dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to elitefx

Re: Unlimited Internet option on Rogers for a limited time

said by elitefx:

said by technocar2:

Its more than enough, even the 150mbps won't reach more than 50000 GB in a month if it were left on 24/7 @ 150mbps.

Yea, but the bottom line. Rogers are lying through their teeth. Unlimited means unlimited. No ifs, ands or buts.

Figures them scumbags would pull a fast one.

A fast one that wouldn't ever affect anyone. You bored or just got an axe to grind?


elitefx

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

1 edit
said by mlerner:

A fast one that wouldn't ever affect anyone. You bored or just got an axe to grind?

Sorry. You're a little bit late to the firefight. That was earlier, this afternoon. We had a regular brawl here.

NOW: Granted, this "unlimited" cap on Rogers part means nothing in the short term to anyone. What it does reflect in is the Big picture. This is just another example of Rogers saying one thing and doing another. Unlimited is unlimited, nothing less. Any sort of cap is unacceptable be it enforced or not.

Some think true unlimited internet is not possible. If that is the case Rogers advertisement needs to reflect that fact.

The law in Canada states that if you advertise an item you have to be able to make that exact item available. It doesn't say "almost or nearly" or "the next best thing".

said by Parliament :

The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards

1. Accuracy and Clarity

In assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of a message, advertising claim or representation under Clause 1 of the Code the concern is not with the intent of the sender or precise legality of the presentation. Rather the focus is on the message, claim or representation as received or perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement.

(a) Advertisements must not contain inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims, statements, illustrations or representations, either direct or implied, with regard to any identified or identifiable product(s) or service(s).

(b) Advertisements must not omit relevant information in a manner that, in the result, is deceptive.

(c) All pertinent details of an advertised offer must be clearly and understandably stated.

(d) Disclaimers and asterisked or footnoted information must not contradict more prominent aspects of the message and should be located and presented in such a manner as to be clearly visible and/or audible.

(e) Both in principle and practice, all advertising claims and representations must be supportable. If the support on which an advertised claim or representation depends is test or survey data, such data must be reasonably competent and reliable, reflecting accepted principles of research design and execution that characterize the current state of the art. At the same time, however, such research should be economically and technically feasible, with due recognition of the various costs of doing business.

(f) The advertiser must be clearly identified in an advocacy advertisement.

»www.adstandards.com/en/standards···rds.aspx

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
It's likely what is displayed in their system is just a limitation of the current setup and they probably have to put some number in there. Until someone who pays for unlimited service gets charged for going over no one can claim they are not providing what they say they are.


elitefx

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

It's likely what is displayed in their system is just a limitation of the current setup and they probably have to put some number in there. Until someone who pays for unlimited service gets charged for going over no one can claim they are not providing what they say they are.

I agree 1000%. Just pointing out an opposing point of view. Didn't realize I'd ruffle so many feathers..........

Ree

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

NOW: Granted, this "unlimited" cap on Rogers part means nothing in the short term to anyone. What it does reflect in is the Big picture. This is just another example of Rogers saying one thing and doing another. Unlimited is unlimited, nothing less. Any sort of cap is unacceptable be it enforced or not.

Are you smoking crack? The value given for the "unlimited" cap is somewhere between 1 PETABYTE and 1 PEBIBYTE (It looks like they used 1 quadrillion bytes (SI petabyte), and divided by 1024000000 (cross between SI and binary gigabyte) to get the value in gigabytes, which is why the result is somewhere between the 10^15 and 2^50 bytes).

Not only does that mean nothing in the short term, but it means nothing for the foreseeable future as well. Do you know what kind of speeds you would have to sustain 24 hours per day for 31 days to exceed that cap in a given month? Google does:

»www.google.ca/search?q=976562+GB···r+second

For those that don't want to check the link, the answer is just shy of 3000 megabits per second.

I know it's fun to bash Rogers and all, but there must be better things to attack than a cap that will not be exceeded for many MANY years to come.