Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rogers Shrinks Download Limits As Netflix Arrives

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-very-canuckian-of-them dept.

Canada 281

Meshach writes "Hot on the heels of Netflix coming to Canada, Rogers (one of the biggest ISPs in Canada) has shrunk download limits. 'As of Wednesday, new customers who sign up for the Lite service will be allowed 15 gigabytes, a drop from the 25 GB limit offered to those who signed up before July 21. Meanwhile, any new Lite user who goes over the monthly limit will have to pay $4 per GB up to a maximum of $50 — a spike from the previous $2.5 per GB surcharge.' Officially, there is no connection between the two events, but it seems an odd coincidence, especially when Rogers charges customers who exceed their bandwidth allowance."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


You Know (2)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014598)

there IS a connection between the two events. Boycott Rogers.

Re:You Know (5, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014640)

Boycott Rogers.

      And switch to what, exactly?

      They have a geographical monopoly across virtually all of Canada. If you live in an area serviced by them, you have a choice between Rogers and Rogers. Are you seriously asking people to give up entirely on the internet?

Re:You Know (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014692)

Yes. I've been surviving fine without the internet for almost 5 years now. I still use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Google, Skype, and Steam but I dont use the internet.

Re:You Know (2, Informative)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014700)

DSL? Satellite Internet? HSDPA? The alternatives are always there. It's just that they're not cost-effective enough that's all.

In the most extreme case, you can start-up your own cable company to fight Rogers. That's exactly what Aurora Cable Internet did, and they're still the fastest and cheapest cable Internet provider in Canada.

Re:You Know (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014876)

they're still the fastest and cheapest cable Internet provider in Canada.

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: The purchase agreement was finalized and approved on June 12, 2008 and Aurora Cable Internet became part of Rogers Cable services.

Re:You Know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014904)

You must be kidding, Aurora Cable Internet is owned by Rogers now.

Re:You Know (2, Informative)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014996)

I'm not sure where this "If you're in an area with Rogers, there's only Rogers." Here in Alberta, we've got Shaw for cable, as well as Telus for... whatever they offer. As far as I know, any area with Rogers has at least one other competing cable company. So there's not just alternatives, there's equivalent alternatives.

Re:You Know (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015164)

We're actually a bit lucky in Alberta - Shaw and Telus have varying quality depending on what neighborhood you're in (my Shaw service is superior, but my parents get better speed/reliability with Telus). From what I'm seeing they're actually having to (gasp) compete for service.

Additionally, in the Edmonton area there's a few smaller players who are trying to get into the Wifi end of things. I don't live in any of their footprints, so can't speak for quality, though.

Re:You Know (5, Interesting)

rhizome (115711) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014706)

And switch to what, exactly?

DSL. If you can't live without cable modem, then that's the choice you've made. Those with more flexible connectivity criteria have more options and are not tied to the cable company (Rogers or otherwise). You're pretty much in a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" situation.

Re:You Know (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015410)

FUCK YOU, DSL can at best offer me 1500kbps, that is barely enough to stream a low quality youtube video.


I'm sorry but someone needs to say that to you you piece of human filth.

Millions and Millions of people are trapped if they want high speed internet its rogers or basically glorified dailup. You do not understand this. So shut your fucking mouth or at least stick your dads cock in there so people can no longer hear you.

Re:You Know (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014886)

And switch to what, exactly?

      They have a geographical monopoly across virtually all of Canada. If you live in an area serviced by them, you have a choice between Rogers and Rogers. Are you seriously asking people to give up entirely on the internet?

Your center of the universe attitude clearly proves that you live in Eastern Canada. First of all, Rogers does not have any presence in Western Canada - we have Shaw and TELUS. Second, Bell provides DSL in your area in direct competition to Rogers. Complaining about a lack of options while citing only a single vendor as being the only viable option clearly demonstrates your ignorance on the topic.

Re:You Know (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015246)

And your incorrect spelling of the word "centre" clearly proves that you're a Yankee and not a Canadian at all!

Re:You Know (1)

Recovery1 (217499) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015394)

So what. I am a Canadian and I use the American spelling rules like 'center' and 'color'. There is likely Americans down south who like to use British spelling conventions too even though they are American.

Re:You Know (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015244)

There needs to be new blood in the ISP industry. I personally think we should have a nationwide government-run fiber network, just like any other public utility. Failing that, a wealthy thrill-seeking investor could do in a pinch. It's not exactly difficult to undercut the big boys, you just have to swallow the very costly barrier to entry. These monolithic 19th-century telcos simply don't have the flexibility to compete, and they all know it, which is why they never rock the boat...

Re:You Know (1)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015274)

Out west, We have Shaw. And their bandwidth cap is very forgiving, customer service with them is second to none. Not sure what the deal is heading east (manitoba and beyond) but out this way, shaw kicks ass :)

Re:You Know (0, Offtopic)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015326)

They have a geographical monopoly across virtually all of Canada.

