Re: Bandwidth Alllocation in Rogers

Re: Bandwidth Alllocation in Rogers http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20229712 en Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:35:12 EDT Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:35:12 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20267195 anon :

said by newuser1 :

I don't know why they would say you could download 15 high def movies a month...if I was a new user I would look at that and be like, only 15. They should have kept it at regular def and then they could say 50 or more. That seems more impressive. I'm actually surprised they didn't say something stupid like 2 Million 3-second mpg clips.

I'm told I can download and watch 24 HD movies per month with my 95GB cap. Aren't the average HD movies at least 30GB each or 50Gb if Blu-Ray? 95GB/24 = 3.95, not even a full SD movie.

Man, Rogers just go from bad to worse!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20267195 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:58:11 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20264750 golucky : The Extreme plan currently allows 100GB per month (combined upload and download) which now become only 95GB. Why the clawback of 5GB? That's effectively increasing the price by $7.50 per month (5GB times $1.50/GB usage charge) which is currently included in the monthly allowance.

Rogers increase the price a while ago then increases the download speed to 10 Mbps and finally takes back 5GB.

What their rationale other than nickeling and diming us like the banks are doing to us?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20264750 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:24:37 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20260785 sbrook : If they were to actually implement a "rollover" or rebate scheme, the caps would probably be well below half of the current values.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20260785 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:58:30 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20260732 anon : Will Rogers be crediting accounts for users who go under their allocated bandwidth? If not, WHY? If someone is out of town for most of the month and only use 20% of their bandwidth aren't they entitled to a credit? Clearly Roger's billing system is now equipped for this. It seems like a glaring double standard to me. If Rogers wants to enforce a "price per GB" model they should be willing to offer it to light and heavy users equally. Even telephone companies are now offering roll-over minutes to customers. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20260732 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:51:38 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20259321 VelcomMatt : Hello a6why,

First I would like to say thank you for taking an interest in Velcom. I was doing a search for Velcom today since there are various topics about our Company in different threads and came across this one.

That's right the first three months for the high speed would be $28.95/mo+GST and then the regular pricing of $34.95/mo would apply. There is no contract required to receive the promotional pricing.

In addition, one way to look at the speed decrease is with a 5Mbps connection and no cap you would be able to use more traffic Vs a 7Mbps connection but capped.

Should you have any other questions concerning our service please feel free to contact me via pm or send an e-mail to sales @ Velcom dot ca. Hopefully this post is not considered as advertising or hijacking of the thread however I am just answering a potential customers question about our service.

As for newsgroup access I've heard rumors that some people were noticing a speed decrease nonetheless many reporting they have not.

Regards,

Matthew L.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20259321 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:20:28 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20249052 anon : throttling will continue along with the caps and price increases.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20249052 Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:19:38 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20241055 anon : I wouldn't expect anyone to be pleased. The reason Im tracking my own and comparing to theirs is to see how accurate they are. I've always tracked mine for a lot of reasons. 1. i have a wireless router that is locked but i still want to know if anyone has hacked the key. 2. two computers in the house, mine and my gf's. 3. Now im tracking to check rogers tracker.

I'm finding it flawed in a good way. its under tracking by a gigs. I think because they round down to the nearest gig. Just last month it went a week without updating on the web site and then updated all the missing days on the 8th day.

I'm just happy they've given us 3 months to adjust and/or detect problems. A lot of people out there have unlocked wireless connections. Just drive into your nearest city with a lap top and look for them. I bet it would be over the thousands. I live in a high rise. 16 are unlocked in my building.

I'll be annoyed if this does not end up replacing throttling, as apposed to adding to it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20241055 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:51:13 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20240485 anon :

said by gurn :

yes you'll max out your speeds with newsgroups on rogers.

RSkrodzki, a lot of options. you can track it on each computer. tons of free apps to do it. Thats if you want to know all the time anytime without looking on rogers site, and you have something to check rogers tracker.

what rogers tier are you currently on?

Currently I am on Express. However if they are gonna only charge me upto 25.00 to go over I might not worry that much. But I still would like a way to track what they are doing, went to see the usage meter earlier and it said it was having technical issues .... not inspiring me with confidence.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20240485 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:01:08 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20239952 anon :

said by puzz1ed

:

I got the letter yesterday. I'm safely under every month but with a marked

Hey, I also had a huge spike in January, which is really weird because there was only one person here for most of the month. They said usage in Jan was 120gb, 60 over what I'll be allowed. I doubt that is accurate.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20239952 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:54:44 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20239403 anon : yes you'll max out your speeds with newsgroups on rogers.

RSkrodzki, a lot of options. you can track it on each computer. tons of free apps to do it. Thats if you want to know all the time anytime without looking on rogers site, and you have something to check rogers tracker.

what rogers tier are you currently on?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20239403 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:29:25 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20239081 anon : I primarily use my net for newsgroups so does it matter which provider I'm with? Will I still be able to max out my speed?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20239081 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:50:24 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20238203 anon : I don't know why they would say you could download 15 high def movies a month...if I was a new user I would look at that and be like, only 15. They should have kept it at regular def and then they could say 50 or more. That seems more impressive. I'm actually surprised they didn't say something stupid like 2 Million 3-second mpg clips.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20238203 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:29:52 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20237535 a6why : torrents are my primary use for the internet.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20237535 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:57:37 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236920 sbrook : If you use bittorrents, make sure that they aren't included in the Bell throttling umbrella.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236920 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:26:44 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236860 a6why : I checked out all of those websites, nothing impressed me, so i figured i'd stay with Rogers. Until I came across Velcom. Is it worth the switch? (cheaper, 34.95 compared to my express @ 44.95, and they also have a 3 month special @ 28.95.. aside from UNLIMITED usage (which they claim), my download speeds would go down from 7mbps to 5mbps, but i dont see that as much of a downside.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236860 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:17:58 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236842 sbrook : Nothing much at the moment unless you want other drama. (See the Sympatico, Canadian Broadband and TekSavvy forums on this site)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236842 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:13:57 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236742 a6why : Just received the letter today. It's really unfortunate. I remember a few years ago, they didn't even implement limits! And now it's gone from 100? (Express), to 60 per month. What are my options for other ISPs in the Ottawa, Ontario region?

