The messenger's message is no reason to flame her, but the messengers facetious rationalizations of this ridiculous policy decision is.
I hate Bell like nobody's business however I don't hate Julie Smithers (Bell's spokesperson) since she's just another working bloke trying to cash a paycheck - I save my hate for Bell CEO George Cope.--
reply
Livadia @ 2nd Apr 03:45PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
Yes, it is a minority that is causing the issue and logic should dictate that means there is no big issue but it's kinda the 20/80 rule where 20% of the people use 80% of the resources
Well, you may be right. I do not use more than 20-30 GB per month (I might have reached the 60 GB once), so what about that majority? Why don't you have a lower limit (same or slightly lower speed) for, say, $10 less per month?
The 'light' service is a joke, so do not direct me to that.
reply
AceOfHertz @ 2nd Apr 03:45PM:
Re: Usage Billing
The reason it isn't clear yet is because you're getting this off of forums. When we make the communication to customers about usage-based billing being implemented, we'll have more answers available.
reply
Snickerdo @ 2nd Apr 03:45PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :
Nobody has confirmed that you that when you hit the bandwidth charge cap you can keep downloading (and if you can, for how much). So don't assume 200g on standard will be $80. And if it is allowed, I'm sure 'those who are watching' will fix that loophole, otherwise what's the point of all this, just sell unlimited for $80.
Those are excellent points, but the impression I got from Krispy's post is that they will be dealing with 'excessive' bandwidth use on a case-by-case basis, and you're not going to be cut off when you hit your $30/$50 maximum. Indeed, I'm under the impression that for $80/month you can get an "almost unlimited" 10Mbit/640kbit account. Considering that Cogeco generally didn't cut users off until they got into the 250-500GB range before, I don't expect things to be much different.
Then again, Cogeco has really gone downhill in the last few years. I honestly don't think any better of them than I do Bell, and that's saying a lot. I see two companies desperately trying to protect their core TV business by making it financially impossible for Internet subscribers to begin using the rich media content that has started to be posted online. They're more or less killing net neutrality by proxy. I'm not impressed.
The most depressing thing of all is that all DSL providers in Ontario will eventually be screwed over as well, since the CRTC will probably cave in and let Bell do their 60GB cap at the GAS level, and their bandwidth charges at the GAS level, and then we're all fucked. The usual people who come in here screaming Teksavvy will be just as screwed as the rest of us soon enough.
Welcome to the Internet in 2009. Who would have thought we'd go backward, and that four or five years ago we'd have a better and more reliable service than we have now?
Thanks for nothing Cogeco. I kind of knew something was up with the hard caps. Now you've just proven you suck as much as everybody else.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 03:48PM:
Re: Usage Billing
i may lave cogeco and go with rogers i dont know but i will see what happends beforhand
reply
Snickerdo @ 2nd Apr 03:51PM:
Re: Usage Billing
It's also interesting to note that it'll be cheaper to go on a business connection with a 200GB cap and the same speed than it will be to stay on Pro and use 130GB.
Their marketing department is fucked. Where did they go to school, Brock or something? Geez.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
xeroid2 @ 2nd Apr 03:53PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Krispy is staying silent on this one ..... come to your own conclusions:
There are serious questions that challenge yours or Cogeco's position that have gone unanswered. Cogeco is very healthy and very profitable. It is paying dividends to shareholders in a recession! Show us all a report that Cogeco is hurting so bad that would justify this move by Cogeco to gouge it's own customers? If you can't or won't, then our conclusions of corporate greed must be correct. Don't stay silent when it's convenient for you!
reply
pnear @ 2nd Apr 04:01PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Assuming that there are decision makers watching this thread, I'll try to represent what I feel is a more moderate view on charging for caps.
My usage profile:
- Heavy web user
- Digital mediaphile
- Dad with a young family
- Generally a happy customer
My heavy bandwidth uses:
- My PVR fails to record a TV show properly due to pre-empting or technical issues, and I seek the content out online. Prefer to grab it from sites hosted by the content providers but not always possible.
- I choose to download a HD movie from the internet, whether that's via XBox Live or some other service
- I beta test digital media and other software, and regularly download DVD-sized images
My expected future needs:
- Expanding options for HD content on demand from legitimate online sources
- Unknown demand from growing children
My view on soft caps:
- Current bandwidth limit is generally acceptable, but if I have a rough month with the PVR sometimes I get close to or go over the cap. I try not to, but sometimes do. I understand that I might get a call, but to this point haven't.
My view on hard caps:
- My bandwidth needs are only going to go up, and they're going to go up in ways that I can't always predict or monitor
- I'm scared of the bill that might arrive one day, whereas before it would have been an email or phone call. If I get the notification early in the month, there's not much I can do about it. The repercutions are less about the $30 and more about the conversation it will force about household expenses.
My behaviour as of this weekend:
- Because I'm watching this thread, it forces me to think in advance about the household expenses conversation.
- I'm going to fire up a spreadsheet with overall costs and re-evaluate.
- The likely outcome of this will be to keep internet where it is, cancel all but analog tv, and rely more on HD over the antenna for my primary needs.
- A possible outcome of this will be that I determine it is more cost effective for me to switch to other providers for TV and internet services. Right now I'm trying to decide if Teksavvy + a US VPN service to get access to Hulu + OTA antenna will suffice and cancel cable altogether.
What's the point of this:
- I'm a happy customer, I think a good customer, and this decision is almost guaranteed to cost Cogeco some business (ironically, probably not internet business)
- I'm also an influencer, and you will definitely suffer from the loss of recommendation to the hundreds of new Milton residents to whom I've said "get Cogeco, it's the best option"
This isn't a vent, it's just a statement of fact of how this decision may impact the revenue that Cogeco enjoys from me as a customer. I'd be happy to discuss in person or over the phone.
I never like to leave on a "this is how you suck" note, rather I prefer to end on a "here's how you can improve". It's reasonable to consider me someone who is clueing in earlier than the mass market that I don't have to consume TV and movies in the way I've been forced to consume them in the past. That's what's eating up bandwidth, and that's what's causing me to consider cancelling my cable TV service. Here are some things you should consider to keep me around:
- Similar to what Rogers has announced, make TV content available on demand over the internet to your cable TV customers
- Make HD movies available on demand, and not just via your really bad set top boxes. Let me at them via the XBox, the PS3, my computer, my iPod (ie sell me content, not device-specific content)
I will pay for these services, you can even keep them within your own network. I just won't pay for them twice.
I hope that was constructive and helpful for making future decisions. I know I've said some things without providing detail or fully explaining them (that would take another few pages). As mentioned earlier, happy to go into detail in person or on the phone.
Pete
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 06:16PM:
Re: Usage Billing
If they want to go to usage billing, fine. Then drop the throttling.
They (all ISPs) must drop the DPI boxes. Period. Manage the network without looking in the packets. If it slows down due to extra traffic, fine, we'll deal with it.
DPI is not network management. It's service management. Huge difference!!!
DPI should be a (Judge approved) law enforcement tool only !!
I've seen these boxes in action and I'm here to tell you that your entire HTTPS SSL session with your bank can be decrypted !!! Google "man in the middle attack" for the basics of how it works. Do you want your ISP to have access to your banking info? No but sadly, we put up with it because of very limited choices.
There is an inherent conflict of interest in a company providing both Internet Service and TV content and the two should be fully independent.
"Hey ! You internet guys are letting people download movies and our Pay-Per-View movie revenue is dropping off !!"
" No problem, we've got DPI to fix those evil movie downloaders !!"
Seriously folks, the ISP's are at their very, very best today! Higher rates for declining services is here to stay.
Reading Cogeco's Annual Statement, it's telling that you and I are referred to as Revenue Generating Units not Customers ...
COGECO uses growth of operating income before amortization, free cash flow and revenue-generating units (RGU) growth in order to measure its performance against these objectives for the cable sector.
... their objectives are very clear ...
CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES
COGECO Inc.’s (“COGECO” or the “Company”) objectives are to maximize shareholder value by increasing profitability and ensuring continued growth.
It doesn't say " ... give the customer the best value for dollar ... " does it?
Those considering switching (like I did from Bell (phone(s), ExpressVu, and Sympatico ... ALL of it!!!)), because of heavy handed, unethical and shoddy business practices, don't bother. They're all the same. The big ones in monopoly positions, at least. My local choices are Bell and Cogeco.
What really irks me is the unilateral changes to a contractual agreement. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to send them $20 less than my bill because I was facing rising costs elsewhere.
It makes me want to abandon the net for good.
It's nastier than you think.
reply
AceOfHertz @ 2nd Apr 04:12PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by pnear :
I never like to leave on a "this is how you suck" note, rather I prefer to end on a "here's how you can improve". It's reasonable to consider me someone who is clueing in earlier than the mass market that I don't have to consume TV and movies in the way I've been forced to consume them in the past. That's what's eating up bandwidth, and that's what's causing me to consider cancelling my cable TV service. Here are some things you should consider to keep me around:
- Similar to what Rogers has announced, make TV content available on demand over the internet to your cable TV customers
- Make HD movies available on demand, and not just via your really bad set top boxes. Let me at them via the XBox, the PS3, my computer, my iPod (ie sell me content, not device-specific content)
I normally don't post in response to bandwidth rants, but this one kind of deserved one. Thanks for being civil in your post and providing positive constructive suggestions.
reply
Asawulf @ 2nd Apr 04:18PM:
Re: Usage Billing
His actual question is that he was wondering what happened after he reached the bandwidth charge cap and I answered that question; now if you want to know the next threshold where something might happen (a call, disconnect, etc who knows [no I don't know]) that's a totally different question ;)
But I know you're an intelligent man urbanriot and that it's prolly exactly what you want to know ;) but this will be, as another post said, on a case-to-case basis and I cannot give the details... I'm hoping it'll be in the official information that should be released shortly...
reply
ancodia @ 2nd Apr 04:24PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ThingsCostMoney :said by ancodia :
I think the problem is we all know how cheap the bandwidth is, so we have a pretty good idea of just how much Cogeco is marking it up & people can't help but feel completely ripped off. And to make it worse, the company that is overcharging you doesn't care because they know you have nowhere else to go.
Okay, so you know how cheap Transit is, but do you know how 'cheap' everything else is?
The costs are clearly not simply how much you pay for Transit and how much the subscriber has to pay. There is a massive amount of infrastructure required to get that packet from the LAN port of your cable modem through the coax network, into the CMTS, through to the Fibre Ring to get it to the Transit link. Costs that definitely DO go up when your usage goes up.
How much does a CMTS cost (cable router)? To maintain? Upgrade?
How much does a province wide redundant Fibre Ring cost? To maintain? Upgrade?
How much do service techs in every city cost to employ? To train? To supply with gear and materials?
How much does it cost to build a Headend? To maintain? To operate? Upgrade?
How much does it cost to build fibre runs to each node? To maintain? To operate? Upgrade?
How much does it cost to run coax from your node to pass each and every single home in a city (multiplied by every city that the cableco services)? To maintain? To operate? Rebuild?
How much does it cost to pay for 100+ person call centre? To Train? To supply with gear and materials?
How much does it cost to employ the skilled and able technicians to install, configure, and maintain this gear? To train? To supply with gear and materials?
...and it goes on.
Clearly if you could do all this without the infrastructure and costs associated, I want to buy stock in YOUR company and make billions.
All those costs should be covered in the fixed montly charge (which can't really be THAT much, look how much it costs monthly to keep a modem lit for a Cogeco-light user). So almost everything should be covered regardless if a user moves 1 byte or 100 bytes. I still think Cogeco is simply bandwidth starved due to HDTV signals (proven by the fact most areas still can't get everything available). So what you are doing is using one customer base to help grow the other. Same problem Bell has trying to roll out IPTV. I wonder how many people are downloading tv shows/movies because your hdtv recievers after two years STILL suffer from constant audio drop outs.
reply
urbanriot @ 2nd Apr 04:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Asawulf :
but this will be, as another post said, on a case-to-case basis and I cannot give the details... I'm hoping it'll be in the official information that should be released shortly...
All right, thanks. I figured it was ambiguous or intentionally left out for a reason, but Cogeco needs to consider that people will be changing plans directly based off information they receive; If it's alluded that people can download another 150GB after paying a 'max' fee, then people will expect that they should be able to do that. If people then find out that information wasn't accurate, they'll be in for a disappointment.
reply
kushiro @ 2nd Apr 04:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Snickerdo :
It's also interesting to note that it'll be cheaper to go on a business connection with a 200GB cap and the same speed than it will be to stay on Pro and use 130GB.
I've been thinking about this, too, since being a Standard user means I get half the bandwidth for only 2 bucks less. But isn't there a huge "installation" fee for Business?
reply
Shamans @ 2nd Apr 04:32PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by kushiro :said by Snickerdo :
It's also interesting to note that it'll be cheaper to go on a business connection with a 200GB cap and the same speed than it will be to stay on Pro and use 130GB.
I've been thinking about this, too, since being a Standard user means I get half the bandwidth for only 2 bucks less. But isn't there a huge "installation" fee for Business?
nope. it's just managed by a different department.
reply
kushiro @ 2nd Apr 04:39PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Shamans :said by kushiro :said by Snickerdo :
It's also interesting to note that it'll be cheaper to go on a business connection with a 200GB cap and the same speed than it will be to stay on Pro and use 130GB.
I've been thinking about this, too, since being a Standard user means I get half the bandwidth for only 2 bucks less. But isn't there a huge "installation" fee for Business?
nope. it's just managed by a different department.
If that's true then they should change the information on the webpage, which states:
Price**
.
.
.
**Taxes not included. Basic installation fees of $129.95 not included.
reply
Shamans @ 2nd Apr 04:44PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by kushiro :
If that's true then they should change the information on the webpage, which states:
Price**
.
.
.
**Taxes not included. Basic installation fees of $129.95 not included.
If you don't have an existing installation then yes, there's an installation fee. But there's nothing to differentiate residential from business plans from an installation perspective. Therefore you can switch immediately from residential to business at no additional cost.
reply
Snickerdo @ 2nd Apr 04:46PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Shamans :
If you don't have an existing installation then yes, there's an installation fee. But there's nothing to differentiate residential from business plans from an installation perspective. Therefore you can switch immediately from residential to business at no additional cost.
... and even then, when I do have a business account set up for someone, the installation fee is waived by our rep at Cogeco.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
18526190 @ 2nd Apr 04:47PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I'm thinking of switching to a Soho Business plan from cogeco in the future. I hope the install fee isn't $129 because thats a deal killer for me. I already have cable running to my place but it needs to be put back into one piece about 8 years ago a tree was cut down and when they were removing the trunk the cable line got cut. I can point them to the exact spot the able is so it should be too hard to put back into 1 piece.
reply
Ignite @ 2nd Apr 04:51PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I'm sure I remember quite a few posts from people complaining about the bit caps and wanting ways to pay for extra transfer.
There you go! ;)
reply
Asawulf @ 2nd Apr 04:58PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :said by Asawulf :
but this will be, as another post said, on a case-to-case basis and I cannot give the details... I'm hoping it'll be in the official information that should be released shortly...
All right, thanks. I figured it was ambiguous or intentionally left out for a reason, but Cogeco needs to consider that people will be changing plans directly based off information they receive; If it's alluded that people can download another 150GB after paying a 'max' fee, then people will expect that they should be able to do that. If people then find out that information wasn't accurate, they'll be in for a disappointment.
It's ambiguous for us too atm because the information hasn't been made public yet...
And I understand the problem with unaccurate information hence why I'd rather not state anything on that matter as of now in case it changes tomorrow (that shows that the project prolly isn't final yet eh? :P)...
The right people are watching and taking notes about what you have to say... (except for unintelligent comments and rants; so the best way to get your points thru is by doing what pnear did ;) )
Hammering the thread with posts over and over again will just get your opinion discarded as venting...
To finish this post I'll state something :
People yelled that they'd rather pay for usage than being cut after going over the cap (that is stated in the AUP) - Cogeco listened
People yelled that they didn't wanna pay 1-3$ per GB without having a capped overcharge - Cogeco listened
People yelled that they didn't wanna get a degraded Internet experience because "the kids" (I jest...) next door were eating all the bandwidh all day long - Cogeco listened
People yelled that their habits weren't degrading the services but that they wanted more speed, more bandwidth and more stability - Cogeco listened
All the costs associated with any request above, unfortunatly, will be more directed towards heavy users and of course it is always like that... The time to upgrade the whole HFC plant isn't because of grandma checking her 3 mails a day; but because people with higher knowledge and new media tend to use and abuse (bad term I know but there isn't one that comes to my mind...) the network more than others...
So all that being said, remember that Cogeco's intention was never to please EVERYONE; but to please the majority of the users...
reply
Celery @ 2nd Apr 05:01PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Gonna play a bit of devil's advocate here, ancodia. Also, in the interest of disclosure, I used to work in the Call Centre at Cogeco for two years. I left at the end of '05.
Hawkesbury was an area that got internet not too long ago... Pembroke is probably still is left in the lurch without internet. Cable plants take a lot of time and money to upgrade. Just a few things that cost a LOT of money are: Plant/Headend upgrades for two-way communication, permits, trenching, laying fiber, wages, etc... I shudder to think of the cost of laying new equipment when upgrading an old system.
Now, after saying that... I'm not one who uses a lot of bandwidth myself (I've maxed maybe at 40GB a month a few times), but I understand the frustrations of people posting here and I'm disappointed with the new caps as well.
