how-to block ads
|
Mindcrime
@rogers.com
| Bandwidth Alllocation Just logged into my Rogers account and I've noticed that my Bandwidth allocation on Extreme has reduced from 100Gb to 75Gb. Has anyone else's accounts been reduced? Or is this another c*ck-up by Rogers? Their web page still shows I should have 100Gb.
I am currently sitting at using 83gb for the month? Will I be charged?
Guess I'll have to call the CSR later today :-( | |
|  | | | | | 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation I just had a telephone call from Rogers exec office. Seems they know my name quite well down there!
Anyway, the billing supervisor was at least partly right.
They are doing some testing. It was not supposed to appear out of the blue like that.
I have had an assurance that they WILL contact us before any such change and before any charging is implemented. I told him that with Rogers history this was not good.
They have been reading and noted the upset this is causing. I explained my position that as customers we seem to have no protection and my concern about that remains.
"No comment" about future cap and "No comment" about charging but I did say that it sure looks like they are ramping up to do so. | |
|
Kalnick
@cvgs.net | When I saw this I checked mine and it also says 75gb but all the faqs still say 100 and I got no notice from rogers that my bandwidth cap was being reduced. Looks like I will have to call them tonight after work. | |
| |
anon4564565
@rogers.com
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation Mine was switched to 75gig now. This was discusses awhile back. They were planning to lower the cap just before they started charging for overage.
Doesn't really affect me, since i do around 50gigs a month. Which is alot. If you need to download 24/7 or download everything you see then i can see needing alot more bandwidth. | |
| | | 
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON
2 edits | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation now both my FF and IE get the timeout bug, WTF rogers
Edit; wow I found out how to log in without getting the timeout bug. I'll mention it in my other post.
BTW I'm also down to 75G from 100 | |
| magnus2
join:2004-05-23
Ottawa, ON | I just checked mine and it still says 100gb per month...? | |
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation Probably depends on your billing cycle.
I have just filed a complaint with Rogers exec phil.hartling@rci.rogers.com and with the ccts »www.ccts-cprst.ca/en/ on the basis of unannounced limits placed on the account.
I would encourage anyone who has seen their byte cap lowered to do the same thing. | |
| | |
gurn
@rogers.com
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation Service Includes: 100 GB (102400 MB)
thats what its saying on my usage tool from the web site. although it has not updated since feb 16th, other then netlimiter program that i happen to have on my computer i wouldn't have a clue what bandwidth im at unless i'd called and asked a rep what there internal usage tool was saying. I would reckomend a call, i believe all the reps have access to this internally. since they aren't charging (yet) i dont really care. | |
| | | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation If they've switched you can be sure charging is around the corner | |
| Farshid420
join:2006-03-24
North York, ON
 ·Acanac
·Rogers Hi-Speed
2 edits | I just checked my gf's account for her, and she went from 60gigs to 25gigs on Lite. As sbrook mentioned, I will be sending letters as well (either telling her to do it or doing in it on her behalf) as that's the only way to get Rogers' attention. I would do this on my own behalf, but having known that this would eventually happen, and having a DSL service available in my area that was worth switching to, I can no longer do this on a personal basis.
said by sbrook  :If they've switched you can be sure charging is around the corner Couldn't have said it better myself... it's only a waiting game now. The most important part is how Rogers customers will respond once caps are enforced.
EDIT: Also just noticed that they're starting to keep a closer track on the usage itself (i.e. in MB as well as in GB).
EDIT2: Just checked the link provided by Kev again, and even though my gf has been with Rogers for YEARS with a Lite account, and the site states that the 25GB cap will only be made on "new customers as of or since January 14, 2008", she was still taken down! Wow, gotta love Rogers and their levels of consistency with THEIR OWN POLICIES! | |
| | 
Kev06
join:2008-02-11
Toronto, ON
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation When I wrote Taanta Gupta posing the question on extreme bandwidth limitations, the following is a reply I received from Ms. Gupta:
Dear Kevin:
From time to time we change both the products we offer and the prices we charge. However, I can tell you that we have no plans to change the bandwidth usage limits for existing customers.