Oh and could anyone please post what the Bell monthly limit for their service that's equivalent to the Express service. Link would be appreciated.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236742 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:58:13 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234893 anon : Hmm, I got this letter today as well, I just don't understand how an online tool can accurately reflect my usage, and why do they not provide a downloadable usage meter that is synced to theres so we can conveinently see how much we are using in real time as we use it. Checking a website constantly to keep track is a pain in the rear.
I have 2 computers with 2 distinct ip addresses from Rogers but they arent seperated on the meter so I can see what the other user is doing for usage. I am also gonna have to see about another ISP too because I farm out around 30,000 photographs a month from events and weddings and car races for processing, leaving not much bandwidth for other stuff, glad these come back to me as DVD's anyone know a good ISP for business stuff ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234893 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:26:28 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233502 penandpaper : My counter doesn't match theirs, i'm dissappointed at their "scare" tactics. I'd much rather Microsoft's law office be my penpal.

Like the newb i am, i just got a newer PC and tossed my old one along with the info :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233502 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:46:20 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233414 puzz1ed : I got the letter yesterday. I'm safely under every month but with a marked spike in January. Pretty sure it's fairly accurate. My letter say that the overage charges "may" be a concern to me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233414 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:21:43 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20232487 anon : hey penandpaper whats your real usage reported on the web site for those months?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20232487 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:10:21 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20232432 anon :

said by Nylink :

The funny thing is, when I go to check my internet usage, I get this message:

"The account ****** you are checking is not an internet account. In order to view your Internet services, you must add Hi-Speed service to your Rogers account. Please click here to order Rogers Hi-Speed service."

LOL, thanks a lot there Rogers.

you called about the "changes you made" comment? I wouldnt have wasted my time. That phrase probably came from the rate increase its just worded wrong and/or the computer doesn't realize who made the change, rogers or you. Only time of year its rogers is once for the rate increase. By chance did you see a increase in your bill? The 20min hold makes me think something else was wrong possibly. Also possible you had a promotion that ended, and again in that case its worded wrong.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20232432 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:50:19 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20232252 anon : I have received the same letter. In fact it is exactly the same in the fact that the load chart is the same as my letter in so much that graph for Jan. falls right on the same amount!
This makes me wonder as to whether those numbers have any actual metrics behind them!!

In my opinion I think that quite a number of people have been sent the same letter to get the same reaction and that the so called chart has simply been manufactured to produce the same effect of shock! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20232252 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:59:55 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20229712 magnus2 : Your husband could play games online for 2040 hours per month...? What kinda math is that?

Download 15 HighDef movies a month? (8-12Gb x 15 is 60Gb?)

Send and receive (exactly?) 6,291,456 e-mails, obviously wouldn't matter the length or size of attachments...

1,572,864 (excatly?) web pages, no matter the content?

Yet they can't handle keeping track of our "real" usage...??]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20229712 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:35:06 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20229352 d0rmamu : So, this seems like confirmation enough? On the bright side there is a $25 cap on over-usage charges after all. Still it's probably 'bye bye' to Rogers for me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20229352 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:27:35 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20229090 CFoo : My usage tools says the same thing but its also down for me. Its been stuck since Mar 3rd and states

* There is no current usage for this account:

I hope it stays that way forever.

said by accat13

:

Just had a look at my so called "usage tool"....I take exception to this comment I found on the page.... "*You have changed your Hi Speed Internet service within this billing period. The ‘Service Includes’ amount below reflects the highest inclusive GB between your old and new service. The next usage period will reflect the inclusive GB for your current service.".....I would really like to know what changes "I have made"....NONE...All the references to 100 gig have disappeared,replaced with a nice little 0

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20229090 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:40:33 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20229086 anon : Oh, I called them the same day. I was diverted 3 times, and put on hold for about 20 minutes. Not that bad, I can tolerate that (I had nothing better to do anyway).

But they said to change the account number on the page to the one from my recent bill. Too bad the account numbers were the same, so it made no difference.

SO I'm stuck not knowing until they can sort it out.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20229086 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:39:42 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20228664 anon : if you played 4 hours of WOW and didn't download anything else. how much bandwidth total would you have used? upload and download ruffly]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20228664 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:23:50 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20228035 penandpaper :

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20228035 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:32:38 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20227757 anon : Can someone post one of the usage letters they are sending out?

I haven't gotten rogers mail in about 2 years, I dont know why i haven't and im not going to call them and have them fix that heh. I think its because i asked to be put on do not solicit or i moved and they haven't updated some spam address somewhere.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20227757 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:35:56 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20227310 accat13 : Just had a look at my so called "usage tool"....I take exception to this comment I found on the page.... "*You have changed your Hi Speed Internet service within this billing period. The ‘Service Includes’ amount below reflects the highest inclusive GB between your old and new service. The next usage period will reflect the inclusive GB for your current service.".....I would really like to know what changes "I have made"....NONE...All the references to 100 gig have disappeared,replaced with a nice little 0]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20227310 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:52:03 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20226528 anon : if you can't add your account properly call rogers and have your internet account added. you'll see your internet account number on the internet page of your bill. Sometimes its not the same as your account number on the first page. depends on the services you have.

once you've registered it correctly on the web site you'll be able to view your usage. I had to get them to do it for me because over the last 10 years i've forgotten what i'd registered and under what name.

