- Things to ponder over #dinner - 38% of us want smart #appliances, including a fridge that orders #food http://t.co/48QSl4Ww #NextisNow
Rogers High-Speed Internet customers not impacted by CRTC decision
February 2nd, 2011 a 3:31pm
Over the past couple of weeks, there’s been a lot of talk about Usage Based Billing and a recent CRTC decision involving Bell Canada.
You – our Rogers High Speed Internet customer – want to know how you will be affected by this decision. The short answer: you won’t. Your rates and the amount of Internet bandwidth you’re provided each month remain unchanged. And we offer a number of plans that provide the vast majority of our customers with more than enough bandwidth to suit their needs.
The CRTC decision relates to a very specific question about the economics of how larger Internet Service Providers (ISPs) sell bandwidth to smaller providers. More on that later.
I’m writing here because there is considerable confusion around the issue. Our customers are asking us questions about Usage Based Billing in forums, blogs and Twitter. In these online discussions, a very specific CRTC ruling about wholesale billing rates has led to a broader philosophical debate about how customers should be charged for Internet services.
Some people say you should pay the same no matter what you use – that casual Internet users should pay as much as those who download movies and music around the clock. (According to one study the top one per cent of Internet connections is responsible for more than 20 per cent of Internet traffic.)
Others say it’s more fair for customers to pay for the amount of bandwidth they actually use. We agree with this approach. It’s in line with the way other services are billed including heat, electricity and water. We use a similar model in selling long distance minutes because we think a customer who doesn’t make long distance calls shouldn’t have to pay extra to subsidize the heavy business user who spends hours on long distance calls each day.
Rogers invests approximately $2-billion each year on capital investments. This includes a significant investment in our broadband networks to accommodate Internet traffic that is growing at 40 per cent each year. In order to maintain fast reliable service and prepare for ever increasing demands for bandwidth, we are continually laying new fibre and rolling out new innovations such as DOCSIS 3.0.
That’s why we think it’s more fair to charge customers for the amount of Internet bandwidth they actually use.
For years, we’ve offered a variety of Internet tiers to meet the needs of all our customers. For a casual customer, our Ultra-Lite plan offers 2 GB of Internet bandwidth each month. That’s enough to send and receive approximately 50,000 e-mails, download 100 songs from iTunes (5MB each) and upload/download 500 photographs (2 MB each).
On the opposite end of the spectrum, our premium tier provides you so much bandwidth (175 GB) that you could watch streaming video on YouTube every day from 7 a.m. in the morning until midnight without reaching your cap. Customers who go over on this highest tier pay just 50 cents more for each additional GB.
And while business customers pay a little more, their bandwidth entitlements are higher – allowing them to drive innovation without having to worry about overage charges.
Not only are customers using far more bandwidth than they did a few short years ago, they’re expecting faster speeds. And we’re delivering. Here’s one example. In 2006, customers on our premium Extreme Plus tier paid $99.95 per month for top download speeds of 18 Mbps. Today, they get top download speeds of 25 Mbps for just $69.99. We offer tools on Rogers.com to help pick the plan that’s right for you. And you can check your usage by logging into the MyRogers section of the site.
Now back to the CRTC decision, which related to the question of how larger ISPs sell their services to smaller ones. The CRTC said ISPs can bill according to the same usage based billing principles they use to charge their own customers but with a 15 per cent discount.
The CRTC decision continues to generate debate with Industry Minister Tony Clement saying he’s going to look into the decision. What’s important for us is that regardless of what happens, we want our Rogers High Speed Internet customers to know they will not be impacted by this decision.
Keith McArthur is Senior Director of Social Media at Rogers
Categories: 
Tags: 
@RogersBuzz
RedBoard Biz
Rogers on YouTube
Rogers on Facebook
©2012 Rogers Communications Inc.
Home |
About |
Talk to Us |
Comments Policy |
Privacy Policy |
Terms of Use |
Rogers.com
Dear rogers, If you want to implement UBB i’d like a refund for my unused data allowance. Also please stop telling us users to abide by the terms and conditions, since i’ve been a rogers customers i’ve had my fee’s raised at least twice a year (cable) as well as the price of my internet go up. Rogers has provided *NO* extra value for this price. Also please STOP ARBITRARILY LOWERING MY USAGE CAPS! why dont you abide by your own terms and conditions. Yeah “blah blah rogers reserves the right to change the conditions at any time blah blah blah” I dont want to hear it, all I hear is “we get to breach our contract but you cant do a thing about it, but dont you dare try doing that or we will levy further punitive charges against you”. So please, lets skip that.
