O Canada! > Canadian > Rogers > [ Extreme] Has Rogers ever shut any one down for overusage?

[ Extreme] Has Rogers ever shut any one down for overusage?

Nobody has reported it happening in years.

reply to crazlunatic
you go over every month by several hundred GIGS?!?

wtf are you downloading? everything?

Sorry, but why should you care what he's downloading. Rogers implicitly implies that he can by setting a limit on the overage charges.

Again, it's none of your business what anyone else downloads. If Rogers chooses not to enforce a hard cap, that's up to them.

JAC70 has it exactly correct. It's between crazlunatic and Rogers, unless you live on the cable segment and it's interfering with your performance ... then it's up to you to complain to rogers about your performance and let them work out who's soaking up the bandwidth. Personally, I think it's wrong to consistently exceed the caps by a high margin, but it's up to Rogers ... I get my speed here, so I have nothing to complain about, other than maybe their pushing the price of my service up - which I've done.

You should know by now (after being told many times) that being a mod has nothing whatsoever to do with the ISP and everything to do with the site / forum. My love/hate of rogers or bell has nothing to do with the moderation of these forums. If I let that interfere with my moderation of the forums, I should quit.

If Rogers really wanted to enforce caps, then they'd set a hard limit above the pay as you go exception. So far they haven't done that.

reply to crazlunatic
They wont do anything most likely unless your own some kind of jammed node and using your connection maxing it out 24/7.

I would think it would be people in tight nodes pushing 500-700 GB a month rogers might get a bit concerned....

reply to crazlunatic
What do you think haha. I'm actually downloading many Windows 7 builds

reply to crazlunatic
I personally feel that the amount you download SHOULD NOT MATTER, it's if you are causing major issues with congestion due to over downloading/uploading at one time that is more of a concern..

If each person's modem was set at a speed the ISP's network can handle, then there should not be any issues.

CAPS are just a cash grab... the amount of data flowing at one time is what is a cause for concern in a congested network.

This can be controlled by not selling speeds to customers, their backbone can not support.

To say each user can only use Email and surf websites just not realistic, nor is it realistic to expect if you use your 59.95 dollar connection to do just web surfing and email, that everyone else should be doing the same.

I use 175 gigs per month approx.. CONSISTENTLY. And most is from downloading LEGAL music downloads from napster, watching youtube and transferring files to and from work.

In the US, most companies are realistic with caps.. Rogers and Bell are both insane to think 95 is realistic and value for the money... It's just a cash grab pure and simple!

reply to JAC70

reply to crazlunatic
If he's downloading Win 7 builds, then I'd be curious where I can buy them

reply to dirtyjeffer
Again, it's absolutely irrelevent whether it's legal or illegal. Remember that Canada's view on legal and illegal in the realm of copyright is NOT the same as that being promoted by the US or the *AAs.

You say if you get a lot of excessive downloaders then you affect the performance. True. But that is between Rogers and the downloaders. Not us here in this forum. IF you feel YOUR performance or the service you are getting (say you may feel that you're paying more than you should because of the cost in satisfyling heavy downloaders), then it's up to you to complain to Rogers and let them work it out, not to go pointing random fingers.

said by sbrook:

---

Again, it's absolutely irrelevent whether it's legal or illegal. Remember that Canada's view on legal and illegal in the realm of copyright is NOT the same as that being promoted by the US or the *AAs.

---

quote:

---

You say if you get a lot of excessive downloaders then you affect the performance. True. But that is between Rogers and the downloaders. Not us here in this forum. IF you feel YOUR performance or the service you are getting (say you may feel that you're paying more than you should because of the cost in satisfyling heavy downloaders), then it's up to you to complain to Rogers and let them work it out, not to go pointing random fingers.

---

Off topic ...

You know, it's an interesting observation that our society today is in no worse a state of moral decay than societies before it. We often compare life with the Victorians ... but in fact the Victorians were every bit as corrupt. The major difference is that in days of yore, people and politicians were far better able to sweep their moral transgressions under the carpet.

---

Back on topic ... what Rogers must then do is to set and publish hard caps allowing a reasonable bit of elbow room above the pay more cap. Make sure every body knows they're there, AND enforce them consistently. Then there are no legit complaints about legality or class action suits etc.

Yes, Bell did eject users with hard caps AFTER Rogers indicated they were going to go with hard caps. Rogers DIDN'T implement caps, so all those Bell users flocked to Rogers. Now, both Bell and Rogers have implemented caps and are facing the same kind of issues. The problem at that time was the caps that were set were quite unreasonable (Rogers was planning 5GB and Bell 5up/5down which became 10 combined and then abandoned. The general concensus of users at that time was that 20GB would have been a far more reasonable cap.

So, all hell probably wouldn't break loose this time with reasonable caps. After all, even with pay extra caps, all hell hasn't broken loose. Where there is hell is the rest of the companies' business practices (all the major ISPs) on top of caps.

reply to crazlunatic
There was an interesting article in the Toronto Star yesterday by Michael Geist entitled "Time to slay Canadian file-sharing myths"
»www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/647038

Interesting that so many of us think that file sharing is legal. I'm in the sharing is fair, like borrowing a book from the library and I pay my levy on black media so f*ck to those who don't agree. I know many people are against sharing, but the article, plus the comments are interesting to read.

Personally, I believe in fair use ... what's fair? My making a copy of a CD or DVD to preserve one I've purchased, so I can toss the copy around in my car and not worry about damage. My copying a CD/DVD from a friend/online to evaluate it. If I don't like it, I destroy it. If I like it, I buy it.

I don't want to deprive those who deserve copyright revenues from getting just value for their works.

The problem is that copyright for these works is far more complex.

1) There is the songwriter's copyright, or screenwriter's copyright for the actual music.

2) There is the performer's copyright

3) There is the mechanical copyright

The first one is easy and it's the one most of us have little problem with ... but ... there are problems ... Many songwriters and screenwriters have been forced to hand over their copyright to publishers who are supposedly responsibile for getting their material into the public eye. The author of the work gets a fraction of those royalties according to a contract with the publisher. In the music industry, fortunately, many artists have set up their own publisher and contract with a major publisher to promote the music for distribution. Turning the tables around so to speak. In the film industry, sadly it doesn't work that way ... the film producer usually employs the writers, so they don't see royalties.

Next is the performer's copyright. This is the royalty paid for simply performing a work and comes at two levels. One is for direct performance, the other for indirect performance. Again, this is usually given over to the record company, or the film maker etc, and a portion given back to the artist.

Next is the mechanical copyright, and this is the most contentious. This is the one that the RIAA and MPAA and CRIA are most at war with ... this is the copyright they claim on the performed/public work and in theory prohibits your making a copy of it. It is essentially the one that prohibits you changing media ... The radio performing a song pays the mechanical copyright because all those listeners aren't buying a CD. It's an extortion for lost sales. This is why the RIAA and MPAA and CRIA are fighting so hard. They've survived the transittion to broadcasting from limited license with the same business model, so they think they can continue to promote that same model in the digital age.

The problem here is our system of copyrights. I think we all agree that the artist and writer deserve some kind of consideration. The question is does the recording industry deserve the mechanical copyright. Do they deserve to make money from all on the basis of lost sales?

reply to dirtyjeffer