Its very helpful in reducing your usage and detecting if your wireless has been comprimised etc, or how much playing WOW actually uses (practicly nothing)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20226528 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:53:51 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20224198 penandpaper : I've made a conscious decision to jump OFF the grid. If enough people follow, they should start feeling it where it really hurts, "their bottom line"

The government isn't intervening because i'm sure they're getting a piece of the action; until we have a real government that's actually concerned about their public and not themselves as seen in so many industries where the consumer is always at the bottom of the food chain, only then wll something be done about the gouging.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20224198 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:23:23 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20223576 anon : The funny thing is, when I go to check my internet usage, I get this message:

"The account ****** you are checking is not an internet account. In order to view your Internet services, you must add Hi-Speed service to your Rogers account. Please click here to order Rogers Hi-Speed service."

LOL, thanks a lot there Rogers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20223576 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:38:03 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20223247 anon : I got a letter in the mail today. It stated that they will start charging for overages starting in June (you will see the charges on your July bill). They will credit you for overages for the months of march, april, and may.

They have a chart at the bottom of the letter showing your bandwidth usage too.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20223247 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:48:57 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20219554 anon : I hate to say this, but I think it has gotten to the point that Rogers (and maybe even Bell) want people to switch to other providers if they are using way too much bandwidth. They want everyone who uses too much bandwidth off their network.

And as for other DSL providers, do you really think they are going to keep offering unlimited internet when everyone jumps from Rogers or Bell? Maybe that explains why a lot of new DSL providers go bankrupt within the first year.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20219554 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:15:07 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20217119 anon : 200gigs will keep me quit and satisfied, like teksavvy their cap is 200gigs, and price for more bandwidth is reasonable 10$ for another 100gigs

not advertising teksavvy, just saying that rogers needs to be more reasonable, or i will switch, dsl modem is only 20$ at my local store]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20217119 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:24:38 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20214849 anon : Where are people seeing as of June charging starts? I don't see this anywhere on Rogers site or the other site they have up.

I do see the charges are coming and the cap at $25 max apparently (who knows how long that'll last) but no official date except for Extreme Plus (i'm really surprised that got 95GB, it should be at least 150GB, oh well)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20214849 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:30:42 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212878 anon : long ago when i was very new to rogers internet service i was cut off. came home sat down no internet but the tv was working. called in and was informed i had a virus that was sending out 10,000 emails an hour and had been doing so for days. The tech was very nice and asked if i need to be aloud online to download a virus scan or update the one i had. I elected to clean it and call back. service was turned on np.

In other experence on here i've seen people saying they use 1000+ gigs a month without a peep from rogers.

But like sbrook says, who knows.

rogers is stating only %10 of its users go over those caps, would rogers trim %10 of fat? hope not. %10 is still a lot of revenue. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212878 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:22:33 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212787 sbrook : The problem is we have NO way to know what the answers are to questions like that will be. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212787 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:56:53 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212771 anon : I'm not trolling. :) I am just repeating what I was told (but I do agree the Rogers Reps are not exactly up to speed on information within their company).

I agree the best thing to do is to wait till early April and see what's exactly in the letter.

But let's say that the $25 cap is correct, what happens to someone who already his that cap. Will Rogers cut that person off? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212771 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:53:48 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212695 anon : chopsuey not sure if your trolling or confused or misinformed. the only tiers that aren't cap'd is the grandfathered tiers ultra lite and lite purchased before this year.

Please read my cut and paste of the faq about 1 page back on this thread. They make it very clear when,where,how each tier is caped and to what $ amount. all of them are $25 cap. Maybe you confused the csc's answer. You understand you can download over your cap by 50GB's but only pay $25 right? Some people are new to the concept like Long distance plans that cap at $20 a month unlimited north america. you make $500 in calls and you only pay $20.

Everyone should be getting mail soon or early april regarding the changes.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212695 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:34:54 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212608 darrylr : When asking important questions like these it is best to do a survey of CSR's. You're likely to determine the most likely answer after asking a minimum sample of 10 CSR's.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212608 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:14:39 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212586 anon : Okay folks, I just spoke to a rep at Rogers at he said that there the $25 cap is only for Extreme Plus, or the lite plans (purchased after Jan 14/08). If you have Express for example, there is no cap, which means if you go over by 50 GB for the month, you will be charged $100!

Quite a few Express users will get a big surprise on their June invoice. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212586 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:09:11 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212549 anon : I did some reading on this on Rogers web site, and I think the $25 cap is only for Rogers Extreme Plus. If you have Rogers Express, there is no $25 cap. Can anyone confirm this from Rogers directly or from their web site?

Since the overage billing doesn't start till June 1st, are people going download crazy right now? :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20212549 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:58:55 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20205475 anon : croat they are going to start charging on your next bill, but they will be crediting it back for a few months. just to let customers adjust to it. That and the fact they realize they can't expect everyone to read the notices they are sending out when at the same time they are spaming advertisements that most people toss.

I do know you need to be carefull when your downgrading during a billing cycle. lets say croat was at 60g's downloaded+uploaded and downgraded to 25g cap. Possibility us you'd pay for 35g's($25cap)

I would guess people will start being billed without credits for usage in june.

Anyone got any notices in the mail about this yet?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20205475 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:08:05 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200869 anon : Hi.

I recently switched from Rogers HS Express to Lite.
My monthly cap used to be 60 gb, now it is 25 gb, which really sucks. But what can I do....