Impossible! I know for a fact from all my years of reading Slashdot that monopolies and companies raising prices only happen in America!

Re:You Know (1)

jafo (11982) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015356)

You need to provide some citations. Because I'm pretty sure that satellite Internet has Rogers hands-down when it comes to geographical coverage. That's one of the ways we've gotten Internet coverage at the family cabin up near Flin Flon. There's also province-wide dial-up from the telcos, not that that's a real alternative. My wife also says that all the cell phone towers have WiFi on them, but I've never heard the full story on that. And the population (as opposed to geographical) coverage certainly has access to DSL. When we were up in Fort McMurray visiting family for Canadian Thanksgiving we had both cable and DSL service in the house (my nephew is a big gamer and buys his own dedicated cable connection).

So, I'm pretty sure that most people are a long ways from having to entirely give up on the Internet if they drop Rogers.

Why is overflow so expensive? (4, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014620)

I like how the overflow bandwidth costs over 500% wholesale costs. $4.5 is just insane. I almost wonder if 3G bandwidth isn't cheaper than that. Just goes to show that they aren't doing this in order to offer everyone a good service, but rather to punish and blackmail moderate users into buying a higher tier subscription service.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014682)

It's called "negotiating power", and they have it.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014684)

I like how the overflow bandwidth costs over 500% wholesale costs.

I think you mean times, not percent. My host reserves the right to charge 4p/GB, which works out at about 6 Canadian cents (although they won't charge me if other users on the same connection don't go over their threshold and their upstream provider doesn't charge them). This is including their upstream provider's markup in their transit costs, so for a large ISP with peering arrangements the cost is likely to be closer to one Canadian cent per GB.

Of course, that's ignoring the cost of the last mile bandwidth. The caps are, at least in theory, picked as arbitrary numbers that prevent the last mile connection from being saturated.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (1)

dallaswebdesign (1863412) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014976)

To get an idea of what consumer bandwidth should cost, I look at Amazon's S3 offerings [amazon.com]. They change $0.15/GB for bandwidth, and make money off of it. Like you said, this is completely ignoring the last mile, and I could see paying $1.50/GB as possibly reasonable... but $4.50? That's just ridiculous.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (5, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015242)

The last mile is ALWAYS saturated. I've been working in the telcom industry for 15years now and watch from the inception of the internet until now. Back in the day it would have been unheard of to oversell a remote, but now it's almost sick what the industry will pull. I've worked for 3 phone companies and they all do the same crap. They'll have 50 people fed out of a remote, they'll sell 5meg connections to most of those people and then the remote will be fed by 2 or 3 T1s. There isn't a SINGLE customer in the remote that can get what they paid for... not a single one!! Then those T1's lead back to the CO, where hundreds more meet and is fed to a backbone that is, yet again, woefully under provisioned. When customers call and complain that they went to some speed test site and they are getting 500k or 1mb instead of their 5mb or 10mb they are paying for, the staff that answer the phone have to read off a script that states they can not guarantee the results from 3rd party sites... who knows whats wrong with those websites right? But oh wait, your ISP has their own speed test site! How great... but guess what, every router from you to that speed test site is QOS's to that IP address, and the website itself is hosted on the ISPs own backbone. Holy crap I hit 4 MB!! Wait... I'm paying for 5... So now the sales contracts have changed... you're not paying for 5mb, you're paying for "Up to 5mb!" yay! "We're upgrading you from your 2mb connection to our new "Up to 5mb!" but oh wait... you never even got 1mb all these years, and that hasn't changed.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (3, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014970)

Dude, they punish and blackmail EVERY TIER. My internet bill is about $120 because I am one of those who consistently uses more than 95gb per month. According to Rogers, people who use that kind of bandwidth can only be evil pirates. According to my own traffic logs, I am a geek who really values offsite backups, remote desktop access and ferrying new content to/from my web server somewhere in Seattle.

Rogers is ass, but they're the lesser of several evils up here. Bell's network conks out on a daily basis, even when it's up the speed is pathetic and latency is worse than my old 9600 baud. All the other "ISPs" are Bell resellers, cheaper but equally fucked - even the legendary TekSavvy is at the mercy of Bell's colonary spasms.

And I have yet to hear any word about residential fiber up here. What Bell calls "Fibe" is just ADSL 2 and the fiber terminates at the DSLAM, like it has for 15 years.

What do I want ? Simple. I want a 100mbit shared line in my building. They call this place "Silicon Valley North", well then where's my fucking pipe ?

