Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI
| It is about making money
Yea dude, ill sell you unlimited water usage, oh wait I forgot to tell you if you use more then 2 gallons each other gallon costs 5 dollars ok, yea its not about making money its just to "control the flow". Man and people thought Comcast was bad, I don't think Congress will allow Timewarner to do this, people would hella complain and move to something else in the area mostly DSL probably. |
|
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA | Water is a finite resource so that analogy just doesn't hold water. |
|
Nailbag
join:2001-10-16
London, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| BS
It comes down to greed and not upgrading hardware.Same as Rogers ,Bell lost cause i do wish Verizon would come up here I would pay 150 for their highest tier .Most of us up here are really fed up with being milked for less and always seeing increases. |
|
mattei
Moderated, now muzzled
join:2001-03-19
Canada
| I'm tired of ISPs implying usage = pirate
quote:
“We’ve found that 1 per cent of our customers are using the majority of our bandwidth,” Carrier said. “They use the majority of our service to the point where service is getting slower for everyone else.
Uh huh. Let's see some numbers.
Bell Wireline stated to the CRTC in January that, from 2006 to 2008, top 5% usage on it's network had declined from 61.1% of network use to 46.6%. The top 10% went from 77.1% to 62.6%.
Are Cogeco customers really all that different than Bell's? |
|
Welldone
@rogers.com
| +1
This is a great article, it is what the article in the Hamilton spectator should of been.
Cogeco only gets away with this kind of stuff because many people in cogeco areas just don't have a choice.
As louis Audet said (CEO of cogeco) on buisness tv on CBC "we are very fortunate to be in the cable buisness in Ontario"
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to Phil
Re: It is about making money
said by Phil  :Water is a finite resource so that analogy just doesn't hold water. Water and bandwidth are pretty even scenarios. The cost isn't in the water (or the bits), it's in transporting it. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | reply to mattei
Re: I'm tired of ISPs implying usage = pirate
How does what you quoted connect the dots to ISPs implying that higher usage equals piracy? |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
|  Agreed - they could also do unmetered evenings.
I agree with the above post, if they wanted to relieve congestion they could offer and advertised unmetered evening billing. Anyone savvy enough to download large amounts of data is more than likely savvy enough to schedule downloads during this time, and it would give Cogeco a more balanced usage model. |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Baghdad Bob is sure getting a lot of mileage
Working for all the cable companies as their PR droid justifying the caps and the greed behind them.
What a fitting figure to use here.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
claco
join:2002-09-29
Tallmadge, OH | Repeat after me
It's NOT metered billing unless I also pay less when I use less. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Yeah yeah yeah
This is acknowledgement that they too oversold, and rather that upgrade capacity they will charge you more for using the service as it was preceeding this point in time.
If they're not about making money, well then they should lower the costs relative to the newly imposed caps. Here would be an example; if Cogeco had a cap that was 100 GB and they are lowering it to 5GB, then your bill should reflect that by being one twentieth of what it was.
So a $75 Cogeco bill would be 3.75....if they truly weren't in it for the money.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Sure
i guess that Tw and Cogeco are around the same table smoking a blunt saying its not about money its about the children.  |
|
DrunkenClam
join:2008-09-29
·Cogeco Cable
| Great article
Thank you for this article, hopefully the truth and this knowledge can get to the majority of cogeco subscribers before cogeco tries to pin it all on " just making things fair". After reading the Hamilton spectator article, it might as well of just been written by a cogeco marketing employee.
Hopefully cogeco does follow comcast and stops the throttling and ups the caps to 250, which would solve problems on both sides of the monthly bill, for investors and consumers. |
|
bandwidth hogs
@cgocable.net
| said by DrunkenClam :Thank you for this article, hopefully the truth and this knowledge can get to the majority of cogeco subscribers before cogeco tries to pin it all on " just making things fair". After reading the Hamilton spectator article, it might as well of just been written by a cogeco marketing employee. Hopefully cogeco does follow comcast and stops the throttling and ups the caps to 250, which would solve problems on both sides of the monthly bill, for investors and consumers. You know full well that this is about bandwidth hogs and their negative affects on the other 99% of Cogeco's users.