In short since you will skip this message, you are not competing with anyone, please stop saying that. In the area I live in, i have no choice but to be a rogers customer. Im sick of having my connection throttled and limited because rogers wants to force us infront of a tv. Soon as I have a choice to switch to someone else, be it fiber optic, dsl or maybe even two cans strung together! I WILL SWITCH AND CANCEL ALL OF MY ROGERS SERVICES AS SOON AS IT IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FOR ME TO.
I hope the government removes all the foreign investment restrictions of the telecoms act and then I will laugh as I watch rogers struggle to compete. Hopefully they will go under.
Chris and Keith, i feel for you, but you keep repeating the same mantra, this doesnt make it true, and im sorry that you are the ones to face consumer backlash on these boards.
Hi Matt,
We’re happy to have you as a customer and we appreciate your feedback.
We don’t manage downloads, only upstream P2P traffic.
It will be interesting to see what transpires in the near future.
Do you really hope a Canadian company with thousands of employees “goes under”? If so, I have trouble accepting your last sentiment as genuine.
I *truly* do hope rogers or one of the other incumbents falls to the competition, maybe it will be a lesson for others to treat your customers better instead of like endless piggy banks.
If you dont believe me that rogers throttles all downstream P2P let me forward you some screenshots of an active rogers connection VS my VPN connection. Why is my VPN 1000X faster then my rogers *ultimate* connection 1-40kb/s vs 1-3mb/s.? why is there a 20 page thread dedicated to it here http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24822306-Extreme-Plus-Utorrent-Settings-and-Rogers
why is there a thread dedicated to it even at Rogers community forums here http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Getting_connected/page/1/thread-id/557 and here http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Getting_connected/thread-id/572
If rogers cant figure out why we are fed up with their lies than failure is the only option. Rogers and the other incumbents act like we cant see what is going on in the rest of the world, how gouged we get by our incumbent providers who are aided and abetted by our so called *independent* regulatory body the CRTC.
No most average canadians I know despise bell rogers and telus more than any other companies in the world. And because of the CRTC we are forced to choose one in most cases. Canadians are sick and tired of the treatment we receive from the incumbents, and UBB is simply the straw that broke the camels back.
Anyone who wishes to do some research can find out easy enough that data transfer costs are marginal at best on a established line, if we are having trouble now with internet use we are simply doomed for the future.
And Why did you not respond to my comments about rogers Arbitrarily lowering usage caps? or the double whammy of usage cap lowering with an immediate price increase?
No comments chris & keith? all evidence points contrary to your claims. Maybe you can talk to rogers customer service who will just repeat the same thing you say. Oh maybe you will have the good fortune of them calling you a liar to! wouldnt that be swell!!
Rogers throttles all downstream P2P, they have blocked Blizzard’s assigned ports for World of Warcraft and the fact that you and your tech support cronies are denying this problem even exists is just one of the reasons why so many people have come to hate rogers communications.
We’re trying to answer as many questions as possible, Matt. We only manage upstream P2P traffic, not downstream.
didnt bother looking at any of those links I see. Please take off your blinders and step out of your rogers box for a minute.
From our network management policy:
6. Is P2P download speed impacted by Rogers traffic management policy?
Rogers does not manage download P2P file sharing traffic; however, some P2P applications will limit download speeds based on various factors, including the amount of P2P upload traffic and protocol acknowledgments. These factors may be responsible for customers experiencing slow download P2P file sharing speeds.
http://www.rogers.com/web/content/network_management
Why is it so hard to understand Rogers will “go under”? If there is foreign investment and interest allowed in Canada?
We will see 1Gbit/1Gbit symmetrical connections being sold for as little as $25CAD/month like in Sweden, South Korea & Romania
And maybe companies introducing true UBB where Canadians pay $1.00 connection + $0.001/GB like VoIP services
For the past few months all i’ve really seen is Rogers and Bell colluding into price gouging, one ISP hikes the price while the other soon follows. I see absolutely ZERO competition in the Internet market.