Regarding additional usage, at this time, with the exception of Extreme Plus, our customers are required to keep their usage within the bandwidth limit of the service to which they subscribe. Only Extreme Plus customers may choose to use and pay for additional bandwidth.
We will of course contact customers directly when we make any changes to these plans.
Thank you
Taanta Gupta
--
"Oh, to be alive in such an age when miracles are everywhere and every inch of common air throbs a tremendous prophecy of greater marvels yet to be." - Walt Whitman | |
| Warhorse
join:2007-09-25
Orleans, ON
| I just checked mine (Extreme) through the convoluted contact route and found that I've been lowered to 75 GBs as well.
What a system!!! Rogers can hold us to a contract and make us pay a fee if we want to leave them, but can change their contract with us at their whim and fancy! I think it's time for a class action suit! | |
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation Warhorse, Everybody likes to talk class action suit, but to get anything you've got to demonstrate that Rogers has broken the contract and that you've suffered a monetary loss from Rogers breaching the contract. That's an easier said than done thing. Were it an easy thing to do, you can be sure it would have happened for a hundred other things Rogers has done.
The bottom line is to complain, even if you're going to switch to a different provider. I'll say it again (I'll get around to putting this into a sticky or the FAQ!)
1) Complain to rogers ... a couple people ...
taanta.gupta@rci.rogers.com ... VP of communications
phil.hartling@rci.rogers.com ... VP of Rogers Consumer Services
2) Complain to the ccts (Commissioner for Complaints for Telecom Services)
»www.ccts-cprst.ca/en/
3) Complain to the Ontario Ministry of Government Services (consumer protection) to seek protection from the monopolistic behaviours and unilateral contract changes without protection.
»www.gov.on.ca/mgs/en/ConsProt/050451.html
Note that they will refer you to the federal Department of Industry ... but demand that they look into this as anti-consumer behaviour and that is their mandate.
4) Complain to your MPP and demand that he/she look into the lack of protection that the Ministry of Government services provides to the internet consumer quoting this case.
»www.ontla.on.ca/web/go2.jsp?loca···s_header
5) Complain to the Federal Minister for Industry about the monopolistic behaviours and anti-consumer behaviour of the ISPs.
Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca
6) Complain to your MP that the Department of Industry is relying on non-existent competition of the ISPs to provide consumer protection, when over 90% of the users are served by 2 ISPs in a given geography (from the CRTC info), there is no competition ... the ISPs do as they damned well please
»canada.gc.ca/directories-reperto···.html#mp | |
|
devilshaven
@rogers.com | mine went down as well from 100gig to 75, so over night being at 90% i am at 111% of my usage, as long as they don't charge this numbers mean nothing to me, and finaly dsl is an option for me (sadly only 5mb) | |
| |
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation said by devilshaven :
dsl is an option for me (sadly only 5mb) I'll take 5Mb with 200Gig over 8Mb with 75Gig anyday. | |
|
thenay8444444
@rogers.com | Mine was dropped to 75GB as well.. 168& used to date.. my meter wasn't working figured it wasn't tracking went on a downloadin spree.. lol.. 126.17 GB used, bill date ends March 9th. | |
|
Kalnick
@cvgs.net
| I would think that this would qualify. Although this a change in contract and not a charge per say. The last paragraph I think applies here.
"Out Of The Blue" Charges
Ongoing service contracts, whether for lawn care, anti-virus software updates, cell phones or cable television, are modern conveniences that make life more enjoyable. Many service providers are genuine and upfront in their terms and conditions.
Be aware, though, of a practice called “unilateral contract amendment,” which means a service provider makes changes to your contract without telling you in advance or seeking your consent.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, a company may not bill you for goods or services you did not request, or for goods or services different from what you agreed to under the contract. You don’t have to pay for these goods or services, and if you have paid already (e.g. through automatic debit of your bank account), you can demand the return of that money.
Under the law, a company may also not change, renew or extend a consumer agreement without your permission. If the contract and the law permit it, a company can renegotiate a contract with you in person. A smaller number of specific agreements under the act can be amended by providing the consumer with clear notice of the proposed changes. The company must also give the consumer the option of getting out of the proposed change to the contract. To do this, the company must provide the consumer with a clear notice of the intended change. If the company hasn’t followed these regulations, the change is not considered made. | |
|
Bayker
@rogers.com
| OK ... I just got off the phone with a Rogers billing supervisor and this is the scoop...