To Louis Audet and the rest of the Board of Directors at Cogeco who might read this: We are a small, but vocal minority and many of us have highly recommended this company to many friends. Unfortunately, the corporate decision that was made to implement this pricing structure with these low caps is alienating this highly vocal paying customer base.
Krispy has put her neck out to inform us of the coming changes. As you can read by the many replies, your call centre might have won an award two years running, however the bandwidth and pricing policies by your company is completely out of touch.
reply
ancodia @ 2nd Apr 05:02PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Asawulf :said by urbanriot :said by Asawulf :
but this will be, as another post said, on a case-to-case basis and I cannot give the details... I'm hoping it'll be in the official information that should be released shortly...
All right, thanks. I figured it was ambiguous or intentionally left out for a reason, but Cogeco needs to consider that people will be changing plans directly based off information they receive; If it's alluded that people can download another 150GB after paying a 'max' fee, then people will expect that they should be able to do that. If people then find out that information wasn't accurate, they'll be in for a disappointment.
It's ambiguous for us too atm because the information hasn't been made public yet...
And I understand the problem with unaccurate information hence why I'd rather not state anything on that matter as of now in case it changes tomorrow (that shows that the project prolly isn't final yet eh? :P)...
The right people are watching and taking notes about what you have to say... (except for unintelligent comments and rants; so the best way to get your points thru is by doing what pnear did ;) )
Hammering the thread with posts over and over again will just get your opinion discarded as venting...
To finish this post I'll state something :
People yelled that they'd rather pay for usage than being cut after going over the cap (that is stated in the AUP) - Cogeco listened
People yelled that they didn't wanna pay 1-3$ per GB without having a capped overcharge - Cogeco listened
People yelled that they didn't wanna get a degraded Internet experience because "the kids" (I jest...) next door were eating all the bandwidh all day long - Cogeco listened
People yelled that their habits weren't degrading the services but that they wanted more speed, more bandwidth and more stability - Cogeco listened
All the costs associated with any request above, unfortunatly, will be more directed towards heavy users and of course it is always like that... The time to upgrade the whole HFC plant isn't because of grandma checking her 3 mails a day; but because people with higher knowledge and new media tend to use and abuse (bad term I know but there isn't one that comes to my mind...) the network more than others...
So all that being said, remember that Cogeco's intention was never to please EVERYONE; but to please the majority of the users...
Like how they 'listened' to all the requests for a higher cap (and they were/are numerous)? Care to address what happened to that request? or how about how Cogeco can bump the costs for the customer up 5% every year but the service delivered keeps shrinking or remains the same (even though the cost for equipment/transit lowers every year). Care to address that? Why don't you bump the cap up 5% every year? :)
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 05:07PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Asawulf @ 2nd Apr 05:12PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :
Why don't you bump the cap up 5% every year? :)
Sorry to say, but the prices have NOT been raised 5% per year in the past years...
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 05:19PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
urbanriot @ 2nd Apr 05:24PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Asawulf :
People yelled
That's the problem - the people who aren't yelling don't get a voice until it's too late. It wouldn't be too much to do some random polling amongst Cogeco subscribers.
reply
Asawulf @ 2nd Apr 05:24PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Just to be sure I had my account checked and in 2000 I was paying 39.99/month and guess what? The price announced on the website for Qc (»www.cogeco.ca/fr/hsi_pack_q.html) is still the same !
reply
xeroid2 @ 2nd Apr 05:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all owned businesses and could do as we pleased and just raise the rates we charge our customers so we could pay our top Executives more money and build new plants and infrastructure and offer even more services for even more money all off the backs of our existing customers! WOW ... I dare anyone to go into business with this mentality and see how long you last.
reply
Shamans @ 2nd Apr 05:27PM:
Re: Usage Billing
If people doing Cogeco policy are listening in...then here's an idea...
why not record bandwidth usage at a discount/lower percentage during off-peak hours and post a off-peak schedule? I, myself, don't really care when I do my downloading as long as it gets transferred within a week.
No matter what policy changes Cogeco makes, people are going to be unhappy simply because the value of service was greater in the past.
In response to more bandwidth usage, isn't there a better solution other than degrading value of service or increasing prices?
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 05:29PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
ancodia @ 2nd Apr 05:30PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Asawulf :said by ancodia :
Why don't you bump the cap up 5% every year? :)
Sorry to say, but the prices have NOT been raised 5% per year in the past years...
Effective November 16, 2007, the monthly rate of Your Internet Standard service will increase from $47.95 to $52.95. How much is that? about 10%. My mistake, I though it occured last year, I was off a year. But looks like you did the extra 5% then to cover 2008 so you can work on the UBB plan ...
We are due for another soon. Turns out it's disguised as UBB. Very creative. :uhh:
reply
katmeef @ 2nd Apr 05:35PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Livadia :
Well, you may be right. I do not use more than 20-30 GB per month (I might have reached the 60 GB once), so what about that majority? Why don't you have a lower limit (same or slightly lower speed) for, say, $10 less per month?
there was a new 'lite plus' option recently released »www.cogeco.ca/en/high-speed-internet-_o.html
reply
urbanriot @ 2nd Apr 05:41PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
That's correct, most of the people supporting this think only 1-5% of Cogeco customers go over their bandwidth cap - that number is false.
The 5% originally came from Krispy, and I have no reason to doubt her. That number seems very inline with the large amount of people I've encountered using Cogeco, but I'm sure personal experience can vary and I understand why you might not trust Krispy.
Since Cogeco implemented hard caps, they've had a year and a half to analyze and parse all the relevant information that would indicate whether or not they'll face a large defection of Cogeco users. I'm sure they wouldn't implement this, if they didn't feel the losses they'd encounter would offset the money they'd make.
But we're talking about something that's greater than numbers. We're talking about customer loyalty and satisfaction which leads to an increased customer base through word of mouth, and this can't easily be gauged by percentages, graphs and overage charges.
said by Shamans :
why not record bandwidth usage at a discount/lower percentage during off-peak hours and post a off-peak schedule? I, myself, don't really care when I do my downloading as long as it gets transferred within a week.
Now that's a great idea. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the excessive user base would be savvy enough and more than happy to queue up and schedule data transfers between certain times.
This is what I'm talking about... working with your customers to reach a satisfactory solution between both parties, instead of slapping them in the face with hard, backwards policies.
Is Cogeco trying to milk money from their users, or are they attempting to provide a satisfactory internet experience for everyone? The latter can be achieved if you work with your users. As exhibited by a few posts, this high bandwidth user base isn't entirely comprised of children downloading music and movies, some of these people are adults with families.
reply
Pizz @ 2nd Apr 05:41PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ThingsCostMoney :said by ancodia :
I think the problem is we all know how cheap the bandwidth is, so we have a pretty good idea of just how much Cogeco is marking it up & people can't help but feel completely ripped off. And to make it worse, the company that is overcharging you doesn't care because they know you have nowhere else to go.
Okay, so you know how cheap Transit is, but do you know how 'cheap' everything else is?
The costs are clearly not simply how much you pay for Transit and how much the subscriber has to pay. There is a massive amount of infrastructure required to get that packet from the LAN port of your cable modem through the coax network, into the CMTS, through to the Fibre Ring to get it to the Transit link. Costs that definitely DO go up when your usage goes up.
How much does a CMTS cost (cable router)? To maintain? Upgrade?
How much does a province wide redundant Fibre Ring cost? To maintain? Upgrade?
How much do service techs in every city cost to employ? To train? To supply with gear and materials?
How much does it cost to build a Headend? To maintain? To operate? Upgrade?
How much does it cost to build fibre runs to each node? To maintain? To operate? Upgrade?
How much does it cost to run coax from your node to pass each and every single home in a city (multiplied by every city that the cableco services)? To maintain? To operate? Rebuild?
How much does it cost to pay for 100+ person call centre? To Train? To supply with gear and materials?
How much does it cost to employ the skilled and able technicians to install, configure, and maintain this gear? To train? To supply with gear and materials?
...and it goes on.
Clearly if you could do all this without the infrastructure and costs associated, I want to buy stock in YOUR company and make billions.
Headend/Last-Mile Run gear, is all dependent on the Vendor. Vendors set pricing based on what the provider needs, and how much they've bought. Call center techs - are dirt cheap, and if you outsource it's even cheaper.
Maintain of said network(s) - is all dependent on how they planned said networks out, and what sort of future upgrades, they can and cannot do, without having to 'gut' out the entire infrastructure. Majority of the Cable Operators, skimmed on build outs, because they didnt want to spend all the wonderful money they got from agreements.
THeir profit margins and costs are all reflective to their set pricing. Right now transit is dirt cheap. Vendor pricing on equipment is something that isnt cheap, but pays for itself down the road. You eat the costs now, so you won't have problems like this Cable Operator, and other "cheap" operators are facing. Bandwidth issues/Node Level Congestion/Last Mile Crunches/ are only a problem, with networks still using gear from the 90s.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.
reply
Krispy @ 2nd Apr 05:42PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Pizz :
Krispy, can you list what your upstream providers are?
I don't remember offhand and the place where I'd find this info is not cooperating with me at the moment so I'll have to get back to you on this if someone else hasn't yet.
That said, I kinda know where this is going as you likely want to investigate and post a "See Cogeco only pays X per Mb" type post - while you're certainly welcome to do that the reality is, as others have already posted, the pure cost of transit is not the end all, be all of the cost of getting that transit from point A to point B. I know I'm upsetting people with analogies so I'm trying to keep them to a minimum but basing the cost of your service solely on what transit providers are charging per Mb is akin to a teenager assuming the cost of a car is $10 as that's all the money they need to put in the gastank to get from point A to point B.
And while the next comment isn't directed at you Pizz (or anyone in particular) I figure I'll just add it in here since this post will likely infuriate people anyway -- as for all the comments about profits, etc...sure, one can argue the profit angle however I'd just like to point out that we do live in a capitalist society and Cogeco is not a non-profit organization. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to live in Gene Roddenberry land where money doesn't exist however I'm aware that I don't live there so have to acknowledge this fact.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Celery @ 2nd Apr 05:43PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Asawulf :Just to be sure I had my account checked and in 2000 I was paying 39.99/month and guess what? The price announced on the website for Qc (»
www.cogeco.ca/fr/hsi_pack_q.html) is still the same !
Unfortunately, Ontario has not been as lucky as Quebec. I was paying $34.95 for standalone HSI in '97. Standard now is $52.95, which is an $18 increase over 12 years. That's 5% compounded every year for 10 years. I'd say that 5% number reflects very well on the charges we're paying here.
reply
Krispy @ 2nd Apr 05:45PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Shamans :
By the way, Krispy, what will happen to commercial accounts in the interim? Are they still on old 2 e-mail bandwidth warnings + 2 suspension plan?
I really don't know right now, trying to find out and will let you know when I know (note: I'm sure someone here knows, I just don't as it's been an incredibly busy week for me regardless of the bitcap stuff).
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Pizz @ 2nd Apr 05:46PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Shamans :
If people doing Cogeco policy are listening in...then here's an idea...
why not record bandwidth usage at a discount/lower percentage during off-peak hours and post a off-peak schedule? I, myself, don't really care when I do my downloading as long as it gets transferred within a week.
No matter what policy changes Cogeco makes, people are going to be unhappy simply because the value of service was greater in the past.
In response to more bandwidth usage, isn't there a better solution other than degrading value of service or increasing prices?
ISPs have agreements with their bandwidth suppliers, which has offpeak usage and peak usage. They dont play a flat rate, they pay per peak usage, and how many connections they need. Say for example cogeco during peak hours, pay 15 cents a gig, but on off-peak they pay only 5 cents. They will not in-return reflect that cost onto you.
reply
DrunkenClam @ 2nd Apr 05:47PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Take what Asawulf says with a grain of salt. He like others have been proven wrong on this forum many times before with promising cap increases to denying throttling and he is just here to defend cogeco and that's it...nothing else and the information he gives is speculative at best, he's just a isolated call centre employee.
About this situation, Docsis 3.0 and inter politics of harvester I know a fair share :) Also know that no matter how you complain it will be considered, even if it does make cogeco look incompetent.
Krispy is the credible one with facts when she isn't posting propaganda.
reply
ancodia @ 2nd Apr 05:48PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Pizz :said by Shamans :
If people doing Cogeco policy are listening in...then here's an idea...
why not record bandwidth usage at a discount/lower percentage during off-peak hours and post a off-peak schedule? I, myself, don't really care when I do my downloading as long as it gets transferred within a week.
No matter what policy changes Cogeco makes, people are going to be unhappy simply because the value of service was greater in the past.
In response to more bandwidth usage, isn't there a better solution other than degrading value of service or increasing prices?
ISPs have agreements with their bandwidth suppliers, which has offpeak usage and peak usage. They dont play a flat rate, they pay per peak usage, and how many connections they need. Say for example cogeco during peak hours, pay 15 cents a gig, but on off-peak they pay only 5 cents. They will not in-return reflect that cost onto you.
Are you sure about that? For the company I work for, I had a choice of either per mbit commit billing or percentile billing. Bell/Telus has never mentioned peak/offpeak billing to me.
reply
Krispy @ 2nd Apr 05:49PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :
Or Krispy doesn't have the facts on this yet.
That's the deal at the moment...I honestly don't know. That said, if/when I do find out I probably won't detail it here as that's kinda like asking a cop to publicly post the real limit they'll pull you over on the QEW -- signs say 100kph max but we all know very few of us get pulled over for doing 101kph
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
urbanriot @ 2nd Apr 05:50PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
I'd just like to point out that we do live in a capitalist society and Cogeco is not a non-profit organization.
I am very much pro capitalism, and I agree with you completely; But as my previous post attempted to point out, an attempt to work with Cogeco's user base isn't being made. This seems like a greedy money grab masked under the guise of "enhancing the internet experience for everyone."
Why not make bandwidth exceptions for people using Cogeco's news server?
Why not implement a 1/2 bandwidth charge for people downloading in the early morning, when they're not harming anyone?
reply
Snickerdo @ 2nd Apr 05:50PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Pizz :
ISPs have agreements with their bandwidth suppliers, which has offpeak usage and peak usage. They dont play a flat rate, they pay per peak usage, and how many connections they need. Say for example cogeco during peak hours, pay 15 cents a gig, but on off-peak they pay only 5 cents. They will not in-return reflect that cost onto you.
That's probably not how it works in Cogeco's case. It's probably based on burstable bandwidth and a percentile of how much of their burstable pipe they use and how often they use it. I highly doubt they pay for actual "gigabytes" or anything like that, though I suppose you could do the math and figure out an actual per-gigabyte bandwidth charge based on their burst usage.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
Krispy @ 2nd Apr 05:51PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Livadia :
Well, you may be right. I do not use more than 20-30 GB per month (I might have reached the 60 GB once), so what about that majority? Why don't you have a lower limit (same or slightly lower speed) for, say, $10 less per month?
Might be an idea so I'll leave it to the decision folks that are reading and will verbally mention it if the occasion arises.
Actually to avoid posting one off "that's a good idea" responses please note that I feel this way about all the suggestions and I will verbalize them if/when the occasion arises.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 06:17PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by urbanriot :
Or Krispy doesn't have the facts on this yet.
That's the deal at the moment...I honestly don't know. That said, if/when I do find out I probably won't detail it here as that's kinda like asking a cop to publicly post the real limit they'll pull you over on the QEW -- signs say 100kph max but we all know very few of us get pulled over for doing 101kph
The problem here is not being pulled over for speeding. It's being pulled over at 3 a.m. on an empty highway and told you're disrupting traffic.
reply
Krispy @ 2nd Apr 05:55PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by pnear :
Assuming that there are decision makers watching this thread, I'll try to represent what I feel is a more moderate view on charging for caps.
My usage profile:
- Heavy web user
- Digital mediaphile
- Dad with a young family
- Generally a happy customer
My heavy bandwidth uses:
- My PVR fails to record a TV show properly due to pre-empting or technical issues, and I seek the content out online. Prefer to grab it from sites hosted by the content providers but not always possible.
- I choose to download a HD movie from the internet, whether that's via XBox Live or some other service
- I beta test digital media and other software, and regularly download DVD-sized images
My expected future needs:
- Expanding options for HD content on demand from legitimate online sources
- Unknown demand from growing children
My view on soft caps:
- Current bandwidth limit is generally acceptable, but if I have a rough month with the PVR sometimes I get close to or go over the cap. I try not to, but sometimes do. I understand that I might get a call, but to this point haven't.
My view on hard caps:
- My bandwidth needs are only going to go up, and they're going to go up in ways that I can't always predict or monitor
- I'm scared of the bill that might arrive one day, whereas before it would have been an email or phone call. If I get the notification early in the month, there's not much I can do about it. The repercutions are less about the $30 and more about the conversation it will force about household expenses.
My behaviour as of this weekend:
- Because I'm watching this thread, it forces me to think in advance about the household expenses conversation.
- I'm going to fire up a spreadsheet with overall costs and re-evaluate.
- The likely outcome of this will be to keep internet where it is, cancel all but analog tv, and rely more on HD over the antenna for my primary needs.
- A possible outcome of this will be that I determine it is more cost effective for me to switch to other providers for TV and internet services. Right now I'm trying to decide if Teksavvy + a US VPN service to get access to Hulu + OTA antenna will suffice and cancel cable altogether.
What's the point of this:
- I'm a happy customer, I think a good customer, and this decision is almost guaranteed to cost Cogeco some business (ironically, probably not internet business)
- I'm also an influencer, and you will definitely suffer from the loss of recommendation to the hundreds of new Milton residents to whom I've said "get Cogeco, it's the best option"
This isn't a vent, it's just a statement of fact of how this decision may impact the revenue that Cogeco enjoys from me as a customer. I'd be happy to discuss in person or over the phone.