When does Rogers start charging for going over the limit? Is it June 1, 08?
Thanks]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200869 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:58:11 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200666 anon : Ugh Cable monopolies disgust me. Constantly raising prices and lowering service, cable is a definitive example of why monopolies are bad, period. Of course my usage has always been ~ 40-50GB, but it pisses me off that these announcements by cable operators (including US ones like time warner) coincides with the creation of several legitimate movie download and streaming services. Just when the masses are about to increase their usage they pull this stunt before the average person can start using the bandwidth they paid for (in other words keep their TV monopoly as well).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200666 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:13:37 EDT Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200605 GKC : Thanks for clearing this up...misread wrong. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200605 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:30:05 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200236 anon : not correct GKC. You need to read what you just quoted.
"*If this product was purchased before Jan 14/2008, there is no maximum charge for additional use."

no maximum, not no usage charges at all.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200236 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:03:18 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200217 Goldielover : I think you've misunderstood what they are saying. They're not saying there is no charge for overage, they are saying there is no MAXIMUM charge for overage. For the grandfathered Ultra Lite and Lite, they can charge you $3.00 or $5.00 per Gb (depending on which plan) overage fees, and there is no maximum overage fee of $25.00 like there is on the higher tiers. That means that if you managed to rack up bandwidth of 100Gb on Ultra Lite, you could see a $200.00 surcharge (40 x $5.00), rather than it being capped at $25.00 as it would have been on one of the other tiers. Mind you, I don't know if it is physically possible to do 100Gb on Ultra Lite - I've never gotten about 35Gb, and our two computers are in pretty heavy use for many hours each day. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200217 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:56:30 EDT Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200084 GKC : And notice that Rogers has increased the speed on the Ultra-Lite to 500 Kbps from that of 256 Kbps.

»www.rogers.com/web/link/hispeedC···ackage=1

Note where it says at the bottom of the comparison chart *If this product was purchased before Jan 14/2008, there is no maximum charge for additional use. If this product was purchased after Jan 14/2008, the maximum charge for additional use is $25.

It's clear and concise, subscriber's to Ultra-Lite and Lite prior to January 14/08 will not be charged overage fees. Only new subscriber's to both tiers will be charged overage fees.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20200084 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:19:57 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20199060 Goldielover : New Zealand is awful, too. A friend of mine, who has recently moved back there, says it is very expensive, and the caps are very low. The lowest appears to be 200Mb, and they want $29.95 NZD for that. The most expensive is $149.95 NZD, and only includes 50Gb. Excess bandwidth is charged at 2 cents per Mb. Those prices were taken from the Telecom New Zealand website, and are current. They are a little cagey as to committing to speeds. After reading that I don't feel quite so bad about my Ultra Lite for $24.95 per month with a 60Gb cap and $5.00 per Gb overage charges. Not that I've ever gone over anyways - I've never been over 35Gb, and that's with two computers connected, and quite a lot of downloading and YouTube viewing being done. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20199060 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:30:58 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20198782 ender78 : Even gaming and browsing 24/7 there is no conceivable way of going over 100GB with just browsing the web. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20198782 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:49:07 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20198775 sbrook : You could be in Australia ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20198775 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:48:18 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20198696 anon : Im confused on rogers 95 GB cap limit. Its been almost 3 years since my normal surfing habits ranged in the less then 100 gb limit. Every month I use between 350-700GB. If I stopped downloading HD movies, hd trailers, files, just about dont download anything at all, My bandwidth is still around 110 GB a month for just online browsing and playing online games (this is browsing and playing games between 5 members in the family).

What exactly does rogers want me to do here? I can stop downloading, but I will still go over their cap. I wonder if they realize this is 2008 and not 1999? A 95GB cap is rediculose. Theres no way I can stay within it. If they put up a 300gb cap I would still be upset that I cant do everything I wanted, but I could stay within it if I tried. 95GB is simply impossible tho.

This country is seriously the worst country in the world when it comes to the internet. Many countries in europe offer extreme speeds with 0 limits or caps for $20 USD a month, and its considered their basic internet packages.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20198696 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:36:13 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20196815 bricksterr : This certainly won't fit well with downloading movies, not to mention hi-def movies, when the final Blu-ray spec matures. I guess Rogers has figured out how to get a slice of that pie too. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20196815 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:14:28 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20196760 habskilla : Time to switch to downloading xvids instead of DVDs.
--
GO LEAFS GO (all the way to the golf course)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20196760 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:05:21 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20195220 a_large_rock : The rogers FAQ is not part of your contract, so you can't consider the $25.00 cap listed their as binding. The 'internet usage' page is linked to in your contract, so what ever it says should be considered correct over the FAQ. Considering it makes no mention of the cap, i would stick with the opinion that there is no cap until it says otherwise.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20195220 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:51:48 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20194299 d0rmamu : gurn, I hear you and wish I had your confidence about this $25 cap. It only seems to be mentioned once in the FAQ then absent or outright contradicted elsewhere. The very page dedicated to 'Monthly Usage Allowance' says nothing about caps on overuse charges:

»www.rogers.com/web/content/hispe···et_usage

And on the 'Keeping Pace' page, the example shown of the 'Previous Monthly History' tab on the Usage Tool has an Express account with overusage charges of $112 and $60 for previous months!

»www.hispeed.rogers.com/bband/con···notified

You may turn out to be correct but I would sure like to see in writing just a little more clearly and consistently.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20194299 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:15:04 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20193956 metalhawk : Glad to see that Extreme users aren't getting the shaft like it was reported in earlier speculations. 95 GB is still acceptable. 75 would have been too low.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20193956 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:26:02 EDT Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20191525 GKC : »www.rogers.com/web/content/hispe···et_usage

And the charges are already posted to the company's website, as well...

Edit: Sorry, Sbrook, didn't see until now, that you already posted this information. Sorry for the overlap. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20191525 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:54:27 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20189529 habskilla :

said by darrylr

:

So a $25 over-usage cap. Does will this mean that people downloading 24/7 will be legitimized now for about $70-$80 a month ($45 or $55 + $25)?

