|
Ruklo Burosee posted:I think Rogers feels very threatened right now since Netflix could take away a lot of revenue from their movie rentals either from B&M or from their On Demand. Hell, the day Netflix announced they were coming to Canada the bandwidth caps for all of Rogers' tiers was lowered. To me that is the most baffling thing that I don't understand why it has ever been allowed by the CRTC in the first place. Not only do the same two companies providing the internet infrastructure also provide most of the competition in terms of video content delivery, but they even own some of the channels being provided in that delivery service. How that isn't determined as a massive conflict of interest confuses the hell out of me. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Yeah, sorry. I accidently hit the reply button before I finished my post. kuddles fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Nov 1, 2010 |
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Optimus Prime Ribs posted:I do this exact thing with Rogers. I think they charge up to a maximum of $25.00 for overages. Rogers and their crappy caps still pisses me off, especially since I'm really liking Netflix and have no interest in their overpriced cable service. But at least I'm getting a consistent and fast connection and never had any customer service issues. Back at my old place Bell was literally the only option available and it was a complete nightmare, including constant connection issues, incorrect bill charges, contractor mess-ups, and atrocious customer service, culminating in one major issue where the wiring into my house was done improperly and it took a full year of me hassling them before they finally admitted this problem wasn't on my end. When I moved (giving them a month's notice) and they still hadn't connected my service for two weeks despite me being on the phone for an hour each day with them, I finally had the option to switch to Rogers and never looked back. If I ever have to go back to DSL, I'll gladly sign up with TekSavvy or another third party even if it was more expensive because I cannot tolerate the ridiculous hassle of dealing with Bell. I can only assume that the fact that they were my only option for so many years is the only reason they still maintain such a huge customer base. They seem to know this, as every time they are asked to comment on yet another poll from a news organization putting them as having the worst customer service by a gigantic margin they always snidely dismiss it as unimportant. The fact that this CRTC ruling continues to provide them with safety from any reasonable competition infuriates me to no end.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:I knew different provinces were the domain of Bell and Rogers but I had no idea that parts (most?) of the country are arguably worse than Australia -- $69.99 for 25/1mbps and 175GB on Rogers seems insane when you can get 200GB from Telstra at least, or 400GB or more from other ISPS back in Australia for about the same price nowadays. I want to be clear that I'm not against paying for my share or even some forms of throttling to a certain extent. I'm someone who uses the internet a lot, uses Netflix and rents HD videos, buys tons of digital music and buys a lot of games off Steam, and it was a broken system that used to charge me the same "unlimited" price as grandma checking her email. That said, the way they're going ahead with this is underhanded, especially with extremely limited caps that seem to continue to decrease over time and completely ridiculous overage fees. And it's also clear that most of the reasoning behind the throttling and caps - assuming the "strain on bandwidth" is genuine at all - is that they're easier and cheaper solutions then improving their architecture to deal with the inevitable increased demand (as well as to thwart competition with their cable/satellite/phone services, of course). It's just like the solution for many cable and satellite providers for the increase in demand for HDTV isn't to release a new satellite or improve their wiring, but instead further compress signals, leaving many people complaining about how they're paying extra for their "HDTV" signals that feature significant artifacting or blurriness on certain channels. kuddles fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Nov 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
As someone who just paid a $129 bill for 150 gigs last month off Rogers here in the "technically beautiful" city of Ottawa, you people can shut your loving mouths about your drat unmetered deals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
8ender posted:Oh most definitely. You just know that Bell and Rogers would monetize the poo poo out of a system like that. I'm sure they would love to have a situation where they offer anti-competitive things like "iTunes paid us our fees so use them, if you use Amazon or HMV Digital you'll blow your cap". Or even worse: "Subscribe to Netflix and pay $1.50 per GB. Subscribe to our crappier Bell/Rogers-owned streaming service and you won't be penalized at all!" You gotta assume they have been seriously considering that scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 15:54
