dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2014
share rss forum feed


Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
canada
kudos:2

[Cable] Prices?

When is Teksavvy going to be lowering it prices for high speed cable internet?

Rogers currently offers 60mbps/10mpbs service "unlimited" for $95 a month while Teksavvy's 45/10Mbps service costs $5.00 more. There something wrong in Teksavvy's accounting.

Even Teksavvy's price for 150/10Mbps "unlimited" is double the price of Rogers 150/10Mbps service.

$111 vs $220/mo.


KPaul

join:2007-02-08
This has been asked ad nauseam. IIRC, it was in relation to the fees paid by TSI to rogers, or something of the sort. Someone with more knowledge can correct this if it's wrong.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Leathal
TekSavvy's costs haven't changed, so it's unlikely their prices will. Not much, anyhow.


Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
canada
kudos:2
Then I guess Teksavvy will be bankrupt at the end of this year then! Too bad so sad for Teksavvy!


damir

join:2013-12-12
CANADA
i don't think they will bankrupt (business probably will go down), but, clearly, many people WILL leave TSI and other ISPs and go "back" to Rogers for couple of bucks (and some speed tiers - much more).

redrain85

join:2002-06-27
Canada

4 recommendations

reply to Leathal
There's nothing wrong with TekSavvy's accounting.

This is what happens when the CRTC continues to coddle the incumbents. A company like Rogers cries the blues about how expensive it is to provide bandwidth to a TPIA such as TekSavvy and charges them a lot, but then turn around and give their own customers cutthroat pricing in winback promotions. All in an effort to eventually try and kill off TPIA competition.

If and when they achieve that, watch Rogers' promos disappear and we'll be paying more than ever.

xdrag

join:2005-02-18
North York, ON

3 edits
It's sad but unfortunately true. Without a last mile competitor, there's no real threat to Rogers. TPIA was successful at preventing some price fixing but the real truth is Rogers/Bell still hold most of the power in canadian telecom.

It's really a no brainer for customers who get 50% off cable ($55) vs $220.

It's not the issue of supporting TSI (the good guy) with paying just a few dollars off anymore but a significant amount. Hard to predict who will have the cheapest plan in the future but at least for 2 years, the pricing is ridiculously cheap. Money saved now is worth more than money saved later (if you do save it later).

that's a $100+ difference and they include modem rentals, which negates this whole "modem musical chairs" issue with FW and support.

I bought my Sb6141, a year ago, sneaked it onto the network (prior to approval), then it got approved and now it's not supported for the higher speed tiers. That's some BS.

MFido

join:2012-10-19
kudos:2
reply to Leathal
said by Leathal:

When is Teksavvy going to be lowering it prices for high speed cable internet?

Lowering?

Not soon ... not in the existing set-up.

Maybe you should expect them increasing their cable internet prices


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Leathal
The 6141 is an 8x4 modem, it should be fine for higher tiers... It may not be once Rogers starts enforcing 24x4 support.

But the need to enforce such things isn't Rogers being anti-competitive, it's an unfortunate limitation of the shared nature of cable. Bell hasn't had the same problem because the last-mile for VDSL2 is dedicated to each user, while with cable, everybody on a node shares the same copper.
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.3 released!

xdrag

join:2005-02-18
North York, ON
said by Guspaz:

The 6141 is an 8x4 modem, it should be fine for higher tiers... It may not be once Rogers starts enforcing 24x4 support.

But the need to enforce such things isn't Rogers being anti-competitive, it's an unfortunate limitation of the shared nature of cable. Bell hasn't had the same problem because the last-mile for VDSL2 is dedicated to each user, while with cable, everybody on a node shares the same copper.

Yep I understand but the constant change is an issue with FW support.

8x4 was newest spec at the time so there wasn't much more "future-proofing" possible.

Rogers reinforcing the 24 bonding modems highlights one of the issues with modems and TPIA.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

But the need to enforce such things isn't Rogers being anti-competitive, it's an unfortunate limitation of the shared nature of cable.

Then my question would be: WHY is Rogers the only ISP in North America using/demanding 24 channel modems?

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by elitefx:

Then my question would be: WHY is Rogers the only ISP in North America using/demanding 24 channel modems?

Rogers does not require them yet but the reason for wanting to go there is simple: operational efficiency.

