sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to gene67
Re: the govenment did it: the 60 gig cap
The rules say your use of the internet must not impair the use of others and must not impose an abnormal load on the network.
They also go on to say that you must obey the bandwidth caps currently in place - with the 3 strikes and you're out policy.
BUT for the first two rules, they don't have to give you a 3 strikes. In fact, if you go over once mega, and do it again mega after warning you to cut back, they could impose the first two rules and ditch you immediately.
If I were going to play the system, I do my mega downloading in month 1, cut back to say 70 in month 2 and then under 60 thereafter. |
|
corster
Premium
join:2002-02-23
Ottawa, ON
clubs: 
| reply to gene67
Rogers has told me
a) The SAF is forced by the government
b) They can't offer FOX News Channel individually because of the CRTC
c) The Cap was forced by the goverment
Ted sure likes to blame the government
--
Conservative Party of Canada
P2Pwatch.ca - Staring down those against P2P with a Canadian Perspective |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Well, b) is correct ... they can't offer Fox news because of Canadian Content regs from the CRTC (already too much US based 24Hr news services) and Fox opted out of doing a Fox Canada. |
|
gene67
@cable.rogers | reply to gene67
soudns like a good idea: just go over by a bit in the second strike: if you do in the second strike.
one strike isn't a pattern right?
i do have two accounts now whose combiend limit should make it tolerable. |
|
jeeva86
join:2005-04-30
Scarborough, ON
| they'll be losing a lot of customers to bell wouldn't they with this ban over the couple months..esp with summer..and people having more time in their hands..at first i thought the 60gig limit won't really effect me..cuz i didn't expect myself to u/d so much..but when i just checked my limit..i reached 98 gigs..shocking..well it includes uploading too..so ya..how many of you would switch to bell eventually..if they continue to have unlimited transfers |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| There's the rub ... they're looking at about 1000 or so subscribers impacted by the caps. Probably about 1/2 will comply. Therefore they'll be terminating about 500 people. With over 900,000 subscribers, 500 or even 2000 is less than their month over month churn rate (people who sub and cancel).
Losing 500 to 1000 isn't a blip on the radar. And it will save them something like 10 grand a month in bandwidth costs. In a company that is now in "cost cutting mode", that's worth doing. |
|
AR-RG
@cable.rogers
| No good at math huh, let's say 1000 people leave, at $45 a month. Pull out your calculater sbrook. Not to mention the same people perhaps cancelling the majority of their other Rogers services. I have a $350 per month bundle. This blip will smack your radar right in the face. Seems the competition will be providing better service in the near future anyways. People will leave regardless. |
|
gene67
@cable.rogers | reply to gene67
crying on the inside:
rogers is the only high speed service availiable where i am
they could do whatever they want and id have to put up with it
no dsl in my phonelines nor any other high speed cable company around.
its sad |
|
Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
4 edits | reply to AR-RG
Actually, the math here is really simple. The over-the-cap users are costing Rogers far more in bandwidth consumption than they're paying. By kicking them off, Rogers saves money. Say 1000 people leave or are terminated -- Rogers loses about half a million dollars in annual gross revenue. Besides the incremental bandwidth costs to support this group, I've seen numbers related to the system upgrades that would be required to accomodate the bandwidth demands of this group that run to capital costs of well over $10 million.
One may question the accuracy of these numbers, but it seems reasonable to assume that in many cases the "last mile" cable infrastructure would need to be upgraded and that's where the biggest costs are. Bell doesn't have the same issue of shared bandwidth in the local loop, and that's perhaps one reason they don't currently enforce caps.
Like everyone else I'd love to see the system upgraded to superfast speeds, but the economics just aren't there, and so it's not really that hard to understand why Rogers is happy to wave goodbye to this particular customer segment. |
|