I only see prices to go up and caps to go lower, why not allow unlimited access to the internet for a few months? See how Canadians react and use their internet service? You say congestion isn’t an issue, so what’s the worse that can happen?
How can you measure the average Internet use, when you cap your customers at 2GB? obviously they won’t go over their caps risking $5/GB overage fees.
I understand that users should pay for access to the internet, but your high base fees should cover their cost for bandwidth use; especially when George Burger (Teksavvy) & Tony Clement (MP) have clearly said bandwidth costs very little.
Why do overage costs for 50mbit service cost $0.50/GB and 500kbit cost $5/GB? Why is the 50mbit service have cheaper bandwidth? Does it use a different pipe? Different grade of Gigabytium? Has Rogers run out of Gigabytes on the 500kbit lines?
Really, x amount of emails? That’s what you’re trying to sell? Obviously you haven’t heard yet, email usage (non-corporate) is waning (and I don’t mean ‘of the moon’).
Hi Utah,
Based on the volume of forwarded emails my mother sends me on a near-constant basis, I tend to disagree that email usage is waning. :)
Please don’t tell me you’re serious. If that’s the case then it’s like saying the publishing and newspaper industry is not in trouble because my mom cuts out articles for me. Wow. :)
I’m just saying that different people use the web differently. My mom is probably a Lite or Ultra Light user.
based on a new report on cnn,. the usage is down dramatically among users except for the ages 50 and above, i bet you don’t think that a lot too uhh
RogersKeith, I feel for taking all of the heat on this thread. However, I believe that this thread and a few like it are showing that Rogers customers are not perceiving that they are getting value for their money in Internet, Phone, Cable or Wireless.
The UBB ruling could have a large impact on Rogers. Many people are now aware of the fact that alternative providers are available and if the ruling allows them to keep their current pricing models you will find the many of your customers will transition to the alternative services.
Changing Bandwith caps, charging system access fees, increasing rates for no perceived increase in value are all leading to customer revolt. Most customers will only complain and few will switch services, but I hope that Rogers management does notice the increase customer dissatisfaction as a real concern and start to address what customers want to see from Rogers in the way of services and pricing.
Hi J Dale,
Thanks for your comment. We’re here listening and sharing the feedback throughout the organization.
They have given up on this post. Silence everyone. Shhhhh.
I agree.
They saw that they weren’t getting anywhere with pushing their propaganda, so they’ve quietly left the thread.
Par for course, really.
I cant seem to find the original comment with this bizzare comment system “It sounds to me like what you’re advocating for is that customers pay for speed, and bandwidth is even across the board, correct?” but I think the method I mentioned falls under this.
For example: Pay for 10 mbps with a modest system access fee and a reasonable amount per GB downloaded. None of these “caps.” If you’re going to use hydro/gas analogies this is how it would work.
I know it would be hard at first to do profit projections, but as has been said before most people download the same amount monthly, so it wouldnt be too hard to average it out.
I’m not sure that’s a fair solution, Evelyn. Some customers will want faster speeds, and some won’t need that much speed.
Of course not.
You’re not paid to find customer solutions as viable.
Look, we can all banter back and forth with you and Rogers_Keith. The bottom line, however, is that although you’ve implemented Usage Based Billing from a few years ago, IT IS NOT WELCOMED.
You repeatedly say that you are listening to your customers, yet all you do is parrot the company line.
Add to that the fact that you “moderate” comments that don’t agree with and either “lose” them or not approve them for posting, then it seems pretty obvious that you’re only concerned with your bottom line.
This is understandable. Rogers, after all, is in business to make money.
However, the argument remains that Canadians are being price-GOUGED no matter how you attempt to sugar coat it.
Implementing UBB on wholesalers would just mean that Canadians would no longer have any choice as the independent ISPs will now be forced to price gouge and cap their customers as well.
In Mirko Bibic’s words, it’s all about fairness.
FORCING your price plans and usage caps on other ISPs, though, is nowhere near being FAIR.
i used the 10 mbits as an example. You could probably use the same speeds offered in your current packages and charge per gb starting at 0
I suggested it also, and it’s mentioned in my business case.
They won’t every do a flat GB rate as opposed to packages and caps as it doesn’t make them as much money. It’s the same reason they have packages in cable channels. It’s far more profitable getting you to pay for things you don’t use, basically free money for them.