If I guess by the number of WiFi networks I've scanned, at least 25 tenants have broadband in my building alone. Now being a sysadmin, I know a thing or two about fiber, and I know that 25 times $50 a month is enough to bring a 100mb line here. With a bit of infrastructure, that could be aggregated up to a gbit line to service a few city blocks. It's certainly more bandwidth than Rogers is providing us.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (3, Insightful)

arekq (651007) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015234)

The third party ISPs are not exactly Bell resellers.
Their rent the ADSL connection from Bell but they have their own network and upstream providers.
Having said that, yes, the ADSL scene is not looking good in Canada.
The third party ISPs are not getting the faster ADSL2 service, and the fucking CRTC passed UBB to give even more power to Bell to screw customer and third party providers.
I'll still choose third party ISPs, though. They still provide better service, and even though it looks like a losing battle, I think it's good to have someone to keep fighting against Bell.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015292)

TekSavvy is not a Bell reseller. It uses Bell's last-mile connection and GAS (Gateway Access Service), but subscribes to its own backbone providers. It has also started laying its own fiber in a few small communities. For those with an interest in Canadian ISPs, it is very important to not spread the myth that TekSavvy is a Bell reseller, as this is what allows Bell to whine and complain to the government about how they were not allowed to charge TekSavvy per GB used by TekSavvy customers.

Unfortunately, the government has now approved Usage Based Billing (UBB), which will allow Bell to start charging TekSavvy per GB used, which essentially removes all need to go with an independent ISP altogether, even though TekSavvy was paying for its own backbones, separate from Bell.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015354)

Ok so the "reseller" shorthand is inaccurate, and yes I know how it actually works with TekSavvy renting transit over the DSLAM only. The problem is Bell is still involved in the process, and as we have seen, Bell has taken advantage of that position to throttle other people's traffic in a very anti-competitive fashion.

I still think the solution to all these moronic issues is to dissove both Bell and Rogers and assimilate them back as government-owned services. At best, for-profit utilities do not benefit anyone but the stockholders. At worst, they funnel too much power and control into narrow and untrustworthy cartels.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (2, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015308)

In that case it sounds like there's a gap in the market waiting to be filled, and that means profit to be made. You could be the guy making that profit, not to mention getting the connection you wanted in the first place. It'll take a bit of work, but giving the middle finger to the entrenched pseudo-monopolies could be a rather satisfying way for a geek to make a living!

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015364)

Hey I'd love to! Just put up about $50M in start-up capital and I'm there :P

Do it. (1)

osssmkatz (734824) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015360)

Get your neighbors together in your building. Propose a plan after checking with ISPs. Tell them you want business class service, and how much it is. Then split that with your neighbors. This might be fiber. It might not.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015112)

No. It's called business - they charge what the market can bear. When you buy a coffee for $2, do you really think it cost them that much? I had a friend in the coffee shop business and it cost him about $0.04 per POT for coffee.

Re:Why is overflow so expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015422)

On the other side of the scale, i pay ~US$200 for a 10Mbps/512Kbps uncapped cable connection in Jakarta (Indonesia) - it's 'relatively' stable, but definitely not comparable to the my Rogers connection back home. I'm Canadian, but I've been living out here for a while - when I do get back to Toronto, I'll be more than happy to pay that for a 25MBps connection, unlimited...

I want high bandwidth, and I want unlimited usage - as long as an ISP has that, they're golden in my books. $100 base service fees + $50 maximum overusage charges seems reasonable to me. Both the wifey and I spend a lot of time on the net - we both work from home, we're both heavy gamers, and are both relatively modest with respect to other spending. $150/ month seems pretty reasonable.

And no, I don't work for a telco (but i do design telco data networks and real-time billing infrastructure). Yes, I do hate some of the products I design, since I'd never want them used on my own connection...


A comfortable duopoly with no oversight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014622)

The CRTC’s mandate is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public.

The CRTC is owned by Bell and Rogers. That is all.

Sounds like a dick move (1)

jbigboote (1544809) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014624)

No surprise, coming from Rogers.

Re:Sounds like a dick move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014816)

No surprise, coming from a ______________*.

* Fill in the blank:

a. telephone company
b. cable tv company
c. wireless communications company
d. television broadcasting company
e. publishing company
f. multi-billion dollar company
g. any or all the above

15 GBs? What is that? A little over 3 movies? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014626)

That sucks! Maybe Netflix should offer lower quality, smaller files, while you Canadians get up and raise holy hell about the lack of competition for internet access, even if that means the government should offer some.

Ummmm. Ouch (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014636)

I can understand limits on consumer lines. You can have fast and cheap, but not all the time if you want fast all the time it costs more. Ok, but that still needs to be a reasonable amount. The 250GB cap Comcast does is quite reasonable. That's enough to do a whole lot and never get near it. Mainly the compulsive torrenters are the ones affected. But 15GB? That is just stupidly low. You can hit that without Netflix. Surf the web regularly, watch Youtube, download some game patches and you are there.

Talk about unreasonable :P.

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014944)

15GB a month is approaching what I used to achieve downloading over a 56k modem on a freephone AOL dial-up account, back around 2000/2001.
Night and day that beast was downloading warez at 4 to 5 kB/s

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (5, Interesting)

stretch0611 (603238) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014972)

Comcast's 250gb cap is reasonable? No it isn't, it is just a way for them to avoid investing more money in building their network and in addition protect their own movie service.

