1) Yes, it has little to do with the amount of data transferred but it has even less to do with the speed of those transfer. It is a CAPACITY issue.

While we're on that. Network-wide congestion from them increasing speeds to all (Retail & TPIA), then scrambling afterwards to do node splits.

In times of crisis all we'll have is the Internet to conduct matters of national security and survival.

I couldn't find numbers for Tek... Any idea how many subs they have?

So am I missing something, or is TSI not taking a financial risk on ALL cable subscribers on the Rogers network currently as they are all technically unlimited?

prove this every part you say
i call foul

In North American standards, the Rogers HFC network is much more advanced than most MSOs on this side of the hemisphere.

Chances are Rogers technical team is 1/3 of the size it should be and network development 5-10 years behind.

Actually, that is probably not true. It's more likely they drag their feet in upgrading network hardware to add capacity when it's needed in order to maximize profits.

Most NA carriers will upgrade hardware on their networks as late as they can while still continuing to advertise their services at speeds that are oversubscribed.

Managing a network with 1.9 million end users is challenging... What exactly do you feel they are doing that is "inept" and leading to the "demise of Canada's ability to conduct business"?

It does because they're related numbers. Capping a user brings down their average usage, and averaged over the entire user base that reduces their capacity requirements. A user downloading 5TB is averaging 16Mb/s, that's an awful lot of capacity required for one user. Someone doing 5TB/month on the 18Mb/s cable service would have to be doing that at basically all hours of the day, including peak.

I'm not arguing TekSavvy pays by the GB, I know exactly how they pay for both aggregation and transit capacity. But to suggest the amount transferred doesn't affect their capacity is taking that difference too far.

Wow - me thinks your tinfoil hat's on a little tight today...

Managing a network with 1.9 million end users is challenging... What exactly do you feel they are doing that is "inept" and leading to the "demise of Canada's ability to conduct business"?

Bell is actually Canada's largest broadband provider.

Yes, but think about it. Rogers is Canada's largest broadband provider and as such, represents us on the world stage. For Canada to be rated 39th worldwide on the Internet stage is deplorable. The government should step in and force Rogers to either "step up or step out".

This is of national importance and having 3rd world Internet access because of Rogers ineptitude is a national disgrace. We cannot let Rogers drag Canada into a black hole of Internet and information dispersal any longer.

In times of crisis all we'll have is the Internet to conduct matters of national security and survival.

Rogers cannot be allowed to be the root cause of the demise of Canada's ability to conduct business and transmit data in a timely and effectual online world.

In well-managed networks, congestion isn't an issue.

Rogers isn't well-managed.

...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...

TSI is currently losing money on unlimited customers (for Bell anyhow) under the assumption that the CRTC is going to lower the UBB prices.

People pay extra for unlimited far more than what it costs Teksavvy. So Teksavvy makes more money off the people on unlimited than they do the people with a 300 gigabyte a month cap. It's as simple as that. Take a look at other countries everything is already unlimited as bandwidth is virtually free in the year 2013.