With the plan limit and cap method, on the months you don’t download so much they pocket the bandwidth you didn’t use and it’s pure profit. On the pay per GB method, they don’t make this extra on those light months.
Similar idea on cable channel packages. For each package you buy to get one or two channels you want, they get free profit from you having to play for channels you don’t want. Much better than a a la carte system where you buy each channel seperately. Which btw would be easy to do nowdays with the switch to digital done, but no way they are going to give it up until they are forced to.
I’m going to repeat a business case as it was ignored the last time.
I just downloaded one game I brought. 8GB download, older game so cost $14 on D2D (direct to drive). If I was at my limit the DL would have cost me more than the game.
Assume I get three games a year and I run close to the caps on the basic plan, I have three choices.
1. Pay a surcharge that is more than the product I brought and downloaded all three times.
2. Move up to a larger plan. This means for 9 months of the year (months I don’t DL a game) I’m paying extra for bandwidth I don’t use. Yes great for you, not so good for me. Can’t expect me to be happy with this.
3. Plan ahead and switch plans before every game I buy. Switch back when I’m done.
So which one of these choices are meant to make me happy? Can you finally see why folks are not happy with low caps and large charges?
FYI to show how far it’s gone, it’s on YouTube now in a sadly funny vid (whomever did it did a good job researching the issues).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Mg6pq33Zc
Or, you can do what I do and when I go over and I am getting close to that $50 mark… I download everything I possibly can, twice even three times to get my bandwidth to 500-600gigs… Set Netflix to watch a movie while I am not home, etc… fun times! If I am paying rogers $50 for overage, I am REALLY going over!
Peter, an 8GB game is a huge download. You’re probably not downloading many of those every month, are you?
What basic plan are you referring to? The Ultra Lite package is our most basic plan and it is not meant for customers downloading that much content. We would recommend the customer “right-size” their plan to ensure they’re not going over their cap on Ultra Lite.
You didn’t even read the post, it’s all explained.
As I said, if I got three of those a year, your ‘right sizing’ would mean I’m paying higher plan fees for nine months out of twelve for nothing as I’m not using the full bandwidth on those months. I’m just paying the extra cost to avoid the crazy costs of going over the caps on those three months.
You keep saying you think folks should pay for bandwidth they use.
Fine, but we think we shouldn’t have to pay for bandwidth we HAVEN’T used. And that’s exactly what happens if you have to up your plan due to one or two large downloads a year. You know, a little thing call Christmass and birthdays.
Rogers_Chris, you’re quite out of touch with gaming then. 8GB for a game these days ISNT much. That is actually QUITE small. WoW itself is 25GB without any extras, and gets incrementally larger with every patch.
Also, please stop throttling all the games, stating its ‘p2p traffic’ when its not. Its REALLY getting annoying.
8GB/game is a huge download?
From Steam:
Fallout 3: 10GB
Tom Clancy’s HAWX: 9GB
Civilization 5: 8GB
Now admittedly those are the free harddrive space requirements so the DL is about 2/3rds of those. But 6-7GB is still a massive bit of a 25GB data cap.
And in the world of gaming as graphics continue to improve those numbers will only go up.
Why not take the unused gb per month and roll it over to the next months billing??
Why not meet canadiens halfway and have a 10$ streaming option that doesn’t impact your regular usage. You could include Netflix and rogersondemand since it goes against your monthly usage ??
Interesting ideas, Scott. Thanks for sharing!
What Rogers_Chris meant to say is,
“Interesting ideas, Scott. Thanks for sharing. However because that won’t make us much money and actually foster competition, I’m afraid we can’t allow it. So there. Oh and we’re raising your fees again. See? We value your ideas and listen to our customers. We’re nice people”.
Since I’ve been going over every month. I’m gonna make sure I go over by A LOT!
ha ha
To: Rogers Keith
I just read your reply to the increasing awareness on the issue of internet usage and its cost.
I am one of those heavy users of the internet and will be impacted by any caps or cost increase to my service.
One of my issues with your argument is that first, light users are not subsidizing heavy users as you made it sound.
If I feel like download and watching more content than someone else, why should I be thought of as a burden on them? That analogy is very misleading and it is comments like that which forces light users to feel as if they’re paying for my usage.