Between downloading patches, linux distros, and porn along with working from home connecting to remote machines, I have come up against that limit without netflix or any other movie streaming. (And this is all legal activity with bit torrent only being used for linux distros.)

Now if you add to that netflix or some other provider, add an additional tv or two, how much bandwidth can a family of four people use? They can easily break the 250GB barrier. (I did it alone.)

And this is today... in the future we will be expecting lossless HD video, video calling, and sharing home movies with friends and relatives instead of just pictures. Online games are just going to require more and more bandwidth and who knows how much bandwidth the next killer app will use or how addicted the next bunch of morons will be to the website that eventually slays facebook.

Comcast and all the others want to protect their monopolies (or duopolies as appropriate) and to increase their profit margins with the least bit of effort. The cost of bandwidth is in building it, it does not cost more to transfer extra bits over the network.

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (1, Troll)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015138)

Comcast's cap is perfectly reasonable. Very, VERY few people will ever hit it. Period. You've been torrenting like a madman if you actually hit that. I do torrents, Netflix, and many other things, and I've never hit the 250GB cap or come close.

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015314)

uploading via ftp / bittorrent / ed2k / whatever at a paltry 100kBps (to leave 28kBps for web browsing, games, download overheads) will put you over 260GB per month without a single byte of downloading factored in. this assumes your shitty U.S. ISP even provides you the 1mbps upstream rate to do this. what makes your habits so special that they should be used as justification for arbitrarily restricting how much data people can move with their internet connections?

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014982)

I don't think it's that bad, actually, because they offer different plans. If all you're planning on doing is watching a few youtube videos and checking email, why should you pay the same as someone who is using their internet connection to watch movies every night? You shouldn't, it's not fair, and this plan is marketed at those who are low-internet users (this should be obvious). If you need more than 15GB, it is not a problem, just move up to the next plan.

If you look at their plans [rogers.com], you can see that they offer a range of plans. Decide how much you need in a month, and choose the right plan for yourself. If you choose a lower plan and go over every month, then you are just stupid. The $4 per GB everyone is complaining about is an overage charge, not a bandwidth charge. It's because you said you were going to stay in a certain range, and got a good deal because of it, then didn't stay in the range you said you would. If you're going over the limit regularly, just move up to the next level. It's not like they are charging $4 for every GB.

Now, the prices in general might be a little higher than around here, but the internet speeds are a lot higher than around here too. So I think it would be hard to accuse them of price gouging. If someone knows what their actual costs are and can show that they are ripping people off, it would be interesting to hear, but don't start whining just because you don't like someone charging you money. Their prices aren't that high.

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015088)


“ensure we are giving those with higher demands the option to choose more speed or bandwidth while ensuring those whose needs are not as great to have lower priced tiers,”

And yet, they are lowering the cap on the "Extreme" service by 12%.

For comparison, I push out an average of 4500gb a month on my colocated web server, and it costs less than my residential cable internet. What Rogers is charging for overage is about 200 times my relatively high bulk cost, considering I'm small peas in the colo world.

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (4, Insightful)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015104)

Game patches? Just download A game you bought from Steam. Or better, a free weekend promo on Steam. They offered a free weekend of CoD:MW2 which was 11.2 GB. Then Serious Sam HD weighing 2 GB. Then insane price cuts for 24 hours on random games which each easily was over 5 GB. The world has gone digital. You can easily download 25+ GB a month by just buying a few older games at random Digital Download sellers like Steam, Direct2Drive, Impulse, and others.

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015382)

Understood, but buying games as such is still a bit of a geek thing. Don't believe the hype that most sales are digital, they aren't. That recent "study" was actually just a poll takes online. Hmmmm, selection bias much? According to publishers, retail still dominates, about 4 of every 5 sales.

My point was simply to be that you can easily run over your cap with normal, non "power user" activities. You don't even need Steam or Netflix to hit 15gb. The plan is insufficient for everyone but extremely casual surfers.

Re:Ummmm. Ouch (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015170)

Hell, I can hit 15GB of legal data in a day when Steam has a really good sale (in fact the amount of data is more limited by my fairly slow DSL connection and the time I'm willing to keep the PC running on a day than the amount of data available). That's regular consumer stuff, nothing especially geeky. Games are around 5GB a piece these days and good Steam sales can get them down to less than a fiver a piece.

Proctotyping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014646)

Contemplate the Rogers logo: Powerful red sphincter muscles, and you; the white square in the middle.

bill by bandwidth used (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014660)

Why don't ISPs bill home users by the amount of bandwidth used so the users don't pay for the bandwidth they don't use? you could also add a connection fee to the bill as well. They could offer speed tiers for the users so the faster the connection, the more expensive the amount per GB.

Re:bill by bandwidth used (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014940)

Why don't ISPs bill home users by the amount of bandwidth used so the users don't pay for the bandwidth they don't use?

Because users like simplified billing and a flat monthly rate - with no surprises on next month's bill.