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Would that really be a huge issue in Canada though? Netflix's selection is loving revolting up here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:They are of course much more expensive than Netflix's offering (depending on who much you watch) Yeah, well, that's just it, isn't it? I never assumed that an "all you can watch, on demand" service for $8 as month was going to carry all the most recent uber-blockbusters that could still handily make $5-6 as a time limited rental. In the past month alone I watched: Miller's Crossing, Hard Eight, Owning Mahowny, Vertigo, 12 Monkeys, Slumdog Millionaire and Capturing The Friedmans just as some examples, not including a bunch of indies, foreign films and documentaries that I never would have known about. More than worth $8 for me. kuddles fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Nov 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Someone with more time on their hands or who doesn't watch a lot of current content might feel differently though and for $8 a month I'm sure its a bargain to them. Still, I've just noticed that people accusing it of terrible selection also seem to have an extremely limited taste and/or are only interested in new releases. I've heard plenty of people in the States talk about how unappealling Hulu Premium is because access to recent programs isn't worth being more expensive than Netflix, so it's a matter of perspective I guess. Anyways, enough derailing. The point is I love Netflix but it's killing my lovely bandwidth caps. kuddles fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
On that note, the Rogers quota "reminder" is completely useless. I usually only get the warning that I reached 75% of my monthly limit after I already surpassed 100%.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Chris Knight posted:It's a day behind usage, IIRC. Same thing as the online check in your account info. No, I constantly get it much later. Even my account info will say I'm at 75%, but I won't get that warning notice for another few days.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:I love that guy's car analogy. You need gas to run a car, dumbass. He forgot that highway is like the line transferring the bits, not the loving car. We don't pay more for the highway if we drive 100 times more in a month than someone else. Of course you would pay more for gas, it's inherent to the operation of a car. Does it actually cost more, besides in electricity cost, to send bits up and down a dumb pipe? Someone on TVO used this metaphor to explain why this isn't UBB in the way that they are trying to position it as. Imagine if gas stations operated like this (instead of the actual legitimate UBB way they operate now). You pay the same flat rate of 10 gallons. Did you fill up 7 gallons this time? $50. 3 gallons? $50. A litre? $50. Did you fill up 12 gallons? Well that's $60 because anything over 10 has a significant overage fee. It's obvious that everyone's getting ripped off here and yet for some reason this is argued as acceptable for telcos.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:It's a shame about the UBB because without the burden of having to pay ridiculous fees for overages I would say that this is exactly how it should work in a neutral internet -- same price no matter where you get your content. The fact that the telcos have been able to frame this discussion as "UBB" is the worst thing about this situation since that it not what is being implemented. People who don't understand the issue just hear "usage based billing instead of unlimited internet" and it does sound like a bunch of greedy torrenters expecting a free ride. Hell, that's probably what I would feel about it myself if I didn't know the details. The fact that a lot of the vocal commentators in these stories are these "information should be free" fucknuts who are just supporting this strawman position isn't helping either, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Sashimi posted:I love how just about every comment on that editorial is calling the author out on their bullshit. kuddles fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Anyway that's the background, I would just use a broadstrokes "They want you to pay for expensive cable packages and stop you from watching youtube/netflix!" approach. Especially the latter. Someone representing the pro-UBB side is going to spew about "only tiny amount of heavy users will be affected", "independent ISP's and bandwidth hogs got a free ride for so long" and "We spent billions on the infrastructure" so I would hammer down on the "I believe everyone should pay for their fair share of internet they use, but this is a ripoff/ridiculous/much more expensive than other countries/etc." More detail will probably get cut so it's best to just get across that this is a cash grab by monopolies and/or means no real competition is allowed, which certainly would appeal to the average person who doesn't get it, especially since half the country has a hatred for Bell already. kuddles fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Whimsy posted:I can't stand Tony Clement for his role in developing the Common Sense revolution in Ontario. I'm certain that any other MP from any other party would have done things exactly the same as he's done it. That's actually why I've been turned off of a lot of the "net neutrality" activism online always aligning itself with the left. All you're doing is alienating people who would otherwise also be supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
Well, after much stumbling Bibic very clearly admitted that (a) there isn't any congestion on the last mile and (b) their primary goal in this whole thing is to force independent ISP's to not be able to differentiate their pricing. If the CRTC refuses to reverse their decision at this point, then there is no argument that they are misinformed but merely corrupt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
