UBB has always bothered me. We have been Internet customers with Rogers ever since they introduced high speed Internet back in the 90s. For years, we had unlimited usage. Then came the caps and unreasonable bandwidth limits from both Bell and Rogers. I agree that UBB is nothing more than a cash grab - a way to pad the profits by introducing new, higher priced plans to jack up the costs to customers. I hope what Shaw has done will set a trend. Unfortunately, Shaw Internet is not available in Ontario and Rogers only has to worry about Bell as its main competitor, so at the present time, Rogers really does not have to do anything at all in response to Shaw! Sad!
Your information is only partially correct. While Shaw will offer new Internet packages that are bundled with TV and extremely generous data allowances, they are also offering standalone Internet. While the data allowances are not as generous as with a new bundled package, they are nonetheless improved and much better than what Rogers currently offers. For example, the Shaw high speed plan will increase the data allowance from 60 GB per month to 125 GB per month. The cost is $49 per month as a standalone service. This would be comparable to Rogers Express Internet service.
Also, since many of your customers would also subscribe to cable, the new bundled packages offered by Shaw are far superior to what Rogers is currently offering. So I repeat my question: Is Rogers listening?
Shaw has amazing prices. Now, that is the company that would listen to their customers!
-> Rigers. now your turn <- Stop being greedy!
Just came back from the US/California, and my family there pays around $30 a month for unlimited bandwith!!! They were shocked to hear the price of Rogers Internet but even worse than that, was how much I pay for LIMITED usage!
I have the 60 Gig plan, and I rarely hit 10 gigs a month. I just got Netflix on my Wii, and am already at 20 gigs in a week!!!! Why is STREAMING counting against bandwith??? It is neither an upload or a download. As soon as a company offers a flat rate for unlimited usage in Canada, they will take the lion's share of customers...it will happen.
I definitly agree with you on the caps, but streaming IS downloading. When you stream, that data is downloaded to your computer. A download is not just explicitly downloading a file and telling the computer "save it in this folder." It's everything you see (and to some extent, don't see) that's coming from the Internet - you browse to web sites, that data is downloaded, you play online games, there's a lot of upload/download going on. When you do anything on the Internet - send/receive e-mail, browse, etc.. there's upload and download activity. Even when you don't know that you're uploading, you are. Send a request for a web page, the browser uploads some data to request the information, same for e-mail, etc... This stuff doesn't happen by magic. End lesson.
And there are companies (well, at least 2-3) offering unlimited bandwidth. But they have to go through the established networks (Rogers, Bell, Telus, Shaw, etc...) and sometimes the big guys don't play nice with them (or so I've read anyway.)
I love how Rogers response to problems or discrepencies with regards to how they tabulate your usage. They always steer you towards monitoring tools. Like the problem is, you didn't realize you just had to stop using the service near the end the month to avoid paying double or more of your bill.
These caps were put in place under the guise of clamping down on extremely heavy internet users. They could have set caps in the low hundreds for most packages, like many ISP's do in the US, and accomplished their goals. Instead they saw dollar signs, dropped in these unreasonably low usage caps, and now everyone has to get nervous each month every time they go online that they may get gauged.
Rogers even did away with the $25 CAP on overage fees so at least customers weren't completely soaked. They could still enforce higher fees only on people that truely do use an excessive amount for a home connection.
My connection is very secure. Our habits have not changed dramatically in the 3 years we had the service. Starting in January our bills began to eclipse our 60 GB limit, we upgraded twice ending with extreme plus. (32 down 1 up) advertised.
After receiving a bill with an $80 overage fee, that's double what I pay for the entire month of service, Rogers informs me there is no way to dispute usage charges. They just direct you to those miser tools. They should market it as internet classic, a throw back to the internet of the 90s.
Now since mid September I receive night time speeds of around 1 MBPS or less every night. 2 % or less of advertised speeds, every night, going on 1 month. It's a Rogers admitted congestion issue that the CAT department has been dealing with for over 1 month. *an employee* of Rogers Office of the President is also well aware of this Rogers congestion issue.
If you live in an area with many students, like I do (North Waterloo), your are doomed to getting 5% of your advertised speeds at night. Rogers sold more bandwidth than it had to sell. Depends on how crowded your node is, and how many weeks or months it takes Rogers to add up the service calls and pinch the pennies to get you the service they advertise.
Rogers could have done all the upgrades first, then gone on an ad blitz with unlimited student plans.
They have money to advertise every commercial break on my television. They mock other Internet providers slow antiquated networks, while they can't even guarantee night time speeds better than 1 or 2 megs down every night for weeks on end with no ETA for a solution. They have the money for glossy weekly fliers in my mail box and in the hallway of my building. They have the money to advertise all these introductory teaser rates.