Also, why put a cap on the internet service, I have an old bell account and it has a limit of 250 gb a month and I pay about $60 a month. I use about 115 gb a month for business, school, gaming, movies, Netflix account, and downloading music from many sources including iTunes. I also have a home network so; four other users have access to the internet for streaming data from my apple devices to the TV. Now my service is very good with bell but with the changes coming, not only are the rates dramatically going to increase but I won’t be able to use my service the way I have always used it.
One of the main reasons I wrote this is because I am at my fiancés home and she just went over her limit, now no one in her home can use the internet without racking up the bill, we don’t plan on solving the issue buy paying more money. They have a 25 gb account and she pays just $15 less than me, “250 gb for $60 no longer offered anywhere”, which leads to my next question.
Why put a cap on users, why not just charge the light users less. If I use a lot of data a month, why cap me, just allow me to pay a reasonable rate. Sometimes I use very little bandwidth and other time I use a lot. Should I have to be capped and then pay extra for it? many other country, for instance like Russia, have almost double your max allowed limit and pay half the price, the USA has a 250 gb limit and there cost is much cheaper too. Why are we being policed and confined by our companies? What they’re doing is very restrictive and using false analogies to convince others that you’re making a just and fair argument is what also has me concerned.
If you want to have more control over the internet and make more money, I would rather hear that than be misled, but it doesn’t make it ok to loan shark the life out of people.
Now on to the high data transfer speed of 25 mbps and up. Have you ever tried to drive at 100 kilo/hr in a 40 zone? I hope not. There are laws there to prevent you from doing that. Well, having a cap on your service at 60 gb is a good comparison. For all the speed you have access to, you don’t have a lot of freedom to use it without getting a speeding ticket.
Services like Netflix, remote pvrs and other devices that lets you share you home internet connections to enjoy your media will be faster but when that speeding ticket comes, I bet you would learn your lesson and stop speeding in a 40 kilo/hr zone. The only difference I feel between you and the TTC is that you’re trying to expand but the cost and service leaves much to desire.
I sincerely hope that you and other telecommunications companies try to find a better way to make money from this service because I do understand that it’s a business and it has to make money. There are a thousand and one ways to do that but don’t bit the hand the feeds you, otherwise we might have to get a new dog.
Hi Osbert,
We’re simply saying that you should pay for your usage if you’re going outside of your limits. You may want to speak with Customer Care to find out if the plan you’re on is right for you.
And what WE’RE saying is that “paying for your usage” is UNACCEPTABLE.
What you’re providing us is a SERVICE to ACCESS the Internet.
You are NOT providing us a finite RESOURCE that we are CONSUMING, hence the need to be billed for USAGE.
Will you PLEASE STOP repeating that over and over again?
There SHOULDN’T even BE any plans that would be “right for me” based on CONSUMPTION of data. How much plainer can it be said?
Rogers owns the means for us to ACCESS the Internet, NOT the data that we are CONSUMING.
Billing us for USAGE is DOUBLE BILLING since we’re ALREADY paying the ACCESS FEE to the damned pipe.
Chris, you *REALLY* have no clue what this entire debate is about, do you?
All you keep repeating is “pay for usage”, “pay for usage”.
You really do NOT understand the entire concept of Internet access except what your bosses tell you, right?
I STRONGLY suggest and RECOMMEND that you go out and GOOGLE other opinions besides those of your bosses and the CRTC,
At least you won’t come off as big of a corporate shill as you do now.
Hi Aizou, I understand you’re unhappy, but nonetheless appreciate your feedback and point of view.
But not that you should get a refund if you’re under your limit, we keep that money.
The problem is you can’t add more GB to an existing plan. For example, if you’re on the 60 GB plan and you want more GB added to your plan you can’t. You have to upgrade to a faster speed and a different modem if you want more GB. This is just one of the reasons why the corporate gravy train must stop.
Give the consumer some “real” choices and not Key Messages and FAQ answers.
rogers customers arent affected because we’re already getting screwed. switching to teksavvy cable once the CRTC rules not to charge them
Agree.
Seconded, I’m gone the minute it’s available.
Agreed.
Can you please follow up on these requests at looking into your current tiers? Will we see any changes in Rogers policies?