The 75gb monthly bandwidth cap that we are seeing is a "technical glitch", and any additional charges over that amount will be reversed to honour the previous 100gb cap.
Apparently as of the 18th of March the Extreme Bandwidth cap will be reduced to 95gb, but there will be a bump up in the download speed to 10Mbps.
Although I'm upset with their tactics, I can live with this trade off.
However, I would prefer an unlimited downloads plan with 5 to 7 Mbps speed if it were offered by Rogers.
If there was a viable alternative in my area I'd drop Rogers in a heartbeat! I tried Teksavvy but alas the DSL signal to my home just wasn't good enough.... sigh | |
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation I've heard of all manner of things out of Rogers. Do I believe this one? Not really ... sounds like it's a placate the customer response. Still not acceptable. | |
| | Farshid420
join:2006-03-24
North York, ON | Yah, sounds to me like the usual "we have no idea what's happening, so we'll tell you something now and change our minds/opinions later"... | |
|
Kalnick
@rogers.com
| So I'm on the phone with Daniel a CSR Rep in Ontario, and appearently on the 18th it will go to 95GB, overages will be charged as of the 18th on all service levels. Plus she was 100% sure that we were all notified. Till I mentioned I was looking at all my bills for the last 6 months (online billing is great for that) and there is no mention of. I have received no notice in the mail addressed to me, (I throw out the unaddressed junk mail they send out) and that the website and faq still reflect a cap of 100GB. At witch point she changed her story to maybe the Ottawa area has not been notified. She couldn't tell me why the usage tool says 75GB either. When I started th quote the consumer protection act she got all I have to end the call if you wana talk legal (OK I work in a call center so I get that part. Just to get all these wonderfull answers I was cold transfered 3 times. Once to the french small business support queue, boy was he surprised to find a very pisst off english residential customer on his line. So now I'm on hold waiting while she finds out when Ottawa will be notified of these changes. | |
| |
Kalnick
@rogers.com
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation Overage on Extreme is $1.50 a GB with a cap of $25
Notification will be sent to all Rogers Customer on March 8th of the cap rates.
As a side note she tried to justify the caps by saying it is to protect the customer because of people possibly stealing the connection (for a wireless connection) then she said I should look into geting their network modem in that case, or viruses ect.... So I shut that speal down prety quick and notified her that I do biz class cable internet support for living so don't even go there.
Also I had her transfer me to the ecare team for the website and apperently the 75GB showing up is a error of kind that they were not aware of and ticket has been filed to fix it. | |
| | |
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation said by Kalnick :
Notification will be sent to all Rogers Customer on March 8th of the cap rates. Ok I'm not under contract but what does that mean if you do have a contract ?
if you don't accept the cap cuts does that mean you can opt out without penalty.
said by Kalnick :
apparently on the 18th it will go to 95GB eh... so the 75G is a mistake and they are going to drop from 100G to 95G. So a 5G cut, who thinks this stuff up ? | |
| | | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation She doesn't know what she was talking about at this stage. No one has been notified of any changes. This from the exec office.
If I can't get the real story out of the exec office, I sure don't believe a phone rep from who knows what call centre. Call centres are renown for inventing answers.
Contracts are only wrt price. They'll change the other terms at will. | |
| | |
Kev06
join:2008-02-11
Toronto, ON
1 edit | Overage on Ultra-Lite of the allotted 2GB is $5.00 per/GB up to a maximum of $25.
Lite, overage of the allotted 25GB is $2.50 per/GB up to a maximum of $25.
When I spoke with Shawn from the Office of the President to Rogers on Tuesday, he indicated in few or less words that there is no plans in the immediate future to raise the bar on the bandwidth limitations which take effect March 1st.
Rogers just doesn't give a damn anymore. They want your money, at the same restrict what you can do on the internet, and charge a hefty price for the small bit of enjoyable we entitle ourselves on the internet.
Moving forward, Rogers is so far behind the times, and their customer's are left out of the big picture compared to what other ISPs are offering their customers.
