Rogers ISP in Canada - capping at 175GB/mo

[Reckoner]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Comcast really looks good when I read offerings like this. 22/5 with a 250GB cap is quite nice.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Reckoner
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Comcast really looks good when I read offerings like this. 22/5 with a 250GB cap is quite nice.

I really don't have any complaints about Comcast's service. I think it's a little expensive for what you get, but it's a solid connection, and not much BS involved.

 

[OverVolt]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: OverVolt
I bet im hitting 80b, but I will get a program to see.

The Article States they're capping at 175 GIGA BYTES

Your 80Gb (or GigaBits) usage is nowhere near that.


175 GIGA BYTES = 1,400 GIGA BITS


i really wish people would learn the difference between bits and bytes.

I'm sure it was just a typo on his part. He almost certainly uses more than 10GB per month....

LOL I see now.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: OverVolt

It has to do with tiered payment plants. 90% of the time I'd fit under the $35.99 plan. All because I need to DL some big files, I'd be gouged, or I'd have to pay for the $59.99 plan year round. Either way it's a ripoff.

I like Modelwork's plan. $10 per month service fee, and then pay per GB. That's the most fair way to do it.

 

[imported_Champ]

it should be outlawed to provide caps, your saying that I'm using too much of the service I pay for, that uses infrastructure that the taxpayers paid for.

can anyone do the math on how long it would take to hit that cap at the max download speed

50mb/s goes into 175GB after how long?...

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: Champ
the taxpayers paid for..

since when do taxpayers pay for a private corporate to upgrade their infrastructure?


comcast/quest/verizon/time warner/cablevision all pay out of their own pockets.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: OverVolt

It has to do with tiered payment plants. 90% of the time I'd fit under the $35.99 plan. All because I need to DL some big files, I'd be gouged, or I'd have to pay for the $59.99 plan year round. Either way it's a ripoff.

I like Modelwork's plan. $10 per month service fee, and then pay per GB. That's the most fair way to do it.

Doing it that way means less profit for the ISP so they'll never agree to that. You see, they want to collect the going rate ($35-$60) per customer and then charge on top of that.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: Champ
the taxpayers paid for..

since when do taxpayers pay for a private corporate to upgrade their infrastructure?

comcast/quest/verizon/time warner/cablevision all pay out of their own pockets.

http://www.techdirt.com/articl...060131/2021240_F.shtml

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Champ
it should be outlawed to provide caps, your saying that I'm using too much of the service I pay for, that uses infrastructure that the taxpayers paid for.

can anyone do the math on how long it would take to hit that cap at the max download speed

50mb/s goes into 175GB after how long?...

50Mbps = 6.25MB/s

Even at ~1/2 that rate, you'd hit your quota in:
175000 MB / 3 MB/s = 58333 s = 972 m = 16 h

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: Champ
the taxpayers paid for..

since when do taxpayers pay for a private corporate to upgrade their infrastructure?

comcast/quest/verizon/time warner/cablevision all pay out of their own pockets.

http://www.techdirt.com/articl...060131/2021240_F.shtml

The only thing that i got out of that article is a link to a book saying

"The phone companies collected over $200 billion in higher phone rates and tax per subscriber"

so... how again is comcast, time warner, cablevision upgrading their infrastructure from verizon or quest collecting higher phone taxes?

verizon & quest... yes.. i can believe it... since it's their revenue... they can use it how they feel.

this i'd like to hear.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: Champ
the taxpayers paid for..

since when do taxpayers pay for a private corporate to upgrade their infrastructure?


comcast/quest/verizon/time warner/cablevision all pay out of their own pockets.

Up here in Canada, we setup a fund to roll out broadband... fuckers took the money but have yet to deliver.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: spidey07
Correct, and your reasons are what is driving the caps. It makes no sense for the abusers to stay on the network or lose money because of them. Let them flock to those that don't cap, that is a good thing.

The end result is the same. Broadband will have limits to usage like any other utility.

40% profit margin isn't losing money (from her209's article above). It's just a "greed" play by the ISP, nothing more. More money for less service, period.

Yep, I don't buy for a second any of the "justifications" for implementing caps. See TWC.