Re:bill by bandwidth used (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015196)

Why don't cities bill pedestrians and motorists by the number of miles they've traveled so the bedridden and terminally-handicapped don't pay for streets they don't use ? You could also add a door-crossing fee to the bill as well. They could offer weight tiers for the users so the fatter the walker, the more expensive the amount per mile.

The internet has evolved to a point where it is seen as a public utility. It should be offered, managed and subsidized like any other public utility. Governments build roads and waterworks, each of which are orders of magnitude more costly to deploy and maintain than even the most exotic data networks.

If our government can piss $1B on a moronic G20 meeting and related psyops, surely they could spend that money to build a national ISP that makes Rogers look like a science fair runner-up.

Re:bill by bandwidth used (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015290)

Why don't cities bill pedestrians and motorists by the number of miles they've traveled so the bedridden and terminally-handicapped don't pay for streets they don't use ? You could also add a door-crossing fee to the bill as well. They could offer weight tiers for the users so the fatter the walker, the more expensive the amount per mile.

This is done in the USA. It is called gas tax and title taxes. Also, heavy haulers pay significantly more.

Time to jump ship (1)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014680)

Time to jump ship by the looks of things. Best vote with your choice of ISP.

Re:Time to jump ship (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014808)

The problem is, there is almost nowhere to jump to in most areas. I live in Toronto, where Bell is pretty much the only other major player, and their rates are just as brutal as Rogers'.

Currently I'm with Acanac, who lease their lines from Bell. The speed isn't as good as it was with Rogers or Bell, but it's one of the few options left (the only other one I know is Teksavvy) for getting away with no bandwidth cap.

Re:Time to jump ship (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015098)

That's correct. I live in Ontario, and I have two ISP choices really. Rogers, or Bell. Maybe a 3rd party DSL service which is still on bell's backbone, and which bell still throttles. I'm still paitently waiting for some form of competition against rogers. But right now, I'm screwed and getting pillaged. Oddly enough my sister who's moving out to Alberta is getting cable internet $20/mo less and 20gb more on the cap.

Since Teksavvy is opening into cable markets it's looking promising but the rollout is slow. And because I don't live in a major metro centre I might be waiting awhile.

Re:Time to jump ship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015366)

Teksavvy is now offering rogers resold cable in Toronto I suggest you check it out!

Re:Time to jump ship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014850)

Trouble is many people can't .. you must not realize the situation up in Canada.
Bell just got a ruling which will limit DSL wholesalers to 60GB and their own caps arent anywhere near sane either.

Re:Time to jump ship (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014878)

There is only one other option - Bell. Sure, there are small companies that buy and resell service from Bell, but they are forced to charge overages as well now, as per their contract with Bell.

(OK, so there is Telus in the west coast, but that's the same as Bell anyhow)

Re:Time to jump ship (4, Informative)

flyonthewall (584734) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014992)

You'd think that slash-dotters would know better...

The smaller companies in no way resell Bell services. They provide their own. They do lease the last mile and transit to their centers..

This is the way it should work (0)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014702)

The key is to have any easy way for users to monitor usage, so they can cut back, or get ready to pay more. Also important, is making the process of paying more a pleasant experience. No, you are not "punishing" the customer for using your service too much. In fact, you want to reward them by offering them an upgrade to a plan with a higher allowance, at a substantial discount over the "a la carte" overlimit charge. And, you should find the increased gross revenue rewarding enough to invest in equipment, cables, and peering to keep customers ever expanding bandwidth hunger fed, and your cash flow flowing.

Less important, but nice, is to honor QoS tags from the customer, not you, so that with a smart router (or linux box), they can watch a high def movie (high bandwidth), while chatting on VOIP (low latency), and downloading the entire 50G Fedora distro (batch).

Re:This is the way it should work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014842)

Except that for the most part the networks are NOT saturated, and more importantly $5 a GB goes well beyond healthy profit margins for the company and well into the realm of something ant you try to avoid at just about any cost. If they were to propose a true by the bit pricing scheme, with fair pricing, I wouldn't necessarily call it a ripoff, but when we get prices with no relation to cost, or even what I'm paying in the first place (base prcing comes to something over $.75/gb, overage jumps to $5/gb = WTF) something is seriously wrong with the pricing. For that matter, the way the company talks about the "overage fees" is as if they are a penalty rather than a charge for usage as you would with a cellphone service going over included minutes.

The cost of bandwidth (3, Interesting)

thue (121682) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014716)

We buy a raw 100Mbit/100Mbit Internet connection with guarantied bandwidth for 1300 US$/month. We haven't renegotiated that price in a while, but I hear that bandwidth prices have been falling very fast since then. A big ISP would probably get bandwidth cheaper still.

Our current price works out to 25GB/$ if we use it 100% 24/7. So if you are paying more than 15/25=60cents for our Internet connection limited to 15GB/month, then you are being cheated.

I really don't get why Internet connection limits are so often so low. The fraction of the price you pay which actually goes to cover Internet bandwidth costs in a normal Internet connection is miniscule.

