Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Heavy web downloaders face broadband fees

MATT HARTLEY

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:19 PM EDT 27/03/08

Rogers plan charges users for a designated connection speed, caps how much bandwidth they can use in a month ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. A. Nonymous from Compensation, United States writes: I like this idea. I also limit how much data other sites , especially advertising related sites can upload to me.

    I currently set my firewall to block most advertising. For the cases where viewing is required, I throttle the bandwidth to 1kb/s.

    This is good for the networks, as it reduces the load!

    Advertising sites should compensate me, since they are using my bandwidth to show me ads.
  2. andy c from Canada writes: indirectly this means rogers will probably NEVER get the iphone. apple wants all you can eat data packages among other things to officially bring the iphone to canada yet rogers can't even provided unlimited data on there broadband service!
  3. Will Partridge from Delhi, Canada writes: This is an outrage! I'll never use Rogers again!

    Oh wait, I already had half a dozen reasons why I'd never use Rogers again.

    They've always been the worst choice you could make to get online. Horrible service and horrible support. And they're shameless price gougers. Look at this latest new policy -- 5 gigs of bandwidth for $25. For many years I've used an excellent host that sells 40 gigs of bandwidth a month for $10. That's 25 cents a gig, or 1/20th of what Rogers is charging. But hey, they're going to just make up any numbers they want to justify picking your pocket, that's what they've always done.

    Seriously folks -- if you have a Rogers account, and anything else at all is available in your region, change it. You'll never regret it.
  4. Posh Spice from Canada writes: This is just ridiculous, with the rate companies are charging these days for internet services, i would like to go where does the money go???? besides the shareholder's pockets. Why can't these companies whose CEO's earn trillions every year, use the money to expand their internet capacity, by building more lines to handle the massive internet traffic in this country. Knowing that everything we do these days is bandwidth heavy? Parliament cannot sit and let this slide and you know lazy Harper will not budge on anything. Canada is such a backwards country when it comes to technology its embarrassing. It is true we are a 'third world country' when it comes to cell phone technology and might as well as be declared 'third world' when it comes to internet technology as well. Hell we all might as well revert back to using dial-up internet!
  5. Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: Bell now Rogers customers are getting screwed .
  6. Billy Bob from Saskatchewan from Canada writes: No complaints from me :)
  7. Ben SGT/USMC from United States writes:


    Canada now has the internet?
  8. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: Although I'm not a downloader of pirated movies and whatnot, I have to assume that because Rogers is evil this decision must be evil as well.

    Guess what Teddy -- you don't own the Internet!
  9. True North from Canada writes: What a recipe to lose business. In stark contrast, Bell recently upgraded my connection speed by about 3x for free and gave me a promo card to download free music (from their own store of course). The ISP that promotes use of their service will clobber the ISP that penalizes its customers for use of their service.
  10. Malcolm MacKay from Canada writes: Posh Spice ........I don't think I could have said it any better!
  11. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Either Rogers and Bell should roll some of their profits into upgrading systems to handle future bandwidth volumes or we should open the border to foriegn competition.
  12. Go Flames Go!!! from Canada writes: Ben SGT/USMC from United States writes:

    Canada now has the internet?

    ------

    Yeah, but we all still live in igloos, go figure.
  13. True Grit from Calgary, Canada writes: I guess they don't want us downloading t.v. shows since that means we can bypass their overpriced cable t.v. packages.
  14. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Ben SGT/USMC:

    OF COURSE we have the internet....

    How else are we supposed to get the latest fur-trapping statistics, ice fog and snowfall updates, and dog-sledding scores?
  15. J Y from Canada writes: Posh makes a great point... for all the money both Bell and Rogers make... I haven't seen much 'improvements' on service or speed. But guess what? Rogers raised the internet price this month... Dont they do this like every year? It's really just another pathetic excuse for BOTH company to make more money.

    Time to call the retention department!
  16. Jeffrey Charles from Toronto, Canada writes: Insert dirty wrestling eye gouge here. That's exactly what the Canadian consumer is getting from our telecom providers. I don't know who I hate more.
  17. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Look for even more ways to gouge in the future....now it's gamers and movie downloaders....next it'll be music downloaders, and eventually, just anyone who wants to download files.

    Someday there'll be some ridiculously low limit after which they'll gouge the crap outta you. And don't be surprised when all the internet providers are coincidentally charging similar rates.