Time Warner 10-K

High-speed data costs decreased primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs, partially offset by growth in subscribers and usage per subscriber.

 

[KMFJD]

Wireless internet with a 20gb cap ftw!!!!

/upload+download
//talk about a ripoff ($50/month)

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: spidey07



Correct, and your reasons are what is driving the caps. It makes no sense for the abusers to stay on the network or lose money because of them. Let them flock to those that don't cap, that is a good thing.

The end result is the same. Broadband will have limits to usage like any other utility.

40% profit margin isn't losing money (from her209's article above). It's just a "greed" play by the ISP, nothing more. More money for less service, period.

Bingo. It's not that they're losing money, they're just trying to find ways to make more money, and heavy users are an easy target. I mean I guess that's business, they need to keep shareholders happy after all. Just kind of sucks that they're trying to jack around customers to do this.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: Barfo

Originally posted by: alkemyst
175GB/mo is a lot...you realize pics.bbzzdd.com does like 70GB a month and have 8000+ users

It may be enough for most users but if they advertise it as unlimited they shouldn't cap it IMO.

i wanna see the legit use for 175GB a month.


i always love the people who argue for "unlimited" usage, when 99.9% of the users won't ever reach the cap number.

If GM suddenly said "we are capping our cars at 10,000,000 miles" and "after 10,000,000 miles, your engine will sieze up" .. someone will complain that they should allow unlimited driving, Even tho noone ever has driven 10,000,000 miles on a car.

Subscribe to any paid internet video service and you'll easily go over 175 if you watch it. Another possible source is HD video. When you're hitting 1.5gb per 40 minutes just for a 720p episode, you can reach the cap really really fast.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shabby
Pathetic, their caps forced me to switch to a dsl provider with unlimited downloads and cheaper to boot. Sure its slower but i can download as much midget porn as i want!

It's working then! It gets the abusers off the network.

I was capped at 60gb/month, that's far from being an abuser. My new dsl service is 40% cheaper with no cap, you'd be stupid not to get off rogers' network.

Working for a national ISP, you realize that 95% of broadband users use less than 5gb per month, right?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shabby
Pathetic, their caps forced me to switch to a dsl provider with unlimited downloads and cheaper to boot. Sure its slower but i can download as much midget porn as i want!

It's working then! It gets the abusers off the network.

I was capped at 60gb/month, that's far from being an abuser. My new dsl service is 40% cheaper with no cap, you'd be stupid not to get off rogers' network.

Working for a national ISP, you realize that 95% of broadband users use less than 5gb per month, right?

So what is the average use for the other 5%?

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shabby
Pathetic, their caps forced me to switch to a dsl provider with unlimited downloads and cheaper to boot. Sure its slower but i can download as much midget porn as i want!

It's working then! It gets the abusers off the network.

I was capped at 60gb/month, that's far from being an abuser. My new dsl service is 40% cheaper with no cap, you'd be stupid not to get off rogers' network.

Working for a national ISP, you realize that 95% of broadband users use less than 5gb per month, right?

So what is the average use for the other 5%?

I think the highest we've ever had was 89GB, and that guy was running torrents like crazy on a 6Mb connection.

 

[AstroManLuca]

$48/mo, 7Mb/s download, 250 GB cap. Rogers would only give me a 60 GB cap for what I'm paying, with a marginally faster download speed. I think I'll stick with my DSL (not that Rogers is available in my area).

I'm fine with caps but other than some DSL providers and Comcast, most cable companies are setting their caps pretty low. I was hoping Comcast would set the bar at 250 GB and other ISPs would follow suit, but I guess the lack of free market competition has caused most of them to try for much lower caps.

At this point I predict caps will continue to fall as ISPs attempt to push their luck with their customers. Since they have no competition and actively try to push out other businesses from competing with them (a highly anti-capitalistic situation), they have little reason not to. So as the web becomes more bandwidth-intense, our caps will keep going lower and lower until it's impossible not to exceed them.

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: spidey07



Correct, and your reasons are what is driving the caps. It makes no sense for the abusers to stay on the network or lose money because of them. Let them flock to those that don't cap, that is a good thing.