Different Tiers possibly with Unlimited Transfer?
When i call into customer service they are selling unlimited bandwidth as a $50 add-on (maximum overage)
I believe a Measurement Canada or an independent third-party agency should oversee your usage-based-billing; having an inhouse observing is extremely biased and can’t be properly regulated
I also have questions regarding throttling, where i get very slow speeds but my bandwidth shows that my connection is being used in full? Rogers is dropping the requested packets, but the meter is showing that the packets are downloaded?
Why am i paying for data that i haven’t received?
Stop the Metre!
If Rogers want to continue with the UBB, what about conceding to industry standards for up-selling? Even if we were to assume that the bandwidth were to cost you 10¢ per Gig (overstated but good for this example), retail generally does a 100% mark-up: 10¢ for you costs 20¢ for the consumer. At 150Gigs downloaded throughout the month that would cost me $30 plus taxes and rental fees. Makes sense… I can see that… Charge me for what I use on your lines but make it fair. This, although I don’t agree with the principal for paying for bytes, is a reasonable charge and something that would be on par with even current competitive pricing.
Let’s take this one step further:
Low usage consumers use approximately 40-60gigs: so Rogers would get the rental fee for a slower modem (5$ per month) plus $10 (at 50gigs).
High usage consumers (like myself) generally download on average between 140-250gigs per month: so Rogers would get the rental fee for a faster modem (10$ per month) plus $39 (at 195gigs).
Once again, this to a consumer is reasonable pricing and right there where we currently stand in todays market. Plus it is taking into consideration that Rogers wants to maintain it’s current UBB policies. The only difference is that consumers are now being charged with reasonable mark-ups that we are currently used to.
The idea that data is a utility irks me. Data is not a utility. There have been many attempts, including by the CRTC, to equate internet usage to a utility such as electricity or gas. Very simply put: it’s not.
The electrons that make up the data that passes to and from over the internet are limitless and are not consumed and destroyed every time a YouTube video is watched. The “pipes” and other equipment over which these electrons flow are, of course, finite and therefore need to be continually expanded as the amount of traffic grows. These are two very different things, however. In electric-bill parlance, we’re talking about delivery and usage – the nice people at the hydro company bill us for both and the big ISPs would like to do the same. The difference is, the actual kilowatts that go over the hydro company’s pipes ARE finite and ARE destroyed once they are used. If you want to talk about fairness, then yes, it is okay to charge internet users for delivery, but how is it fair to charge for consuming a non-consumable?
I see your point Utah. Not much more I can say except that we think it’s fair that customers pay for usage beyond their plan.
I hard think you see ANYBODY’S point when all you keep saying is “We think it’s fair that customers pay for usage beyond their plan.”
The POINT is, Chris, there SHOULDN’T be a RESIDENTIAL usage CAP to begin with. Nevermind the wholesale UBB that you’re planning on imposing in July.
RESIDENTIAL UBB is not wanted and it IS NOT FAIR, no matter how often YOU and your brethren repeat it.
Kapeesh?
Kapeesh Aizou, point taken.
I find it interesting that the main theme for UBB justification is fairness. Although I see a lot of Rogers customers (and everyone else who’s forced to use a UBB plan) claiming unfairness instead.
The difference in opinion on this issue between Rogers and its customers is very stark Chris. The fairness argument is not adding up and we’re not buying it.
Instead of fighting customers with regulation, lowered caps and contract changes, perhaps Rogers should be competing in the fair market by raising caps and lowering ROD movie prices to compete with Netflix.
As a consumer, I’d like to say I’m with Rogers because they outperform all the challengers. Right now the challengers are winning.
If Rogers really wants to backup the above statement, why don’t you comment on why they DON’T give refunds or credit for unused usage BELOW their plan?
If you think it’s fair people pay when they are over, why isn’t it in Rogers plan to be fair and refund when they are under?
PS. You really shouldn’t use the word ‘fair’ as it makes you look like hypocrites on top of being gougers.
If you’re a Rogers TV subscriber you can watch/VOD/Radio/PVR as much TV as you want and NEVER get charged extra. But if you’re a Rogers Internet subscriber you CAN’T watch/stream/download as much as you want without being charged extra.
Hypocritical if you ask me. That’s why I gave money to Openmedia.