    If these internet/phone/cable companies were any scummier, they'd be oil companies.
  18. David Griffith from NS, Canada writes: Another reason NOT to use this sleazy bunch for my communication needs.
  19. Not right or left from Canada writes: I'm glad I don't have Rogers internet. My ISP currently has no limits on how much I download. I encourage anyone who has Rogers to check their alternatives to see if they can get a better deal. No sense in giving Robbers, um I mean Rogers your money.
  20. X. T. from Canada writes: folks, stop whining and start jumping.

    I know around Toronto there are a few very inexpensive ADSL providers with unlimited volume and no traffic shaping.

    If that means I have to get a dry loop to screw B&R, I'll take it.
  21. Farhan Anwar from Canada writes: this is stupid, we dont have the speeds offered in other countries and we will have to pay more for the 'opportunity' CRTC has to do something, this will hurt us economically in the long run. slap rogers with fines, for ever $1 they collect for 'overuse' fine them $5
  22. Charles Murray from Toronto, Canada writes: This is another money grab by Rogers. Their monopoly allows them to do pretty much whatever they want. Look for more unpleasant surprises in the future.
  23. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:

    Rogers .. taking care of business. You think Rogers is giving you a deal??
    You might want to read and understand the small print. We in Canada are being screwed big time by these moguls ... look at the UK or Australia where telecom providers compete.
  24. Canada Forever from Canada writes: First, they start by cutting new employees wages in half. IE: as done in the manufacturing sector.

    Second, give people crappy low paying service sector jobs, IE: WalMart in small town communities hard hit by corporate greed.

    Third, charge people high prices for lower quality goods. IE. Product sizes on the grocery mart floor and now charging more for the internet.

    Since you don't have a good paying job anymore you will be forced to go into corporate debt (Hi Visa) and perpetuate a cycle where the investment elite and rich elite get richer while the middle, working and poor stratas of society are forced into a cycle of debt and despair forcing them into jobs like the military, Wal Mart and other poor un-unionized environments.

    Now, for your fun to go watch some youtube or maybe stream some CBC shows, you will have to pay a ridiculous amount, for an internet connection that IS WORSE than before.

    Only a matter of time before people get sick of corporate greed and heads start to roll.
  25. Howard Young from Canada writes: Does this mean they will provide monthly rebates to people who like highspeed whenever they access the internet but are only light users? Fat chance! If Rogers is being undercompensated by heavy bit users they are overcharging light bit users who still like having highspeeds the infrequent times they use the internet. Can you give me a BS answer for that Teddy!?
  26. Gabriel Stefan from Toronto, Canada writes: This is insane. With everything going digital, with movies, games and music now being bought and downloaded online Rogers is going to crap all over their customers. If I was (keyword 'if') Rogers customer I would cancel immediately.
  27. Steve C from Canada writes: Ben SGT/USMC from United States writes:
    Canada now has the internet?

    Heck yeah. That's the problem. All the high speed internet is melting our igloos. That's why Bell and Rogers have to reduce internet speed to make sure we aren't homeless.
  28. Let me tell You How It Is from United States writes: It must suck living in Canada.

    Oh well Canadians being suckers for any hard-luck story will just roll over and accept this as it is in Canadian's nature to let themselves be manipulated by Big Corporations or the Government.
  29. Mike Ryan from Toronto, Canada writes: Within an hour of getting this letter in the mail yesterday I was on the phone to 3rd party DSL provider to switch my service.

    Interestingly Comcast announced today that they are going to now STOP shaping internet traffic and instead boost their capacity by 50%. Neat idea huh? Add bandwidth. Add customers. PROFIT!

    http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/20080327ComcastagreementindisputewithBitTorrent.html
  30. lets think from Canada writes: Why are you complainers staying with Bell and Rogers????
    Change your email to gmail or yahoo, then free yourself! Your REAL friends will adapt to your new email.
    Primus, and many other ISP are not shaping anything.
    By staying, all you do is encouraging monopolies.
  31. Jake Richardson from Kingston, Canada writes: I wrote letters to my MP, the CRTC, and the minister of Industry today. This, along with the Bell story, makes my blood boil.
  32. Dean F from Markham, Canada writes: Wow, only paying $125 a month for cable and internet I can see why they would want to charge more.
  33. Deb Wot from Vancouver, Canada writes: Being in the NWT where they think it is reasonable to charge $30/gb for exceeding 2gb in a month the $5/gb looks very reasonable to me.
  34. Farhan Anwar from Canada writes: lets think from Canada