Also, Michael Geist brought up a good point: That some independents like Teksavvy have been trying to get ADSL-CO approved by the CRTC and Bell has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid that from happening. So in other words, Bell complains that independents are "leeches" who are congesting their infrastruture, after tons of effort to ensure those independents are forced to use it in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:A lot of the reason Bibic isn't effective isn't because of his talking points, but because the man is just...unpleasant. I'm not sure why, I couldn't put it into words, but he doesn't come across well. Burger comes across VERY well, so much so that it's honestly surprising that their positions aren't reversed. You'd think that Bell could/would be able to hire someone that effective to be their spokesman. Also, Rogers probably decided just to wait on the sidelines, and it was probably the right call. If Bell won UBB with the public, then it'll be smooth sailing for Rogers to mimic that. But since it seems to be turning into a PR disaster for them, Rogers isn't directly associated with supporting it. kuddles fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Feb 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
I check the Teksavvy site twice a week so that the second cable internet is offered in my area code I can ditch Rogers for good. I'm just too used to cable speed to go back to DSL, plus as much as I hate Rogers caps they didn't burn me for years with consistently terrible technical and customer support when I had no choice so I don't want a single cent of my money going back to Bell ever again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Vergeh posted:Oh man, did anyone just see the 'Part of our Gouge-Based Heritage' commercial on Rick Mercer?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Author and technology journalist Peter Nowak put up a really good blog post today about the myths from UBB supporters. A good primer to anyone still beating the "fairness" drum without understanding the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:Halfway through the billing cycle, and we've gone over our 60 GB limit. We're already at +$16 on the next bill, and I planned on doing a fair bit of VPN work as well as gaming. Looks like I'll need to look up the maximum amount Rogers can charge you for going over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
VERTiG0 posted:I'm in a Rogers area. I'm now getting set up for Teksavvy cable, which is apparently available here, though that's what Acanac told me too. I guess we'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I've been using http://www.usvideo.org to proxy US Netflix ever since someone mentioned it in the Toronto thread. It's been two months now and it's working great. In a fit of irony over hearing about how much better the selection in the US is, I hit a bit of a negative with Netflix. It appears almost all the TV shows I was watching on the Canadian version and some movies I was planning on watching are all the ones not available on the US versions. (I was in the middle of Mad Men, Justified and Mythbusters on the Canadian Netflix. The US version doesn't carry the first two at all and only has a "best of" selection of Mythbusters episodes.) That said, I really like how it works, and I'm happy to be listening to Pandora again. Once PSN is back online, I hope to try out Vudu. Despite the above qualms, I think I'll stick with the US Version. Setting up an instant queue is worth it alone. I'll probably be changing my Zip.ca account down to 1 disc as well. Now I just need Teksavvy to offer Cable internet in my area and this whole situation will be perfect.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Woohoo! Teksavvy cable is in the Ottawa area now! Now I just need to buy a modem, a router, and get prepared for 2 weeks without internet as Rogers will inevitably gently caress up when it comes to properly disconnecting me.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
Well, cancelled with Rogers and transferring over to Teksavvy Cable on June 10th. I'm hoping the service is good because while in the long run it's certainly going to be cheaper, buying a new modem and router will be quite the sting if I end up dissatisfied. I will slightly miss the addictive 25 Mbps speed (nothing sweeter than renting an HD movie off PSN and the entire thing being downloaded about half an hour later), but I certainly won't miss the pain of constantly checking my usage meter to see if I can "afford" to download something, lest I get a surprise overage charge at $1.50 per gig at the end of the month. The Rogers lady asked why I was leaving and I just said "leaving for a 3rd party provider without stringent caps and punitive fees". She didn't seem to bother trying any retention tactics on me after that. kuddles fucked around with this message at 21:01 on May 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
Zigmidge posted:TekSavvy should really be made aware of this thread. 
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Also, what's this speedboost people are talking about? kuddles fucked around with this message at 16:41 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
After being stuck with 95 GB per month for so long in Ontario, 250 GB sounds like a godsend to me. 