The end result is the same. Broadband will have limits to usage like any other utility.

40% profit margin isn't losing money (from her209's article above). It's just a "greed" play by the ISP, nothing more. More money for less service, period.

Bingo. It's not that they're losing money, they're just trying to find ways to make more money, and heavy users are an easy target. I mean I guess that's business, they need to keep shareholders happy after all. Just kind of sucks that they're trying to jack around customers to do this.

Indeed. what really bothers me is that the Cable companies are selling this as "Oh, only the worst users get punished for how they use it, everyone else benefits!"

I'm glad at the moment people see this as a money grab and not a true effort to improve their service. I'm sure it helped when TWC released their purposed pricing schemes and everyone collectively went "what the fuck".

 

[Riceninja]

as a guy who logged 400 gbs last month on rogers, i have a problem with this

 

[KMFJD]

This is just getting better...

Following up our email and web notice earlier this year, please be
notified that your usage month-to-date is:

Upload- 10.8 GB
Download- 9.2 GB
Total- 20.0 GB

We have turned your bandwidth down to 128K up/down for the remainder of
the month. We will turn it back up at the end of the month.

All for the great price of 49.99 a month

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: KMFJD
This is just getting better...

Following up our email and web notice earlier this year, please be
notified that your usage month-to-date is:

Upload- 10.8 GB
Download- 9.2 GB
Total- 20.0 GB

We have turned your bandwidth down to 128K up/down for the remainder of
the month. We will turn it back up at the end of the month.

All for the great price of 49.99 a month

Who's your ISP? They actually consider 20 GB to be excessive for the first three weeks of a month?

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Fritzo


I think the highest we've ever had was 89GB, and that guy was running torrents like crazy on a 6Mb connection.

89GB isn't running torrents like crazy. Maybe for a week, but not in a month.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: Champ
the taxpayers paid for..

since when do taxpayers pay for a private corporate to upgrade their infrastructure?


comcast/quest/verizon/time warner/cablevision all pay out of their own pockets.

Actually they didn't.
In 1996 the telco and their partners like Quest and Verizon went to congress to request that the federal government stop regulating the rates that the telco charge. To get congress to do it the telco promised that with the coming internet revolution they would build super internet connections. Never happened.

So the consumers got screwed and the telco profited.
http://www.netaction.org/broadband/bells/

Beginning shortly after the divestiture of AT&T created the RBOCs, the Bells began a series of state-level campaigns to obtain relief from traditional, cost-based rate-of-return regulation. Their basic pitch was simple: existing, traditional regulation dampens their incentives to deploy new, advanced, but economically risky technology. Change the way the companies are regulated, and they will deliver America's digital future. Regulators did their part; the Bells did not. The promised technical nirvana never materialized, but the Bells happily accepted the higher earnings that were possible as a result of relaxed regulation.

Nationwide, according to the Bells' annual reports and press releases, there should have been almost 44 million households wired to the fiber optic network by 2000. For example, Bell Atlantic was to have had almost nine million households wired with optical fiber loops by 2000. And that isn't counting the two million households that NYNEX was to have upgraded by 1996.

NYNEX: "We're prepared to install between 1.5 and 2 million fiber-optic lines through 1996 to begin building our portion of the Information Superhighway.

Bell Atlantic: "First, we announced our intention to lead the country in the deployment of the information highway ... We will spend $11 billion over the next five years to rapidly build full-service networks capable of providing these (interactive, multi-media communications, entertainment and information) services within the Bell Atlantic Region.
We expect Bell Atlantic's enhanced network will be ready to serve 8.75 million homes by the end of the year 2000. By the end of 1998, we plan to wire the top 20 markets.

Ameritech: "We're building a digital video network capable of delivering multicast and interactive services to six million customers within six years."


In a complaint filed with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in April 1997, the New Jersey Public Advocate asserted that Bell Atlantic-New Jersey should have spent approximately $1.5 billion more than the $79 million that it did spend to construct fiber optic networks. The Public Advocate concluded that these unexpended funds are largely responsible for some $1 billion in extra dividends reported by Bell Atlantic-New Jersey's parent company.

[/quote]