Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
spacer
1
spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Rogers Can't Help Themselves, Raises Cap Penalties
Protecting You From High Charges -- By Allowing More High Charges
by Karl Bode 10:26AM Thursday Jul 05 2012 Tipped by resa1983 See Profile
One of the numerous problems with fixed line bandwidth caps (aside from them being totally unnecessary technologically or financially and potentially anti-competitive), is the fact that once imposed, companies in uncompetitive markets just can't help themselves and wind up continually squeezing the noose -- even as the cost to provide service is reduced. Investors want their quarter over quarter returns, and caps provide an easy way to milk additional revenues out of users for the exact same product.

With that stage set enter Canadian cable operator Rogers, who already has some of the most aggressive caps in North America. Like most carriers, when caps are introduced ISPs place a ceiling on the maximum amount of overages users can incur. It's designed to warm customers to the idea of caps, but it's inevitable that this ceiling slowly drifts skyward. Rogers is now raising their maximum cap penalty ceiling from $50 a month to $100 a month this summer. In typical corporate-speak, Rogers is alerting users about the price hike by proclaiming it's just Rogers helping to protect consumers:
quote:
"To protect you from unexpected high charges, we currently cap the maximum monthly amount you can be charged for additional internet usage at $50 in addition to your Hi-Speed Internet plan's monthly service fee, modem rental fee (if applicable) and taxes. Effective August 16, 2012 this monthly limit will be increased to $100 in addition to your plan's monthly service fee, modem rental fee (if applicable) and taxes. If you exceed the monthly usage allowance included in your Hi-Speed Internet plan you will begin to see charges up to the new limit beginning on your first invoice on or after September 16, 2012. All other aspects of your Rogers service(s) will remain the same. Remember, you can track your internet usage online by signing into My Rogers at rogers.com/myinternetusage. For more information or questions please contact us in any of the ways listed on page 2 of this invoice. Thank you."
In other words, Rogers is allowing you to incur more unexpected high charges to somehow help protect you from unexpected high charges. This of course comes as Rogers earnings reports (pdf) make it clear the company continues to shrink overall network investment. Granted if Rogers faced real competition the constant rate hikes, lax network upgrades, predatory pricing and neutrality violations wouldn't be quite so easy.

view:
topics flat nest 

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Competition in Canada?

Competition in Canada? You will not see it as long as there are restrictions on foreign ownership. A T-Mobile Canada? Will never happen because of foreign ownership rules. Even a Canadian equivalent of Verizon Wireless might run afoul of the laws due to Vodaphone's 45% stake in VZW. Just look at all the trouble Wind went through to get approval in Canada.

Meanwhile, my sister in Mississauga continues to pay through the nose for Rogers internet, cable TV and phone. I am forwarding this article to her so she will be aware of what is coming down the pike.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia

Re: Competition in Canada?

First nobody is going to set shop in Canada, the incumbents are to well entrenched.
2ndly, the cost of building a new network from the ground up would be horrendously expensive.

3rdly if ownership rules were relaxed AT&T would just buy into the local companies.

Finally if Rogers et all, can get those ridiculous amounts why would AT&the settle for less?
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......
Riplin

join:2002-05-13
canada

Re: Competition in Canada?

said by elwoodblues:

2ndly, the cost of building a new network from the ground up would be horrendously expensive.

»www.newswire.ca/en/story/916559/ ··· -ontario

not totally true. Some area's are going into the next centuries technology. Not cheap investment but as long as they compete and are cheaper they will grab customers.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

Re: Competition in Canada?

said by Riplin:

said by elwoodblues:

2ndly, the cost of building a new network from the ground up would be horrendously expensive.

»www.newswire.ca/en/story/916559/ ··· -ontario

not totally true. Some area's are going into the next centuries technology. Not cheap investment but as long as they compete and are cheaper they will grab customers.

A) That's Bell B) It's in the middle of nowhere

That doesn't change what he said.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Sorry but Sudbury is not a major urban centre, try that in Toronto.

Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans

join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bright House Net..
You might have forgotten there elwood, that back in the 90's when phone(local and long) and cell service were deregulated, we had a huge influx of other companies here(AT&T, bunch of local startups, etc). I had AT&T for my landline and long distance, then Bell and Rogers put the pressure back on the CRTC, got the rules changed again, and they sold out aka consolidated into the big network of families, I believe AT&T went into rogers.

