Stonemason
join:2009-08-03
| Explain to me how Cogeco isn't breaking the law...
By charging per usage billing when they initiatiate TCP resets which result in you sending the same information over and over and your usage going up because of their actions.
Seems totally fraudulent and illegal. What legal course of action could be taken against them for this fraud? |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | What's the law you're citing? |
|
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| reply to Stonemason
said by Stonemason  :By charging per usage billing when they initiatiate TCP resets The technology we use does not initiate or do TCP resets.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
|
|
more coming
@videotron.ca
| reply to Stonemason
said by Stonemason :By charging per usage billing when they initiatiate TCP resets which result in you sending the same information over and over and your usage going up because of their actions. Seems totally fraudulent and illegal. What legal course of action could be taken against them for this fraud? Apparently a Month or more ago, there was supposed to be a statement released on this... Cogeco decided not to say anything though after saying they would.
See:
»Cogeco's throttle and DPI-Discussed
It may not be an RST, but the result is the same. You do have to send-resend (both ways) and it does add up.
You are not wrong.
Refer to the above link which cogeco decided to ignore after saying they would reply 
Of course this is double-dipping on B/W, plus more. You are not wrong.
"sending the same information over and over"
Quite Right. |
|
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| said by more coming :
Apparently a Month or more ago, there was supposed to be a statement released on this... Cogeco decided not to say anything though after saying they would.
That was me, I said I would try and get an official clarification on their statements (since people weren't satisfied with my comments) and I did request this but.... I will forward this thread to them now and will post if I get anything.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
|
|
Verno
join:2008-06-19
Grimsby, ON
| reply to Stonemason
said by Stonemason :By charging per usage billing when they initiatiate TCP resets which result in you sending the same information over and over and your usage going up because of their actions. Seems totally fraudulent and illegal. What legal course of action could be taken against them for this fraud? I'm no lawyer but there's a clear conflict of interest if you are interfering with client traffic while simultaneously billing for overages. It doesn't take a genius to see that is definitely something that could be pursued. The real question is whether or not anyone cares enough to do so.
As an example, gateway merchant services like Visa and Mastercard are not allowed to charge fines to a credit card or debit account directly as a result of a Point of Sale purchase without consent. It must be initiated by the merchant. There is an established precedent for government oversight in that example as well. In this case there is no middleman and no oversight. So yes, it definitely has legal merit and could be challenged in court.
Will anyone bother? Who knows. Probably not but hey, all it takes is little Johnny downloading too much stuff and Daddy turns out to be a lawyer. Definitely food for thought, thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't even thought about it. |
|
Phorkster
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Windsor, ON
 ·Cogeco Cable
 ·Cogeco Voip
| reply to Stonemason
The second I get an overage bill will be the second I contact a lawyer. And since I am in an industry where I work with Measurement Canada you can bet your bottom dollar that the issue of Cogeco's broken BW monitor is going to come up in my next conversation with them. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| You would go through the cost intensive task of hiring a lawyer to reconcile your bill with your internet provider for, what, $30? That seems a little... excessive? Why not just leave the ISP for another ISP instead of paying a considerable amount of legal money?
Me, if I received an erroneous bill that didn't match at all with my own bandwidth counters, I'd probably contact the ISP myself and discuss this error with them, considering this is most likely the same avenue a lawyer would first have to travel. If they refused to credit me, I'd switch ISP's.
Of course, Cogeco's lack of forward, public communication regarding this issue is resulting in a lot of legal bluster considering they've issued letters stating they'll be charging, and their bandwidth monitor isn't working... hopefully Krispy receives some kind of official response to give us, and Cogeco treats their paying and concerned customers with a little more respect. |
|
Perry Mason
@cgocable.net
| said by urbanriot :You would go through the cost intensive task of hiring a lawyer......... First of all he doesn't need a lawyer. Just the internet a printer and his tongue to lick the stamp. (I'll let him comment whether his tongue is up to the job.  )
Why not just leave the ISP for another ISP instead of paying a considerable amount of legal money? $75.00 and a stamp. Overages will add up to that in a month or two.
Me, if I received an erroneous bill that didn't match at all with my own bandwidth counters, I'd probably contact the ISP myself and discuss this error with them....... Good advice, but we are left in the dark around here half the time and I suspect that avenue would not work in the long run.
The maximum costs awarded to a successful party in small claims court is capped, no pun intended  , at $300.00 in Ontario.
Do you really in all seriousness believe they will mount a defence for that.
If Cogeco files a defence schedule a trial I am sure if you aren't up to it technically someone in these forums will appear as your expert.
What's Cogeco going to do send down a team of lawyers and experts to small claims. The JP wouldn't know what to think. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | said by Perry Mason :
Perry Mason ^^ Haha, awesome. Well, I guess we'll see once the bills start coming out, and the bandwidth monitor is said to be working properly. |
|
Perry Mason
@cgocable.net
| said by urbanriot :^^ Haha, awesome. Just throwing that out there as someone who has actually sued a telecom firm. Guess who?
No need to laugh at me and hurt my feelings.  I'm skin thinned ya know. |
|
CoverIt
join:2009-08-07 | reply to Stonemason
Re: Explain to me how Cogeco isn't breaking the law...
All it takes is one person to sue and win for everything to change. |
|
Phorkster
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Windsor, ON | Class action. |
|
Stonemason
join:2009-08-03
3 edits | reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot :What's the law you're citing? Fraud in a contract and conflict of interest. No one told me I was going to be getting ... well lets see:
%RST = 18.4%
#RST = 107
#RST Total = 13285
%inbound conn = 40.1%
current open = 109
# active open = 483
# passive open = 324
# failed = 227
This is light, most time I get double these statistics in my ISP Network Monitor app in Vuze.
When it goes up to 50%, that is just ridiculous!
I filmed some footage with my friends and we are all sharing it from my PC using a private torrent... WTF should I be charged by Cocego for 6GB (on their counter) when I only sent 3.67GB (in actual received data) trying to get it to my friends? When it is their doing that is causing the problem?
Fraud. |
|
Perry Mason
@cgocable.net
| Apparently Measurement Canada has a section (Section 13.) on telecommunications, cable, and broadband.
»www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/···Industry
Thread in TSI starting now. »UBB and Measurement Canada |
|
jeisenberg
New Year's Eve
join:2001-07-06
Windsor, ON
·Cogeco Cable
·Cogeco Voip
| said by Perry Mason :
Apparently Measurement Canada has a section (Section 13.) on telecommunications, cable, and broadband.
Both subsections indicate a primary source of revenue as a key element. I would guess that the primary source of revenue is the subscription fees, with a relatively small percentage of revenue being generated by metred overage charges. |
|
Perry Mason
@cgocable.net
| said by jeisenberg : I would guess that the primary source of revenue is the subscription fees, with a relatively small percentage of revenue being generated by metred overage charges. Maybe. Maybe not.
At the rate things are going though that premise will be reversed.
Of course at that point they will lobby the government to change the legislation.
Ah la Bell Canada and the CRTC. |
|