I never like to leave on a "this is how you suck" note, rather I prefer to end on a "here's how you can improve". It's reasonable to consider me someone who is clueing in earlier than the mass market that I don't have to consume TV and movies in the way I've been forced to consume them in the past. That's what's eating up bandwidth, and that's what's causing me to consider cancelling my cable TV service. Here are some things you should consider to keep me around:
- Similar to what Rogers has announced, make TV content available on demand over the internet to your cable TV customers
- Make HD movies available on demand, and not just via your really bad set top boxes. Let me at them via the XBox, the PS3, my computer, my iPod (ie sell me content, not device-specific content)
I will pay for these services, you can even keep them within your own network. I just won't pay for them twice.
I hope that was constructive and helpful for making future decisions. I know I've said some things without providing detail or fully explaining them (that would take another few pages). As mentioned earlier, happy to go into detail in person or on the phone.
Pete
I know I said I'd stop posting one off "Great suggestion" type replies but I'll make an exception for this one as this is an EXCELLENT example of what you should all be posting as this really helps the decision makers. While I'll make no specific comment on what the decision makers want to see I will suggest that posting like pnear has is a wiser move then all out ranting and kicking and screaming as many people tend to ignore those types of posts...just my 2 cent suggestion for those that really want to get a point across :)
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Pizz @ 2nd Apr 05:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by Pizz :
Krispy, can you list what your upstream providers are?
I don't remember offhand and the place where I'd find this info is not cooperating with me at the moment so I'll have to get back to you on this if someone else hasn't yet.
That said, I kinda know where this is going as you likely want to investigate and post a
"See Cogeco only pays X per Mb" type post - while you're certainly welcome to do that the reality is, as others have already posted, the pure cost of transit is not the end all, be all of the cost of getting that transit from point A to point B. I know I'm upsetting people with analogies so I'm trying to keep them to a minimum but basing the cost of your service solely on what transit providers are charging per Mb is akin to a teenager assuming the cost of a car is $10 as that's all the money they need to put in the gastank to get from point A to point B.
And while the next comment isn't directed at you Pizz (or anyone in particular) I figure I'll just add it in here since this post will likely infuriate people anyway -- as for all the comments about profits, etc...sure, one can argue the profit angle however I'd just like to point out that we do live in a capitalist society and Cogeco is not a non-profit organization. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to live in Gene Roddenberry land where money doesn't exist however I'm aware that I don't live there so have to acknowledge this fact.
Your users are not responsible, nor do they need to know/worry about your upgrades on the plant side. They've paid for those upgrades with the pricing your company has set fourth. I'd like to use this analogy. Don't market a service, you cannot provide.
I do not want to investigate your agreements with upstream providers. I already know the base pricing of what an ISP gets charged from Tier 1 providers. I asked because, on the front page, its a bandwidth issue, not a network/plant issue.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 06:03PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
AceOfHertz @ 2nd Apr 06:04PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Pizz :
Your users are not responsible, nor do they need to know/worry about your upgrades on the plant side. They've paid for those upgrades with the pricing your company has set fourth. I'd like to use this analogy. Don't market a service, you cannot provide.
You'll have to point me to an example of marketing a service we can't provide. Cogeco supplies from 640kbps - 16Mbps dependent on which package you subscribe to. We also market the caps as 10 - unlimited depending on which residential or business package you subscribe to. And now we're starting to use usage-based billing, which is Cogeco marketing this option. If people don't like it, they'll respond with their wallets. But we're not telling our customers that they have unlimited bandwidth and then charging them on their bill. That would be marketing a service we can't provide.
reply
Fireblade @ 2nd Apr 07:13PM:
Re: Usage Billing
They should allow bandwidth to roll over into the next month, example.
I use 30GB one month, max cap is 60 - next month I'll have a cap of 90GB. I know there's a time when my monthly bandwidth consumption is around 20-30GB, it would be very customer friendly to let that bandwidth roll into the next month. I think it would tie well into the over-usage fiasco, even heavy downloads like myself have off-months, why should I pay for bandwidth that I'm not using? Switch plans you say? Well, I think I would if that plan offered the same speed but lower bandwidth (and significantly lower cost) - but it doesn't, plus it's not like I make plans to use x amount of bandwidth each month. Either way, this can easily be resolved by just increasing the caps and lowering the over-usage charge to .25 / GB like Tek Savvy, or let us by blocks of bandwidth or like a few others have said "Make bandwidth at night unlimited" because it's basically free, quarter of a cent per GB.
reply
Pizz @ 2nd Apr 06:13PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by AceOfHertz :said by Pizz :
Your users are not responsible, nor do they need to know/worry about your upgrades on the plant side. They've paid for those upgrades with the pricing your company has set fourth. I'd like to use this analogy. Don't market a service, you cannot provide.
You'll have to point me to an example of marketing a service we can't provide. Cogeco supplies from 640kbps - 16Mbps dependent on which package you subscribe to. We also market the caps as 10 - unlimited depending on which residential or business package you subscribe to. And now we're starting to use usage-based billing, which is Cogeco marketing this option. If people don't like it, they'll respond with their wallets. But we're not telling our customers that they have unlimited bandwidth and then charging them on their bill. That would be marketing a service we can't provide.
When you've listed this new usage based pricing system, you're marketing a service you cannot provide. Why? Because it's been stated, countless times the factors are bandwidth/network problems. You're marketing a service you cannot provide.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.
reply
DrunkenClam @ 2nd Apr 06:17PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
I'd just like to point out that we do live in a capitalist society and Cogeco is not a non-profit organization.
When Cogeco is the only viable option for most people, then it means that Cogeco can gouge customers whatever they want.
That's when it is time for some regulation that will provide a service at a fair price, to stop the greedy corporations from taking advantage of this monopoly to much, which is obviously the case.
It's because of regulation of corporations in the banking industry that Canada was the last of the G20 countries to go into recession, time to do the same for Canada's internet, to save it from the same fate.
reply
DrunkenClam @ 2nd Apr 06:20PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by WTF :
The problem here is not being pulled over for speeding. It's being pulled over at 3 a.m. on an empty highway and told you're disrupting traffic.
lol..as far as analogies go...nice one :)
reply
Livadia @ 2nd Apr 06:21PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :said by Livadia :
Well, you may be right. I do not use more than 20-30 GB per month (I might have reached the 60 GB once), so what about that majority? Why don't you have a lower limit (same or slightly lower speed) for, say, $10 less per month?
there was a new 'lite plus' option recently released »
www.cogeco.ca/en/high-speed-internet-_o.html Thanks for the info. Yes, I do agree this looks better than the older 'lite' version, but still, if I wanted speeds at 2-3 Mbits I would have already switched to Teksavvy (although, I am still considering it, cheaper, higher caps, more services). What I would like to see would be a service of 5-7 Mb with 30-40 GB cap for about $32-36. This may open the possibility of changing the 'standard' into a new offering of 10-12 Mb with 80-100 GB cap for about $50-52.
All the above prices should be compared with the current ones after all discounts. I think such an arrangement would make happy lots of Cogeco customers, both the 'majority' and this 'ultra-vocal minority'. :)
reply
diskdocx @ 2nd Apr 06:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by diskdocx :
Well, thanks for the info. I'm not opposed to this route. I do think that there needs to be a mechanism for people to use more than the current caps, and I don't think it's unfair for them to be charged a reasonable rate.
Not sure yet if this is reasonable, but I won't debate that here. I've never thought cutting people off was the right route to go.
One glaring issue does come up however.
Why are those who are paying the most for monthly service, also subject to the highest overage charge cap?
While I appreciate that the per gig cost is cheapest in the pro account, and you will quickly eat up overage costs in the standard, the monthly price of standard + the maximum overage is approximately the same price as the base pro account.
In otherwords, I am paying $70 per month now for 100gigs. If I downgrade to standard, I will pay $45 for 60 gigs. If I actually use 100 gigs on standard, which apparently is now allowed, it will cost me $75. (40 gigs over x $1.50 per gig is $60, but the cap is $30).
If I continue to download to lets say 120 or 150 gigs, it will still only cost me $75. On pro, it would now cost $120 to go to 150 gigs.
Without being overly argumentative, could you please explain this rationale?
I guess I might as well downgrade to standard, pay the overage, and use my 100 gigs, or even a bit more.
Krispy - thanks for the ongoing info.
This probably got lost way back on page 2, but I've seen a few others refer to it, and still haven't seen any official comment.
I don't think it was venting or inflammatory, certainly wasn't intended as such.
So, once again, what role does the Pro account have now? Realistically, the 16M speed is very rarely realized (I only see it when using usenet), and 100gigs of transfer costs virtually the same on the Standard + overage or base Pro accounts.
Anything over 100gigs is actually cheaper on Standard, assuming people aren't going to get cut off at some random number.
Is there no way to make the Pro account more attractive? Maybe bump the Pro cap, or lower the Pro overage cap to no more than $30?
It really seems like a pointless package with these changes.
EDIT
Having given this a little more thought, I would have to assume that on Standard you would most certainly have to be allowed to go at least to 150 gigs.
Since the wording is vague about what constitutes network disruption, I can't see that downloading 150 gigs on Standard, at 10M, would be disruptive if the same 150 gigs on Pro, on the same node, at 16M, isn't disruptive.
I think it would be hard to make the case that you were disturbing other users on your Standard account, but that magically the disruption would go away if you upgraded to Pro.
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 07:14PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
ROFL! That is hilarious, no really - HILARIOUS. Those are the kinds of responses a co-worker of mine gave to clients when he was too lazy to address and/or fix an issue.
What's hilarious is certain users here who make the biggest noise continue to pay cogeco every month. Cogeco is laughing all the way to the bank.
reply
badtrip @ 2nd Apr 07:35PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ILoveBread :
What's hilarious is certain users here who make the biggest noise continue to pay cogeco every month. Cogeco is laughing all the way to the bank.
Yep. Dump these chumps if you have the ability.
reply
urbanriot @ 2nd Apr 07:47PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ILoveBread :
What's hilarious is certain users here who make the biggest noise continue to pay cogeco every month.
Probably because they have no alternatives. A large percentage of Cogeco's market are areas where no other broadband company can service, for various reasons.
reply
Barry @ 2nd Apr 08:43PM:
Re: Usage Billing
That would be me. I would rather a cap than sync at 1Mbps with TekSavvy.
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 09:39PM:
Re: Usage Billing
hate to say it Krispy but do you really expect us to believe that the suits are going to listen to a user who sounds passive and calm?
after all the view of someone who is passive and calm is someone who may not care as much as someone who is angry.
i mean we all know that people were willing to give blacks equal rights when they tried to explain why eloquently right?
»www.africanaonline.com/riots.htm
oops. i guess not.
the reality of the situation is the only way to be heard is to be loud. not rude or obnoxious. just loud, no matter how much you try and argue otherwise.
reply
IloveToast @ 3rd Apr 01:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by CogecoPRPerson :
however then people like drunkenclam and the others will start shedding tears that the bandwidth meter is wrong. Its a no win situation when you step away from the unlimited realm of things.
Considering Krispy admitted the new bandwidth counter was inaccurate when it started. Also it has been reset multiple times in the past year because it has not been accurate, turns out those people are right to point it out.
reply
IloveToast @ 3rd Apr 01:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by SomeBellDude :
If they want to go to usage billing, fine. Then drop the throttling.
Do you think cogeco is going to stop something that the majority of users aren't even bright enough to know that it's happening to them.
Dream on.
@Jack Sparrow
It's cogeco just trying to manipulate people into complaining how they want...sounds familiar..lol
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 10:07PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by WTF :said by Krispy :said by urbanriot :
Or Krispy doesn't have the facts on this yet.
That's the deal at the moment...I honestly don't know. That said, if/when I do find out I probably won't detail it here as that's kinda like asking a cop to publicly post the real limit they'll pull you over on the QEW -- signs say 100kph max but we all know very few of us get pulled over for doing 101kph
The problem here is not being pulled over for speeding. It's being pulled over at 3 a.m. on an empty highway and told you're disrupting traffic.
Great post - perfect analogy. Can you read that, cogeco suits?
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 10:19PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Asawulf @ 2nd Apr 10:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by DrunkenClam :
Take what Asawulf says with a grain of salt. He like others have been proven wrong on this forum many times before with promising cap increases to denying throttling and he is just here to defend cogeco and that's it...nothing else and the information he gives is speculative at best
I actually said, if you want to go and re-read the whole 14 or so pages long thread made last fall, that changes were incoming, that raising caps was being looked at (now if the deciding people didn't choose that solution, what can I do and am I to blame ? They sure know I debated long enough with them about that [because I would have liked to see the bitcaps raised too... And not even because I use it all, in fact I rarely go over...] and they know who I am here...
said by DrunkenClam :
he's just a isolated call centre employee.
That really made me laugh...
Your whole mentality makes me laugh in fact... I would actually warn people about not listening to you because the only thing you've been good at in the past months is troll, flame and post false informations here... You've been doing it with everyone who didn't agree the slighest with you so instead of talking and present your opinion, you prefer to try and bash people around; you won't go far in life if you don't change your ways...
There's many intelligent people here seeing what you do in every thread, no worries they're not laughing at me...
reply
krauserx15 @ 2nd Apr 10:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Can we please get something like this »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum in the Cogeco forum? So at least we know we aren't speaking to typical Cogeco grunts (i.e. regular reps) like Asawulf that think they're something special. I'd like to know we're speaking with middle-upper management with some clout rather than... Well, grunts who flex what little e-peen they think they have. Thanks.
reply
urbanriot @ 2nd Apr 10:38PM:
Re: Usage Billing
While I don't agree with how he's asking, it would be nice if the Cogeco employee list that's stickied was properly updated and possibly maintained... at least by those that regularly comment and/or ask for MAC addresses.
reply
Steve @ 2nd Apr 10:38PM:
Re: Usage Billing
»Employees
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site
reply
krauserx15 @ 2nd Apr 10:39PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by WTF :
The problem here is not being pulled over for speeding. It's being pulled over at 3 a.m. on an empty highway and told you're disrupting traffic.
I cannot ask for a better analogy describing Cogeco's internet service, thank you.
reply
krauserx15 @ 2nd Apr 10:40PM:
Re: Usage Billing
There's at least 7 people missing from that list, thanks. Again, something more organized....
reply
DrunkenClam @ 2nd Apr 10:41PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Asawulf :
I actually said, if you want to go and re-read the whole 14 or so pages long thread made last fall, that changes were incoming...
you won't go far in life if you don't change your ways...
Name one thing I have been wrong about? I was right all this time. I can point out at least three things you have lied to people about on this forum. Caps, you denied throttling, and you promise Docsis 3 when you have no idea what area's the roll out will be and the time frame.
Everything I said has stood up over time, unlike you, which you have been leading people on for over a year now and it turned out you where completely wrong.
So yea, having a little knowledge on all this, Krispy is way more credible then you, and doesn't post speculation and try to just argue with upset customers.
reply
krauserx15 @ 2nd Apr 10:46PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :While I don't agree with how he's asking, it would be nice if the Cogeco employee list that's stickied was properly updated and possibly maintained... at least by those that regularly comment and/or ask for MAC addresses.
Indeed, something updated, accurate and very organized would be ideal. Sorry, he comes off as someone pompous with an insulting demeanor - just wanted to speak to him with a tone he could understand.
EDIT: If he was my employee, working for me, I would have fired him long ago based on how he speaks with customers. Remember, just because you aren't at work now doesn't mean you can speak to customers like that. If in fact you were a regular member of this forum, I would have dismissed your posts as trolling and that would have been that. Learn some respect for your customers, hiding behind a Cogeco shield is a double edged sword. I will also contact your supervisor about your posting behavior if it doesn't change, better yet, why don't I start from the top? Upper management loves getting their time wasted.
reply
ILoveBread @ 2nd Apr 10:59PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Asawulf :said by DrunkenClam :
he's just a isolated call centre employee.
That really made me laugh...
Your whole mentality makes me laugh in fact... I would actually warn people about not listening to you because the only thing you've been good at in the past months is troll, flame and post false informations here... You've been doing it with everyone who didn't agree the slighest with you so instead of talking and present your opinion, you prefer to try and bash people around; you won't go far in life if you don't change your ways...
There's many intelligent people here seeing what you do in every thread, no worries they're not laughing at me...
Thats so true. He was asking for a higher cap and would even pay for it, now that its raised he's still not happy. Typical, another angry customer who continues to shell out cash to the company that they love to hate.
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 09:30AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
krauserx15 @ 2nd Apr 11:05PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ILoveBread :
Thats so true. He was asking for a higher cap and would even pay for it, now that its raised he's still not happy. Typical, another angry customer who continues to shell out cash to the company that they love to hate.
I think his concern is a little bit more then what you have lined up. I think the question we should really be focusing on is... How high can we go? How much will that extra $30 a month get us? Where is that money going? These are very important questions.
reply
DrunkenClam @ 2nd Apr 11:15PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Asawulf is just here to defend cogeco at all costs. Nothing more. I have called him out (a long with many others on this forum) in other threads on his misleading lies, and leading people on. Which I am proud of, also I was right about caps, throttling and cogeco's greedy ways.
If you look at the article on the front page here, it is a great summary. It's exactly what I have been arguing with people like asawulf here for a long time, and calling them on.