Saying that no one would open up here is silly, it's happened. Then the rules changed again, and it drove profitable into unprofitable.
MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

Re: Competition in Canada?

said by Mashiki:

You might have forgotten there elwood, that back in the 90's when phone(local and long) and cell service were deregulated, we had a huge influx of other companies here(AT&T, bunch of local startups, etc). I had AT&T for my landline and long distance, then Bell and Rogers put the pressure back on the CRTC, got the rules changed again, and they sold out aka consolidated into the big network of families, I believe AT&T went into rogers.

Saying that no one would open up here is silly, it's happened. Then the rules changed again, and it drove profitable into unprofitable.

What you described is pretty much exactly what we have with Indie ISP's buying capacity on incumbent networks.

As to "Mashiki's ALL-Fibre ALL-the-Time Internet Service Company" or your competitor "XYZ Fibre Internet Company" bringing me its own wholly-owned fibre from NAP to my bedroom, that ain't happening in any widespread way. Sure there are a few isolated project, mostly installed in condo complexes by guys like Beanfield, but they are few and far between.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
said by Mashiki:

You might have forgotten there elwood, that back in the 90's when phone(local and long) and cell service were deregulated, we had a huge influx of other companies here(AT&T, bunch of local startups, etc). I had AT&T for my landline and long distance, then Bell and Rogers put the pressure back on the CRTC, got the rules changed again, and they sold out aka consolidated into the big network of families, I believe AT&T went into rogers.

Saying that no one would open up here is silly, it's happened. Then the rules changed again, and it drove profitable into unprofitable.

IIRC correctly AT&T owned a chunk of Rogers.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

ohreally

@virginmedia.com
said by n2jtx:

Even a Canadian equivalent of Verizon Wireless might run afoul of the laws due to Vodaphone's 45% stake in VZW.

And just in case anyone thinks foreign investment is bad, look at the UK. Vodafone is in fact the only network that can now be described as truly British - as in a British company, British global HQ, publicly traded on a British stock exchange, (nominally) paying British taxes.

The other networks are owned by the French and German state telephone companies (joint venture owns two of our five networks - T-Mobile and Orange), Spain's incumbent telephone company (O2), and a Hong Kong conglomerate (3).

The UK is arguably one of the most competitive, if not the most competitive mobile industries in the world. We have reasonably low costs and pretty good service. Coverage tends to be great, and none of the networks pull any crap that you see from US/Canadian operators.

AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Speak with Your Wallet...

... and dump them. There is absolutely no reason to be tied down to a major telecom when there are less expensive services and better customer experiences available now.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.

Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2

Re: Speak with Your Wallet...

said by AkFubar:

... and dump them.

+1.
--
Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

pizz
1gbps is all the rage.
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation

Enough is enough already.

Canadian citizens are getting rail-roaded and basically being served by a greedy, and disgusting monopoly. I wish there was a way for nations that dont have these insane models, to state that this is a pure money grab, and there is no need for this.

When i was up in Canada, i laughed how crappy they provide service and can turn around and just milk me dry.

sorry moose people up north
--
Fantasy football is Dungeons & Dragons for the guys who beat up kids that played D&D.

mfeinf

@bell.ca

Canada's telecom is old bureaucratic crap...

As long as the Government of Canada protects and supports oligopolic economic model, where market is controlled by 3-4 giant telecoms, there is no way it's going to be any change... Canadian telecoms are simply unable to do business anywhere in the world because they just can't withstand the competition... Take alone the following fact: Canadian incumbent ARPU (Average Revenue per User) on voice was around $72-$75 per user a a couple of years ago, while similar ratio for incumbent operators around the globe is less than half of that... So, would you be willing to cut your revenues if your margins are skyrocketing, there are no alternatives and no-one punishes you for overcharging? Why not to continue to take advantage of Canadian consumers under the warm arm of the government?

When government has enough will to liberalize telecom market, and create true conditions for real competition, only then we are going to see rates going down and telecoms battling for the consumers...

My 2 cents...
Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada

Twitter

If you use twitter give them hell and spread the word that @RogersHelps only help themselves to more money by screwing their own customers...
zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw

DSL vs. Cable

It's not that different in the states is it? It's mostly a DSL carrier vs a Cable carrier? It's pretty expensive to lay down new wire, so ftth is pretty rare in most places.

So if Eastern Canada has the same providers as the average American town. Why is it so much worse?

Even Western Canada is light years ahead of Eastern Canada. Shaw/Telus have some competition going on. As a result shaw sells some pretty fast packages with moderately high bandwidth caps. Telus can't compete on the speeds so they don't enforce caps on their packages.

It's not like the duopoly of dsl vs cable is a new thing. It exists in most of north america. Yet Eastern Canada (Ontario) seems to have it the worse with bell and rogers.