dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
35
share rss forum feed

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elitefx

Re: Another Rogers Rate Increase

said by elitefx:

If Rogers had any sense at all they'd implement a residential 10/2 tier at $30 month. Guaranteed they'd triple their customer base overnite.

and they would have a 10GB cap with said service. So it is nonsense that they would triple their customer base. Rogers will never give customers what they really want.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

2 edits
said by 34764170:

and they would have a 10GB cap with said service. So it is nonsense that they would triple their customer base...

Well, that may be true. My point was, not everybody needs massive caps and downstream speed. I use my computer 12 hours a day yet I rarely use more than 16GB/month. I certainly don't need 25 down but the 2 up is ideal.

If Rogers were to cut the Express 25/2 80GB in half and create a tier with that @$25/month then IMHO it would suit the needs of a large demographic that isn't currently being addressed. Paying $48.99 for 80GB is a waste for me when 40GB would still be more than double what I use.

A residential 10/2 tier at $25/$30 month would fill my needs perfectly.

There are probably many users over 55 that aren't download junkies. To me, the internet is just another source of information that I use. Nothing more/nothing less. We grew up without the Internet. It's not that big of a "must have".

Since Rogers insists on bandwidth caps then IMHO Rogers should move to true Usage Based Billing and all bandwidth should be sold in 20/50/100GB blocks or just charge the consumer for the bandwidth they actually use.

Even if it was $30 for the 10/2 plus whatever bandwidth block you purchased IMHO at least you're only billed for what you use/want.

dgass

join:2007-09-27
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Rogers Hi-Speed
What I'm starting to notice about some posters here really scares me. The big three have successfully, it appears, convinced the general users that they need to think of wired broadband usage the same way they have been getting away with the cash cow that is wireless data.

Charging users for data usage above the bandwidth they sell with the speed of your connection each month is nothing more than a double bill. Billing you twice for the same thing.

I never thought I would see the day that the general users in Ontario speak of wired broadband Internet data the same as wireless data. Looks like the old saying has truth that if you tell a lie long enough people start to believe it.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

2 edits
said by dgass:

I never thought I would see the day that the general users in Ontario speak of wired broadband Internet data the same as wireless data. Looks like the old saying has truth that if you tell a lie long enough people start to believe it.

You are 10,000% correct. It's not that anybody believes Rogers propaganda. We all know and hate the way we're nickel and dimed to death.

But in the face of reality, if this is the way it's going to be, then let's level the playing field and go to True Usage Based Billing. If this is the way Rogers wants it then lets make them account for every penny we pay them. I want everything itemized on my monthly Internet bill right down to the last KB of usage. I want to know my Internet charges/usage right down to the last penny. Rogers is the one that started this shit not us.

What Rogers is doing now is just ripping people off under the illusion that it's UBB.

When you go buy gas you don't pump 10 litres but get charged for 50 because the service center doesn't sell 10 litres at a time. This is exactly what Rogers is doing with the internet.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to dgass
said by dgass:

Charging users for data usage above the bandwidth they sell with the speed of your connection each month is nothing more than a double bill. Billing you twice for the same thing.

If they greatly reduce the existing charge, then it's not billing twice for the same thing. For example if they charge $10 or $20 per month to have a connection, and then they charge $x for y gigabytes, that's two separate line items for two separate things.

I think elitefx has a point -- lots of people are subscribing to services that offer far more than they need, and as a result are likely paying more than they need to.

It's not a perfect comparison, but take newsgroups access for instance. Many people think paying $10/mo for unlimited is the only way to go, and that's because they download a LOT of content so for them it probably is the best way to go. But I hardly download anything at all, so why pay $10/mo when the same amount will buy me a block that will last 2 years?

If people had the same options when choosing how to buy their internet, I think more than you expect would choose the block method.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
said by Ree:

But I hardly download anything at all, so why pay $10/mo when the same amount will buy me a block that will last 2 years?

If people had the same options when choosing how to buy their internet, I think more than you expect would choose the block method.

Yes, and all things being equal, a properly administered "bandwidth block" purchase would last until you've used all your allotted bandwidth. Rolling over each month till it was used up. The way it's done now is highway robbery. This is where the CRTC needs to change the rules.

Rogers wants UBB, I say Bring It On.............

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elitefx
said by elitefx:

Since Rogers insists on bandwidth caps then IMHO Rogers should move to true Usage Based Billing and all bandwidth should be sold in 20/50/100GB blocks or just charge the consumer for the bandwidth they actually use.

Even if it was $30 for the 10/2 plus whatever bandwidth block you purchased IMHO at least you're only billed for what you use/want.

Except Rogers has no interest in offering UBB properly, so it wouldn't make sense for the consumer.