I'll just continue filing complaints with the CCTS, and anyone else who will listen. As a paying customer, I should not have to idlely sit back and accept what Rogers feels to be the norm, and what they feel I should be entitled to and accept what they give me. It doesn't work that way, at least not with me. If I'm paying $35 a month for Lite, I damn well sure I'm going to be entitled to more than 25GB of bandwidth usage per/mo. I don't care how long it takes to fight the fight, I'll fight it until Rogers caves in. I'm a hell of a lot younger than Ted Rogers.
Why should I leave Rogers to go to another provider when I can fight for what is fair and just as a paying customer? | |
|
Goldielover
@rogers.com
| I've been following what has been going on in this forum with regards to Rogers' new rate caps, and what their policy will be with regards to implementation (i.e. only for new customers, or existing customers too). I've been getting the usual soothing waffle from them when I e-mailed them twice a month ago. I'm following up with them yet again to try to get an answer, as I will pretty well have to cancel them if they decrease me from 60Gb down to 2Gb. I'm not a huge downloader, but I do average about 18Gb per month. I just can't swallow a 97% reduction in service, and I refuse to pay $20.00 more a month to upgrade to Express just to get back to 60Gb. I'm hoping Teksavvy is available in the Marlee and Roselawn area of Toronto. I've got a contract until sometime in August, too, so I expect they will ding me for cancellation fees. They'll end up losing digital cable, home phone and two cell phones as well. I've let them know that I will escalate the complaint to the CCTS as recommended here. I think we need as many people as possible to do this. | |
| | elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation What do you mean you are being kicked down to 2GB? Are you on Ultra Lite? | |
| CAD420
join:2005-08-04
| My understanding of the new changes to Ultra-Lite & Lite are as follows:
Existing customers who signed up before January 14, 2008 will remain at the 60GB/month cap.
New customers who signed up on or after January 14, 2008 will have the new caps in place which seem to be 2GB and 25GB respectively.
Now, I would assume that this is always subject to change at any given time but I seem to recall reading this somewhere. | |
| |
Kev06
join:2008-02-11
Toronto, ON
2 edits | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation And where is the justice in this? It's discriminating. And I'm definitely following through on another compaint to the CCTS on this. Why should new customers be restricted to such extreme limitations and existing customers remain as they are? It's discrimination. It cannot be described any other way. 
--
"Oh, to be alive in such an age when miracles are everywhere and every inch of common air throbs a tremendous prophecy of greater marvels yet to be." - Walt Whitman | |
|
Goldielover
@rogers.com
| Elwoodblues, yes, I'm on Ultra Lite, which has taken the largest decrease, percentage wise, of all the plans, at 97%. I've been trying to find out from Rogers if existing customers will be affected, or if the new caps are only for new customers. I've been getting soothing e-mails back, but always with an out for them if they should choose to change their minds. We shall see what the latest response is, as the one I sent today was my snarkiest yet. | |
|
Goldielover
@rogers.com
| If they do leave the existing customers at the same bandwidth cap, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot with regards to those existing customers having any incentive to upgrade their service. After all, if I get to keep my 60 Gb on Ultra Lite, would I be tempted to upgrade to Lite and only get a 25 Gb cap? I think not. At this point, though, they're probably not thinking beyond rocking the boat too much with their existing customers, but I still wouldn't put it past them to try to change the caps once they see how the new customers are doing with them. Some companies will let you keep a grand fathered plan indefinitely - I've been able to hang onto a very good Fido plan which hasn't been offered for five or six years now. | |
|
rogerssux
@rogers.com | This is an obscene price increase
Before change = $0.53 per gig
After change = $0.71 per gig
This is a 34% price increase in the price of a gig!
This is OUTRAGEOUS! | |
| |
Kev06
join:2008-02-11
Toronto, ON
2 edits | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation said by rogerssux :
This is an obscene price increase
Before change = $0.53 per gig
After change = $0.71 per gig
This is a 34% price increase in the price of a gig!
This is OUTRAGEOUS!
Agreed. And let's talk about how obscene it is that Rogers delivers refurbished modem and then has the nerve to charge customer's $3.00 rent on refurbished modem, and then say, 'If you want to buy the modem it's $100.'