Also I been lobbying for higher caps first and to stop the throttling along with many other things. Read my post under the article in the main page and it explains my feelings on this.
Like I said before, do what comcast does, no throttling and up the caps to 250gigs, problem solved.
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 11:21PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
SmallWig @ 2nd Apr 11:22PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I have no problem with the $30 max overage charge if this means exactly what it is. But with Cogeco this is never the case. Expect an asterisk next to the max overage charge part in advertising and in the AUP/TOS.
--
reply
PygmySurfer @ 2nd Apr 11:22PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Apparently Time Warner is interested in hearing complaints:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···caps.ars
IMHO, Cogeco should do something similar - set up an email account for customers to vent, and suggest alternatives.
I don't like the caps, but I have a feeling they're going to become more common place in the future. Cogeco's caps are unrealistic, though, I think - 60gb is far too easy to burn through in a month, especially with things like streaming HD movies, etc.
Maybe a better solution would be to move to a strictly metered service, similar to the way we pay for electricity of natural gas. Get rid of the monthly fee, and charge only for what is used. $0.25/GB would, IMHO, be a reasonable amount to pay. If I used only 60 GB in a month, I would pay only $15 - if I used 200 GB, I would pay $50. This way, everyone is paying for what they're using. If absolutely necessary, they could create tiers (I think my water usage is metered this way). So, say anything under 50 GB is billed at $0.15, 50-100 GB at $0.25, 101-150 GB at $0.30, etc. Maybe even have discounts during periods of low activity, so users are charged less for bandwidth used during off hours compared to peak hours.
reply
ILoveBread @ 2nd Apr 11:22PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by DrunkenClam :
also I was right about caps, throttling and cogeco's greedy ways.
I'm real proud of ya. Next time don't do it in such a trolling and flaming matter and maybe people will take you more seriously.
reply
Phorkster @ 2nd Apr 11:25PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Weee... So $70/month for unlimited on standard then? Or are you cut off and charged regardless.... PICK ONE you leeches.
reply
DrunkenClam @ 2nd Apr 11:31PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ILoveBread :said by DrunkenClam :
also I was right about caps, throttling and cogeco's greedy ways.
I'm real proud of ya. Next time don't do it in such a trolling and flaming matter and maybe people will take you more seriously.
haha..I know I am taken seriously, slowly the cogeco PR machine is getting weaker on these forums. I take that as a badge of honor :)
Also I am very tame, and the more intelligent people can see that I am right,which is the bottom line. Sometimes it takes a bit of blunt trama to get the job done depending on who your communicating too, sometimes it's all certain types of personalities understand.
reply
anon @ 2nd Apr 11:37PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
yupislyr @ 2nd Apr 11:43PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by PygmySurfer :
I don't like the caps, but I have a feeling they're going to become more common place in the future. Cogeco's caps are unrealistic, though, I think - 60gb is far too easy to burn through in a month, especially with things like streaming HD movies, etc.
That's the problem when your ISP is also a media provider. They'd much rather you pay a lot more money to buy all their various movie packages ON TOP of your internet charges.
Glad I jumped ship long ago.
reply
18526190 @ 2nd Apr 11:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Celery :
Gonna play a bit of devil's advocate here, ancodia. Also, in the interest of disclosure, I used to work in the Call Centre at Cogeco for two years. I left at the end of '05.
Hawkesbury was an area that got internet not too long ago... Pembroke is probably still is left in the lurch without internet. Cable plants take a lot of time and money to upgrade. Just a few things that cost a LOT of money are: Plant/Headend upgrades for two-way communication, permits, trenching, laying fiber, wages, etc... I shudder to think of the cost of laying new equipment when upgrading an old system.
Now, after saying that... I'm not one who uses a lot of bandwidth myself (I've maxed maybe at 40GB a month a few times), but I understand the frustrations of people posting here and I'm disappointed with the new caps as well.
To Louis Audet and the rest of the Board of Directors at Cogeco who might read this: We are a small, but vocal minority and many of us have highly recommended this company to many friends. Unfortunately, the corporate decision that was made to implement this pricing structure with these low caps is alienating this highly vocal paying customer base.
Krispy has put her neck out to inform us of the coming changes. As you can read by the many replies, your call centre might have won an award two years running, however the bandwidth and pricing policies by your company is completely out of touch.
Pembroke = May The Broadband Inc company that does the cogeco lines has the warehouse a block away from me rented since last year. They were behind my house two days ago so I asked them.
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 12:29AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Here's two things I can never understand about UBB:
1. Why do the lower provisioned lines get charged more for each gigabyte used?
What is the rationale for this, do gigabytes cost more when provisioned at 640kbps than when provisioned at 16mbps?
Shouldn't the user that's provisioned at the lower speed pay less per gigabyte, since they're less likely to inflict sudden usage peaks on the network that can destabilize a network?
2. Isn't data transferred during non-peak periods less costly to transmit than during peak periods?
I mean, aren't networks basically built with a max capacity, and whenever it's used less, there's unused excess capacity that is never regained?
reply
rudeboy24 @ 3rd Apr 12:04AM:
Re: Usage Billing
looks like cogeco wants to get paid for all free full episodes that all the major stations are putting up on there websites.. why watch TV when u can watch it online at anytime
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 12:14AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Asawulf has already been called out in this thread:
»cogeco's new monitor on the fritz?
reply
bricktoppp @ 3rd Apr 12:19AM:
Re: Usage Billing
cool story bro
reply
Steve @ 3rd Apr 12:31AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by SayNoToCogeco :
What is the rationale for this, do gigabytes cost more when provisioned at 640kbps than when provisioned at 16mbps?
To encourage people to get higher tiers? Higher commit gets a lower rate everywhere ("volume discount").2. Isn't data transferred during non-peak periods less costly to transmit than during peak periods?
Absolutely
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site
reply
Fireblade @ 3rd Apr 09:31AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by SayNoToCogeco :
2. Isn't data transferred during non-peak periods less costly to transmit than during peak periods?
I mean, aren't networks basically built with a max capacity, and whenever it's used less, there's unused excess capacity that is never regained?
If Cogeco isn't stupid with peering, it's pretty much free.
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 12:40AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
drumcode @ 3rd Apr 12:48AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Heard about this today at the shop...all the young guys buzzing about it, none of the old timers even know what anyone's talking about (but they happily take our burnt movies).
If the argument is that Cogeco needs to do this to free up bandwidth for other customers during peak hours why not allow late nights off the meter since it also costs Cogeco less? Pass along the savings, no?
reply
IloveToast @ 3rd Apr 02:08AM:
Re: Usage Billing
He was asking for a higher cap and would even pay for it, now that its raised he's still not happy. Typical, another angry customer who continues to shell out cash to the company that they love to hate.
The caps where never raised..wtf are you talking about?
reply
Shamans @ 3rd Apr 02:09AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Steve :said by SayNoToCogeco :
What is the rationale for this, do gigabytes cost more when provisioned at 640kbps than when provisioned at 16mbps?
To encourage people to get higher tiers? Higher commit gets a lower rate everywhere ("volume discount").
2. Isn't data transferred during non-peak periods less costly to transmit than during peak periods?
AbsolutelySteve
I just wanna add to pt. #2 that it may actually save costs if bandwidth usage is shifted from peak to off-peak hours since ISPs plan according to peak usage.
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 02:21AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Shamans:
Yes, that's what I was thinking. The electric distributors in my area are moving toward Time-of-Day billing not because it would increase their revenue, but because it allows for a more optimal allocation of resources and lower prices, by increasing demand during high supply, and decreasing demand during low supply.
There's all these nuclear and hydro plants that are practically running at full-tilt 24/7, whether the power is needed or not, shutting them down overnight would actually cost more money than continuing to operate them. Why build expensive "peaking" plants to take care of the peak demand if you can just give a small incentive to people to shift their non-priority stuff to non-peak times.
Internet bandwidth supply is no different.
This change by Cogeco just stinks of a money grab, no matter how much they like to sugar coat it. Network management should have the effect of lowering costs through appropriate allocation of resources. If they were concerned about network utilization and stability, their proposed solution would rank #7.
reply
Pizz @ 3rd Apr 07:43AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by drumcode :
Heard about this today at the shop...all the young guys buzzing about it, none of the old timers even know what anyone's talking about (but they happily take our burnt movies).
If the argument is that Cogeco needs to do this to free up bandwidth for other customers during peak hours why not allow late nights off the meter since it also costs Cogeco less? Pass along the savings, no?
It's all about markups and profit margins, and to create a crisis, or impending one, so they can go ahead push rate increase, after rate increase. But after awhile, they cant just keep doing that, so they must come up with a new plan. Insert, the bandwidth piggys. Yes, these dreadful users who make caps/usage-based pricing come into effect. I mean they must exist right? Or wait, has any ISP ever released information regarding these evil users? i think not good sir/madame, because these type of users are greatly exaggerated! Sure there are users who dont secure their PCs/ROuters - And there are users who leave their computers on, downloading/uploading 24x7 - But in no way shape or form, will they make an entire network, cripple or slow down. Unless the network, is piss poorly managed, or they've using outdated equipement. Cable CO's are notorious for piss poor plant/network management, because they don't like to spend $$ They'd rather have you, the customer pay for it all. But they can't keep doing rate increase, after rate increase, because that will attract negative attention. So they'll create a new ploy to milk the customer. Enter in: The Bandwidth Piggys!
Logic will tell you, if these users are making poor grandma and grandpa not be able to view their grandkids pictures, woulnd't you just boot them off the service? Wouldn't that be much easier, than to effect the other users who arent such evil piggys? The cable co's wont boot them off because they're paying customers like you and I. So instead of just booting them off, they'll keep them on because now they can shift the entire pricing structure to their cap-based/consumption usage pricing scheme. Lump everyone together, so the network upgrades are far less, and they can limit what is being viewed/downloaded. It's a wonderful scam ;)
Another facet to this, is more content of the Video kind is hitting the internet at a rapid pace. Cable CO's do not like this, because that means you're not watching their revenue stream. It's all about limiting what you can and cannot do. TV is their big, and i mean very big cash-cow, so if people are viewing movies/shows etc.. on the internet, and not thru their boxes, hell will raised!
Now for Non-Cable CO ISPs who cap, DSL providers for example. It's another typical money grab, piss poor/inept network management. They do not want to spend money to upgrade, so they'll keep you the user at their 1000% markups, so they can turn their wonderful profits.
I never would've thought a Canadian ISP would do such a thing. cause it's such common place here in the states.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.
reply
dad_of_3 @ 3rd Apr 07:59AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Thanks for the info and clarifications Krispy, good job as always..
There's been a lot of good suggestions to this thread, I hope the suits really are paying attention...
my points
-a max charge for overages I could live with, but $30/$50 is too high IMHO
-It was alluded to that after you reach the max charge for your account, that you will be able to keep on truckin. In some cases where it hurts the network however, you could still get cut off...This principle is way too grey..your basically describing a "soft cap" after you hit your max charge, as it was pre september 2007..
....Let's say I go like hell in the first week of a new month, max out my connection 24/7. Fine, I'm allowd, I'm under my cap still, but after a week (probably less) I hit my max, and if I cause network issues, I can still get cut off??..Well, my habits haven't changed from the first week to the next,have I not caused network issues from the very first day of the month?
-I think a greatly reduced or no charge for off hours D/L is a good idea, this should alleviate some of the network issues.
-I also think that raising the caps will resolve a lot of the concerns people are having
-My final point concerns the stats being thrown around about a small minority using the majority of the resources...this may be so, however, this small minority, of which I am a part of are in a lot of cases the people who the majority of your customers go to for computer/technology advice..
my 2 cents
reply
Dilligas @ 3rd Apr 08:56AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by PygmySurfer :Apparently Time Warner is interested in hearing complaints:
»
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···caps.arsIMHO, Cogeco should do something similar - set up an email account for customers to vent, and suggest alternatives.
I don't like the caps, but I have a feeling they're going to become more common place in the future. Cogeco's caps are unrealistic, though, I think - 60gb is far too easy to burn through in a month, especially with things like streaming HD movies, etc.
Maybe a better solution would be to move to a strictly metered service, similar to the way we pay for electricity of natural gas. Get rid of the monthly fee, and charge only for what is used. $0.25/GB would, IMHO, be a reasonable amount to pay. If I used only 60 GB in a month, I would pay only $15 - if I used 200 GB, I would pay $50. This way, everyone is paying for what they're using. If absolutely necessary, they could create tiers (I think my water usage is metered this way). So, say anything under 50 GB is billed at $0.15, 50-100 GB at $0.25, 101-150 GB at $0.30, etc. Maybe even have discounts during periods of low activity, so users are charged less for bandwidth used during off hours compared to peak hours.
Good idea, however then people will start shedding tears that the bandwidth meter is wrong. Its a no win situation when you step away from the unlimited realm of things.
reply
alamarco @ 3rd Apr 09:14AM:
Re: Usage Billing
A total metered solution would be a good idea, but $0.25/GB would be too good to be true. If we pay $45 for a 60 GB hard cap, there's no way they would allow $15 for 60 GB.
reply
IloveToast @ 3rd Apr 09:56AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by CogecoPRPerson :
however then people like drunkenclam and the others will start shedding tears that the bandwidth meter is wrong. Its a no win situation when you step away from the unlimited realm of things.
Considering Krispy admitted the new bandwidth counter was inaccurate when it started. Also it has been reset multiple times in the past year because it has not been accurate, turns out those people are right to point it out.
Your last two troll attempting posts didn't work eithier. ohwell.
--
omgbbq!
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 09:57AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Dilligas @ 3rd Apr 10:20AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by IloveToast :said by CogecoPRPerson :
however then people like drunkenclam and the others will start shedding tears that the bandwidth meter is wrong. Its a no win situation when you step away from the unlimited realm of things.
Considering Krispy admitted the new bandwidth counter was inaccurate when it started. Also it has been reset multiple times in the past year because it has not been accurate, turns out those people are right to point it out.
Your last two troll attempting posts didn't work eithier. ohwell.
I am not Trolling, take it as you wish though.
reply
Hamilton1 @ 3rd Apr 10:51AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I still don't know how Cogeco came to $1.50 extra per Gb?
As a Cogeco customer that also has HDTV and a 6416 HD PVR it just doesn't make sense. Let me explain the 6416 has a 160Gb hard drive and 2 hours of video represents around 10% usage of that HD or 16Gb's worth of data that was downloaded to record that HD movie or show. I like most others record primetime programs and easily can fill the drive within the week which would be 160Gb's worth of data, and in many cases it's even more than that due to sports programs that are on during the weekend.
So on average I would say that most HDTV customers are viewing and recording over 1Tb worth of data per month and maybe even over 2Tb's if you watch HDTV for more than 8hrs a day.
Now I realize that cable TV and the internet are 2 different entities, but I can't imagine that 1Gb worth of data costs Cogeco that much and certainly no where near $1.50 that they are going to charge us.
Long ago when this first started I had hoped that Cogeco would come out with some other residential packages that offered better limits but it looks like we got the shaft and will just have to live with it.
reply
exseven @ 3rd Apr 11:04AM:
Re: Usage Billing
remember, cable tv is broadcast "traffic" where as you downloading a movie is unicast and using significantly less traffic when divided by the homes reached (many vs. 1)
So 12mbit/s of HDTV traffic remains 12mbit of HD whereas 12mbit/s of HD being downloaded by 100 people is 1.2Gbit/s
reply
Krispy @ 3rd Apr 12:19PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by diskdocx :
This probably got lost way back on page 2, but I've seen a few others refer to it, and still haven't seen any official comment.
I don't think it was venting or inflammatory, certainly wasn't intended as such.
So, once again, what role does the Pro account have now? Realistically, the 16M speed is very rarely realized (I only see it when using usenet), and 100gigs of transfer costs virtually the same on the Standard + overage or base Pro accounts.
Anything over 100gigs is actually cheaper on Standard, assuming people aren't going to get cut off at some random number.
Is there no way to make the Pro account more attractive? Maybe bump the Pro cap, or lower the Pro overage cap to no more than $30?
It really seems like a pointless package with these changes.
Sorry, I don't mean to seem like I'm ignoring you...I'm just super busy so get distracted half way through a response.
At any rate, I don't have an answer for that yet so I'll just highlight it with the quote here and followup with the powers that be next week to see what they're saying.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Krispy @ 3rd Apr 12:23PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Jack Sparrow 5 :
hate to say it Krispy but do you really expect us to believe that the suits are going to listen to a user who sounds passive and calm?
Yes I do.
It makes it difficult for me to illustrate or highlight a post when there's ranting and raving in it, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with someone dismissing something based on ranting and raving I'm just saying that it makes it far more difficult for me to highlight what you're saying as some people get stuck on the ranting and raving and don't see past that. Help me help you and formulate a relatively calm post and I will do my best to ensure it is read and discussed.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
vuarra @ 3rd Apr 01:50PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
Help me help you and formulate a relatively calm post and I will do my best to ensure it is read and discussed.
Which may explain a few things that confused me about you... I know it happened in PMs, but apologies should be out in the open.
I apologize over our unintentional PM war.
reply
xeroid2 @ 3rd Apr 03:27PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
It makes it difficult for me to illustrate or highlight a post when there's ranting and raving in it, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with someone dismissing something based on ranting and raving I'm just saying that it makes it far more difficult for me to highlight what you're saying as some people get stuck on the ranting and raving and don't see past that. Help me help you and formulate a relatively calm post and I will do my best to ensure it is read and discussed.