Expect to see more of this... (4, Insightful)

One Louder (595430) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014756)

This is just the opening shot in the upcoming battle between cable providers that want you to use *their* on-demand movie systems vs Netflix and similar companies. It's not surprising it happened with Rogers first, but this will inevitably happen in the US too. Netflix's streaming of movies is the residential ISP's worst nightmare come true. They'll be in a position where they have to tell their customers that something they used to be able to do for no additional cost will suddenly become a new confusing expense showing up on their cable bill with no apparent additional benefit to the customer.

Crappy service by crappy company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014764)

And the only reason it can get away with this is its DSL competitor is BELL and they collude to offer worse services at higher prices...

Never been a better time to go with teksavvy as an ISP and get real service tho bell still abuses their customers by illegally traffic shaping another companies traffic against their will..

thats the problem (1)

teknosapien (1012209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014770)

Problem with monopolies when some other entity dips into their cash flow they find a way to get it from somewhere else . That somewhere else is normally the customers they have a strangle hold on. does Canada have anti trust laws? if so this seems like an ideal time to hold their feet to the fire

Switch to Teksavvy (4, Informative)

static416 (1002522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014780)

I switched to Teksavvy Cable a month ago and it's awesome. No throttling, 200GB cap, and 10/1 speeds for $42. You can't match that with any other provider in Toronto.

$4/gb is highway robbery (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014792)

This is obviously abusing a semi-monopoly to conduct price gouging, and the government should intervene.

Typical prices ISPs will pay for is the mere one-time cost of network equipment plus ~$25/Megabit/Mo, for a commitment to transfer data, the price is typically the same no matter how much data's transferred as long as the 95th-percentile traffic rate's not over the commit (95th percentile billing on a burstable link), otherwise known as $25,000/month per gigabit.

Sometimes an ISP might buy more bandwidth at different times of the day than others, but, in any case, they would do that because the cost is less, not more than the typical market rates.

Over a 1000Mbps backhaul, approximately 800 customers can be downloading 1 Megabit continuously 24/7, at an approximate avg cost to the ISP of $3125 per customer for that data, but in that case, 324000MB is transferred per customer on avg per month, resulting that each Megabyte transferred costs the ISP approximately $0.009 per megabyte.

Web hosting providers will typically charge $0.15 to $0.80 per GB per month on average.

Roger's "overage pricing" is like 4X the rate charged by even the most greedy of hosting providers.

Re:$4/gb is highway robbery (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015206)

That seems rather expensive, adjusted for currency exchange i pay $15 for 6MB/s up/down and no bandwidth cap. As much as i can upload and download it's ok. And this is only the international speed, local peering is even faster.

I live in Bulgaria btw and i get a very low latency with the entire european union/ asia.
With the Americas you can still download/seed but it's no good for real time playing like in FPS games.

Re:$4/gb is highway robbery (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015372)

fucking crying cunt. internet access is not a right. stealing via bittorrent is not a right. go fuck yourself in the arse.

Economies of scale (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014796)

Why is it that ISPs (and cell phone carriers) seem to ignore economies of scale? Its expensive to lay cable as a small ISP but when you get larger and larger it becomes cheaper thus bandwidth becomes cheaper. It is even more obvious when it comes to cell carriers, it costs a lot of money to put up a tower, it costs significantly less to upgrade that tower to 3G/4G, etc.

Not to mention that the more people who have the ISP the more profit the ISP makes thus making it even easier to lay more cables and increase bandwidth.

The bigger the company, the cheaper the services and the better the quality of service should be based on economies of scale.

Re:Economies of scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015028)

Why is it that ISPs (and cell phone carriers) seem to ignore economies of scale? Its expensive to lay cable as a small ISP but when you get larger and larger it becomes cheaper thus bandwidth becomes cheaper.

That's a moot point up here. If you live in a city where Rogers supplies TV cable and Bell supplies phone, then those two companies own and service all the wires up to any building. Doesn't matter how many other ISPs you've got, they're all buying or leasing from those two.

It's the same with electricity and gas. The politicians say they've broken up the monopoly and opened the market to competition, but the ownership up-to-building is still owned by the same company. Any so-called "competition" is merely adding a middleman, and you can guess how that always works out for the consumer.

And a big marketting push to Rogers on Demand (5, Insightful)

crispytwo (1144275) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014804)

At the same time, they are pushing their Rogers on Demand service to all their customers too. http://www.rogersondemand.com/ [rogersondemand.com]

Which means either charging people to watch TV content by 'downloading' it, or maybe, will they give a break to people who are on their network to use their service?

This is precisely why net neutrality is important and required.

Re:And a big marketting push to Rogers on Demand (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014920)

Last time I looked they were only charging for content coming from outside of their network, as such they are using this artificially low limit to boost the effectiveness of their rogers on demand..

Re:And a big marketting push to Rogers on Demand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014962)

Net neutrality wouldn't change a damn thing here. On Demand isn't over the "internet", so it doesn't count in the bullsh!t net neutrality battle.