They don't seem to have the money to upgrade possible overloaded areas before a promotional blitz. They don't have the money to ensure that all their customers at get at least 1/4 of the speed they pay for at all times. They don't have the money to track possible congestion issues. They don't have the money to get congested nodes bisected in a timely manner.
We are piggy banks and nothing more to Rogers. If actions speak louder than words, Rogers has communicated that particular message to me loud and clear.
Where are the regulators? Where is consumer protection?
Keep calling, don't take no for an answer. If the line tests to your modem are OK, don't let them stall you with a needless service visit.
File complaints with the CCTS, CRTC, BBB and any other organization that will listen.
Write Elen Roseman, consumer advocate, writer for the Toronto Star (independant from Rogers and Bell) and ask for her help in getting the word out that Rogers can not guage its customers for fees while not providing even a small fraction of what they advertise in return.
Elen Roseman email@example.com
She is the one that got a response from the Rogers Office of the President for me in one day.
She has also writen an article on the growing Rogers congestion issue caused by their overselling of bandwidth.
Many others are having this same slow speed issue at night. Many others are being gauged every month for legitimately using a service they pay for.
Record your experiences here:
It's time we consumers tell one of Canadas biggest and worst communications companies we've had enough! We are human beings! We are customers that pay your salarie, not piggy banks!
*edited to remove employee name @RogersMichaelT
The problem is ARPU (average revenue per user) - which is used to report back to shareholders and ensure that stock value continues to valuate, in combination with a duopolistic industry. This toxic combination results in a decrease in capital investment and an increase cost to consumers. Poor service at a premium price.
Unto itself, ARPU is not the problem... honestly! It's only in combination with a complete lack of competition - in a duopolistic industry there is simply no reasonable competition (or other factors for that matter) to prevent unfair industry practices (regulations can't effectively do this)... so any method of increasing ARPU that Rogers can get away with under the CRTC is fair play.. and supported by feduciary duty. Within a natural market condition, with reasonable competition, ARPU results in increased efficiency and cost effectiveness. Better service at lower consumer cost (barring any industry collusion).
The solution, then, is to open up the internet market the same way that the moble phone market is being opened up. This forces stronger competition, infrastructure growth and development, and fair market value for consumers. This can only be done under legislative and regulatory reform. As a boon to Governent, open markets also result in improved bidding for rights and increased government revenues... (Flaherty, you paying attention here?)
Barking to Rogers will get us nowhere fast.
Barking to MP's, letters to the CRTC, industry Canada, Treasury Board and Finance Canada, as well as consideration of legal avenues will be the ONLY way for us 99% to force reform in the consumer internet industy - as we are now experiencing with the mobile consumer industry. Otherwise, we will continue to hose the consumer and cripple investment in critical infrastructure while the rest of the world continues to pass us by.
Bark at industry all you want - you'll only get a sore throat to go along with your frustration.
I agree we should all be filing complaints with the CCTS, CRTC, BBB and any other organization that will listen. The problem is none of those agencies technically deal with speed issues. The CRTC will forward your speed complaint to the CCTS, whom can maybe get you a credit if your DVR breaks, but told me can do nothing with regards to slow speeds
Complaining to Rogers is not a waste. Yes it's frustrating. However, Rogers does not track or worry about congestion. They'll overload a Node or area, and wait to see how many service calls trickle in to see if there's any issue.
If you don't call in, Rogers assumes your service is perfect.
The fewer people that call in about a congestion issue, the longer Rogers will wait to upgrade the overloaded node. Calling Rogers, god awful experience it is, is the only way Rogers will know it needs to upgrade congested areas.
If enough of us keep filing complaints with the CCTS, CRTC, and the BBB, and any other organization or regulatory body that will listen, perhaps the need for an agency ensure quality service for consumers will be more apparent. Writing politicians, local media, and consumer advocates helps.
I know this thread was about throttling before people start jumping all over me like the comic book guy from the simpsons. I know that throtting is something Rogers does and no service ticket alone will stop throttling.
Sad truth is, none of those agencies want to touch throttling either. The CRTC wrote Rogers a letter, with a list of demands, Rogers just wrote back and said, the system is fine, we're not changing.
We need a regulatory body that ensures customers get a minimum speed that's fair and workable at all times. That their ISP doesn't manipulate their traffic to increase its own profits. We need an agency that can audit ISP's performances and report them to the public. Google Parson ISP audits. Rogers shareholders would be putting more pressure on the board to deliver better service if this becomes an embarressment to Rogers.
Keep calling Everyone!
Agreed with everything said. The problem is not tracking of overuse/overcharges, but the restricted cap limit itself. I'm on Rogers Express, and I find myself not downloading except browsing, yet I still always go over every month. Its ridiculous that I have to stop using the internet for half of the month because of the restrictive cap limit. Its even more ridiculous that the overcharges amount to $2 for every GB used under the express package. Its unjustifiable.