I don't have a problem with using a refurbish modem. It's recycling. Cool. But why not do as Acanac does. Sell the modem for $25 and/or include the modem with the service when the service is acquired. But to charge customer's rent and then provide the option to the customer to purchase the modem for $100 is even more obscene.
When I raised this complaint with Shawn from the Office of the President to Rogers yesterday, the response I receive was in these exact words: "Rogers does not deliver new modems. If you want a new modem you can purchase one at Future Shop or The Source. If you decide to rent one from Rogers you get what Rogers gives you. We do not provide new modems." The cheekiness of it... | |
| | |
anon43545
@rogers.com | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation Wow, you must have alot of free time on your hands to be complaining about not getting a new modem. If it work fine isn't that what's important.
Wow. | |
| | | |
Kev06
join:2008-02-11
Toronto, ON
2 edits | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation Why charge rent on a refurbished modem to begin with? Why charge customers who wish to purchase the modem $100 for a refurbished modem? It's the greediness of it all.
--
"Oh, to be alive in such an age when miracles are everywhere and every inch of common air throbs a tremendous prophecy of greater marvels yet to be." - Walt Whitman | |
| | | | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation I am going to treat any info about cap levels and charging with a grain of salt until it actually gets published, because this makes about the 4th or 5th *different* story being leaked out of Rogers. In spite of prodding, the exec I spoke with would not give any kind of confirmation or denial about the plans for adjusting caps and charging other than to essentially admit these things were under consideration.
One cannot make complaints out of speculation. The actual web site matter was documented and Rogers was caught in the act, and they've said it was an error. Genuine error or "caught in the act" recovery, who knows? One can be sure that ccts will have no reason to disbelieve Rogers. There isn't the evidence to prove otherwise.
As to modem rentals, you get what's on the truck, or piled up in the store. You may get a new modem, you may get a recycled modem (a return that's been checked out). It is a nerve to charge $100 for a recycled modem. One of the major computer manufacturers got into major trouble for selling refurbs as new ... but Rogers isn't doing this. They are selling a modem and admit it may be recycled (as in the one you've been renting or one off the truck etc.) If they warranty the unit for a year from the date of purchase, then there's no significant argument. | |
| | | | | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation At the time many of us bought the modem, it was $5 per month, and mine has long since paid for itself. | |
|
Goldielover
@rogers.com
| The modem rental doesn't really bother me. After all, its only $36.00 per year, and if anything goes wrong with it, they have to replace it, rather than me having to shell out for a new one at Future Shop or wherever. I do think they should drop the price on buying one, though. They seem to be charging about the same for a refurb as the stores charge for a new one. That's not right. | |
| |
Kev06
join:2008-02-11
Toronto, ON
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation said by Goldielover :
They seem to be charging about the same for a refurb as the stores charge for a new one. That's not right.
Thank you.  | |
| z0z0
join:2008-02-29
m7a7a7
| if the decrease the bitcap that is in fact a price increase as previously stated and potentially quite a large one.
Does Rogers need government approval to do this or can they do whatever they want?
If anyone is interested, I received a call from a headhunter working for Rogers - they are looking for a Director of Pricing (for Cable TV and Internet).
Maybe we need someone from here get that job | |
|
gurn
@rogers.com
| I know this is going to sound weird but i welcome them charging for usage. I am also pleased each time i see someone saying they will leave if they are charged for the "overages" they blantanly are using.
Rogers has tried to throttle abusive users they have imposed these caps long long ago and did not charge customers. So yes face it people rogers is going to charge you for going over your perspective tiers cap.
So yay, complain/leave whatever when they start charging people are going to back off and they can stop throttling because well they wont need to.
Been with rogers for about 10 years now, I have seen changes that i hated for example when they promised extreme would not be throttled if you upgraded or you wouldn't get those mail outs they used to send out about high usage threatening shutting you down.
teksavy's going to have to start doing the same when they get rogers fall out customers too. just look at what happened to bell.