All the cablecos that aren't contemplating the jump from 8x4/16x4 directly to DOC3.1 will require 24x4/24x8 sooner or later at least for their faster speed tiers, moving down as the modems get cheaper for the same reason. Modems that can simultaneously use more QAMs means more efficient and uniform use of existing QAMs so the cablecos do not need to allocate as many QAMs to data traffic or split nodes as often.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

reply to Leathal
said by Leathal:

Then I guess Teksavvy will be bankrupt at the end of this year then! Too bad so sad for Teksavvy!

Won't happen, but if it did it would be a disaster for us as consumers. Do you seriously think Rogers is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? TekSavvy and other TPIA providers are the only reason Rogers and Bell have been forced to reduce their prices. The second they can re-establish their monopoly, the prices will skyrocket.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Leathal
Shaw, Videotron, Rogers, they're all in the same boat when it comes to higher speeds, and 16 or 24 channel modems are going to be the way to go. They all currently have cable tiers at 200 or 250 megabit (Rogers 350 tier seems to be fibre, no cable system can do 350 symmetrical).
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.3 released!


SimplePanda
Go Habs Go
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by Guspaz:

Shaw, Videotron, Rogers, they're all in the same boat when it comes to higher speeds, and 16 or 24 channel modems are going to be the way to go. They all currently have cable tiers at 200 or 250 megabit (Rogers 350 tier seems to be fibre, no cable system can do 350 symmetrical).

Rogers 350/350 is FTTH and only available, as far as I can tell, to a small pocket of Forest Hill in Toronto. Not even sure why they list it as a product given it's narrow availability.


catchingup

@cgocable.net
reply to elitefx
said by elitefx:

said by Guspaz:

But the need to enforce such things isn't Rogers being anti-competitive, it's an unfortunate limitation of the shared nature of cable.

Then my question would be: WHY is Rogers the only ISP in North America using/demanding 24 channel modems?

The logical answer.. show me another cable co offering the speeds Rogers is with the customer count per node? Oh wait, there are none. But that doesn't mean that some US cable co's are not working towards offering faster speeds. US ISPs have been fairly behind the curve for speed tiers.
Expand your moderator at work


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to Guspaz

Re: [Cable] Prices?

said by Guspaz:

But the need to enforce such things isn't Rogers being anti-competitive, it's an unfortunate limitation of the shared nature of cable.

Well.. If Rogers is really demanding 24x8 modems for their own customer on 10/30/60, then I guess you could argue that. If Rogers allows 8x4 from their own customers on 10/30/60, then the decision to drop 4x4 from those tiers is absolutely just an FU to TPIA.
--
electronicsguru.ca


SimplePanda
Go Habs Go
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by Teddy Boom:

said by Guspaz:

But the need to enforce such things isn't Rogers being anti-competitive, it's an unfortunate limitation of the shared nature of cable.

Well.. If Rogers is really demanding 24x8 modems for their own customer on 10/30/60, then I guess you could argue that. If Rogers allows 8x4 from their own customers on 10/30/60, then the decision to drop 4x4 from those tiers is absolutely just an FU to TPIA.

Right now it seems 10/30 can use 3825 and CGN2 - not sure about the D3GN though at my office our 30/5 business connection is a D3GN (ordered pre "hybrid fibre", about 3 months ago).

60/10 and up requires the 24 channel device. I think the motivation to move 60/10 to 24 channel is because Rogers probably sees it as the new "sweet spot"; basically the "express" of the new offerings. Probably will have the largest number of customers so they want those people spread around the RF as much as possible.


MacGyver
Don't Waste Your Energy
Premium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:2

3 recommendations

reply to Leathal
Anyone that goes for the carrot on the stick that Robelus is dangling in front of you in search of a better deal: don't come crying here a year down the road when they take that stick and beat you with it along the way.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to SimplePanda
said by SimplePanda:

Right now it seems 10/30 can use 3825 and CGN2 - not sure about the D3GN though at my office our 30/5 business connection is a D3GN (ordered pre "hybrid fibre", about 3 months ago).

Which is my basic reasoning...

Rogers is long done with the D3GN, so dropping support for it isn't effecting any customers they care about. Meanwhile D3GN is the only "Rogers" modem approved for TPIA (even though that in itself is hugely anti-competitive and against CRTC rules).