Funny we only here from the squeaky wheel whiners up in Canada. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to espaeth
Re: It is about making money
said by espaeth :said by Phil :Water is a finite resource so that analogy just doesn't hold water. Water and bandwidth are pretty even scenarios. The cost isn't in the water (or the bits), it's in transporting it. The transporting cost is built into the initial monthly charge. It costs the company the same amount for the transport infrastructure if I use it for 0GB or 250GB (or 0 Gal or 2500 Gal). The cost of the bits/water is a different issue. I ask why the supposed cost (and thus the overage charge) of any usage over the arbitrary cap is more than that of the original capped usage (ie: Assigning a $0 cost to the ISP for the delivery infrastructure [AKA: "Last Mile"]). If you have two separate customers who each use xGB (ie: The Cap Amount) and each have a $Y/Month charge, why if Customer 2 does not exist and Customer 1 uses 2xGB, is he charged more than $Y for the second xGB since it is the EXACT SAME usage/load on the system as would occur with Customer 2 above and Customer 1 only doing xGB? Feeding Customer 1 the second xGB does not cost anything more (and actually less since there is no second last mile infrastructure) than feeding the xGB to Customer 2 yet the ISP is penalizing Customer 1 for the non-existence of a Customer 2. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Liars
If Cogeco was sincere, then it would simply cut off or throttle access of users who hit the cap and not charge any more money for overages.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
mattei
Moderated, now muzzled
join:2001-03-19
Canada
| reply to Matt
Re: I'm tired of ISPs implying usage = pirate
It doesn't.
• The article, as a whole, implies abuse by a few.
• The majority of releases I've seen from Marie on this subject do.
• CSRs do.
• Employees roving these forums do (not all).
• Ignorant members with no hard data do. After reading about this for a while, I suppose I made the erroneous assumption that everyone had received the "abuser" = pirate/criminal memo. If you disagree with my assessment of the tone I'd like to hear your take on it.
The spin begins: »Re: Great article |
|
DrunkenClam
join:2008-09-29
·Cogeco Cable
1 edit | reply to bandwidth hogs
Re: Great article
It's not about bandwidth hogs at all or how much certain users use. It's about innovation on the Internet and using it as a preferred content delivery providor, which cogeco is attacking full tilt. They know how much money they would lose if they let the Internet grow into a vialble alternative to tv services and Vod services that are their main cash source.
Obviously they are not going to let that happen. They would rather try to manipulate people into thinking it's heavy users fault and get users to fight it out with each other and misdirect away from the truth. |
|
mattei
Moderated, now muzzled
join:2001-03-19
Canada | reply to pnh102
Re: Liars
Before: throttling was the first step, cut off the second.
This June: overage fees followed by the unknown.
Application layer "rate shaping" is performed regardless of bit count. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to S_engineer
Re: Yeah yeah yeah
said by S_engineer :If they're not about making money, well then they should lower the costs relative to the newly imposed caps. Here would be an example; if Cogeco had a cap that was 100 GB and they are lowering it to 5GB, then your bill should reflect that by being one twentieth of what it was. So a $75 Cogeco bill would be 3.75....if they truly weren't in it for the money. That is not strictly accurate. Their cost is composed of 2 components - A Fixed Cost and a Variable Cost. The fixed cost is the cost of being able to deliver the bandwidth while the variable cost is the cost of actually delivering the bandwidth. There is a cost even if I never use the connection. Thus to compute the bill, you must first factor out the delivery capability cost before you reduce the cost of the capped bandwidth. If we set the fixed cost at $15, then that 100GB costs $60, a 5GB cap is $3, and the new bill with a 5GB cap is $18 (not $3.75). |
|
