JasonX
join:2008-04-08
Houston, TX | overage fees are probably ok I'm surprised so many people are angry that Rogers is imposing overage fees for use of this service. The alternative would be for Rogers to exempt this service from its bandwidth caps, in which case other broadband video competitors would be placed at a competitive disadvantage, and Rogers would be accused of misusing its status as an ISP. At least this way, all broadband video is on a level playing field. |
|
ReneM
join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD | Not really. This is pretty much a literal quote from Verizon (FIOS). The internet 'channel' is the most profitable channel we offer. I have 20/20 with no caps and fees for $70. Go figure. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 | reply to JasonX
Exactly! If they had made it exempt from their usage caps, people would be screaming about anti-competitive behaviour right now. |
|
ReneM
join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD | You misunderstood. 'Channel' is used as in any other digital channel, be it TV or whatever else comes down your pipe. i think my internet access uses channel 113/4. My router (provided by Verizon) has a maximum bandwidth of 384Mb/s. The 20/20 i get doesn't even scratch my fiber. It's just a bit more noise on the line given that i also have 4TV's and 1 DVR i get full HD (aka 1080p uncompressed) at the same time. |
|