No! There is still the fair use policy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20189529 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:30:49 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20189456 darrylr : So no charges until after June 1 according to this page:

»www.hispeed.rogers.com/bband/con···ill.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20189456 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:17:32 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20188750 anon : Dormamu its not inconsistent they are explaining two different things. This example with $46 is just showing you how you would calculate your usage charge. Because different tiers grandfathered or not have different rates they don't mention its capped at say $25 in your express example. keep in mind some tiers aren't caped (grandfathered ultra lite)

Have you ever gotten a phone bill when your on a plan that maxes out at $20 long distance and it shows you usage charges of $400+ but it only charges you $20 in the end. Well rogers plans the same thing. They are going to show you $46 in usage charges but only charge you $25. Its different rates for different tiers and grandfathered plans though.

How do i know if I'm on a grandfathered plan? you might be asking. well if your paying $52.95, $32.95, or 21.95 or 23.95 for internet (not including a modem) your on a grandfathered plan. all rogers internet tiers are now $10 apart. 24.95, 34.95, 44.95, 54.95 if your on that price your not grandfathered

Just look at your tier to get the answers you need. express $44.95 60 gig cap. max $25 usage charges. since express didn't get grandfathered its the easiest.

these two examples make it pretty clear.

What are the monthly usage allowances for my Rogers Hi-Speed Internet service?

Each Rogers Hi-Speed Internet service offers a generous monthly usage allowance.

Ultra Lite – 2 GB
Lite – 25 GB
Express – 60 GB
Extreme / Extreme Plus – 95 GB

Please note: The grandfathered Ultra Lite and Lite monthly usage allowance is 60 GB. Also, Rogers Portable Internet and dial-up services do not have usage allowances at this time.

Will I be charged if I go beyond my monthly usage allowance?

Yes. If you exceed your monthly usage allowance, you will be charged as follows:

Ultra Lite – $5.00/GB to a maximum of $25.00
Lite – $2.50/GB to a maximum of $25.00
Express – $2.00/GB to a maximum of $25.00
Extreme – $1.50/GB to a maximum of $25.00
Extreme Plus – $1.25/GB to a maximum of $25.00

Please note: the grandfathered Ultra Lite over-allowance fee is $5.00/GB with no maximum, and the grandfathered Lite over-allowance fee is $3.00/GB with no maximum.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20188750 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:18:25 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20187427 sbrook : Probably not ... Something tells me that this will come with a "We'll let you go up to 25 overage and charge you, but if you go higher than that, expect termination."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20187427 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:38:31 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20187377 darrylr : So a $25 over-usage cap. Does will this mean that people downloading 24/7 will be legitimized now for about $70-$80 a month ($45 or $55 + $25)?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20187377 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:29:21 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20187332 Goldielover : On the second e-mail I received from a Rogers CSR, they mentioned I would be charged $10.00 per Gb if I went over on my Ultra Lite plan, but my cap would remain at 60Gb. Considering how contradictory the information from the CSRs is, I won't really believe it until I see it. The first one told me I would be reduced to 2Gb. Anyways, not sure if that $10.00 would apply only to those who may be grandfathered in with an old bandwidth cap. Suspect it is. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20187332 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:19:22 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20186328 d0rmamu : The inconsistencies are pretty troubling. On the one hand, most Rogers customers could safely assume it's business as usual, since no one has received direct and definitive notification of any of these rumoured changes on their bill or whatever (or have they?). On the other hand, several pages at the Rogers web site show that a new regime is coming. But the statements about that new regime are totally inconsistent.

Starting dates and notification dates are inconsistent: March 18, April 2, June, July?? And the question of whether there are caps on overage charges is answered differently on the very same page: the FAQ at one point shows a maximum $25 charge for each tier but at another point has an example of calculating additional usage charge that results in $46.25 overusage fee! (»www.hispeed.rogers.com/bband/con···q.html#2)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20186328 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:06:25 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20186240 sbrook : People don't mind paying extra so much but many have already had 3 price hikes in 18 months and these charges aren't pay extra for extra bandwidth ... this is soak you royally for extra bandwidth!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20186240 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:49:10 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20186133 anon : I have to kind of laugh. I remember a year or so ago when Rogers was shutting people down for going over a unknown limit. People complained "TELL ME WHAT THE LIMIT IS" after a while Rogers set limits such as 100gig for Extreme. People then said "ALEAST LET ME PAY ABIT MORE FOR EXTRA ABOVE THE LIMIT INSTEAD OF CUTTING MY OFF". Well Rogers had problems with there usage system and couldn't really enforce it.

So the day has now come where they are forcing the limits AND you can pay for extra bandwidth if you need it.

And now people will complain about that....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20186133 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:27:33 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185969 sbrook : Ha! Even the "What kind of user" tool is broken.\\

"Firefox can't find the server at portaldev."

Can't Rogers do even the simplest things right????]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185969 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:59:29 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185952 sbrook : and that's out of date because we're already after March 18!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185952 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:57:17 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185944 sbrook : OK ... have a look here ..

»www.rogers.com/web/content/inter···selimits

Then HERE ...

»www.hispeed.rogers.com/bband/con···ser.html

to see what kind of demographics they think they're selling a service to.

As for the prices per extra gig, they are nothing short of exhorbitant. If they were truly out to control traffic, the extra charge would be the same for all users. Why granny and grandad have to pay more per gb because they downloaded one too many pictures of grandson is ridiculous. This is nothing short of a revenue grab.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185944 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:55:58 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185942 a_large_rock : I got my bill today, and that information is NOT on my bill.

###########################################################
When will Roger's really start gouging you?
###########################################################

"Customers will be charged for going over their usage only after June 1st 2008 (with the exception of Extreme Plus)" (Who are already charged)

»www.hispeed.rogers.com/bband/con···ill.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185942 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:55:43 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185888 sbrook : The poster didn't say he'd received Snail mail ... I haven't received it. One of many things I cannot do is read minds. And I wasn't bashing the poster. Just stating that (as it was posted) it was rumour.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185888 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:46:32 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185734 anon :
said by sbrook :

Which is just rumour.