Krispy, I do believe I have been calm in my posts under the circumstances. You have made the argument of behalf of Cogeco that another increase is needed to pay for all the costs involved, yet Cogeco is a very healthy company. So I ask for the third time calmly....
Cogeco is very healthy and very profitable. It is paying dividends to shareholders in a recession! Show us all a report that Cogeco is hurting so bad that would justify this move by Cogeco to gouge it's own customers? If you can't or won't, then our conclusions of corporate greed must be correct.
Another point I wish for Cogeco to listen to is this: If you are going to charge for over usage, then wouldn't "the right thing to do" be to credit under usage? I tend to use my connection more during the winter and less during the summer. Why should I pay for any overage that may occur if I have been under for several months previously?
I would really like you to respond to both questions.
reply
AceOfHertz @ 3rd Apr 03:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :
Another point I wish for Cogeco to listen to is this: If you are going to charge for over usage, then wouldn't "the right thing to do" be to credit under usage? I tend to use my connection more during the winter and less during the summer. Why should I pay for any overage that may occur if I have been under for several months previously?
Because everything works on a month by month basis. If you don't use all of the cell phone minutes you're given on a monthly plan in a month, they don't roll them over to the next month. You will pay a monthly rate for whatever package you're on (i.e. 60 gigs at 10 megs), and if you use it, you don't get charged anything more, if you don't, it goes back to 0 for the next month.
reply
urbanriot @ 3rd Apr 03:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :
You have made the argument of behalf of Cogeco that another increase is needed to pay for all the costs involved, yet Cogeco is a very healthy company.
Krispy isn't making any arguments, she's relaying information on behalf of Cogeco. In fact, if you read between the lines I believe she's encouraging people to put forth a case against these new policies, which she's relaying to the people that need to read it... Maybe she's being too subtle and we need to connect the dots with crayons.
reply
ancodia @ 3rd Apr 03:37PM:
Re: Usage Billing
would also like you to answer : Why won't Cogeco raise the caps? Since the average usage increases every year, why doesn't Cogeco increase the cap every year? You can't tell me that the average usage in 2002 is the same in 2009. Is your entire system that oversold? Can increasing everyone to 80 gig completely overwhelm your system?
reply
ancodia @ 3rd Apr 03:48PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by AceOfHertz :said by xeroid2 :
Another point I wish for Cogeco to listen to is this: If you are going to charge for over usage, then wouldn't "the right thing to do" be to credit under usage? I tend to use my connection more during the winter and less during the summer. Why should I pay for any overage that may occur if I have been under for several months previously?
Because everything works on a month by month basis. If you don't use all of the cell phone minutes you're given on a monthly plan in a month, they don't roll them over to the next month. You will pay a monthly rate for whatever package you're on (i.e. 60 gigs at 10 megs), and if you use it, you don't get charged anything more, if you don't, it goes back to 0 for the next month.
you all use cell phone plans as an example but last time I checked I could get unlimited weekends/evenings etc and other addons for a reasonable price (and not for 50% of the monthly cost). not 250 min for $25 then $1/min after that (using Cogeco math). It's not the overcharge I think that annoys the most, it's the stupidly high price Cogeco is planning to charge. Or maybe average usage over two months like Teksavvy. Why can't Cogeco be cutting edge and leading the pack instead of coming up with mediocre solutions and overpriced packages. Maybe Cogeco needs to hire some MBAs who graduated near the top of the class instead of the cheaper ones who graduated near the bottom.
reply
Steve @ 3rd Apr 03:55PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :
Maybe Cogeco needs to hire some MBAs who graduated near the top of the class instead of the cheaper ones who graduated near the bottom.
So they can come up with plans that make the company less money?
reply
uber69er @ 3rd Apr 03:55PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :said by AceOfHertz :said by xeroid2 :
Another point I wish for Cogeco to listen to is this: If you are going to charge for over usage, then wouldn't "the right thing to do" be to credit under usage? I tend to use my connection more during the winter and less during the summer. Why should I pay for any overage that may occur if I have been under for several months previously?
Because everything works on a month by month basis. If you don't use all of the cell phone minutes you're given on a monthly plan in a month, they don't roll them over to the next month. You will pay a monthly rate for whatever package you're on (i.e. 60 gigs at 10 megs), and if you use it, you don't get charged anything more, if you don't, it goes back to 0 for the next month.
you all use cell phone plans as an example but last time I checked I could get unlimited weekends/evenings etc and other addons for a reasonable price (and not for 50% of the monthly cost). not 250 min for $25 then $1/min after that (using Cogeco math). It's not the overcharge I think that annoys the most, it's the stupidly high price Cogeco is planning to charge. Or maybe average usage over two months like Teksavvy. Why can't Cogeco be cutting edge and leading the pack instead of coming up with mediocre solutions and overpriced packages. Maybe Cogeco needs to hire some MBAs who graduated near the top of the class instead of the cheaper ones who graduated near the bottom.
Good example.
reply
ancodia @ 3rd Apr 04:02PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Steve :said by ancodia :
Maybe Cogeco needs to hire some MBAs who graduated near the top of the class instead of the cheaper ones who graduated near the bottom.
So they can come up with plans that make the company
less money?
So how does building a network that sits empty because it's too expensive for the customer to use make money for the company money? You build a huge network to handle the peak, then it sits there doing nothing the other 20 hours of the day. Cell phone carriers realized the same thing, that's how the unlimited evening/weekends package was born.
Cogeco could use the same thinking. Off-peak packages are an excellent idea (someone earlier suggested that). $20 unlimited between 12 - 8 am (or something like that). One only need to look at Torix to see where the times could be aligned. Not exactly rocket science. I no reason to believe Cogecos network use doesnt follow roughly the same curve. But instead their wizards come up with UBB :uhh:
reply
Krispy @ 3rd Apr 04:03PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 : said by Krispy :
It makes it difficult for me to illustrate or highlight a post when there's ranting and raving in it, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with someone dismissing something based on ranting and raving I'm just saying that it makes it far more difficult for me to highlight what you're saying as some people get stuck on the ranting and raving and don't see past that. Help me help you and formulate a relatively calm post and I will do my best to ensure it is read and discussed.
Krispy, I do believe I have been calm in my posts under the circumstances. You have made the argument of behalf of Cogeco that another increase is needed to pay for all the costs involved, yet Cogeco is a very healthy company. So I ask for the third time calmly....
Cogeco is very healthy and very profitable. It is paying dividends to shareholders in a recession! Show us all a report that Cogeco is hurting so bad that would justify this move by Cogeco to gouge it's own customers? If you can't or won't, then our conclusions of corporate greed must be correct.
Another point I wish for Cogeco to listen to is this: If you are going to charge for over usage, then wouldn't "the right thing to do" be to credit under usage? I tend to use my connection more during the winter and less during the summer. Why should I pay for any overage that may occur if I have been under for several months previously?
I would really like you to respond to both questions.
I haven't been answering as I don't want to get into a useless debate with you and drive away other contributes to the thread but to avoid you continuing to ask I will simply say
1. As per my previous comments we live in a capitalistic society and Cogeco is a for profit company. Suggesting that a company in a capitalistic society should not look after it's investors is, in my opinion, not only silly but ultimately it is outside the scope of this discussion. Things are far more complex then just paying X cents per Mb of transit and there's also the concept of future planning however, again, this is beyond the scope of this particular thread - if you're really interested in debating the economics of operating an ISP maybe the Canadian Broadband forum is a better home for that thread.
2. As for crediting for under usage...sure maybe that's an idea for the powers that be. Personally I think the cost of implementing such a system would negate any savings and I think fundamentally that is the direction usage billing is taking us anyway albeit in a slightly different manner - for example I think usage billing will drive people to subscribe to the proper package and we'll maybe see the advent of a true ala carte system which is basically saying that users will pay for what they use and only what they use.
Now I know you won't be satisfied with either of these answers however I'm no longer debating economics in this particular thread. I will however suggest that it might be worthwhile to start such a thread elsewhere as if you're right you may well come up with a plan for a successful Canadian internet cooperative which, according to claims, may already have a waiting customer base - basically I'm suggesting that you discuss how to operate such a business where customers get unlimited bandwidth at great speeds with awesome tech support for super cheap -- I personally have not figured out a way to do that however if you or others can I will happily become a customer. You may think I'm being sarcastic but I'm not...I'm really and truly interested to see how anyone can pull that off without going into debt and eventually shutting down.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Wings @ 3rd Apr 04:08PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Congratulations Cogeco, you lost me as a customer. Refusing to adjust bandwith caps to match world wide increasing bandwidth requirements, while at the same time reading about all your excellent profits and the increased restrictions you put on bandwidth has forced me to look somewhere else.
I've always been a happy customer, but this bandwidth issue has turned from an annoyance into a deal breaker, I'm fed up with putting more and more restrictions on every family member (6), enough is enough.
reply
Steve @ 3rd Apr 04:10PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :
So how does building a network that sits empty because it's too expensive for the customer to use make money for the company money?
Interesting: this has widely been called a "money grab" by Cogeco, but now I see that you're really just looking out for them, hoping to save them from making a costly mistake.
That's really thoughtful of you! Off-peak packages are an excellent idea (someone earlier suggested that).
I think that off-peak packages are a fantastic idea for all the right reasons.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site
reply
chdude3 @ 3rd Apr 04:51PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Livadia :
Yes, I do agree this looks better than the older 'lite' version, but still, if I wanted speeds at 2-3 Mbits I would have already switched to Teksavvy (although, I am still considering it, cheaper, higher caps, more services). What I would like to see would be a service of 5-7 Mb with 30-40 GB cap for about $32-36. This may open the possibility of changing the 'standard' into a new offering of 10-12 Mb with 80-100 GB cap for about $50-52.
I could not agree more. I'm looking at my bandwidth usage, and with a few exceptions, I'm generally in the area of 30gig per month. I don't really like Lite Plus since I'm a little over its bandwidth, it's only 3Mbps (5 would be great), and there's no web space (which I do take advantage of). It's close but not close enough.
reply
xeroid2 @ 3rd Apr 04:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by xeroid2 : said by Krispy :
It makes it difficult for me to illustrate or highlight a post when there's ranting and raving in it, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with someone dismissing something based on ranting and raving I'm just saying that it makes it far more difficult for me to highlight what you're saying as some people get stuck on the ranting and raving and don't see past that. Help me help you and formulate a relatively calm post and I will do my best to ensure it is read and discussed.
Krispy, I do believe I have been calm in my posts under the circumstances. You have made the argument of behalf of Cogeco that another increase is needed to pay for all the costs involved, yet Cogeco is a very healthy company. So I ask for the third time calmly....
Cogeco is very healthy and very profitable. It is paying dividends to shareholders in a recession! Show us all a report that Cogeco is hurting so bad that would justify this move by Cogeco to gouge it's own customers? If you can't or won't, then our conclusions of corporate greed must be correct.
Another point I wish for Cogeco to listen to is this: If you are going to charge for over usage, then wouldn't "the right thing to do" be to credit under usage? I tend to use my connection more during the winter and less during the summer. Why should I pay for any overage that may occur if I have been under for several months previously?
I would really like you to respond to both questions.
I haven't been answering as I don't want to get into a useless debate with you and drive away other contributes to the thread but to avoid you continuing to ask I will simply say
1. As per my previous comments we live in a capitalistic society and Cogeco is a for profit company. Suggesting that a company in a capitalistic society should not look after it's investors is, in my opinion, not only silly but ultimately it is outside the scope of this discussion. Things are far more complex then just paying X cents per Mb of transit and there's also the concept of future planning however, again, this is beyond the scope of this particular thread - if you're really interested in debating the economics of operating an ISP maybe the Canadian Broadband forum is a better home for that thread.
2. As for crediting for under usage...sure maybe that's an idea for the powers that be. Personally I think the cost of implementing such a system would negate any savings and I think fundamentally that is the direction usage billing is taking us anyway albeit in a slightly different manner - for example I think usage billing will drive people to subscribe to the proper package and we'll maybe see the advent of a true ala carte system which is basically saying that users will pay for what they use and only what they use.
Now I know you won't be satisfied with either of these answers however I'm no longer debating economics in this particular thread. I will however suggest that it might be worthwhile to start such a thread elsewhere as if you're right you may well come up with a plan for a successful Canadian internet cooperative which, according to claims, may already have a waiting customer base - basically I'm suggesting that you discuss how to operate such a business where customers get unlimited bandwidth at great speeds with awesome tech support for super cheap -- I personally have not figured out a way to do that however if you or others can I will happily become a customer. You may think I'm being sarcastic but I'm not...I'm really and truly interested to see how anyone can pull that off without going into debt and eventually shutting down.
Well I really appreciate your political response. I didn't expect anything but. You certainly know how to tow the company line and avoid answering questions you don't want to answer. The question was asked politely, and you chose once again not to answer it. It was a simple question ..."Show us all a report that Cogeco is hurting so bad that would justify this move by Cogeco to gouge it's own customers?" You try to justify taking money from the bottom and bringing it to the top by saying we live in a capitalistic society. I would argue that we live in a society where the top is in disrepair and out of control. Corporations around the world have been greedy way to long and the result is what we live in today. I was hoping Cogeco could hang their head up high and show leadership with policies that reflect a new world of change, fairness, and less greed.
Do you have any idea what Cogeco is paying there President in salary and bonuses and other top executives at Cogeco?
I wonder if anyone can find this information on the internet?
reply
Krispy @ 3rd Apr 05:01PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :
Do you have any idea what Cogeco is paying there President in salary and bonuses and other top executives at Cogeco?
I wonder if anyone can find this information on the internet?
Yes, Cogeco is a publicly traded company and all this info is publicly available - I get a paper copy sent to me via snail mail so haven't looked for it online but a quick google for 'Cogeco Annual Report' turned up hits.
Lastly, I'm not refusing to debate with you because I'm towing a company line, I'm refusing as 1.)this isn't the appropriate thread for it and 2.)I personally have no interest debating economics with you on my limited time during the week. Start a thread about ISP economics and PM me the link and I might participate on the weekend when I'm not so busy.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 05:18PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 05:27PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 05:27PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 05:37PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :
Well I really appreciate your political response. I didn't expect anything but. You certainly know how to tow the company line and avoid answering questions you don't want to answer. The question was asked politely, and you chose once again not to answer it. It was a simple question ..."Show us all a report that Cogeco is hurting so bad that would justify this move by Cogeco to gouge it's own customers?" You try to justify taking money from the bottom and bringing it to the top by saying we live in a capitalistic society. I would argue that we live in a society where the top is in disrepair and out of control. Corporations around the world have been greedy way to long and the result is what we live in today. I was hoping Cogeco could hang their head up high and show leadership with policies that reflect a new world of change, fairness, and less greed.
Do you have any idea what Cogeco is paying there President in salary and bonuses and other top executives at Cogeco?
Oh give me a break...you guys are getting rediculous. Cogeco isn't responsible for breaking the world's economy or putting people in the poor house.
Who cares how much anyone at Cogeco is making, this isn't a tax paid service.
Who cares if Cogeco is making money or losing money!? If you don't want to give them money then go to another provider.
Cogeco doesn't need to justify anything to you. You don't like it, don't pay it. (or don't have your parents pay it, whatever)
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 05:45PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 05:46PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 05:53PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 05:58PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 06:15PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 06:21PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Pizz @ 3rd Apr 08:04PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by xeroid2 :
Do you have any idea what Cogeco is paying there President in salary and bonuses and other top executives at Cogeco?
I wonder if anyone can find this information on the internet?
Yes, Cogeco is a publicly traded company and all this info is publicly available - I get a paper copy sent to me via snail mail so haven't looked for it online but a quick google for 'Cogeco Annual Report' turned up hits.
Lastly, I'm not refusing to debate with you because I'm towing a company line, I'm refusing as 1.)this isn't the appropriate thread for it and 2.)I personally have no interest debating economics with you on my limited time during the week. Start a thread about ISP economics and PM me the link and I might participate on the weekend when I'm not so busy.
See krispy, it's an economic thing. The rationale behind this move is purely and sorely based on economic reasoning. Don't get mad at customers/forum readers, for trying to find out why, and putting out other theories. Sorry, but we don't live in a society anymore, that we just 'take' what the company says and go with it.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 09:37PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
I personally have no interest debating economics with you on my limited time during the week. Start a thread about ISP economics and PM me the link and I might participate on the weekend when I'm not so busy.
Check it out! »ISP Economics: Just what does a gigabyte cost?
reply
casscarr2002 @ 3rd Apr 10:18PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I can't check my bandwidth usage as I still have and use the @cogeco.ca E-mail addy as it's to envoloped into tons of areas and logins as well as widely spread throughout, being on commercial, I need the @cogeco.net I think so I can view my bandwidth usage. Better think of a way to have the bandwidth page address this as I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't switch their Email address to the commercial address while being on commercial (coming from pro residential) I don't have the time to have this done. Gotta love self imposed adjustments that customers cannot effectively change nor have a say in. I'm fairly certain the ISP's are owned and operated by the gas companies....
--
Rampage Formula/Xeon Quad X3360 @ 4.14Ghz/8GB GSKill /8800UltraExtreme/Coolit Freezone Elite Water/TEC Cooler/TT Armor/Antec Quattro 1000/5.6TB
reply
Shamans @ 3rd Apr 10:24PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by casscarr2002 :
I can't check my bandwidth usage as I still have and use the @cogeco.ca E-mail addy as it's to envoloped into tons of areas and logins as well as widely spread throughout, being on commercial, I need the @cogeco.net I think so I can view my bandwidth usage. Better think of a way to have the bandwidth page address this as I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't switch their Email address to the commercial address while being on commercial (coming from pro residential) I don't have the time to have this done. Gotta love self imposed adjustments that customers cannot effectively change nor have a say in. I'm fairly certain the ISP's are owned and operated by the gas companies....