You wanna work with an unethical company like Rogers or Comcast, this is what you get.

Unless you want the government forcing the cable companies to treat their on demand programming and premium channels like internet service, in which case you'll be paying $100/mo for a 1 Mbps pipe.

Seems about right (-1, Troll)

Nethead (1563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014844)

$50CDN/month for unlimited Internet at cable speeds? Sounds fair. Cheaper if you only check mail and do light surfing. Nice.

ISPs don't owe you anything you haven't paid for at the price they are willing to sell to you. Nor do they owe it to Netflix to deliver their content.

If you want IP service to be a utility where the public helps set the rates then get your local government to provide it under a public utility district or something. If there is already a franchise agreement the cable company operates under, then get your local government to regulate it better (although you may have to wait for the next contract round, where were you during the comment period the last round?)

Re:Seems about right (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014922)

$50CDN/month for unlimited Internet at cable speeds? Sounds fair.

Actually, you're right. If I download hundreds of gigs, or a terabyte or two, I'll come out way ahead... Unfortunately, I don't expect the price cap to remain for long.

I'm all for making the ISPs a public utility. It might be the only way to turn them into what they should be.. a pipe, just like the gas and lights.

Re:Seems about right (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015162)

...just like the gas and lights. Which are metered service. It still comes down to paying enough for what you use to keep the infrastructure operational. How the costs of that service are spread out to the users is the question. Quite often metering is the fairest way.

Oddly, where I live (Indian County) I pay a flat rate for water/sewer. The infrastructure is just getting installed to meter. I think I pay more than I should, and I may be. We'll find out when the meters and the billing software gets updated.

Re:Seems about right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015250)

Call me when running a gas generator (ie: Doing it yourself) costs about 2% of buying electricity from the utility. Because that's what the current pricing is like.

Utilities charge a reasonable amount. It is never cheaper to run a generator than to purchase the power from the utility, assuming the lines are already run (And if you want Rogers cable in Canada and don't have the lines, they will bill about $25,000 to wire up a neighbourhood [or your house, I suppose], too).

Re:Seems about right (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015328)

If they start metering, then I'll want any and all unwanted advertising to subsidize my connection. That's why I think it shouldn't happen, because we'll still be dealing with content regulation. A flat fee for a set speed is the best way. Charging for bit rates is the fairest way, not the number of bits.

Re:Seems about right (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015068)

I know why you were modded troll. That $50CDN/month is IN ADDITION to the regular service rates.

Re:Seems about right (0, Flamebait)

Nethead (1563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015420)

So now mistakes in reading TFS is trolling? My, my, someone didn't get laid last night.

Re:Seems about right (1)

Nukky Cisbu (1738668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015122)

ISPs don't owe you anything you haven't paid for at the price they are willing to sell to you. Nor do they owe it to Netflix to deliver their content.

The issue is you haven't got a choice. Well, you've got Bell or Rogers, but both have monopolies on their respective cables, and any competition is buying bandwidth from them. Ultimately, they set the rules no matter your ISP.

If you want IP service to be a utility where the public helps set the rates then get your local government to provide it under a public utility district or something.

I'd like a pony, too. By what magic wand should this happen? The best case would be the local gov't leases from the Big Two, just like all the other middle-man ISPs. If you think a local-level government has any leverage or regulating ability over Bell or Rogers, then you're remarkably naive.

Re:Seems about right (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015348)

You still have national elections there, right?

I never said it was going to be easy. I remember sneaking a partial T1 into Canada to a cable provider back in '95 (they had one customer on the US side, north of Spokane, and they back hauled it via the cable system.) just to get around the horrid telco T1 rates.

Canada is going to have to have a Internet Revolution and overhaul Rogers/Bell. I'm surprised you've put up with them for this long.

No one will care. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33014880)

People in Toronto are simply apathetic to this kind of thing. I'm guessing it's because they are used to paying such exorbitant cell phone bills.

Two plans changed (2, Informative)

kbahey (102895) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014902)

I am a Rogers customer. I like the speed and latency (Express plan), but hate the bandwidth cap. Normally, I don't go over it, but occasionally do so.

Here is a matrix of their plans [rogers.com].

Two plans changed for new clients signing up after July 21: Lite and Extreme. Lite is what the summary describes. Extreme was 95GB for $60 a month, now it is 80GB.

They want to make money in two ways: via their own video service, and by charging extra for bandwidth that people will use for Netflix.

Important to note... (2, Insightful)

CmpEng (1123811) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014912)

Rogers is also a cable provider and also provides its own On-Demand service for movies. Maybe reducing bandwidth limits on its accounts is a way to maintain profit from those customers who will be utilizing Netflix rather than Rogers On-Demand.