Who knows
--
electronicsguru.ca


catchingup

@cgocable.net
said by Teddy Boom:

Which is my basic reasoning...

Rogers is long done with the D3GN, so dropping support for it isn't effecting any customers they care about. Meanwhile D3GN is the only "Rogers" modem approved for TPIA (even though that in itself is hugely anti-competitive and against CRTC rules).

Who knows

It isn't as if there is a separate physial cable for Rogers vs TPIA customers. Allowing TPIA providers to do undesirable things is foolish. Besides allowing for faster speed tiers and not having slow downs at peak hours Rogers should be pushing for maximum operational efficiency with their infrastructure and allowing older modems is counter to that.

The real issue isn't what Rogers is doing regarding infrastructure upgrades and improvements and the modems necessary to take advantage of this but the broken policies regarding modem usage by TPIA providers via their network and that should be taken up with the CRTC.

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to Teddy Boom
said by Teddy Boom:

said by Guspaz:

But the need to enforce such things isn't Rogers being anti-competitive, it's an unfortunate limitation of the shared nature of cable.

Well.. If Rogers is really demanding 24x8 modems for their own customer on 10/30/60, then I guess you could argue that. If Rogers allows 8x4 from their own customers on 10/30/60, then the decision to drop 4x4 from those tiers is absolutely just an FU to TPIA.

8x4 is only allowed for Rogers customers on 10 and 30, which is already more than necessary. Rogers has pretty much been implying in their marketing lately, that their customers are guaranteed to get the advertised speeds. I don't think it's unreasonable to require their customers to have modems that are above the minimum requirements for the service.


elitefx

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

2 edits
said by yyzlhr:

I don't think it's unreasonable to require their customers to have modems that are above the minimum requirements for the service.

Yes but as I stated previously in another? thread, an 8x4 is guaranteed to get you 330/120. Hardly minimum requirements in anyone's books.

We can twist this around all we want BUT a Rogers cash grab is a Rogers cash grab...............Rogers grabbing Money for Nothing is what we have here.

Check the Key Features: »www.amazon.com/Linksys-DOCSIS-Ca···06IJHK96

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4

1 recommendation

It is theoretically possible to offer those speeds, but it is nothing close to a guarantee.


Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
canada
kudos:2
reply to MFido
said by MFido:

said by Leathal:

When is Teksavvy going to be lowering it prices for high speed cable internet?

Lowering?

Not soon ... not in the existing set-up.

Maybe you should expect them increasing their cable internet prices

If they were to increase their prices for their current offerings they would see more than half their cable subscribers leave them, in turn Teksavvy would have to down size and lay off a lot of people.


oceros

join:2013-07-20
St Thomas, ON
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by Leathal:

If they were to increase their prices for their current offerings they would see more than half their cable subscribers leave them, in turn Teksavvy would have to down size and lay off a lot of people.

If only there were some sort of association of authority figures who would put into place some rules and regulations to support a healthy competitive environment for canadian consumers.


jmck
formerly 'shaded'

join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
reply to elitefx
said by elitefx:

said by yyzlhr:

I don't think it's unreasonable to require their customers to have modems that are above the minimum requirements for the service.

Yes but as I stated previously in another? thread, an 8x4 is guaranteed to get you 330/120. Hardly minimum requirements in anyone's books.

We can twist this around all we want BUT a Rogers cash grab is a Rogers cash grab...............Rogers grabbing Money for Nothing is what we have here.

Check the Key Features: »www.amazon.com/Linksys-DOCSIS-Ca···06IJHK96

not sure why you try so hard sometimes...


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

said by yyzlhr:

I don't think it's unreasonable to require their customers to have modems that are above the minimum requirements for the service.

Yes but as I stated previously in another? thread, an 8x4 is guaranteed to get you 330/120. Hardly minimum requirements in anyone's books.

Do the calculations yourself and you'll see that's not quite true, otherwise Rogers wouldn't have spent millions on equipment and labour upgrading the nodes last year and changing channel allocations.


TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to oceros
said by oceros:

If only there were some sort of association of authority figures who would put into place some rules and regulations to support a healthy competitive environment for canadian consumers.

And if only that association of authority figures wasn't staffed by former employees of Rogers, Bell and Telus.
--
Tom