For those saying your now limited to some lower % of what you were promised. No your not. your charged if you go over. Rogers has tried every other way to get its service up to whats promised in several areas i know because I've personally lived through them. When they improve lines and give you higher speeds you just take that much of a bigger bite. This puts rogers back in the exact same spot. Btw thus far results from throttling have been a speed increase launching late march that they aren't increasing prices. I cant wait to see the results of this usage increase. (no need to throttle?)
This change i welcome. its the most fair way to do it. You want more then cap? pay for it. | |
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation gurn, are you really intending to troll with your post?
First things first ...
Rogers has never defined what their concept of residential internet should be to their customers. At the same time, the nature of residential internet has changed dramatically from the time the concepts of broadband residential internet were first laid down.
Let's face it, nobody believed when residential internet was introduced that people would need speeds above 14.4 Kbaud or that they'd be renting 2nd phone lines to connect to the internet for 16+ hours per day or that they'd be moving music, pictures etc around. It was believed it would be a largely character with limited graphic capability (like teletext - UK Ceefax/Oracle services).
That bubble was sure burst in a hurry.
Soon we were up to 56Kbaud modems and the ISPs were complaining about "unlimited" use being unlimited "access" and not unlimited time connected. Pictures, software, music and heavier graphics started to appear. HTML pages became more complex. Soon ISPs were reeling under the pressure that information providers were able to offer to consumers and consumers were eager to use.
But that wasn't enough. The telco researchers developed DSL and the cable researchers developed HFC networks, offering typically up to 3Mbps. Again, IPs were able to offer consumers even more complex web pages, flash, java, movies, music, streaming video and audio ... all bandwidth hungry, all demanding speed. Again the ISPs were reeling to catch up. For Cable in particular, the early years were with equipment that was NOT good at ensuring that everyone got a relatively reasonable share of the pie. So, on some cable segments, some people would go like grease lightning, and others would crawl ... and hence the telco sales pitch of "never shared".
The worst part at this phase was the very things that resulted in congestion were the things that the broadband ISPs were advertising as being the most wonderful thing since sliced bread that you could use broadband for.
Then the techies developed P2P ... share your music, your files etc. And OOOPS ... the broadband ISPs embraced the idea of sharing in their advertising and doing so without LIMITS!
So, users started using these still heavier use applications with the ISPs enticement, and demanded faster speeds which the ISPs delivered with better technology, but still playing catch up.
Then the ISPs discovered what this was causing them grief ... it was costing them way too much money in transit bandwidth, so they sought to limit the transit bandwidth by playing with byte caps. But with byte caps came defections to other ISPs, and the precious market share and market penetration was significantly hurting the ability to fund upgrades to areas that were poorly designed and old causing users poor performance.
Then the ISPs discovered that file sharing was WAY too popular, causing not just excessive transit bandwidth costs, but was choking their internal networks (particularly for cable because of limitations on the upstream). So they introduce P2P throttling to try to control it. But throttling has this habit of not just limiting speeds, but almost choking them to death!
But what do the ISPs do in all this ? They entice more people to jump on board with higher speeds still for normal use, keep advertising file sharing, keep advertising all those high bandwidth things, and what do the IPs do? Increase the availability of even higher bandwidth material with things like YouTube and iTunes etc.
Sure, there are people out there who seem to go well above and beyond who could be labelled abusers, but the ISPs have themselves to blame for saying Unlimited or imposing caps without enforcement, and worse not indicating how they actually expect a residential internet connection to be used. The terms of service today for most broadband ISPs have terms that can deal with abusers by denying service. ISPs tried to enforce those occasionally but rarely and inconsistently and then gave up.
If ISPs are going to class people as abusers, then they must define what is abuse, let their customer base know, and deal with abuse accordingly ... consistently.
Then there are heavy users ... in general heavy users usage balances out with light users usage. If it doesn't then the ISP has capacity and pricing issues that need to be dealt with. The ISP has through their own marketing created heavy users. You can't blame the heavy user.
It would be like creating a highway that is safe enough for cars to do say 150 KPH then advertising that there is no speed limit, expecting them to realize that the road's really only good enough for speeds up to 150 and getting upset that people are going 175, so they impose limit of 80 kph but they only patrol the highway once every 2 months when the wind blows out of the east and the moon is visible at 8 am, and oh, all you get's a warning. Is that going to stop people doing 175? Of course not.