    incase you didnt know primus and other isps are resellers they do take bell/rogers products at wholesale prices and rebrands those lines to sell it to us.
  35. Philosopher Dog from Toronto, Canada writes: Shop around if you don't like it. I've dropped Bell a long long time ago, and wouldn't ever even consider anything Rogers; forget it. They're crooks. There are plenty of alternatives, far cheaper, less draconian, and frankly with a better product than these companies. Switch your phones too, and you cable while you're at it. They don't deserve your business.
  36. No Name from Canada writes: Some of you are missing the point that Bell is shaping traffic before the ISP. That means it doesn't matter which ISP you use as a consumer you're getting screwed! (Although the BELL situation may clear up with capacity upgrades.)
  37. C Bruner from Toronto, Canada writes: In reaction to this, and Roger's complete lack of transparency with respect to traffic shaping, and in spite of the fact that I am WAY below the 60Gig cap, I gave Rogers 30 days notice of cancelation of both their cable and internet services. I will go with either Tek Savvy or Wireless Nomad who will fight traffic shaping.

    I think I can kill Rogers cell in about 60 days. Anyone else?

    Hope your lenders and shareholders start seeing a nice rise in lapse rates.
  38. one thinker from Canada writes: Policy is driven by the rich market. As in, if businessman were the ones who used a lot of bandwidth then Rogers and Bell would be upgrading their networks instead of doing what they are doing today. Since business use mostly e-mails and a few downloads i bet Rogers and Bell know the backlash of their new policy will be minimum. That idea that as costumers we can control the market is laughable for every one person who leaves Rogers over this issue 5 join in.

    The more i think about it the more it seems that Rogers and Bell want to force people to think how the net should be in their corporate eyes, $$$ and not in their costumers best interest.
  39. C C from Canada writes: 'Boy oh boy, do you cut the advertising out of the news paper before you read it?'

    With Firefox's Adblock (Plus) extension, i've been reading ad-free online newspapers for years.
  40. Posh Spice from Canada writes: let's think wrote about changing your email to gmail or other net based email providers. Besides rogers email is serviced in partnership with yahoo and i think bell sympatico has some kind of tie in with microsoft, so it wouldn't matter if everyone changed their email to yahoo, hotmail, or gmail or whatever. My big question then after is how can i access my email when i am being gouged at the wallet for the net. I have a blackberry and i get frustrated with some emails i get because i can't read them because if it isn't all in text i can't read them (ie involving pictures and links) can't access the links because its too data heavy to access on my phone) I just have the unlimited email option without the data because 4mb of data per month won't cover one web page i can view. I have gmail and hotmail, but i guess i will go back to the old days of talking to people face to face or picking up the phone and talking to a person.
  41. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: For years ISP's hav been overselling their services - they could offer outrageous speeds and high amounts of bandwidth because they knew no one could ever use it sending email. If you sent 100 email's a day and browsed 100 websites a day you couldn't use the amount they 'sold' you. However, now that we all spend time on youtube and listening to music online and downloading, um, legal videos, *we are actually using the bandwidth we've been paying for* and the ISP's aren't to happy about that. They oversold thinking it a no-brainer because you wouldn't use your bandwidth. And now when the shady marketing practices are catching up to them they start scr3wing the customer to make up for their blunder. Got to love it.
  42. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Seems like they want to charge for bandwidth usage so we can't watch TV over the internet. This will protect their cable TV business.
    This is just protecting their monopoly.
    Too bad I don't have a Bell line so I can't use a DSL internet service provider.
  43. Andrew Burke from Canada writes: Canadian / American infrastructure is so ridiculously horrible that we're barely better than a lot of the third world countries. In most Asian, and European countries you can get an Internet connection that only businesses could afford here, for 1/2 the price we pay for a residential connection.
  44. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I think people who are stuck and can't use anything but Rogers or Bell should just show their displeasure by downgrading their cable to basic and saving $25 or $30 per month that way.
    I already did.

    '... No Name from Canada writes: Some of you are missing the point that Bell is shaping traffic before the ISP. That means it doesn't matter which ISP you use as a consumer you're getting screwed! (Although the BELL situation may clear up with capacity upgrades.)...'

    At least Bell won't get all of the profit that they would if you were their customer directly.
  45. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    It is LONG past time to eliminate our stupid protectionist policies! There is absolutely NO REASON why foreign competition shouldn't be allowed into Canada's telecommunication industry. By trying to 'protect' a few thousand jobs at Bell, Rogers and the like we are losing tens of thousands of jobs due to reduced competition and higher costs to business for telecommunications services!