I had this similar problem. Whatever username you may have created a long time ago (and it's probably your primary e-mail cogeco.ca address)is what you need to use. You have to use the "Forgot Username?" and "Forgot Password?" links. If that doesn't work, you may have to call in but they don't seem to have a process to resolve it beyond those links yet.
reply
casscarr2002 @ 3rd Apr 10:30PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I've done all that, no go, doesn't work, I was told by tier 2 tech I had to change my E-mail to view my bandwidth from that page.
The new setup for bandwidth checking is now working :) All I had to do was revisit it and re register under my commercial account, nicely done, still assclownish to start overage garbage.
--
Rampage Formula/Xeon Quad X3360 @ 4.14Ghz/8GB GSKill /8800UltraExtreme/Coolit Freezone Elite Water/TEC Cooler/TT Armor/Antec Quattro 1000/5.6TB
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 10:34PM:
Re: Usage Billing
so ur on commercial and it shows prices per gb?\>?
reply
kushiro @ 3rd Apr 11:33PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Y'know, now that I understand there will soon be charges for overage, I would kind of like for my downloads not to stop halfway through (a fairly recent, as in 2-3 months now, development).
Just for the sake of not wasting bandwidth.
reply
urbanriot @ 4th Apr 02:04AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by casscarr2002 :
still assclownish to start overage garbage.
ahaha, well put bro.
said by curiousgeorge :
so ur on commercial and it shows prices per gb?
I have:
Additional usage costs: $0.00 per GB (1 GB = 1024 MB)
So my gigs of bytes are free.
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 07:01AM:
Re: Usage Billing
This is the final nail in the coffin for myself also. Obviously they could care less about their loyal customers.
And I'm sorry Krispy, I really do not believe even 1 higher up within the company will read anything we post here. You've been saying for over a year to wait as they're discussing these issues and we have not heard even 1 positive thing relayed back to us while all along we see the total opposite happening (rate increases, stricter policies, etc.). I respect the work you do and the time you take to reply to these threads but people can only stand this for so long.
reply
xeroid2 @ 4th Apr 07:56AM:
Re: Usage Billing
The salary of the CEO of Cogeco to make a point. It's Public information, NOT private.
Louis Audet
Chief Executive Officer, President, Director and Member of Strategic Opportunities Committee, Cogeco Inc.
ANNUAL COMPENSATION*
Salary C$710,000
Bonus C$843,480
Total Annual Compensation C$1,553,480
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 08:06AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 08:07AM:
Re: Usage Billing
this means that everyone on cogeco has unlimited right now, so feel free to download just like before the cutoff system was implemented
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 08:18AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 08:18AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 08:46AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 09:10AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 09:21AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 09:24AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 09:38AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
casscarr2002 @ 4th Apr 09:40AM:
Re: Usage Billing
no, my commercial account shows $0 for 1024 but as mentioned previously here, the commercial accounts will be no different than residential for overage's. I'd suggest they throw us a bone here and maybe up the speed considerably if they don't want so much of a back lash, although you just can't win in these circumstances, the company or the customer unfortunately. So much for the give and take relationships of company's/customers of the old days. "what can we get away with" is the new mentality :)
--
Rampage Formula/Xeon Quad X3360 @ 4.14Ghz/8GB GSKill /8800UltraExtreme/Coolit Freezone Elite Water/TEC Cooler/TT Armor/Antec Quattro 1000/5.6TB
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 10:47AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 10:50AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 11:15AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 12:08PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 12:34PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 12:49PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 12:50PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 12:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
On mobile and seems I`ve forgot my password so posting anonymously.
This change does give those who wish to pay more to use more some option (though they will each have to figure how to not negatively affect their neighbours so as to not be disconnected; that seems common sense to me, not sure how others view it).
After reading 5 pages I join with those wondering why we Pro clients who already pay more are being penalized the most? Why is Cogeco making it cheaper for us to downgrade and pay the max overage fee than to remain Pro clients?
Also, if anyone with Cogeco is still reading and responding here, will our unused tier gigabytes that now have a tangible per gigabyte value we pay real money for be banked for us for use at our own liesure?
TIA,
Trist
reply
mattei @ 4th Apr 12:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Steve :
All this company-line conspiracy is nonsense.
It's not like there's ever been a reason to suspect a problem:
»read and learn Cogeco, read and learn ..
I've experienced the same moderation issues in this forum. The usual response is "hey mods, and I've got no time, no time!" Oddly enough, the people complaining or posting unsavory information are usually the recipients of these rapid "for the forum" edits. I've never seen an employee censured, even when they're being an ass or negatively contributing to a thread. I also don't visit every day, so I may have missed a performance or two.
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 01:10PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
urbanriot @ 4th Apr 01:12PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by mattei :
I also don't visit every day, so I may have missed a performance or two.
You most definitely have. Heck, even I've been drawn into some unsavory behaviour and I'm glad those posts or threads were properly deleted. You might have even missed reading the posts themselves which are typically directly flaming or insulting a person or group of people. Based on your writing style I'll assume you're a mature adult and if you'd seen some of these posts, you'd probably agree there's no reason for them to be visible.
People may be trying to create a conspiracy with certain remarks that are bound to be deleted and leave a 'moderated' message in the thread.
I also have the sense that the Cogeco area is now under heavy moderation from more than one moderator.
reply
dan991199 @ 4th Apr 01:45PM:
Re: Usage Billing
i will agree to this.
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 01:50PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 01:53PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 02:41PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:18PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:22PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Chelle @ 4th Apr 03:40PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Let me point out that it is a SITE RULE not to bring up complaints regarding moderation in public forums. Please direct your concerns to fatness.
--
Just a witch with a capital B... ;)
Make a run for the border (the Northern one)
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:43PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:43PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:46PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Chelle @ 4th Apr 03:48PM:
Re: Usage Billing
And what good is going off topic and breaking site rules by complaining about moderation in a public forum which will result in more deletes? (as per the rules of this site)
Follow the site rules. Discuss your conspiracy theories regarding moderation with the site admin or with each other via IM or whatever you choose.
--
Just a witch with a capital B... ;)
Make a run for the border (the Northern one)
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:54PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:55PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:55PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 03:58PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 04:00PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 04:01PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Chelle @ 4th Apr 04:35PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Discuss the usage billing only please.
Also, please try and refrain from calling each other names, complaining about moderation, veering off topic, trolling just for fun, whatever else has gone wrong here.
If you play within the rules, there won't be any deletes. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. (along with 50 some odd other mods on this site)
Take a minute to read what you wrote before you post it. A little effort goes a long way. If you have no intention of even trying to post within the rules of the site, it's going to be deleted, if not by me, then by another mod. It has nothing to do with your opinion, it has to do with how it's presented and whether the presentation abides by the rules of the website.
--
Just a witch with a capital B... ;)
Make a run for the border (the Northern one)
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 05:14PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 06:13PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 4th Apr 06:17PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 01:44AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Before this comes into effect, does Cogeco have to file with the CRTC?
If so, have they filed yet?
If they don't have to file with the CRTC, why don't they have to?
ty.
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 02:58AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Wings @ 5th Apr 04:25AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I pay about $30 to host my site on a VPS server and the plan offers 150GB/month.
Just for using bandwidth alone at Cogeco you pay over $100 for that same 150GB and that includes no VPS server.
Conclusion; anyone who is still willing to pay these Cogeco prices is totally out of his mind and I mean TOTALLY! Don't listen to what Cogeco employees tell you, they are WAY overpriced and reason why I decided to cancel my contract.
Why now? Because I thought I had no better options.... but that was a while back, times have changed and now I can switch.
Cogeco is just creating the breeding ground for young companies to slowly become a force to be reckoned with, watch my words...
reply
xeroid2 @ 5th Apr 06:36AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Wings :
I pay about $30 to host my site on a VPS server and the plan offers 150GB/month.
Just for using bandwidth alone at Cogeco you pay over $100 for that same 150GB and that includes no VPS server.
Conclusion; anyone who is still willing to pay these Cogeco prices is totally out of his mind and I mean TOTALLY! Don't listen to what Cogeco employees tell you, they are WAY overpriced and reason why I decided to cancel my contract.
Why now? Because I thought I had no better options.... but that was a while back, times have changed and now I can switch.
Cogeco is just creating the breeding ground for young companies to slowly become a force to be reckoned with, watch my words...
Who do we call to sign up?
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 06:24AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Hamilton1 @ 5th Apr 08:57AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I live in Hamilton West and the only other option is Bell DSL which in my neighborhood gets really crappy speeds because I'm not close to the headend, not to mention they have no newsgroups and also are the kings of throttling.
So just who are these other alternatives that are so great?
reply
Phorkster @ 5th Apr 09:21AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Sorry, not all of us have a plethora of options. Hell I don't even have a reasonable alternative where I am. DSL in my area is below 1Mbps.
reply
QuickSurfer @ 5th Apr 10:49AM:
Re: Usage Billing
"Before this comes into effect, does Cogeco have to file with the CRTC?
If so, have they filed yet?
If they don't have to file with the CRTC, why don't they have to?
ty."
I don't specifically remember when they did, however it was reported some months ago that Cogeco had indeed filed with the CRTC stating their intentions to move to metered billing.
EDIT: not sure why this post came out looking so poor.
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 11:10AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by QuickSurfer :
"Before this comes into effect, does Cogeco have to file with the CRTC?
If so, have they filed yet?
If they don't have to file with the CRTC, why don't they have to?
ty."
I don't specifically remember when they did, however it was reported some months ago that Cogeco had indeed filed with the CRTC stating their intentions to move to metered billing.
EDIT: not sure why this post came out looking so poor.
ty for the reply.
If anyone has a link on the CRTC website to this, it would be appreciated. I get lost navigating that CRTC website :/
"came out weird because you had a "quote" error" :)
reply
Snickerdo @ 5th Apr 11:15AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Cogeco is in no way required to file any of this with the CRTC. Internet service pricing is not regulated in Canada. Only the reseller side (e.g. GAS with Bell) is regulated. When it comes to end users service, companies are free to price however they wish.
Cogeco's recent CRTC filing had to do with network congestion during the throttling hearings, and Cogeco's filing has more to do with what they plan on doing to stop "congestion" than what their pricing plans were.
(I put "congestion" in quotes, since we all know what a load of bullshit that is from -every- ISP out there)
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
DrunkenClam @ 5th Apr 12:38PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Take a look at the post from Rocky in the following linked thread that Jaser started in response to Krispy. Saying this is off topic is wrong especially when you consider the mock question and answer that followed the useful information in the first post of this thread:
»ISP Economics: Just what does a gigabyte cost?
It is so refreshing to see an honest and straight forward answer from the CEO of an ISP no less. Juxtapose this to the corporate propaganda we got from cogeco, it really makes one wonder what went wrong with cogeco?
reply
hse @ 5th Apr 12:47PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Wings :
I pay about $30 to host my site on a VPS server and the plan offers 150GB/month.
You could do even better with a cheap dedicated. Something like 2000GB for under $80 is possible. Certainly shows the economies of scale.
reply
prairiesky @ 5th Apr 02:12PM:
Re: Usage Billing
It all depends on where that bandwidth is located. It's going to be a lot cheaper in a place like NY than it is in a suburb in canada. That's why you can get cheap bandwidth elsewhere. to put it in perspective, 1 meg in NY is ~$3/month, outside major cities in canada, count upwards of $200.
reply
Snickerdo @ 5th Apr 02:16PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by prairiesky :
It all depends on where that bandwidth is located. It's going to be a lot cheaper in a place like NY than it is in a suburb in canada. That's why you can get cheap bandwidth elsewhere. to put it in perspective, 1 meg in NY is ~$3/month, outside major cities in canada, count upwards of $200.
I can guarantee you that Tier 1/Tier 2 bandwidth costs in Toronto aren't much more than in New York. This is especially true considering that most of Canada's Internet traffic passes through Toronto or Mississauga at some point. Don't kid yourself.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
jeisenberg @ 5th Apr 02:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by love me :
Before this comes into effect, does Cogeco have to file with the CRTC?
If so, have they filed yet?
A while back, there were threads related to the content of various ISP filings. Although the main thrust of those threads had to do with revelations about throttling, there were links presented to the actual "edited" submissions.
In those submissions, there were questions about "future plans" with respect to cap enforcement, etc. I believe I read in those plans that usage billing was coming soon.
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 03:15PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by PygmySurfer :
Maybe a better solution would be to move to a strictly metered service, similar to the way we pay for electricity of natural gas. Get rid of the monthly fee, and charge only for what is used. $0.25/GB would, IMHO, be a reasonable amount to pay. If I used only 60 GB in a month, I would pay only $15 - if I used 200 GB, I would pay $50. This way, everyone is paying for what they're using. If absolutely necessary, they could create tiers (I think my water usage is metered this way). So, say anything under 50 GB is billed at $0.15, 50-100 GB at $0.25, 101-150 GB at $0.30, etc. Maybe even have discounts during periods of low activity, so users are charged less for bandwidth used during off hours compared to peak hours.
Have you looked at your Hydro bill lately? Now the costs are unbundled, it's easy to see what you pay. On my last bill, I was billed for 1716kWh @ $.056/kWh = $96.10. On top of this I was charged a total of $90.92 for Delivery, Regulatory, Debt Retirement and GST, so my average cost per kWh was $0.109. Even if I turned everything off, went away and used no power in the billing period there would still be a charge. Same thing with water/sewer charges, gas and landline phone service. The main difference with the phone is that local calls are unmetered (not the case in most countries outside USA and Canada). Some so-called unlimited long distance plans have a cap (like Cogeco's) to discourage those people who want to use the line 24/7.
I agree in principle with the idea of lower off-peak rates, but that would probably result in higher peak rates which would also upset people, especially business users. You can never satisfy everyone.
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 03:16PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by AceOfHertz :said by xeroid2 :
Another point I wish for Cogeco to listen to is this: If you are going to charge for over usage, then wouldn't "the right thing to do" be to credit under usage? I tend to use my connection more during the winter and less during the summer. Why should I pay for any overage that may occur if I have been under for several months previously?
Because everything works on a month by month basis. If you don't use all of the cell phone minutes you're given on a monthly plan in a month, they don't roll them over to the next month. You will pay a monthly rate for whatever package you're on (i.e. 60 gigs at 10 megs), and if you use it, you don't get charged anything more, if you don't, it goes back to 0 for the next month.
Virgin Mobile allows you to roll over minutes on their pay-as-you go plans, as long as you renew before your current pre-paid block expires. It would be great if Cogeco allowed a rollover, but I doubt it will happen.
reply
mattei @ 5th Apr 04:50PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Perhaps you could expand your comparison to include the Cogeco DOCSIS cable networks in Ontario and Quebec? I'd be interested in a geography+engineering lesson that explains the $52.95 price tag in Ontario versus the $44.95 price tag in la belle province (Standard Residential a la carte service).
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 06:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
HAHAHA
I never thought I would live long enough to see the day when "Rogers" becomes a better ISP than cogeco...too funny!
95GB Limit on $59.00 Extreme
WTF is the world coming to>|?
reply
Seve @ 5th Apr 07:56PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Wow, running a Cable monopoly is a tough business.
Under this new Plan, will I get credit for all the unused (i.e. 60 Gig cap) bandwidth which I have paid for each month and do not use ?
Or is this just one more of those all upside for the Corp and screw the consumer deals again ?
reply
urbanriot @ 5th Apr 08:15PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Seve :
Under this new Plan, will I get credit for all the unused (i.e. 60 Gig cap) bandwidth which I have paid for each month and do not use ?
It's not looking that way, no. But if you want to propose something sensible it's possible it could be taken into consideration.
reply
IloveToast @ 5th Apr 08:38PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Perhaps UrbanBiot missed this part of the post:
said by Krispy :
As always there are many Cogeco employee eyes on the forum so they’ll be tracking it and we’re always open to good ideas so we are listening however I will be bluntly honest with you and tell you I do no foresee any change to this policy
--
omgbbq!
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 10:45PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 5th Apr 10:47PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 09:22AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Just as a point of reference. I am a Sympatico user and am thinking about switching to Cogeco for the higher speeds. This thread got me thinking as to what my usage is every month since I do not want to exceed the 60 GB limit. Now the whole family use the computers (we have 4 in the house) for World of Warcraft, music downloads, file downloads such as tech data for my work, and I am a beta tester required to download large files periodically. Now of course in addition we are always browsing for news and the usual internet use such as schoolwork or online shopping etc. With all that said our average is 30 GB a month and the most we have used in the past year was 35 GB a month. I know that there are many users that are using far more GB a month such as us but in my case the 60 GB seems reasonable and inevitable. Bell also has a 60 GB limit on my account and I have never exceeded it. Just a thought from an average user.
reply
dan991199 @ 6th Apr 09:59AM:
Re: Usage Billing
not sure how this applies at all to the thread.
reply
exseven @ 6th Apr 10:08AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I think his aim was to say that his family is "ok" with the billing change as he as an "average" user does not exceed the cap.
I as well do not exceed the cap, and thats with abnormal usage (720p & 1080p movies), game demos, iTunes downloads, etc etc.