The bottom line is that the ISPs created this mess and instead of trying to be creative and find reasonable ways out of the mess, they're only looking at the standard tools ... When all you put in your toolbox is a hammer, every screw looks like a nail!
Blame the customer and make him pay by enforcing that 80kph limit and charging to go over, and pay more for the overall service, whilst at the same time trying to sucker him into believing it's OK because he was given another speed increase.
This is a bad business model. | |
|
gurn
@rogers.com
| I am sorry if my post came off as a troll sbrook, i was just trying to express my hope that this latest move of rogers might have some hope. Sbrook your wealth of information has always impressed me you are very well informed and i usually go out of my way to read your posts on this rogers forum and the bell forum you sometimes frequent.
just a few comments on what you've just posted. I agree with it all. I do remember rogers advertising unlimited they probably still do. I agree rogers and other ISPs got themselves into this mess and now they are planing to punish customers for following advertisements.
The thing is here we are, imho rogers has tried other methods, have they not spent enough on upgrades? have they stuffed a lot of profits into pockets or invested in other things like portable internet. I dunno sbrook. Its just my feeling that this change might be a good one, and I'm saying that knowing I'm about 50g over my extreme bandwidth limits regularly in the last 6 or so months. I've started to change the way i use torrent like limiting my uploads maybe not downloading things like a full tv series that i can watch or pvr with my other rogers equipment. basically I'm trying to adjust myself not to use rogers bandwidth carelessly like leaving a bit-torrent open all night uploading.
I believe what your indicating by the comment on my post is that its my right to download/upload as i please as originally rogers advertised to me. Maybe I'm mistaken, maybe this will be a terrible thing for rogers in that a lot of customers leave or new customers go to other providers, or even better they are forced to invest more in what they provide.
Anyways my apologies if i came of as trolling, I've rarely posted over the last 3 or so years i've been monitoring this forum. hate to think i'd be seen as trolling. | |
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation I'm not saying it's your right to download / upload as you please. Rogers has every right to manage their network. BUT at the same time, it's time to come clean. Communicate with their customers in an open and straight forward manner about what how they expect users to use their service and not contradict this with marketing and advertising.
They need to distinguish what they consider abusive and act on it. My picture would be probably above 200GB per month and/or clogging the upstream with more than a few upstream connections at a time all operating wide open. (i.e. you can't seen 100 people at once!)
Having got rid of abusive level users then they can work out what heavy use constitutes and see if that is offsetable by light use and produce acceptable packages. IF they can't then it's time to introduce usage levels within the speed tiers and not rip them off with ridiculous per GB charges. Or allow users to buy excess bandwidth in packages up front where it's way cheaper.
There are lots of ways to balance this stuff out ... it just needs some creativity rather than the OSFA hammer approach. | |
| | |
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Alllocation said by sbrook :Rogers has every right to manage their network. BUT at the same time, it's time to come clean. Communicate with their customers in an open and straight forward manner about what how they expect users to use their service and not contradict this with marketing and advertising. very well said. Whoever they have running their Office of Policy Confusion is a sheer genius.
said by gurn :
but i welcome them charging for usage.... You want more then cap? pay for it.
Hey I'd gladly pay for it if it was a fair price. I'm not even asking for a fair price. Just come clean tell us what it is and let the market forces shape the market.
Do I pay for overages I don't know, Is my bandwidth going to be cut I don't know, one day it's at 75Gig today it's at 100Gig. Will I be grandfathered I don't know. What am I exactly paying for my services I don't know.
Can you imagine if Rogers used the same business model to run Ontario Hydro or the Utilities department or Fire and Police. There would be total anarchy.
There are two things that get my blood boiling one is Hydro and the other is Bandwidth.
Kitchener Hydro last year because we had a warm winter said in an article that because energy consumption was low they were going to need to generate more money.