    End this stupid policy NOW!
  46. Scotia Rae from Canada writes: andy c from Canada writes:indirectly this means rogers will probably NEVER get the iphone. HA!!!! The iPhone is never coming to Canada. Apple is ready to role out a new generation of iphones too. Anyone notice how the quality of your handset has decreased lately? That's because the phones we use in Canada are ones meant for the slums of south america and africa becasue the prices are so high nobody in this country can afford new phones due to their data demands. Rogers, Bell and Telus are actually having a hard time even sourcing phones which can be used in Canada! Who's been to the US lately? UK? Look at the teenagers with the phones that have swivel screens, pop-out keyboards, the use of video-messaging, videophone etc etc. RIM is even warning companies in Canada that the next generation of Blackberry will not fully function here due to the fact that the charges would be insanely high. Its crap that Canada is the only country where cell phone usage is going down and prices are going up. Our cellphone penetration believe it or not has actually dropped below that of Iraq! That's right, war torn Iraq has more cell phones per capita then Canada! Now they're going to get us on net access fees. This is hurting productivity in this country - when I travel to the states everyone has a Blackberry down there but we have one for the team because of the costs.
  47. Scotia Rae from Canada writes: andy c from Canada writes:indirectly this means rogers will probably NEVER get the iphone. HA!!!! The iPhone is never coming to Canada. Apple is ready to role out a new generation of iphones too. Anyone notice how the quality of your handset has decreased lately? That's because the phones we use in Canada are ones meant for the slums of south america and africa becasue the prices are so high nobody in this country can afford new phones due to their data demands. Rogers, Bell and Telus are actually having a hard time even sourcing phones which can be used in Canada! Who's been to the US lately? UK? Look at the teenagers with the phones that have swivel screens, pop-out keyboards, the use of video-messaging, videophone etc etc. RIM is even warning companies in Canada that the next generation of Blackberry will not fully function here due to the fact that the charges would be insanely high. Its crap that Canada is the only country where cell phone usage is going down and prices are going up. Our cellphone penetration believe it or not has actually dropped below that of Iraq! That's right, war torn Iraq has more cell phones per capita then Canada! Now they're going to get us on net access fees. This is hurting productivity in this country - when I travel to the states everyone has a Blackberry down there but we have one for the team because of the costs.
  48. Steve . from Western Canada, Canada writes: I dumped Rogers years ago when they spammed my phone and then charged me for the incoming texts. Rogers is a joke and this move just proves it. Anyone who stays with them deserves whatever they get. I guarentee that they're ripping you off. Look very carefully at your bill.
  49. A reader from Canada writes: I have Bell's DSL Basic Internet service and I've noticed these bandwidth charges as of late. This basic plan allows me 2GB of combined download and upload bandwidth activity. Additional bandwidth is $7.50/GB and is charged in increments of 100MB for a maximum of $30/month. The next level up would allow me 60 GB of bandwidth activity. Shouldn't there be levels in between these two?
    1 GB of data would allow me to perform a combination of the following activities: surfing the net for 9 hours/week, sending and receiving 15 e-mails/wk with photo attachments, watching 30 minutes of a video or movie trailers a week, listening to online radio for 1 hour/week. Pretty soon when I buy a newspaper and/or magazine they will charge me for the words I read as well as for the newspaper and/or magazine.
  50. Scotia Rae from Canada writes: I got a letter from Rogers explaining how I'm going to be limited to 40gigs per month and its $2 or something like that for every gig over that limit. There's a nice chart showing my average use over the last few months and February shows my use at about 30 gigs. The thing is that I wasn't home a single day in Feb as I was out of the country. I don't have a wireless connection. So I wandered what kind of chart this is supposed to be? My call to Rogers to question why this was recorded when my computer wasn't even turned on (thinking someobdy hacked my account) returns this statement from their helpdesk 'we can't track the number of gigs you use'. So what does the chart mean? How are they going to do this in the future??? Makes no sense! I've really had it with phone/net services in theis country. Just spend time outside of Canada to come to the same conclusion as me!
  51. R J from Pickering, Canada writes: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And lots of people I know were asking why Rogers had all there internet customers get a 'free modem upgrade' recently.

    Who didn't see this coming?

    Raise your hand and be ashamed.

    Personally, I now know that I use so little bandwidth that I can downgrade my plan (saving $10/month) and still not come close to my usage allowance.
  52. John Stephens from Toronto, Canada writes: This is just another money grab. It's time we got together and required Bell and Rogers to decrease their fees. Their profit is unholy now.
  53. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Tim Cares from Canada writes: 'Too bad I don't have a Bell line so I can't use a DSL internet service provider. '

    What you are looking for is called 'dry loop DSL'. Google it! :)

    Unless you live in a cardboard box, you HAVE a phone line, it's just not active. As long as you potentially COULD get DSL if you had phone service you can get DSL without.

