholesale internet company, I did not enter into an agreement with Rogers knowing they would impose throttling tactics, limit caps and now control over your DOCSIS3 modem. When I joined it was limitless internet use. I have paid over $8000 to rogers since my first contract - between cable, internet and wireless. I plan to get future payments as close to zero real soon and suggest this is the only way to garner their attention, hurt their revenue stream.
Rogers and Bell is providing 'the last mile' link to the internet, they do not own the Internet and the CRTC should never have allowed them to exercise these types of controls over a system intended for the people of the world to use freely.
According to Giest, a director of Bell let it out that the extra revenue from cap limits was their significant growth in revenue this year. This tells you where the motivation for UBB and throttling is coming from - nothing to do with bandwidth.
Rogers now offers 'on demand TV' to its extreme customers, with a commercial at the start (for revenue). They want to limit us from downloading TV (torrent), so we are forced to use their stream and generate more revenue.
We need to get the government to step in and free up our internet as it was originally intended. | |
|
| |
|