Repetez apres moi!

"WE HAVE NO FACTS JUST RUMOURS"

Until Rogers actually PUBLISHES something that gives facts.

Of course Rogers have published contradictory facts before now ... but at least they're facts!

You just received the "Facts".
Instead of bashing posters, go check your snail mail...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185734 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:17:38 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185699 a_large_rock : Rogers has updated their prices and have given a date by wich customers will be notifed by mail.

"Customers will receive specific information in the mail by April 2nd regarding how this change will impact their service."

"To continue to meet your needs for speed, reliability and continuous improvements to the network, each of our service options now includes a usage allowance. Usage is measured by the amount of content transferred to and from your computer when it’s online. "

"The majority of our customers are on plans that meet their needs and should not expect to go over their monthly usage allowance. If you do go over, you can pay for additional usage on a monthly basis, or change your level of service so that it meets your online needs. Measuring usage this way more fairly reflects how our customers are using the service and allows us to maintain competitive monthly rates for all of our customers."

"...Cost per GB ranges from $5 to $1.25 .... reflecting actual internet costs."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185699 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:11:46 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185635 sbrook : Which is just rumour.

Repetez apres moi!

"WE HAVE NO FACTS JUST RUMOURS"

Until Rogers actually PUBLISHES something that gives facts.

Of course Rogers have published contradictory facts before now ... but at least they're facts!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185635 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:58:57 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185615 anon :
said by d0rmamu :

I am trying to distinguish rumour vs. reality with all these conflicting reports from CSRs and Rogers offices. Can anyone please sum up what is known for certain about March 18, whether overage charges are confirmed, and if they will be capped?

What if you are over 60GB (Hi-Speed Express) but in the middle of your billing period when March 18 arrives? Are you charged that month or just the next?

Facts are.. while your usage will be tracked and represented on your bill, there will be no charges for exceeding the "caps" until July.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185615 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:54:20 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185201 Goldielover : Well, it is March 18, I checked my internet usage monitor, and the bandwidth allocation is still showing as 60Gb. My monitor is up to date as of yesterday. I'm going to keep an eye on it on a daily basis for the next little while, just to make sure Rogers doesn't pull any sneaky changes later. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185201 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:38:00 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185160 anon : My bandwith monitor has been down since Mar 03.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20185160 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:30:53 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20184683 anon : Mine works fine.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20184683 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:05:29 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20184672 a_large_rock : Will the letter in our mail boxes tell us when they will fix the bandwidth monitor? or is that still up in the air?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20184672 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:03:46 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20184652 anon : Keep an eye on your mail box. You should see something really soon. :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20184652 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:59:03 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20184287 darrylr : So it's March 18 - the magic day that Rogers was supposed to start charging for usage over your limit but I see the same info as before on the bandwidth allocation FAQ page. Any news on this front?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20184287 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:04:01 EDT msg deleted http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20162933 anon : deleted by a moderator]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20162933 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:55:43 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20154393 jono181 : At least you guys can view your usage.

When I try to login and view the usage, I get "There is no current usage for this account: xxxxxxxxxxxx"

They said it would be fixed by the 15th of this month but I've been without it for 2 months now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20154393 Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:59:42 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20153663 anon : My limit went from 100GB to 75GB last month, and the last few days it's been having trouble as always and now it's back to 100GB as I checked today. Maybe they're keeping Extreme at 100GB now? I'm confused what's going on.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20153663 Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:57:00 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20153008 anon : This is all worrying me. Until I discovered this forum I was under the impression I could use my internet to my hearts contents (how silly of me, but I'm sure most users are under this impression!).

I have the express service and according to my Rogers account I've used 46 gigs in my first week of the current billing cycle, I am allowed 60 per month. I'm sure last month I was probably well over 200-300, in fact I'm quite sure I've always exceeded 60 gigs and never once been cut off or charged for it. I imagine with all the families out there sharing wireless networks, or landlords providing internet for their tenants as part of their rent (probably applies to downtown Toronto the most) that there are tens of thousands of households out there just destroying these silly cap limits.

Now Rogers is going to start charging out of the blue for this? Why have they taken no action against account "abusers" such as myself who have been unknowingly (partly through our own ignorance) exceeding their limits?

I'm preparing myself to order Acanac or Teksavvy after reading threads like this, thing is.. if I didn't discover this forum I never would be thinking about these things. Why has Rogers communication with its own users been so poor? There's really going to be a lot of furious people out there when their services are cut off, throttled and/or billed for going over something they assumed they could use all they want anyway. I'm sure explaining bandwidth use to the average computer user is going to be a very difficult challenge, I can't imagine my parents wrapping their heads around such a concept.

I'm just going to continue blindly marching forwards, downloading and uploading to my hearts contents until Rogers says I can't continue. Why should I be proactive about this when they've elected to do nothing about it all this time? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20153008 Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:04:05 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20140971 elwoodblues : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20140971 Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:44:12 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126336 anon : didn't change]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126336 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:41:22 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125798 FuzzFace : Ok i just checked my rogers account information and it says that my monthly limit is 60gb(I'm on express). I just can't remember what the monthly limit used to be on express or if it has changed at all?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125798 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:13:03 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20124753 Stewy :
said by Goldielover :

Complain at them. I did when they told me I would be reduced to 2Gb, and they flip flopped their position and told me I would be remaining at 60Gb unless I changed my service.
I wonder if they have a policy that if you complain they will grandfather you into the plan ?