    I don't have land-line phone service and I'm currently paying $39/month for dry loop DSL service (6Mbit/s connection, 200MB bandwidth) through TekSavvy. Service thus far has been outstanding, though they are currently they are being subjected to traffic shaping by Bell. However TekSavvy's CEO has already mentioned that they're looking into legal options to fix this as Bell seems to be doing so in violation of their contract.
  54. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: $5.00 per GB, come on Roger's you can do better than that considering 1GB of bandwidth costs only penny's.

    I don't want it but I fear full regulation of the Internet is looking to be the only solution.

    You'd get a better rate from the mafia, it's time to put an end to this form of corporate robbery or should I say extortion!

    Write your federal MP & complain.
  55. Archie Gillespie from Canada writes: Ben/SGT/USMC

    Yes we have internet. We can now check the US debt minute by minute which is currently at $9,396,167,139,888 and growing at a rate of $1.63 billion per day.
  56. Scotia Rae from Canada writes: Of course Bell Globe Media or whatever they are calling the company right now owns the Globe and Mail so basically this story is Bell bashing Rogers...
  57. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Hooray for monopolies. The best part is whaddya gonna do? If you are outraged, you can switch to Bell. Oh but wait, they are doing the same thing. So I guess you can switch to a third party ISP (Primus, Teksavvy, etc). Oh but wait, they use Bell's network, and Bell is putting the screws to them too. Looks like it's checkmate, the big Media Companies win. Again. Same thing happened when I got outraged with Rogers cable. Where am I going to go?

    Bend over and take it. We've been doing this for so long I'm getting kind of used to it. I give up. White flag. You win Rogers. And although you call me 4 times a day (1-800-394-3135) this time I'll actually pick up, and for the 30th time, not tell you that I don't want your stupid home phone service. I guess you come from the school of thought that if you ask the customer enough times, they will eventually give in. And even if you piss them off, where are they going to go? The non existent competition?
  58. lets think from Canada writes: Spoke too soon. Primus capped at 30K BitTorrent. Trying to download LEGAL OpenOffice via BT. Was going at 500K last week...
    Since I encrypt my emails, I wonder if they cap that too.
    Now that's REALLY ennoying.
  59. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Scotia Rae from Canada writes: Of course Bell Globe Media or whatever they are calling the company right now owns the Globe and Mail so basically this story is Bell bashing Rogers...'

    Did you try reading the story about Bell in the technology section?
  60. parklane 47 from Washington, D.C., United States writes: This is not an industry interested in supporting and investing in internet infrastructure growth or broadband usage. All they have shown is resistance to competition and now respond with a fee schedule that inhibits usage. The CRTC is absent because it represents the interests of industry and NOT the consumer. The politicians are silent because they need to feed from the trough of the lobbyists. May I remind the politicians in Ottawa that you have one constituent, and that is the political economy of this country. Anything you do to erode or undermine this is not in your best interest, regardless of what any industry or association lobbyist tells you. What was once a shining light of Canada to the world is quickly succumbing to a regulatory scheme that protects vested interests. This does not work in the information age.
  61. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: I have no problem with this idea. Those who use the system most should pay the most......a simple supply and demand model that is proven to work.
  62. kwok kwong from toronto, Canada writes: Just boycott all ROGERS SERVICES, abandon it's internet phone, cable tv, internet and wireless etc, consumers' revolt will show our strength towards this greedy decision. data transmission in modern days should be cheaper and cheaper, not more expensive due to monopoly of networks.

    I will never use ROGERS internet since I switched network three years ago, and I always tell my friends the price paid not worth the service given, shame.
  63. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: What genius.

    First, create an insatiable need, an addiction.

    Then, rachet up the cost of that addiction but allow the addiction to always be fed, at a cost of course.

    Oh, pardon me, I thought this was the thread discussing tobacco advertising aimed at kids.
  64. Scotia Rae from Canada writes: R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: I have no problem with this idea. Those who use the system most should pay the most......a simple supply and demand model that is proven to work.