Re:Important to note... (1)

Torontoman (829262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015414)

The ONLY reason for this is lack of competition. Hands down. Look at areas/countries with more competition - and the rates are cheaper. Gee what has happened since the 3 (or so) upstarts starting entering the mobile market- Rogers and Bell fought in court, when that didn't work (surprisingly - since it's been about the ONLY time the CRTC/Gov't allowed one for the 'little guy') - they started dropping rates and are in the process of introducing new cheaper lines of products - to essentially squeeze them out at the starting gate - but these new lines are of course only in the markets served by the startups. They're bastards. I for one with the CDN gov't would allow pure competition, fiercely fight back the Bells and Rogers attempts to thwart competition, allow foreign ownership at any level, and while they're at it - let me select a la carte tv channels so I don't have to pay for 5 foreign language channels and the 25 other channels I don't want just to watch the 5 channels I do watch. Torontoman.

...And Rogers rents movies, too (5, Interesting)

fudoniten (918077) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014934)

You failed to mention that Rogers Video is one of the largest chains of movie rental shops in Canada. That's what makes this an especially weird coincidence.

At one point, I couldn't get a cell phone from Rogers the telco, apparently because I owed some late fees to Rogers the movie rental shop, which I could only pay at the movie shop. So I went with another telco. Weird, anyway; I hadn't realized they were all so tightly connected.

Consumer Protection (2, Insightful)

dvious (1840038) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014946)

Consumer protection is virtually non-existent in Canada. The CRTC is a spineless puppet entity, solely to serve big business. Cable providers are mutually exclusive across Canada as far as I know, meaning only one exists per territory. Bandwidth caps, as you can see, are draconian, UBB (usage-based billing) is ridiculous. The list goes on and on...

Re:Consumer Protection (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015260)

That is changing, at least in Alberta - Shaw and Telus both supply internet here, and have for over a decade.

What's new (and interesting to me) is that each is pushing rather aggressively into each other's monopolies - Shaw got into the phone business years ago (if memory serves, they made a huge push during the last Telus strike and got a nice foothold), and Telus started offering TV a year or two back (and judging from the every-other-week phone calls, is pushing very hard to make inroads on the TV side).

Go with a small ISP (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#33014952)

I just switched from SHAW to NakedADSL and get 200 gigs up and down while SHAW was 60. Now I haver had problems with SHAW contacting me about going over BUT but bit torrent even for linux distro's is useless on SHAW. The NakedADSl although not as fast download as SHAW never had a problem with bit torrent so far.

umm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015032)

i thought prices are supposed to go DOWN over time?

Rogers VOD only!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33015102)

Cheap tactics used keep netflix from taking customers from their VOD services....

Former Rogers employee (4, Interesting)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015330)

(sorry for length, hope this might be helpful, probably overstaing obvious, anyways.....)

I don't want to bash Rogers, they paid me a good salary and I had a great experience working there many years ago.

I'm far removed from the company now, but I *think* and it appears marketing/management strategy remains unchanged.

My experience though in sales has been that the marketing and upper management has some strange way of making promotions and changing products for better (and unfortunately) worse. Most of the promotions are pretty positive and get a lot of new customers and sales for cable, PPV, specialty channels and Internet. This new download cap probably won't be a problem since most customers don't use or understand the Internet much. I'll bet most are just check e-mail and news and won't even use close to 15 GB. I'd be more concerned if I were a parent. Kids with an XBox 360 or PS3, what with downloading patches, playing online, demos and Torrent, Netflix, Youtube, blah blah blah. The parents don't use the net much, but the kids you can't control and the kids and parents probably don't realize how much is being downloaded.

I makes no sense to me that it would cost the ISP (Rogers) more for bandwidth as time goes on. I would think bandwidth costs would decrease and extra services like mail servers (a lot use Gmail, hotmail), news servers are no more, and I would think less people have 'homepages'.

Rogers is not unlike Bell, Shaw and to the US neighbors AT&T and Sprint etc in that they like any company wanting to make a profit and draw people away from competitors. Bell also has TV/Satellite offerings. So given industry trends, I won't be surprised if this bandwidth change is directly related to a conflict of interest, one they know the CRTC won't touch or are too slow to move.

I live in Vancouver, so I've also the opportunity as with Ontario and Quebec residents, to be a TekSavvy customer. It costs me more with a dry line, but well worth escaping the Telus or Shaw. Bonus - they are more than generous with bandwidth. I'm happy with service - as long as Telus doesn't start pissing me off by trying to get the useless CRTC to cap non Telus DSL subscribers on their loop. As taxpayers, we've more than subsided the Ma Bells - to the point these should probably be considered public infrastructure.

AT&T mind set (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015374)

AT&T did something like this with there data plans after Nextflix arrived. Every company knows netflix is high bandwidth so they shrink or cap people to make money. Wonder if nextflix is in on all this.

Bell + Rogers = Evil Duopoly (1)

dskoll (99328) | more than 3 years ago | (#33015404)

The situation in Canada sucks. Bell and Rogers do whatever they want and the CRTC goes along with it.

Oh, well, I don't have cable TV or Internet, but I do have cell phone service through Rogers. Time to jump ship to Wind Mobile, I think...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account