Back when the system was analog, Rogers didn't strictly enforce haw many splitters and outlets you could have. I've had Rogers techs in to diagnose poor signal and the replaced any questionable splitters and connectors I had, no questions asked. Since all electronics and hardware stores sell splitters and boosters it was just too much to police. The channels you received or didn't receive was governed by the filter in the cable beforeit entered your house.
I just can't believe that Rogers would claim their records only go back 18 months. If that's the case, then the customer's records should be used. Call back and ask tospeak to a manager.
I actually wouldn't be shocked if first level support can only go back 18months.
Rogers, despite their public proclimations, seems to be bent on making their customer support as useless as possible to discourage customers from seeking help.
Regardless of that part.. the real thing here... comes down to the word/definition/what OUTLET means here.
There is obviously the physical thing.. the thing in the wall, that the cable connects to, etc. A physical outlet.
In the terms of your PLAN, there are OUTLETS on there too. This doesnt have ANYTHING to do with the physical # of outlets in your house.. weither put yourself or by a rogers person.
These are the # of device 'outlets' that can have a device/box attached to it.
Some lower plans, only have 1-2 outlets with them. Some higher plans, have many more.
The outlet fee that they are talking about, is to be able to add one of these spots on the account, to be able to add the DTA.
I am not saying what they do, that they charge for it, is RIGHT... far from it.
Just that this is what they were talking about. They were not particularily lying about anything.
Hmmm. Let's see, kitty. You say there's a need to regularly reset the encryption keys between Rogers and each digital box so that there is no cloning going on. Presumably, that's so that no one hooks up a box that has not been autrhorized by Rogers. But if there was no additional outlet fee, why would Rogers care if non-Rogers boxes are connected? In other words, your argument is circutous.
Rogers killed analog for me just last night (hence the reason I'm reading this blog) so now I have to get digital adapters and, by extension, a fee for addional outlets.This is on top of the "digital services" fee. And Rogers just raised my basic cable by $1 a month (kitty will probably say it's only a dollar but they also raised it a dollar last September and that adds up to a 6% increase - who got a 6% pay increase lately?) and $3.50 a month for my internet (5.5% increase).
Let's face it, folks, it's all about profits. Rogers showed a slight decline in growth of late so they had to find ways to squeeze more out of its customers. The best way to beat this in the short term is to buy Rogers stock.
The day will come when everything that's currently available on Rogers TV (or Bell TV) will be available on a pay-for-whatever-you-want basis (maybe even at the individual show level) via the internet. That day can't come soon enough for me. Imagine that; being charged based on how much TV you watch, just like you get charged more for eating more food or drinking more beer or...
P.S. Fortunately, there's lots of competition for ISPs. I'll be looking for one today so I can get better service, faster speeds, unlimited up/downloads, all for a lower price than Rogers.
P.P.S. I don't see kitty's response for the Bell-charging-more-for-extra-outlets-back-in-the-60s comment.
Back in the dark ages, say 40 years ago, Rogers (it was then actually Shaw in my area) charged an extra outlet fee and put one in for you. Of course, anyone who was not a total klutz could just go to Radio Shack or any hardware store and buy the necessary splitter and stuff and do it themselves without paying the cable company anything. While the cable company was capable of detecting these illegal outlets, it took a lot of resources they just couldn't spare. After all, the components were available everywhere. Same goes for extra phones. I remember when the phone company would catch people who added an extra phone extension and charge them with theft. They finally gave up on that and let you do anything you want in your house on your side of the demarcation point. If you caused a problem, then you paid for the service call. And with cable,when Rogers techs saw the rat's cables and splitters I had, they never batted and eye and even replaced any connectors and splitters no charge to get a good signal.
Today with digital, Rogers knows how many boxes or adapters your plan allows and needs to authorize each one. No free ride anymore. About all you can now get for free from an analog outlet without a box or adapter is the aquarium channel.
Um, more stating of the obvious.
Just because Rogers can now enforce charges for extra outlets, doesn't make it justified.
Oh, and Bell didn't "give up" charging for extra phone outlets. They were told to do so by the CRTC that ruled the wiring in a house belongs to the homeowner. I suspect Rogers backed off for a similar reason. Now that Rogers has technology to enable them to install something inside your house (digital converter), they've dived in to take advantage of it.
There is absoluely no reason, technologically, this has to occur as is demonstrated by your statement that Rogers still broadcasts the aquarium channel. It's like they've got their thumb to their nose and 4 fingers wiggling in front.
Once we get to a true, effective internet solution, we'll all be able to say goodbye to Rogers, Bell and, in fact, the CRTC. Free at last (to choose)! Free at last!
Actually,, if you have read/monitored anything about the whole digital - analog conversion, you would find there IS a reason behind it.
All broadcasts PERIOD, starting from scratch, in the broadcasts over the air or across lines from stations to broadcasters to distributors, is all transmited in DIGITAL signals. No longer analog.
(you can not use an ANALOG antenna to pick up any stations, etc over the air, they just are not broadcast anymore).
So this means, that when rogers (or bell or whoever) has all its stations... how did they then get them out to people via annalog still?
Extra work then now had to be done, to then convert them BACK to analog. (as well as then adjusting tons of them from HD widescreen to fit in an SD format)
It takes more work (and therefore likely more money) to still provide analog to people.
As well. An analog signal.. for one station, takes up about the same amount of space as 3 digital stations.
With people moving towards more online stuff all the time, and getting BIGGER and FASTER internet packages, more space is needed on the lines.
Freeing up analog helps provide the space for these.
I am not trying to justify the cost of DTAs extra outlets, etc. They should just provide the extra outlets PERIOD no matter what. Then you just pay for a box or not, depending on what you want out of the TV itself.
But i completely understand HOW and WHY they are no longer doing analog.
Thanks for analog / digital lesson, kitty, but it was completely unnecessary. I went down this road a couple years ago when my cottage 36" Sony (it seemed to be about 200 lbs) became substantially obsolete when everything went digital. I had a choice to either scrap it and get a new flat screen with a digital tuner or buy a digital / analog converter. I chose the former.
It is my belief that this analog / digital conversion is a red herring that provides Rogers an opportunity to find new revenue. For example, why would a digital adapter be required for a TV that has a digital tuner? I'm not an eletronics engineer but I doubt it's impossible to make it work without an adapter but that wouldn't enable enforced extra outlet charges. Even if it is impossible and an adapter is necessary, the system should be "open" so that adapters can be purchased anywhere just like DVD players and sound systems. Competition would ensure the best quality at the lowest price. I bet they'd end up costing less than $10 each, as occurred with digital / analog converters.
Face it. Extra outlet charges are just plain stupid and borders on theft. I should not have to pay more if I choose to watch TV in a different room. Oh, and the argument that "it's only a little bit more" is insulting. I'm paying "only a little bit more" or "a cup of coffee a day" for countless other charges and, cumulatively, they add up to a lower standard of living imposed on me.
But, as with so many other impositions, I have to yet again say to myself, "Accept it and move on." At least, until I can figure out another, less expensive, possibly even improved, method of entertainment delivery into my home.