I was grandfathered into 10 digital channels promotion for over 5 years, when I moved I was not able to get it back. It could happen.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20124753 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:07:26 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20124438 Goldielover : Complain at them. I did when they told me I would be reduced to 2Gb, and they flip flopped their position and told me I would be remaining at 60Gb unless I changed my service. Given the abysmal record of the CSRs actually knowing what is going on, I won't really believe it until I see it. I've kept both e-mails to throw back at them if necessary. My billing cycle changes tomorrow, and it will be interesting to see what, if any changes will show on it. I also will be moving ASAP if they do actually reduce my cap.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20124438 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:44:26 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20123989 anon : Surprise-surprise, when I login to my account it says:

*You have changed your Hi Speed Internet service within this billing period. The ‘Service Includes’ amount below reflects the highest inclusive GB between your old and new service. The next usage period will reflect the inclusive GB for your current service.

Of course, I did not change anything since I signed up with them more than a year ago. Looks like they are rolling over grandfathered accounts to the new caps as well. Like it was predicted here. They were just beta testing it with those guys who reported cap changing on its own.

I am going to say 'goodbye' to rogers as soon as I see those pathetic 2 gigs (I am on ultra-lite). I already got SpeedTouch 516 modem and 2 DSL filters today. Teksavvy's page says my line is OK for 5Meg DSL for almost the same price (1 dollar more :D). Nice! I like.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20123989 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:23:48 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121634 sbrook : Nothing is confirmed, nobody knows anything for certain. Nobody knows the mechanism.

All we know is that the meter has been set for Ultralite users and light users to 2GB and 25GB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121634 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:16:45 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121568 d0rmamu : I am trying to distinguish rumour vs. reality with all these conflicting reports from CSRs and Rogers offices. Can anyone please sum up what is known for certain about March 18, whether overage charges are confirmed, and if they will be capped?

What if you are over 60GB (Hi-Speed Express) but in the middle of your billing period when March 18 arrives? Are you charged that month or just the next?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121568 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:02:59 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20113774 sbrook : You aren't kidding they have caps ...and throttling and all kinds of other customer service issues. Sympatico isn't what it once was!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20113774 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:00:07 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20113700 anon : Sympatico does have caps now. And has for awhile.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20113700 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:47:50 EDT Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20113646 anon : The words "in my area" are, of course, crucial. But if your area supports Sympatico, I can recommend them. No caps, and good speed up and down. Hit Rogers where it hurts and just switch and tell them why.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20113646 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:41:06 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20112117 sbrook : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20112117 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:49:48 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20112044 GroovyPhoenx :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20112044 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:37:41 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20111708 Stewy :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20111708 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:28:55 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20111284 anon : It was a misinformed CSR.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20111284 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:55:39 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20110596 Goldielover : Rogers has done a flip flop. After I received the earlier e-mail this afternoon from them stating that my Ultra Lite service would be decreased to 2Gb on March 18, I wrote them back stating that I was not at all happy with the 97% decrease, and had submitted a complaint to the CCTS. Just moments ago, I received the following:

"In your recent email, you have informed us that you are not happy with
the recent change in our monthly bandwidth for our Ultra Lite service.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you, and we
appreciate your patience while waiting to have this matter resolved.

New customers will have a 2GB bandwidth cap on their service however
existing Ultra Lite customers will continue to receive the 60 GB monthly
bandwidth. However if at some point in time you decide to upgrade to
another tier of internet and then go back to Ultra Lite you would no
longer receive the grandfathered bandwidth cap of 60GB. Please also
note that if you go over the 60 GB you will be charged $10 per GB."

Now - was that the complaint that caused them to reverse their position, or was it just another case of a CSR not fully knowing what Rogers is doing with the changes?

Also, if they do keep an eye on this forum and their own support forum, they are probably well aware I had posted their earlier e-mail in both, and are hoping I will post the latest as well for damage control purposes. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20110596 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:20:16 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20106693 Goldielover : Its been showing that for quite a while - but there was talk that existing custemers prior to Jan. 14 would be left alone. Obviously not the case. I have today lodged a formal complaint with the CCTS, partly with regards to a 97% reduction in service being grossly unfair, but also with regards to the fact that as I have six months remaining on my contract with them, I will have to pay cancellation charges to get out of it, or pay the excess bandwidth charges until the end of August. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20106693 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:20:28 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20106533 sbrook : Rogers web site now shows the limit for UL as 2GB per month ... don't know when it changed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20106533 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:53:49 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20106455 Goldielover : I've finally got an answer out of Rogers customer service. Not good. Not good AT ALL. Unless the CSR is wrong, it looks like they will be decreasing all existing customers as well as new ones.

Here's a copy of the relevant portion of the e-mail"

"...Thank you for taking the time to write to us, we appreciate your use of
online customer service.

In your recent email, you have informed us that you would like to
confirm that your monthly bandwidth is 60GB.

Your monthly bandwidth is 60GB up until March 18, 2008 at which time it
will decrease to 2GB per month...."

I am NOT a happy camper right now, as I've got to think of what I plan to do here. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20106455 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:42:49 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20085120 anon : Yes, you can effectively use two computers on Ultra Lite - I have two right now, and, for a month, had a third on my network as well. Not saying three connected would be able to do any heavy duty downloading, but general surfing is no problem. I think it would be pretty difficult to hit the 60Gb limit on Ultra Lite, but not impossible. Ours see a fair bit of use, but I think the highest I've gone is just over 21Gb. That was for a single computer, though. We've got two on right now, and could conceivably go above that. If they do leave my cap at 60Gb then I'll calm down again, as I feel it is fair that I get left with what I signed up for. I have no real problem with small price hikes from time to time, but I certainly do have a problem if my bandwidth is reduced by 97%. If they do, then I'm out of there. Kalnick mentioned a Rogers CSR trying the tactic it was for our own protection due to possible wireless abuse. What a load of crock that was. If someone is careless enough not to bother with setting up any sort of security on one's wireless router, then all I can say is that they probably shouldn't be using it in the first place. Mine has been secured, and I also keep an eye on the attached devices, just to make sure nothing manages to get on that shouldn't be there. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20085120 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:54:58 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084802 sbrook : What you consider fair is irrelevant to Rogers. Heck, what hundreds considered fair in a petition to Rogers was considered irrelevant!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084802 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:01:19 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084798 sbrook : They were taken to court for negative optioning ... i.e. having to reject a new service instead of opting for it and being charged.