This change will not affect me since i dont feel the need to download every single movie that comes out in the highest definition - or every new linux distro dvd (since i know how to update) ;)
reply
Barry @ 6th Apr 11:27AM:
Re: Usage Billing
You learn something new each day. Preferential treatment does not not impress me one bit. Especially now...
reply
Snickerdo @ 6th Apr 11:32AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Barry :
You learn something new each day. Preferential treatment does not not impress me one bit. Especially now...
I'm not fond of it either, but this is typical. Bell does the exact same thing, their Quebec prices are cheaper than Ontario due to competition with Videotron. This is probably why Cogeco is cheaper in Quebec as well.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 12:07PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Snickerdo :
This is probably why Cogeco is cheaper in Quebec as well.
This is exactly what Bell told me.
So by their own reasoning and admission, there is no real competition in Ontario and the only competition in QC is videotron.
Seems contrary to what the CRTC and the industry minister is telling everyone heh
reply
Snickerdo @ 6th Apr 12:49PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by u got it :
This is exactly what Bell told me.
So by their own reasoning and admission, there is no real competition in Ontario and the only competition in QC is videotron.
Seems contrary to what the CRTC and the industry minister is telling everyone heh
There is competition in Ontario, it's just that the baseline price is higher in Ontario than it is in Quebec. If Bell or Rogers dropped their Ontario prices, the others would follow.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 01:00PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Asawulf @ 6th Apr 01:00PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Userbase and provincial economy also play a role in this; on average the salaries (and almost everything) are lower in Qc than in Ontario, and Cogeco is more rural in Qc than in On so it might be logical in that sense too :)
Videotron and Bell have been in a long war so of course that plays a big role too; as they drop their prices, the other ISPs lower theirs too since Bell is almost everywhere...
reply
CanadianIron @ 6th Apr 01:08PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Asawulf :
Videotron and Bell have been in a long war so of course that plays a big role too; as they drop their prices, the other ISPs lower theirs too since Bell is almost everywhere...
Sounds like Cogeco is a follower and not a leader. Thats a shame.
reply
Asawulf @ 6th Apr 02:18PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by CanadianIron :said by Asawulf :
Videotron and Bell have been in a long war so of course that plays a big role too; as they drop their prices, the other ISPs lower theirs too since Bell is almost everywhere...
Sounds like Cogeco is a follower and not a leader. Thats a shame.
Cogeco isn't at war with those companies, no shame needed ;)
I do know we are "leading" a small price war with some other companies in certain areas; and believe me, it's those companies who cannot follow...
reply
diskdocx @ 6th Apr 02:33PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Price wars, where in large companies can subsidize 'loss leader' markets on the backs of customers in areas without competition, are how the oligopolies always drive out the independents.
Of course, there are rarely price wars between the oligopolies - so it is little surprise that Bell and Videotron are not 'competition'.
reply
mattei @ 6th Apr 05:11PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by John and Pat :
...file downloads such as tech data for my work, and I am a beta tester required to download large files periodically.
Are you aware that, should you choose Cogeco as your HSI provider, some of the actions you describe and intend to continue are prohibited by the AUP?
said by December 18, 2008 AUP :In the case of a residential Customer, the Residential Services are provided to the Customer as a residential user, for personal, residential, non-business and non-professional use. This means that the Customer shall not use the Services for any mercantile activities, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, for the operation of a home office, business, sales, telecommuting, telemarketing (including without limitation charitable or political solicitation or polling), or any other activity that would contravene or be inconsistent with normal residential usage patterns.
COGECO does not support LAN connection service, telecommuting and VPN service on High Speed Residential Internet Services. The connection of Internet servers at Customer residential premises to the COGECO Network is prohibited. The residential Customer may not run programs or servers which provide network service to others. Examples of prohibited programs include, but are not limited to mail, http, ftp, irc, dhcp servers, and multi-user interactive forums.
We're discussing an enforced account transfer limit and subsequent overage charges but AUP restrictions might be of greater concern in your case. After you're done eliminating your prohibited activities and arranging fallback services for unsupported operations vulnerable to arbitrary administrative action, you might be satisfied with a cheaper tier.
reply
mattei @ 6th Apr 05:17PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I think his aim was to say exactly what he said: a 60 GB account transfer limit does not, in his case, impact his family.
said by exseven :
I as well do not exceed the cap, and thats with abnormal usage (720p & 1080p movies), game demos, iTunes downloads, etc etc.
Abnormal? No, your usage pattern is similar to that of many law-abiding Canadian teens. How many kids do you have utilizing HSI in your Revenue Generating Unit?
said by exseven :
This change will not affect me since i dont feel the need to download every single movie that comes out in the highest definition - or every new linux distro dvd (since i know how to update) ;)
Another inflammatory remark aimed at disgruntled customers. Smiley or no, I'm beginning to wonder what your intent in this thread is.
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 05:41PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Fireblade @ 6th Apr 06:13PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by exseven :
I as well do not exceed the cap, and thats with abnormal usage (720p & 1080p movies), game demos, iTunes downloads, etc etc.
So you watch 1-2 1080p movies a month? 3 to 4 1080p movies and you've blown through Cogeco's cap. Not including 720p movies, game demos, music, etc, etc. With all of the above you're looking at 150GB of bandwidth at the minimum to moderately enjoy yourself. 1080p movies range from 10-30GB per movie based on quality, I usually go for the 15 range because the ones around 10GB are sometimes grainy with mediocre image quality. Cogeco doesn't even give us a chance to download "all the new movies in the highest definition".
reply
urbanriot @ 6th Apr 06:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
While I believe many people don't have usage models that bring them anywhere near the cap, it's April 6th and I've downloaded a few 720p shows (1GB each), 3 HD movies (1080p), some apps for work, regular browsing, youtube, audio streaming and a few .mp3 albums and I'm already at 42GB for this month. I would expect this to be typical usage for a computer savvy adult 35 years or less of age.
reply
exseven @ 6th Apr 07:03PM:
Re: Usage Billing
i do about the same as urbanriot, however spread across a month not the first week. I would consider myself a tech savvy under 35 as well, the majority of my friends (and people at work that i know) do not go over the 60GB cap and we are all tech savvy in my department
the 1080p movies i am downloading are 6-12GB per movie, not 30. If your movies are 30GB you need to find better compression or not go for the largest bitrate you can find (not always the best quality)
reply
Shamans @ 6th Apr 07:15PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Very few people download high def and high bitrate videos. I think it's easily the most common reason why people go over caps.
Think of the % of people who have high def TVs. And think of the % of people who have access to high def. And think of the % of people who are computer savvy enough to put this all together.
But yes, 60 GB is laughable. 120 GB is a little tight. 200 GB is comfortable. And I can easily go over 400 GB if they allowed it. I guess that's why we have blue ray discs...but I'm el cheapo....not that my internet plan is any cheaper really.
If you download less than 60 GB, I'm not sure if you can be considered tech savvy or morally misaligned. ;)
Also, if you have a few family members, downloading low bitrate videos can easily get you over the 60 GB cap too.
Methinks we need a thread to show off how much storage capacity each of us have. ;)
reply
urbanriot @ 6th Apr 07:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by exseven :
the 1080p movies i am downloading are 6-12GB per movie, not 30. If your movies are 30GB you need to find better compression or not go for the largest bitrate you can find (not always the best quality)
Yea, 30 would be uncompressed, hell some blu-ray are less than 25GB raw. Even 15 is a little high for x264's, unless you're getting them with DTS tracks. Typically, on a good release, a 1080p blu-ray movie at about 1.5 hours is around 8~9GB or so. That's still not a lot though, with regular internet usage.
I do download uncompressed at the end of the month though, if I have excess bandwidth. If I'm paying $90/month for 200gb, I'm damn sure going to use every last drop.
reply
x01 @ 6th Apr 08:12PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :Ok I’ve got my flak jacket on and buttoned up tight but before I dive in please remember
Chelle’s comments Lite – 10GB/mo bitcap - $2.50 per GB over to a maximum of $30
Lite Plus – 20GB/mo bitcap - $2.00 per GB over to a maximum of $30
Standard – 60GB/mo bitcap - $1.50 per GB over to a maximum of $30
Pro – 100GB/mo bitcap - $1.00 per GB over to a maximum of $50
I've just finished reading 19 pages of post in this thread and I am not happy about the new overage cost. I can understand the overage bitcaps, but I feel that the levels are way to low and the costs per GB are way to high and are not very realistic.
I may have nothing to worry about, but I can't say for sure. According to the cogeco website, I've used 0GB for the last 3 months which I know is incorrect. This troubles me, and makes me wonder who accurate cogeco will be when it comes to billing for extra GB
What makes this hard for me to swallow, is the fact that a lot of people are going thru hard times, and are lucky to have a job. Couple this with the fact that cogeco is experiencing high profits. It feels like Cogeco is trying to gouge us.
Now the final point I would like to make is that when it comes to high speed internet, we have no choice. Cogeco has monopoly in the Niagara region. Sure, I could aways switches to bell, or some other form of DSL, but they don't come close to offering the speeds I see with cogeco.
I know over the next couple months I will be researching my options very carefully.
X01
reply
Fireblade @ 6th Apr 08:27PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by exseven :
the 1080p movies i am downloading are 6-12GB per movie, not 30. If your movies are 30GB you need to find better compression or not go for the largest bitrate you can find (not always the best quality)
lol, If I downloaded a 6GB 1080p movie 130mins long, the image/sound quality would look/sound atrocious on my TV/sound system. 10GB is usually fine for image quality, but if you want superior image quality and top-notice sound I find 14-18GB is just perfect. I didn't pour money and resources into a home theater so I could experience sub-par image quality and sound. Just because someone at work knows how to complete a technical task, doesn't mean they're tech savvy. I knew people at work that could program just about anything, configure and fix any server, program - whatever. These people weren't tech savvy at all, they just knew how to do their job and nothing more, ask them to do anything out of their job role, even basic computing tasks and they were clueless. Obviously this doesn't implicate all of them, just the majority.
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 08:56PM:
Re: Usage Billing
My biggest concern with UBB would be the accuracy of Cogeco's measurements. When I was a customer I found they had difficulty billing accurately for flat rate plans, never mind usage based.
Are Cogeco's measuring tools inspected and approved? Does Cogeco (or any ISP for that matter) have to submit to regulation of the measuring devices?
»www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/···013.html
Thoughts?
reply
diskdocx @ 6th Apr 10:04PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Shamans :
Methinks we need a thread to show off how much storage capacity each of us have. ;)
We've got 2 main desktops in the house, and a laptop. My wife mainly uses the laptop.
Kids aren't old enough to d/l anything...yet.
The newest machine has a 150 gig Raptor, 2x500gig and 1x 1.5TB internal drives, plus 2 racks for cold swapping.
My older machine currently has only 2x250 gigs.
Also have an external 1.5 TB, 1 TB, and 5x 500gig drives.
Plus at least 1 TB combined of archived and backup drives.
I would guess all told, close to 10TB.
:)
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 10:09PM:
Re: Usage Billing
This is why Cogeco should be Government regulated if they want to go metered billing, just like Hydro, Water, Gas. All regulated by the government, I would not trust cogeco as far as I could throw them to "accurately" measure this, especially when any mistakes will always give Cogeco more money.
reply
ILoveBread @ 6th Apr 10:09PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :said by exseven :
the 1080p movies i am downloading are 6-12GB per movie, not 30. If your movies are 30GB you need to find better compression or not go for the largest bitrate you can find (not always the best quality)
I didn't pour money and resources into a home theater so I could experience sub-par image quality and sound.
If thats the case then why not buy a real blu ray player, switch from cogeco to a sub par but way cheaper DSL connection and then with the money your saving monthly rent real blu ray discs? problem solved.
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 10:25PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 10:26PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 10:36PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 10:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Nogeco :
This is why Cogeco should be Government regulated if they want to go metered billing, just like Hydro, Water, Gas. All regulated by the government, I would not trust cogeco as far as I could throw them to "accurately" measure this, especially when any mistakes will always give Cogeco more money.
No I think you misunderstand me. I do not think that Cogeco's rates, terms, etc. should be subject to regulation at all.
What I think is that perhaps the measurement devices used to calculate the bill should be subject to regulation and inspection. Just like the gas station pumps. Just like the hydro meter, the gas meter, the water meter. Just like the scale at my grocery.
All I'm saying is that measurement regulations and inspections have been with us for quite a while. The purpose is to protect the consumer, as a rigged measuring device is the oldest trick in the book.
reply
Steve @ 6th Apr 10:38PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by MCICGC :
The purpose is to protect the consumer, as a rigged measuring device is the oldest trick in the book.
It's not really a "device", it's just software, and I don't know how one could ever certify such a thing.
Steve — who has written extensive ISP billing software
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 10:41PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Steve :said by MCICGC :
The purpose is to protect the consumer, as a rigged measuring device is the oldest trick in the book.
It's not really a "device", it's just software, and I don't know how one could ever certify such a thing.
Steve
— who has written extensive ISP billing software California seems to think software that is used to count something can be certified.
»www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 10:42PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 10:49PM:
Re: Usage Billing
No I think you misunderstand me.
Yea, That's what I said. It only says measure in that post. Although it would be good for the government to force all ISP's to offer a "standard" package, that would insure all canadians fair internet access.
To do this though, they would have to pass a bill making internet service a vital service first, then make laws for it.
reply
Fireblade @ 6th Apr 10:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ILoveBread :
If thats the case then why not buy a real blu ray player, switch from cogeco to a sub par but way cheaper DSL connection and then with the money your saving monthly rent real blu ray discs? problem solved.
I have a PS3 and I use that to stream all my 1080p content from my PC to my TV. I can only get 1.5 Mbits max in my area when it comes to DSL, as I've stated several times already and that's quite below sub-par. Renting movies, people still do that? I wouldn't be saving any money there and physically renting movies is a terrible distribution model in our day and age. Plus, when I download I get to keep that movie forever and just throw it on my 4TB storage PC.
reply
urbanriot @ 6th Apr 10:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
Renting movies, people still do that?
Yes. Not everyone is breaking the law.
reply
Fireblade @ 6th Apr 11:06PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :said by Fireblade :
Renting movies, people still do that?
Yes. Not everyone is breaking the law.
It isn't illegal to download media in Canada as long as you aren't re-selling the content. Using Usenet to download games, music and movies is perfectly legal in Canada. The only thing you're breaking is your wallet, especially in a recession!
reply
IloveToast @ 6th Apr 11:06PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Ridiculous suggestions that the government should regulate user internet usage with some form of 'meter' demands an exaggerated response.
WTF are you talking about? I don't think you understand this. Regulate greedy corporations like Cogeco so all Canadians can have a fair value internet connection. Possibly with time get some competition going, and promote some "real" capitalism up here.
reply
Fireblade @ 6th Apr 11:14PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Government regulation of ISP's is the best thing that can happen to this country. Look at several countries in Europe, China and Japan.
reply
urbanriot @ 6th Apr 11:17PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
It isn't illegal to download media in Canada as long as you aren't re-selling the content. Using Usenet to download games, music and movies is perfectly legal in Canada.
Both criminally and civilly legal in Canada? Do you have any links that prove that? Not attempting to start an argument with you, sincerely asking.
reply
anon @ 6th Apr 11:24PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
katmeef @ 6th Apr 11:28PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
I didn't pour money and resources into a home theater so I could experience sub-par image quality and sound.
No matter how over-inflated the re-encoded 'rip' is, it cannot surpass the source material in quality. To get the best possible experience from a high end home-theater, it may be beneficial to pay for the movie on a blu-ray.
reply
Fireblade @ 6th Apr 11:33PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :
Both criminally and civilly legal in Canada? Do you have any links that prove that? Not attempting to start an argument with you, sincerely asking.
PM sent, discussion over.
said by katmeef :
To get the best possible experience from a high end home-theater, it may be beneficial to pay for the movie on a blu-ray.
Way too much effort into something I won't notice. I've compared a 18GB "rip" to it's actual blu-ray release and I barely noticed a difference in image quality. It was only noticeable if I sat inches away from the TV.
EDIT: It's not really about paying, it's the way the media is delivered to my home. If there was a service that had an enormous list of full quality blu-ray content that could be streamed almost instantly to my TV, I would be paying for it.
reply
IloveToast @ 6th Apr 11:45PM:
Re: Usage Billing
OMG Katmeef...you where my favorite Cogeco guy, don't get sucked into this, I need a favorite to keep hope alive!
Anyways, there are many other legit ways to stream/download 1080P movies, just get an american netflix account...boom done...gee, I wonder why netflix hasn't expanded into canada *cough cough*
reply
katmeef @ 6th Apr 11:46PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
Way too much effort into something I won't notice. I've compared a 18GB "rip" to it's actual blu-ray release and I barely noticed a difference in image quality. It was only noticeable if I sat inches away from the TV.
Well... I'll admit an 18GB re-encode will probably be pretty close to the original in quality :)
With the new billing system though, could the overage costs for the 18GB (assuming it's over the cap) plus the cost of your media to burn it be more than just buying the Blu-Ray movie?
Another point in support of purchasing the Blu-Ray: if your Blu-ray player and HDTV are capable of displaying 24P 'True Cinema', you'll only be able to enjoy that feature on the Blu-Ray. At least as far as I've been able to determine, this is only supported via HDMI, only when using a Blu-Ray player that supports outputting at 24fps, and only if the Blu-Ray disc was encoded at 24p.
reply
katmeef @ 6th Apr 11:48PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by IloveToast :
OMG Katmeef...you where my favorite Cogeco guy, don't get sucked into this, I need a favorite to keep hope alive!