    Its not about who uses it the most - its about the fact that they sold subscribers unlimited downloads and then changed their side of the deal. And above all its about the fact that Rogers and Bell have market collusion which is retarding tech access in Canada. This is bad for the economy as a whole. Its about competition rules being controlled by the monopoly through lobbyists. Its about not having access to the latest technologies the rest of the world has. Its about Canadians not having access to RIM products which are developed in Canada! Above all its about not having any choices as a consumer.
  65. R. Pat from Toronto, Canada writes: Bell is also messing with its customers...
    Yesterday I got a call and email from a Bell rep saying I had to sign a new Sympacico Contract, and under the terms in the new contract my monthly rate increased by $10 and a limited is placed on my montly bandwidth usage (currently I'm on an unlimited plan). Give me less make me pay more... great business model! I think I'll stay on my existing contract on the month-to-month option (albiet at a higher price than existing). Do they really think we are idiots!
  66. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: A reader from Canada writes: _'The next level up [from Sympatico DSL Basic] would allow me 60 GB of bandwidth activity. Shouldn't there be levels in between these two?'_ There are! LOTS of them! Try $25/month for 10GB through TekSavvy $35/month unlimited through Primus $25/month unlimited through 3web $25/month unlimited through Velcom ... just to name a few. There's a whole world of choices out there beyond the big phone and cable companies.
  67. one thinker from Canada writes: R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: I have no problem with this idea. Those who use the system most should pay the most......a simple supply and demand model that is proven to work.

    I'm glad that this is not affecting you at the moment but it should if you think beyond yourself. The way Bell and Rogers are handling this is counter to the idea of net neutrality which states that all content should be treated equally. You may not agree with net neutrality but then maybe you should consider that as the internet is growing many websites use more bandwith, such as You Tube, legal TV and streamline TV.

    I guess what im trying to say is that if you are ok that this issue is not affecting you today then by the time it affects you it may be to late for you to do anything about it because the way Bell and Rogers are going it is only going to get worse.
  68. Mike K from Vancouver, Canada writes: For those of you who think this sounds like a good idea, be very careful. This could easily be the first step towards a tiered bandwidth system that nobody wants. One in which 'premium' content providers receive larger bandwidth allotments than small companies and individuals.

    Google for Net Neutrality, or take a look at http://www.neutrality.ca/ .
  69. Garemi Hussey from Offline ON, Canada writes: The World Wide Web has a bottleneck design that we are all subject to including our ISP's. (See the article referenced below; which was severaly offered to G&M readers and commenters earlier this week when Bell's shaping came to light.) No matter what some of you suppose to be true: only so much data can squeeze through the 'pipe' and loads of people still don't even have a 'valve'. It's well and good to wish completely different infrastructure was already in place for Canadians but the fact is retrofits take time and money not to mention we're still handling the economics of providing basic service in the first place. Ever lived beyond the last utility pole?; some of my 'GTA' friends still do! I am subject to limits based on my user agreement and (I understand) as a 'normal' user I am not hampered nor do I hamper others while online. I am glad my ISP is securing our longstanding relationship as well as protecting my interests. All related stories this week indicate ninety to ninety-five percent of current internet participants will benefit from control efforts vis a vis the Transmission Control Protocol glitch. Although new World Wide Web protocols may relieve/accomodate new/changing use patterns, such solutions are for the future and I'm writing this now. March 24th, 2008 Fixing the unfairness of TCP congestion control http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078&page=1
  70. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: Within 1 hour of getting the letter from Rogers, I decided to solve the problem by upgrading my internet level by 10 bucks -- and slashing my TV package from them by 80 bucks.

    How's that taste, Mr Rogers?
  71. one thinker from Canada writes: 'ESTIMATES vary, but most ANALYSTS agree that peer-to-peer and torrent-based file-sharing programs account for between 70 and 90 per cent of all online bandwidth use, and emanate from as few as 5 to 10 per cent of all users.'

    Where are these 'estimates' taking from and who are these 'analysts'. If there are people who dont believe in global warming after all the data shown from the scientific comunity then i will certainly not trust these 'estimate figures' from some unknow 'analysts'.
  72. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: I would to see more reasons to justify this, it like a choke on people as the net has become a big communication device.

    How much does it costs Rogers for a data to go over their network?
    In some manner it would actually be good for the our country to get everyone connected to the net.

    I wonder what my usage is?
  73. Mike Liu from Toronto, Canada writes: It is not fair to the internet service users. People have their right to choose different services from different sources. The trend of the information highway is to provide higher bandwidth to allow more internet traffic so that the cyber world will be more colorful and make our life more joyful.
    What we are now seeing is that Rogers is not going to build more highways to improve cyber traffic. Instead, it drive people to the country road.
    Rogers claims that their VoIP phone does not affect the internet usage but other VoIP phone will have to pay for the bandwidth. Rogers also want to protect the monopoly cable TV by preventing people to watch internet live TVs. The only use of Internet will go backward to web browsing only which is the cyber life of the last century.
    So, I have to try to find other ISPs to stay away from Rogers and Bell.
  74. dave sharpe from Canada writes: seems like a great way to tank the business model they use
  75. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> Archie Gillespie from Canada writes: Ben/SGT/USMC Yes we have internet. We can now check the US debt minute by minute which is currently at $9,396,167,139,888 and growing at a rate of $1.63 billion per day.