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
My switch from Rogers to TekSavvy cable is this Friday and I'm holding my fingers that I'll be one of those people who has a completely smooth transfer and not one of those people who goes a week without internet because Rogers screwed it up somehow but won't even look into it until after the weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
kuddles posted:My switch from Rogers to TekSavvy cable is this Friday and I'm holding my fingers that I'll be one of those people who has a completely smooth transfer and not one of those people who goes a week without internet because Rogers screwed it up somehow but won't even look into it until after the weekend. I'll still put a little laminated note outside the cable box just to play it safe for a while, but so far I'm pretty excited. I ended up splurging on a new Android phone today with a more expensive phone plan now that my internet costs for the foreseeable future are more than 50% cheaper. Still, at this point I now wish Rogers was offering something similar to the Shaw plans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
YggiDee posted:We're on the ground floor so I don't think speed will be too much of an issue; but I'll take Teksavvy's 300 gigs for 30$ DSL over Rogers' 125 gigs for 70$ cable any day. I just need to be sure I can.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Brace posted:So what would be the difference going from Rogers to Teksavvy? With the same down/up speed plan? As others have said, the only big downside to going with something like TekSavvy or Acanac is the fact that they are forced to rent the "last mile" from Rogers, and thus rely upon Rogers to provide support with the actual connection to your house. Almost any complaint that you hear about TekSavvy on either DSL or Cable is that someone runs into a connection problem (i.e. the modem isn't properly provisioned, or they were accidentally disconnected at the cable box) and it takes way longer than it should to have the problem corrected because Bell/Rogers will make it as low a priority as they are legally allowed to. It's not surprising that when they are forced to allow third parties on their network by law and those third parties offer a far superior deal by not gouging their customers, Bell and Rogers ensure the administrative/technical support side is as cumbersome as possible. kuddles fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Brace posted:Will I get a more shoddy/interrupted/worse connection? I mean I run at 15mb/s download but only download at like 1.3 or 1.4mb/s with my connection right now... maybe that's normal, I don't really understand it but yeah, I'm mainly just worried about the reliability of the connection because it's obviously a smaller company. TekSavvy used to have some problems with congestion during peak hours, but they are a lot better about it now (basically because they will now refuse to take new customers in an area when the number of connections to a single POI is high enough), mostly because they no longer trust Rogers on claims of when they will be allowed new upgrades to the line. My connection in Ottawa has been flawless, but your mileage may vary (I've heard about some problems in Kitchener a while ago). And like I said, your connection probably will be even smoother since TekSavvy doesn't do any kind of throttling or traffic shaping, or at least performs a negligible amount. Probably the biggest hurdle with TekSavvy is right now you can only buy a cable modem, you can't rent from them, so I can understand feeling a little shaky with a rather high expense upfront for a company you never heard of. kuddles fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:Rogers and Bell can manage it because they have other services which depend on it (set top box, phone, etc) so adding another device is very low cost.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Brace posted:So I'm seriously considering changing to Teksavvy, what would the best and least painful process be in switching from Rogers to Teksavvy cable? You can buy a modem off them (and get $20 off your activation fee) or buy your own as long as it's on the list of cable modems they can provision. They're currently using the DCM425 and DCM475. The DCM475 is newer and supports DOCSIS 3.0 which means it has a better chance of being future proof, but technically you'll be fine with either of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
Brace posted:What do you mean by make it atleast a few weeks out? And when you say active the same day as cancellation, same day as I call to get cancelled or my internet actually gets cancelled?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
rhag posted:Is it possible to activate TekSavvy before cancelling Rogers (let's say...give them a week or so)? Seriously, I left for work in the morning with Rogers still connected and came home and switched the modem and everything was working fine. It wasn't that big of a deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
rhag posted:What kind of problems? Are there technical reasons why this cannot be done? I know now thing about internet-via-cable technology, so that's why i ask. However, the second you have two cable internet lines running to your house at the same time, that means there are two technicians who must come to your place (one to connect you to the TekSavvy line, one to disconnect the Rogers one) and it results in a myriad of miscommunications that could lead to you being disconnected for a week while TekSavvy and Rogers play phone tag with each other and another appointment with a tech to solve the issue is made.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 20:27
|
|