They lied about throttling.

They lied about cutting speeds from 3Mbps to 1.5Mbps

They declared they were getting rid of newsgroups primarly to help eliminate child porn. This was really only spin control.

They outsourced mail to Yahoo! exposing their users to Yahoo!'s marketing policies and privacy policy and also exposing Canadians to potential investigations under the US Patriot act

Fees up 3 times in a little over a year.

The business with caps is just an ongoing comedy ... They decided to implement them several years ago and the RBUA could not persuade them not to. Bell in the meantime, introduced caps, and Rogers not yet having implemented them got a FLOOD of users from Bell. Bell relinquished their caps and started with the never shared ads ... and slowly got customers back from Rogers. This time, it seems Rogers and Bell are trying to co-ordinate their caps implementation.

The measurement tool has been one reason for the major delay in cap implementation. It has been so terribly inaccurate, accumulating GBs of data for people who had their modem off and away on vacation. Conversely people using GBs of data not accumulating any!

Bottom line is that after incident after incident one find that it's hard to trust Rogers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084798 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:00:31 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084745 anon : I dont agree with the 2g rate on ultra lite. I'm somewhat lacking in knowledge of how much one could really achieve with 256Kbs download speed a month. I didn't realize you could even get as high as 60gig or even use multiple computers affectively at those speeds. from my understanding if your ultra lite price is 21.95 then your cap is 60gig. if you signed up after jan 14th 2008 its only 2gig.

i strongly agree the limit should be 60gig at least in those lower tiers.

these numbers i would consider fair
60gig ultra lite
80gig lite
100gig express
200gig extreme

unfortunatly rogers picked other numbers. They must have researched what users are using on average at those tiers to come up with those numbers. you'd think anyways. also interesting that they came up with a $25 dollar amount. exactly the same price bell is charging.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084745 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:51:04 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084681 anon : This could also backfire. they are about to tell customers "hey john smith you've only used 2gigs when you could have used 60gigs, oh and btw we'll charge you if you go over that" now john smith who's never used more then 2gigs a month starts using more to get value out of what he's been paying for. Now rogers users that weren't using the network start adding on. then rogers is ever worse off. (i hope this does not happen) There will be no coming back from that.

Coming clean would be nice, giving a bit more back would be nice too. I'm trying to think of a time rogers came clean as a company when it screwed over or lied, only real thing i can think of is the system access fee, but that was forced by a lawsuit i believe. Has anyone noticed that when they mention this fee in flyers they write in bold "THIS IS NOT A GOVERNMENT FEE"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084681 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:40:04 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084657 anon : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084657 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:36:01 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084483 sbrook : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084483 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:08:50 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084376 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084376 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:52:42 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084185 sbrook : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20084185 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:24:02 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20083724 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20083724 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:01:54 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082877 z0z0 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082877 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:54:30 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082780 sbrook : At the time many of us bought the modem, it was $5 per month, and mine has long since paid for itself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082780 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:36:23 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082775 sbrook : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082775 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:35:41 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082744 Kev06 :
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. :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082744 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:27:28 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082730 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082730 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:23:21 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082595 Kev06 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082595 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:46:51 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082581 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082581 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:41:49 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082552 Kev06 :
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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082552 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:35:10 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082279 anon : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20082279 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:34:52 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081607 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081607 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:46:19 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081318 Kev06 : 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. :mad:
--
"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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081318 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:53:32 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081288 anon : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081288 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:49:05 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081287 CAD420 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081287 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:49:01 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081180 Kev06 : 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? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081180 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:32:28 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081108 Kev06 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20081108 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:22:08 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20080128 elwoodblues : What do you mean you are being kicked down to 2GB? Are you on Ultra Lite?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20080128 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:47:49 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079533 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079533 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:02:03 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079290 sbrook : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079290 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:12:00 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079268 Stewy :
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 ? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079268 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:07:06 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079233 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079233 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:01:42 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079219 Stewy :
said by devilshaven :

dsl is an option for me (sadly only 5mb)
I'll take 5Mb with 200Gig over 8Mb with 75Gig anyday.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079219 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:59:44 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079161 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079161 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:49:55 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079006 sbrook : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20079006 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:24:09 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078918 The Flash :
said by Kev06 :

Rogers Residential Internet Usage Limits And Rates

»www.rogers.com/web/content/inter···et_usage

It says no charge for overusage? Does that make sense?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078918 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:04:14 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078836 Farshid420 : 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"...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078836 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:46:01 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078799 sbrook : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078799 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:42:08 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078784 anon : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078784 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:38:57 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078491 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078491 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:50:15 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078001 sbrook : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20078001 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:24:30 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20077940 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20077940 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:14:23 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20077811 anon : 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)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20077811 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:56:09 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20077810 Warhorse : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20077810 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:56:05 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20077770 Farshid420 : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20077770 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:49:58 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076683 sbrook : If they've switched you can be sure charging is around the corner]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076683 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:17:44 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076590 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076590 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:59:48 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076464 sbrook : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076464 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:30:17 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076317 magnus2 : I just checked mine and it still says 100gb per month...?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076317 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:55:28 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076248 Stewy : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076248 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:29:13 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076221 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076221 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:22:19 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076155 anon : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076155 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:00:48 EDT Re: Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076082 Kev06 : Rogers Residential Internet Usage Limits And Rates

»www.rogers.com/web/content/inter···et_usage]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20076082 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:32:18 EDT Bandwidth Alllocation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20075994 anon : 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 :-(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20075994 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:42:31 EDT