    Zheezh, Archie, thin-skinned or what? Lighten up and take a joke for once.
  76. T O from Canada writes: Rogers' plan is like regressing in time. As the article points out, this is not something I would expect in an age where more people are looking to the internet to watch some of their favourite shows, not to mention share things like pictures.

    Belgium's ISPs offer a similar service and let me tell you, it's AWFUL. We're not the heaviest of internet users - watch a few clips of something per day, surf normally, but for about the same price as you would pay for Rogers' service in Canada, you get a measly 12 GB per month. The only difference is that you can purchase extra bandwith, at 1 euro a pop - unlike the outrageous fees Rogers proposes to charge.

    With that sort of system, they better be keeping the bandwith limit VERY high if they expect to retain any customers. Ridiculous.
  77. Globe Insider subscriber content
    I. Con O'Clast from Canada writes: The 'Net Neutrality' megahorns will convince the 90% of the population that are light users to subsidize their habit because anything but unlimited is an assault on 'democracy'. Get with it, for christ sake. The internet is a commercial enterprise, just like selling beer and beans. The more you consume, the more you should pay.
  78. Free Spirit from Halifax, Canada writes: Archie Gillespie from Canada writes: Ben/SGT/USMC Yes we have internet. We can now check the US debt minute by minute which is currently at $9,396,167,139,888 and growing at a rate of $1.63 billion per day.

    Yeah, the internet is great. I too am watching the US debt meter from the comfort of my igloo. I also like watching the value of the US dollar as it plummets towards zero.
  79. david ferguson from halifax, Canada writes: well, rodgers has never been accused of being less than creative...

    of course, for those whom know how and are worried about it...there are ways to bypass isp restriction anyway...by reshaping your data transfer yourself to misidentify content and if necessary, by using a web proxy.

    let's hope it won't come to that because then we will be talking of a large scale performance hit.

    the internet in Canada is already performance wise (and I'm speaking of high speed or what is termed here as high speed) is already significantly below other countries. We lag well behind in transmission cable routing and that is in high density population centers.

    ultimately, it is a free market economy, and in true Canadian fashion, we pay premium prices (look at mobile data package costs for your mobile phone/pda) for a crippled product, and we should be more than thankful to the suppliers for giving us even that.

    Given issue with Rodgers cellular product, and their company ethic, this surprises me not at all. But then , Rodgers make a living out of providing less than stellar service to end users whom know no better and whom fail to read contractual agreements before signing on.

    this should be interesting.
  80. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: To help people, go to canadianisp.com and see what's available in your area. In the Toronto region there are many many companies to choose from. Even in many remote areas there are lots.
    Normal rates, the going rate it seems, is $30 a month. That's it folks! That's your bill, $30 plus GST. Nothing more, nothing less. Pick something with a good rating and good feedback. A company that made a bit of a name for themselves is teksavvy, but they're not the only company by any means. There are many other very descent choices out there.
    You could rent a DSL modem, but realize you can easily buy one. Any DSL modem you can find on the market most likely will work just fine. DSL modems are a standard thing and not specifically tied to the provider! It's a little box you just plug in, and doesn't interfere with your telephone as long as you insert a filter on each jack in the house. Internet and phone simultaneously. Using the phone does not interrupt or slow down the internet at all. It works by multiplexing high frequency waves on top of the wires you can not hear through the phone. It's magic.
    I've bought my modem for under $25 at canadacomputers.com which even has wireless wifi router built in. This 3wire modem can also be found on ebay for about that price. Other stores will offer other brands. They all just work.
    So, anyway, Rogers is kind of for suckers, really, what a rip. Even with their stupid package 'deals' it just doesn't compete. Even when they give you a 'deal' to retain you as a customer making you feel all special and fuzzy inside, it still isn't good because the 'deal' expires and the price goes back up. Those deals still aren't as good, and you're still stuck with a pothole connection.
  81. Public Servant from Canada writes: I'm not sure video games fall into this category. Internet traffic due to games is quite small, as only small packets of information are sent online. The data itself resides on your machine.

    I don't really mind the increased charges since it does not seem like a sustainable business practice anyway. $5/gb sounds a bit high but this is opento competition. It won't really curb TV viewing online that much either. Were I to pay the $50/month in internet access and theoretically $30 extra for unlimited bandwidth, I would still be paying equal to or less than high speed internet and a standard digital cable package together.