That EXPLAINS everything. | |
| | | GroovyPhoenx
join:2006-05-22
Gloucester, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
|
said by sbrook :They need to distinguish what they consider abusive and act on it. My picture would be probably above 200GB per month and/or clogging the upstream with more than a few upstream connections at a time all operating wide open. (i.e. you can't seen 100 people at once!) Agreed, but who defines abusive and heavy and etc? The same people who are right now botching the model? I do recall the "Sharing your connection" commercials, its still subtly mentioned in some bell adds of course. The problem is that Rogers sees a way of making money and could care less about its customers, Its been proven time and again. Newsgroups a problem? Gone! Never mind they don't even offer a solution or alternative. Newsgroups is something I enjoyed as part of the internet experience. But now, Youtube, DivX6... All of these heavy usage on bandwitdh sites, they all suck up the bandwidth, is the user to blame for wanting to make use of his/her connection? I don't think so. I do think howver Rogers needs to get with the time, Internet shouldn't be getting more expensive it should actually in time be getting less expensive IMHO, with competition.
said by sbrook :Having got rid of abusive level users then they can work out what heavy use constitutes and see if that is offsetable by light use and produce acceptable packages. IF they can't then it's time to introduce usage levels within the speed tiers and not rip them off with ridiculous per GB charges. Or allow users to buy excess bandwidth in packages up front where it's way cheaper. There are lots of ways to balance this stuff out ... it just needs some creativity rather than the OSFA hammer approach. They will never get rid of abusive levels IMHO they will wind up redefining the abusive level until they get themselves out of existance. That my take on it anyway. Get rid of more clients means less need for techs less need for install companies etc etc. | |
| | | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Bandwidth Alllocation Of course they define what's abusive. It's their network after all! Part of defining what is abuse is all about implementing a model ... that means the people who are botching the model need to get an eye opener.
This business of moving the goal every time we turn around and worse, taking the net off the ice just when we think it's time, makes it impossible for the customers and just causes at best annoyance and at worst outright anger ... but most importantly it loses customer goodwill.
I received a Rogers survey yesterday and it asked if I won something in a recent "game" initiated by Rogers. It was quite a pathetic thing ... the "prize" was a couple free movies from Rogers Video ... I'm not trekking 20 km round trip to collect a free movie and 20 km a few days later to take it back! Some prize! These folks are SO out of touch with their customers. Give me the option of a prize I can use ... like $10 off my bill for a month. Those are the kind of "customer loyalty" things that we should be seeing, not enticing us to spend more which is what all their normal enticements are. | |
| | | elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON
| Sbrook, you are absolutely correct, however the marketing department vetoes the technical department.
The techs have figured out how to limit(or throttle if you will) the users, but the marketing department will never go for telling users that (given a choice between Rogers and an excellent NON BELL DSL provider) that they are being "reduced", they'll all jump ship. Loss of revenue etc.. so we'll massage the message, introduce things by stealth, and spin it so that the non technical public will buy it.
Your highway analogy best represents the problem with DSL, if the sun is shining in the sky and the moon and stars are perfectly aligned, you'll get the advertised speeds, otherwise too bad for you. Thus for many people, there is no choice.
With the new CTRC ruling forcing incumbents to open up their networks (with a 15% profit margin), we may see competition. | |
|
Goldielover
@rogers.com
| Gurn, I think many of us would not be complaining too hard about the implementation of overage fees if Rogers had not decreased the caps at the same time. I think most of us understand that they have always had the right to charge them, but have chosen not to until now. I manage our household internet use so as to ensure we stay well within our existing cap of 60Gb. I keep an eye on our usage on the Rogers site, and both computers have Netstat Live installed on them so I can keep an eye on each individual computer's usage as well. We average somewhere around 18 - 20Gb per month. Hardly an abusive user. However, if Rogers does reduce my bandwidth to only 2Gb per month, at the same time as introducing overage fees, then it is very difficult to see this as anything other than a cash grab. There is no point in having broadband if there is a 2Gb cap. I can do better than that with my old dial up provider. I haven't yet cancelled them, as the recently retired oldest computer needed it, and, if DSL proves not to be an option in my area, then I will be back to the 56K modem. Unlimited dial up access for $10.00 U.S. per month. Sounds a little better than 2Gb for $24.95, even if a bit slower. Finances dictate against paying for an upgrade to a higher tier with Rogers as I am an unemployed single parent. | |
| | | |
|
