brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | If you can't live with it depart with it
If you complain so much about the service jump ship! |
|
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
 ·Mountain Cable
1 edit | Thats all well and good, however Rogers and Shaw have a Monopoly of their coverage areas. Lots of places which aren't able to be served by ADSL technology or extremely poor ADSL coverage.
Whats funny is all of the smaller ISPs do no such throttling. You would think these huge corporations would have pleanty of money for upgrades and bandwidth.
--
AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |
Ipods SUCK |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | reply to brianiscool
Some people live to complain... even after leaving!  |
|
Persona
Premium
join:2004-07-07
Gravenhurst, ON | reply to brianiscool
The only real alternatives for high speed service, in a given area in Canada, are DSL through Bell - provided you live in a supported area and a single Cable provider...that's it. |
|
deadi
Premium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH | reply to brianiscool
Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places.
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·Packet8
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by deadi  :Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places. There is -always- a choice. You can choose to have what you've got, or nothing at all. Nothing is always an option. But one most people won't take and the companies of the world know this. |
|
mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| reply to twizlar
I own smaller ISPs. I can assure you, many of us do this.
Users at some point have to realize that prices are low and margins are lower. Many of us don't want to play the transfer cap game, so throttling high demand users is a solution.
When business has bent over backwards for the last 12 years to drop the price of consumer bandwidth it has cost us in the realm of profit margins. Many broadband ISPs are taking a $200 to $400 loss on the front end hoping to see profit in 12 to 24 months.
DS-3's are not $19.95 per month. Sorry. Low prices are due to the high over-subscription rates we have been able to maintain as users went from occasional web surfing on dial-up to occasional video watching on broadband. Now the trends have changed to many people running dedicated servers (bittorrent or otherwise). This low price Internet ideal that people are holding on to is almost impossible to maintain when I go from a 20:1 subscription rate down to 5:1. Essentially the overhead in this case has increased nearly four times. Those aren't hard numbers, but you get the idea.
You are not paying for a dedicated and unlimited connection. If you are being told otherwise, then they should change their marketing.
We have a policy of letting people know exactly what is and is not allowed on our network. If they don't like that, they can go deal with someone who will lie to them. It won't be me. |
|
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
·Mountain Cable
| I should have said ALOT of the smaller ISPs HERE do not throttle. There is a big difference between capping certain users or having upfront caps to providing a service and blanket throttling protocols and services simply because your infrastructure or pricing model doesn't cover it. Don't be shady and say up front you have an alloted amount per month etc. There is no REAL reason to throttle for a company like rogers except that their infrastructure can't handle it. They ALREADY have KNOWN monthly caps so using the excuse that bandwidth is expensive isn't really a valid one when everyone is capped the same. They simply don't want to pay for needed upgrades on their crowded network. There are alot of differences between having an unlimited connection and being able to use your connection to its ability anytime you want. Why should I pay for 6mbit cable if I can only ever use half or so of that at any given time because their network is so poor. This has nothing to do with a need for unlimited/dedicated bandwidth. I should be able to get ~95% of my throughput whenever I need it for a download or service.
--
AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |Ipods SUCK |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to ke4pym
said by ke4pym :said by deadi :Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places. There is -always- a choice. You can choose to have what you've got, or nothing at all. Nothing is always an option. But one most people won't take and the companies of the world know this. Dude, you have reviews for two different ISP's and two different VOIP providers.
You don't even have the room to say "nothing at all" is a choice. There are people out there that have uses/obligations that can't be satisfied with "nothing at all" as an option. If this ISP is all that they have to work with, and they use their market stance to offer shoddy service, then people are at a disadvantage and don't really have any other option, do they?
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to twizlar
There's also a difference between throttling some to manage capacity, and throttling in order to avoid spending money on necessary upgrades in the face of video demand. |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·Packet8
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to DaSneaky1D
said by DaSneaky1D :You don't even have the room to say "nothing at all" is a choice. There are people out there that have uses/obligations that can't be satisfied with "nothing at all" as an option. If this ISP is all that they have to work with, and they use their market stance to offer shoddy service, then people are at a disadvantage and don't really have any other option, do they? Sure I do. Nothing at all is a choice for me as well. However, I'm realtivly content with my service providers, so I continue to pay for my choices. If I weren't and I felt that dialup or changing my lifestyle as to not rely or have use for the internet meant doing away with it, then that is a choice (one I'm willing to make, if it came to it).
People, anymore, refuse to go to the extreme of voting with their wallets by not having any service at all. And, as I said before, the companies know this. So that gives them all the room in the world they need to screw you in the current climate in the US. |
|
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON | reply to Karl Bode
Deffinately. |
|
gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
| reply to ke4pym
Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to say "no."
I, for one, use my connection for work. If I disconnect, I don't work. I don't work, I don't make money. I don't make money, I have no place to live. I think you get the idea.
If an internet connection is nothing but a luxury, I would agree... having none is an option. However, for those of us who work and make money with our connection, we don't have a choice if there's only one company. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | YEP. |
|
mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| reply to Karl Bode
You guys have missed my point and here in lies the problem with the modern consumer mentality and businesses desire to market to it. Bit Torrent is a dedicated server, kazaa, limewire, bearshare, these are server apps. The current system they have was never meant for this.
They should do the smart thing and create a new system to accomodate these new consumer desires and charge accordingly. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | reply to gefflong
And you are exactly the type of person I was thinking of. |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to gefflong
Not intending to be snitty, but if you are dependent upon broadband for your business, those costs better be in your business model or you are in trouble. If you are depending upon consumer grade connections for something that puts bread on the table, perhaps you should be a fan of any internet access provider.
As a business person, you do realize there is a plethora of choices for connectivity that existed long before the consumer "broadband internet experience", right?
In either case, it still appears that you can work without a connection to the internet. So many possibilities of doing something and transmitting the data from point a to point b without the internet come to mind.
In principle I agree with you.
said by gefflong :Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to say "no." I, for one, use my connection for work. If I disconnect, I don't work. I don't work, I don't make money. I don't make money, I have no place to live. I think you get the idea. If an internet connection is nothing but a luxury, I would agree... having none is an option. However, for those of us who work and make money with our connection, we don't have a choice if there's only one company. |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Depends how you "work" from home. Company I worked for kicked all the workers out of the office to save on office leasing costs.
One day, they said "now you're teleworking. No we don't pay for your internet access at home. Since you're saving on your gas mileage, fork up the internet connection cost. No we don't care that working on a customer grade connection is violating a TOS."
And I know of at least 1 other company that did the same thing. And I'm not talking 10 user employees. Our office had over 500 people, and we had over 100000 employees worldwide.
In my case, I had the choice to work on a basic $40 cable, or cough up an additional $150 a month to get a business grade cable or DSL connection. Hard to swallow if you ask me.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