Hi RogersKeith.
How much does it cost Rogers to provide a customer with one gigabyte of information?
We can’t share that information for competitive reasons, Stefan.
LOL ..
No, you mean you WON’T provide that reason because then you can’t charge the exorbitant per GB charge that you do now.
$5/GB overage fee for the lowest tier (2Gb/month) plan?
Get real.
A customer on Ultra Lite should not be exceeding their usage and if they are, our Customer Care team can help them find a plan that’s more suitable to their needs.
Ha ha
Thats great you quote rogers itmp chris, but frankly its a lie. Take a moment and reference the links I posted. Add this to the fact the are currently multiple complaints before the crtc regarding rogers false ITMP statements and you can see why users are mad. Wheter or not its intentional or just sloppy filters its a moot point. Step outside the rogers box and see things for what they really are.
Originally posted February 23, 2011 at 4:12pm
Go through the comments here, Chris..
How many people actually agree with you and Rogers that customers should pay for excess “usage”?
The simple fact of the matter is, Internet SERVICE Providers are just that – SERVICE PROVIDERS.
You are NOT supposed to be content providers as well and POLICING our usage is unwarranted, unwanted, and quite frankly, criminal.
If all you can say is “we think it’s fair.. blah, blah, blah”, you might as well not even respond because you are starting to sound like a broken record.. with the same EXACT talking point.
And a rather unfounded, unproven one at that.
In other words, please shut up already.
Unless you have some clout with the decision makers in your company, then you are nothing but a puppet with not much to say except the company line.
So. Can YOU make decisions regarding residential UBB?
No?
Didn’t think so.
RE: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/technology/22iht-broadband22.html
So South Korea is offering 1Gbit/1Gbit for under $27CAD a month, did i mention they have unlimited bandwidth?
So why don’t South Koreans “pay for what they use?”. We need some of those great minds to bring their innovative and business models to Canada to simply wipe the floor of cable and telecom incumbents .
I would love to hear Rogers response to South Korea’s Internet endeavors; certainly there are some countries that are doing it right. Canada and Rogers are going in the wrong direction, by lowering caps and throttling P2P downloading services. Why would anyone purchase 50mbit connection? If they didn’t want to download large files really fast?
Honestly do you think we bought Ultimate to load Google.ca 0.00001s faster?
Where do i download these so called “full length 700MB movies” featured on Rogers homepage? With 50mbit connection i can download it in 2 minutes? ROFL … yeah but we forget these “illegal movies” can only be downloaded through P2P which Rogers has throttled to kingdom khan.
Please don’t tell us that your download isn’t traffic shaped, don’t you dare. Cause so help me god your P2P download is, there are hosters with Gbit pipes across USA and EU and only <10kb/s trickle through your 50mbit connections.
Rogers even acknowledged there was a problem with your "hardware" that affected the P2P downloads but 10 weeks later i see no relief. You claim you don't have congestion, so why do you limit and choke your customers? Why is it that TekSavvy having access to a POS can give their customers unthrottled access, while retail customers are getting strangled at your mercy?
I just keep seeing replies, "thanks for your comment, thanks for your input" i don't really see any results.
As customers we are singing our pockets to pay for basic speeds, and on top of that pay for bandwidth? The fat lady hasn't sung yet, "pay for what you use?" Really? I mean come on! Isn't $100/month not enough to cover 10TB of bandwidth use? Do i really need to pay more?
We want to see prices lowered, and caps removed // period. I don't think there is a single comment on this blog that has agreed with Rogers policies. We are asking for fair treatment, remove caps and work out fair prices.
Oh look copying out of the FAQ again? We are telling you that downstream is being throttled!
Why not try Blizzard or P2P download from your home connection and please post your results?
So this is what I understand:
Let’s say I’m a Rogers TV customer with the basic cable package and my neighbour is a Rogers TV customer with the basic cable package. I watch 20 hours of TV per week and my neighbour watches 80 hours of TV per week. We both pay the same price.
Now let’s say I’m a Rogers Express Interent subscriber and I use 20 GB per month and my neighbour is a Rogers Express Internet subscriber and uses 80 GB per month. My neighbour pays for using an extra 20 GB.
Why is this ok? What’s the difference? Is it, “Rogers believes only that Internet subscribers should pay more?”