    I agree with other posters though. If you don't like it, change providers.
  82. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    Rogers will not make the required infrastructure investments. The government must transfer the monopoly to a company that will.
  83. mydodge4x4 . from Vancouver, Canada writes: This does not make any sense, if a customer is paying for a certain level etc... they should not block or limit your speed. Maybe I am not getting this, I am with shaw on the extreme package which means my speeds are upto 10mbps which very rarely do i get that. So I pay for it, I don't go over why would it be an issue? Speeds are set by the level of service you pay for, I think this is just away for them to think they control what we do, that's why I do not use them, oh wait except for my cell with Bell, hmmmmmm. Shaw needs to get into the wireless busineess than i can ditch bell. Gotta go, time to get downloading...LOL
  84. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: I imagine most complainers are heavy downloaders...switch if you are unhappy, sen Rogers email explaining your unhappiness, etc., if there is enough noise things will happen, oen reason why Bell is chnaging its ways soemwhat is due to just that, too many folk switching away...

    However, low bandwidth users don't and shouldn't have to subsidize heavy users. The way it works and should work is that you pay more for more bandwidth and faster speeds, and you pay less for lower bandwidth and lower speeds.
  85. A reader from Canada writes: There are many computer users that use their computer to try and scam us and consequently we're being told to keep our antennae up to prevent being scammed ;however, we're now being scammed by the internet providers themselves. We should complain daily until they reduce their fees. Big business and all levels of government continually add new fees and it is time we, the consumers, fight back instead of continually taking it in the chin. Last month I consummed $131 of electricity but with the extra charges the bill came to $258, I consummed $47 of water but with the extra charges the bill came to $101 and I consummed $116 of natural gas but with the extras the bill came to $178.
  86. P Martin from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: Once my year with Rogers is over I will be getting rid of them. That they continue to allow such regressive policies only shows how shortsighted they are. And I use between 2-4GBS per month. But if I ever get to that point, I should not be penalized for doing so.
  87. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes: and the ability to slap new fees left right and centre by the rogers' spooks explains the rush and pressure cooker tactics used by rogers to force all their customers to replace their old (but working great) modems with the new ones... devices that can monitor your every sneeze.

    better customer service? from rogers? hardly. more charges from rogers?? you got it!!
  88. Vern says you're a liar from Ottawa, Canada writes: Erik, I swear only in Canada would someone be concerned about 'low bandwidth users don't and shouldn't have to subsidize heavy users. '
  89. WB L from Toronto, Canada writes: Rogers' latest move is either
    1) anti techno advancement - internet is moving to media rich content and the change should be raising the limit instead;
    2) gouging - again, internet is moving to media rich content and what a move to aqueeze more money from its subscribers.

    But, I don't think Rogers is anti techno advancement. Instead, it is taking advantage of the techno advancement and, together with lowering the cap, it effectively double the effect increasing its revenue stream. What a smart move, from business perspective!

    And, I am sure Rogers will, in its announcement, patronize its subscribers that this lower cap and increase over usage charge are for the good of the subscribers.
  90. William Latanville from Toronto, Canada writes: y'all need to read this article:

    theglobeandmail.com?cid=algamnletter_newsUp

    Bell is currently shaping the data flow of 3rd party ISPs who lease their access from Bell. Rogers is 'unable' to tell us whether they're shaping the data flow from anyone leasing from them. Bets?

    In any case, as long as there are so few providers (Bell, Rogers, Telus), they will always take from the consumer WHATEVER they can get away with.

    One way out of this would be for a Nationalised improvement of the communications infrastructure. While the wires and fibre are in the hands of a few oligarchs, the consumer will always pay a premium rate for the most basic service.

    Metered Internet Billing? that's so 1998...
  91. Mark armstrong from writes: Hmmm....so if I use less bandwidth than the allotted amount, will Rogers refund me the difference? I didn't think so.
  92. Geriatric Personage from EAST, Canada writes: I actually sent a complaint about low speeds to the CRTC and they responded, '... have no jurisdiction and do not intend to pursue such as there is already ample competition..' In fact Canada has one of the slowest broadband speeds (average) of all western countries and is immeasurably slower then most far east countries.
  93. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> William Latanville from Toronto, Canada writes: One way out of this would be for a Nationalised improvement of the communications infrastructure. While the wires and fibre are in the hands of a few oligarchs, the consumer will always pay a premium rate for the most basic service.

    I think you'd have a hard time of it convincing the 'man in the street' that handing anything to government is going to lower the price on it :}