 Teddy Boomk kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON |
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. |
|
 SimplePandaBSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC |
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. |
|
Teddy Boomk kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON |
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  |
|
| |
catchingup
Anon
2014-Apr-22 4:08 pm
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
1 recommendation |
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. |
|
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-D ··· 06IJHK96 |
|
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
1 recommendation |
yyzlhr
Member
2014-Apr-22 6:28 pm
It is theoretically possible to offer those speeds, but it is nothing close to a guarantee. |
|
 jmckformerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON |
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-D ··· 06IJHK96 not sure why you try so hard sometimes... |
|
| |
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. |
|