Anyways, there are many other legit ways to get 1080P movies, just get an american netflix account...boom done...gee, I wonder why netflix hasn't expanded into canada *cough cough*
LOL :) While I'm trying to stay neutral on the cap issue, I do think Blu-Ray is the way to go for high-end home theaters.
BTW, I ended up getting a zip.ca account last year when I had to start keeping a closer eye on the BW
reply
Fireblade @ 6th Apr 11:50PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by IloveToast :
Anyways, there are many other legit ways to get 1080P movies, just get an american netflix account...boom done...gee, I wonder why netflix hasn't expanded into canada *cough cough*
Netflix isn't full blu-ray quality - I can get better quality blu-rays from Usenet. I have looked into Netflix many times and it isn't for me - though I've been reading that Netflix wants to bring full quality blu-ray streaming to the PS3. We'll see if that ever comes out, but I'm sure Sony will have none of it.
said by katmeef :
With the new billing system though, could the overage costs for the 18GB (assuming it's over the cap) plus the cost of your media to burn it be more than just buying the Blu-Ray movie?
From what I've been reading, once I pay the $30 in usage fees, my account is pretty much unlimited as long as I don't do any heavy downloading in peak times. I don't burn the media, it's a full stream from my Storage Server -> PS3 -> HDTV. So far it's been working really well. :D
said by katmeef :
Another point in support of purchasing the Blu-Ray: if your Blu-ray player and HDTV are capable of displaying 24P 'True Cinema', you'll only be able to enjoy that feature on the Blu-Ray. At least as far as I've been able to determine, this is only supported via HDMI, only when using a Blu-Ray player that supports outputting at 24fps, and only if the Blu-Ray disc was encoded at 24p.
I haven't really been looking into that feature, I wonder if I'm already getting it because it's fully streamed instead of being a burnt disc. I'll have to do some research.
reply
IloveToast @ 7th Apr 12:04AM:
Re: Usage Billing
zip.ca is a joke, doesn't even offer download or streaming.
Netflix actually detects your connection speed automatically, then throttles the Bit rate stream to give you a "delivered quality". Then depending on your connection speed, you can get pretty good quality.
Picture is on par with Cogeco HD or a little worst sometimes, only thing they don't have is surround sound....yet.
reply
katmeef @ 7th Apr 12:15AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I use zip.ca just because they mail out the discs. Their shipping is pretty fast, although not as fast as downloading of course..
It was a bit of an adjustment after my many years of trying to archive the internet... :)
reply
katmeef @ 7th Apr 12:19AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
From what I've been reading, once I pay the $30 in usage fees, my account is pretty much unlimited as long as I don't do any heavy downloading in peak times. I don't burn the media, it's a full stream from my Storage Server -> PS3 -> HDTV. So far it's been working really well. :D
Touché :) I forgot about the cap on the overage fees.
reply
IloveToast @ 7th Apr 12:23AM:
Re: Usage Billing
yea, I just imagine the germs on those disks....who knows who has been touching them. There is always weird stains on them!
Having a netflix account and soon as American PSN store starts offering 1080P movies I am all over that! That stuff will probably never come to canada because of these shitty bit caps. These kinda things are why I am going to be testing what exactly "maximum of 30" means....woo doggy!
--
omgbbq!
reply
katmeef @ 7th Apr 12:29AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by IloveToast :
yea, I just imagine the germs on those disks....who knows who has been touching them. There is always weird stains on them!
now I'm going to be all wierded out when I get my next shipment of movies :)
Bad mental image...
reply
SmallWig @ 7th Apr 12:58AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by IloveToast :
These kinda things are why I am going to be testing what exactly "maximum of 30" means....woo doggy!
The problem with the maximum overage fee is that it will have an asterisk next to it. It will be in the AUP/TOS with some kind of vague definition of abuse. Even in off peak hours I would be surprised if one could download the maximum during that period. Cogeco will suggest you get a 'proper' plan for your needs. Meaning up-selling.
reply
Fireblade @ 7th Apr 01:09AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by SmallWig :
The problem with the maximum overage fee is that it will have an asterisk next to it. It will be in the AUP/TOS with some kind of vague definition of abuse. Even in off peak hours I would be surprised if one could download the maximum during that period. Cogeco will suggest you get a 'proper' plan for your needs. Meaning up-selling.
That's what has me worried too, I'll be conducting tests on the month of June when all this shenanigans starts. Shamans made a thread we can all post in about our experience. »Bandwidth usage: share your experience under new rules. I've started a bit early.
reply
SmallWig @ 7th Apr 01:49AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I have found the asterisk.
From their website:
"*** Usage rates may be changed by Cogeco upon 30-day notice. We wish to remind you that these additional charge and maximum limit do not limit in any way our contractual right to temporarily suspend or restrict your access to your Internet service or to take any other actions deemed appropriate, if your consumption exceeds a reasonable limit, as determined by Cogeco in its sole judgment, or for any other violation of the AUP or T&Cs, in accordance with the terms of such AUP and T&Cs."
This is troublesome wording. Meaning there is a cap on how far one can go. Just not publish for its customers. It looks like they will call it abuse if you pass the next tier level. Then up-sell you.
reply
anon @ 7th Apr 06:59AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Shyte @ 7th Apr 09:02AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :said by urbanriot :said by Fireblade :
Renting movies, people still do that?
Yes. Not everyone is breaking the law.
It isn't illegal to download media in Canada as long as you aren't re-selling the content. Using Usenet to download games, music and movies is perfectly legal in Canada. The only thing you're breaking is your wallet, especially in a recession!
Umm hope you don't have to use that reason in court someday. If you're downloading ripped movies, you're breaking the copyright infringement law, same with music.I agree with the wallet comment, I haven't gone to a movie store in years.. Just rent the odd movie thrugh my Apple Tv box... Same price, and can get it HD as well..
reply
Snickerdo @ 7th Apr 09:08AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Shyte :
Umm hope you don't have to use that reason in court someday. If you're downloading ripped movies, you're breaking the copyright infringement law, same with music.I agree with the wallet comment, I haven't gone to a movie store in years.. Just rent the odd movie thrugh my Apple Tv box... Same price, and can get it HD as well.
Actually, in the case of music, Canadian courts have ruled that merely downloading music is not a violation of copyright law. One must be willingly distributing the music for there to be a violation. By "willingly" they mean you must be actively engaged in the distribution, having the music residing on a shared folder on your hard drive and merely available for others to download is not a violation either, just like having a photocopier in a library isn't a violation of copyright law, even though it could be used for such.
No legal test exists for downloading motion pictures, so one cannot say just exactly how the courts would rule. They could theoretically use the music rulings as a precedent, though.
Considering that I can go to Pacific Mall and get a copy of whatever I want for dirt cheap, I don't think law enforcement is going to be all too concerned with people downloading stuff off the interwebs for their own personal use.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
Chelle @ 7th Apr 09:17AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Probably best to keep this thread to usage billing and save the copyright stuff for a separate one.
Thanks!
reply
ancodia @ 7th Apr 09:35AM:
Re: Usage Billing
We all know the reason behind ubb is to protect legacy video technology as they are terrified of streamed/downloaded video contect. So if you really want to send a message but don't want to cancel your Internet service, downgrade your video package as much as possible or even better just have Internet service. As much as ubb is a cash cow for Cogeco, their video services are a whole herd of cows :)
reply
urbanriot @ 7th Apr 10:46AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Snickerdo :
Considering that I can go to Pacific Mall and get a copy of whatever I want for dirt cheap, I don't think law enforcement is going to be all too concerned with people downloading stuff off the interwebs for their own personal use.
Those Pacific Mall guys have been arrested more times than I can count by the RCMP.
This discussion interests me, so I've moved it over here if anyone is interested in continuing:
»Legality of downloading copyrighted works in Canada
reply
mattei @ 7th Apr 12:25PM:
Re: Usage Billing
There are plenty of examples in the aerospace, agricultural, medical, and military engineering fields. I like your link, though :).
reply
Krispy @ 7th Apr 02:10PM:
Re: Usage Billing
FYI, there's been some details added to the www.cogeco.com page
»www.cogeco.com/en/internet_suppo···g_o.html
and the packages have been updated to include the usage billing rates,
»www.cogeco.com/en/high-speed-int···-_o.html
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
peterboro1 @ 7th Apr 02:25PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Krispy, Is that access to security for $2.00 something new or did I miss that on my bill?
reply
Krispy @ 7th Apr 02:35PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by peterboro1 :
Krispy, Is that access to security for $2.00 something new or did I miss that on my bill?
Access to security for Lite package (and now new Lite Plus) for $2/mo has always been around - it's free for Standard and Pro as always.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
anon @ 7th Apr 03:38PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I really have mixed feelings about the usage changes.
I will certainly be coming close to, or going over the 60GB limit. I never used to, but since getting a PS3, 360 and more electronic media i'm downloading more and more these days.
Add hulu and other media streaming sites which the gf is addicted to; it adds up even more. On top of whatever misc downloading we all do.
I'd feel a lot better knowing what the hard cap after the $30 overage limit really is. At least ballpark.
I think paying $70/month for unlimited internet download caps at standard speeds would be very fair. Of course, a ballpark 'over usage cap' of anywhere from 300-500GB would make sense, just to make sure people aren't running servers on residential accounts.
Even then, shutting down a customer should be taken into consideration ONLY when they are affecting the bandwidth of other users.
What i'd like to see happen, is a difference between peak download times and non-peak.
Another idea. 60GB peak hours (6pm-10pm) downloads would be fair, and leave the rest as unlimited.
reply
wallee @ 7th Apr 09:01PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by justice7ca :
I really have mixed feelings about the usage changes.
I will certainly be coming close to, or going over the 60GB limit. I never used to, but since getting a PS3, 360 and more electronic media i'm downloading more and more these days.
Add hulu and other media streaming sites which the gf is addicted to; it adds up even more. On top of whatever misc downloading we all do.
I'd feel a lot better knowing what the hard cap after the $30 overage limit really is. At least ballpark.
I think paying $70/month for unlimited internet download caps at standard speeds would be very fair. Of course, a ballpark 'over usage cap' of anywhere from 300-500GB would make sense, just to make sure people aren't running servers on residential accounts.
Even then, shutting down a customer should be taken into consideration ONLY when they are affecting the bandwidth of other users.
What i'd like to see happen, is a difference between peak download times and non-peak.
Another idea. 60GB peak hours (6pm-10pm) downloads would be fair, and leave the rest as unlimited.
Damn. You can get Hulu to stream to Canada? Won't do it for me.
When I read the line about max $30 overage charge I assume that would mean they cut you off when you get to the $30 mark at a $1.50 per gig over your 60 gigs a month. Wouldn't it be stupid of them (from their point of view) to allow us unlimited downloading after a max overage charge? Why bother? Cogeco's not going to give us an unlimited account for $70 a month.
reply
katmeef @ 7th Apr 10:59PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by wallee :
When I read the line about max $30 overage charge I assume that would mean they cut you off when you get to the $30 mark at a $1.50 per gig over your 60 gigs a month. Wouldn't it be stupid of them (from their point of view) to allow us unlimited downloading after a max overage charge? Why bother? Cogeco's not going to give us an unlimited account for $70 a month.
Please see the first post on page one of the thread.
"4. What happens if I download lots even though I’ve hit my maximum charge?
If the activity is degrading the service to other customers we’ll temporarily interrupt your connectivity like we do today"
reply
bricktoppp @ 8th Apr 02:42AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Cogeco is going to cut users off right when they reach the $30 limit. "Temporarily disconnected" means no internet until next month.
reply
katmeef @ 8th Apr 04:00AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by bricktoppp :
Cogeco is going to cut users off right when they reach the $30 limit. "Temporarily disconnected" means no internet until next month.
No.... That's not my understanding anyways..
reply
Fireblade @ 8th Apr 05:41AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I noticed that once you reach 100% bandwidth consumption for the month, your gauge after 100% turns red instead of green and it slowly increases. What happens when it hits the top? Termination for the month?
See here
reply
dad_of_3 @ 8th Apr 07:37AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
What happens when it hits the top? Termination for the month?
I guess that depends on if other customers on your node complain :-/
-infamous grey area-
reply
katmeef @ 8th Apr 07:45AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
I noticed that once you reach 100% bandwidth consumption for the month, your gauge after 100% turns red instead of green and it slowly increases. What happens when it hits the top? Termination for the month?
64 gig already?? At this rate, maybe you may be the first person to find out. :)
reply
Fireblade @ 8th Apr 09:28AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :
64 gig already?? At this rate, maybe you may be the first person to find out. :)
Honestly I've been holding back this entire time :(
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 09:22AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Certainly gives the impression you'll be cut off when the meter reaches the top.
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 10:04AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by bricktoppp :
Cogeco is going to cut users off right when they reach the $30 limit. "Temporarily disconnected" means no internet until next month.
I'd really like to find out if there's any truth to this.
If i'm going to be cut off after hitting the monthly "limit", this is extremely draconian.
If by paying up to that limit, i've got unlimited to a soft cap of some insane figure like 400GB, then I think it is completely fair.
Which way is it?
Lets say a standard account (60GB cap), downloads 80GB (20 over, @ $1.50 per GB, thats $30 cap), are you cut off?
also, lets say a standard account (60GB cap) downloads 200GB, WAY over the $30 cap; would they be able to?
The point of my question is; is the purpose of the cap to protect the customer or cogeco?
reply
Hamilton1 @ 8th Apr 10:16AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I'd love to know the answer to that as well.... I've been told by my friend on Rogers that after they exceed their 60Gb limit they are charged up to $25 max and then it is unlimited as he's seen people post that download up to 2Gb's worth of data.
After thinking about this for a bit it would only make sense that Cogeco will probably cut the 60Gb or Standard package off after they go over a 100Gb's, and the reason I say this is if they didn't then I would assume anyone that's on the pro or 100Gb's would obviously revert back to the standard and save the $25 + Tax.
Hopefully Krispy or someone else from Cogeco can clear this up for the rest of us.
reply
SmallWig @ 8th Apr 10:27AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by justice7ca :
The point of my question is; is the purpose of the cap to protect the customer or cogeco?
Caps have never been about protecting the customer. Caps have always been about protecting the legacy video offering from being cannibalized.
In essence caps are purely about protecting the bottom line for Cogeco.
reply
ancodia @ 8th Apr 10:38AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by SmallWig :said by justice7ca :
The point of my question is; is the purpose of the cap to protect the customer or cogeco?
Caps have never been about protecting the customer. Caps have always been about protecting the legacy video offering from being cannibalized.
In essence caps are purely about protecting the bottom line for Cogeco.
Amen to that! If you want to protest, cancel your video packages or addons you have.
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 10:44AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :said by SmallWig :said by justice7ca :
The point of my question is; is the purpose of the cap to protect the customer or cogeco?
Caps have never been about protecting the customer. Caps have always been about protecting the legacy video offering from being cannibalized.
In essence caps are purely about protecting the bottom line for Cogeco.
Amen to that! If you want to protest, cancel any/all video packages you have.
I'm not entirely sure yet as to if it is true that you get cut off after the cap or not.
This is the deal breaker for me; with the added cost to bandwidth caps I'm expecting more for more money. Not stricter limits than we're used to.
We should be able to buy the bandwidth if we want to pay for it.
reply
katmeef @ 8th Apr 11:04AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by justice7ca :
I'm not entirely sure yet as to if it is true that you get cut off after the cap or not.
This is the deal breaker for me; with the added cost to bandwidth caps I'm expecting more for more money. Not stricter limits than we're used to.
We should be able to buy the bandwidth if we want to pay for it.
I really don't think people are going to get cutoff as soon as they hit the top of the overage. I don't think anyone here know's for sure yet, we might all end up having to wait and see.
said by SmallWig :
Caps have never been about protecting the customer. Caps have always been about protecting the legacy video offering from being cannibalized.
Thinking purely from the point-of-view of layers 1-4 of the OSI model (I'm stuck here for some reason), and not wanting to offend anyone, I respectfully do not agree.
I believe caps in any network help to prevent congestion problems.
Congestion problems really do cost a lot of money to fix. I can't stress it enough - If that were not the case, I think all networks would be open. (at least from layers 1-4's point-of-view)
The analogy that a car costs more than gas stands true for me. Also, I agree that it's unfair to make people who do not use so much bandwidth pay more, just as it's unfair for them to have slow speeds for their websurfing due to being in a congested node... or whatever it is those people do.. send emails and play scrabble? I'll have to ask my mom...
reply
dad_of_3 @ 8th Apr 11:21AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by justice7ca :said by bricktoppp :
Cogeco is going to cut users off right when they reach the $30 limit. "Temporarily disconnected" means no internet until next month.
I'd really like to find out if there's any truth to this.
If i'm going to be cut off after hitting the monthly "limit", this is extremely draconian.
If by paying up to that limit, i've got unlimited to a soft cap of some insane figure like 400GB, then I think it is completely fair.
Which way is it?
Lets say a standard account (60GB cap), downloads 80GB (20 over, @ $1.50 per GB, thats $30 cap), are you cut off?
also, lets say a standard account (60GB cap) downloads 200GB, WAY over the $30 cap; would they be able to?
The point of my question is; is the purpose of the cap to protect the customer or cogeco?
The answer to this question is containd in the very first post to this thread ...point #4
My understanding is that after you have hit the $30.00 max, then your basically on a (unknown) soft cap. This is how it was pre sept 2007..If another customer on your node complains of congestion, and Cogeco investigates, and sees that you are over and reached the max, and still going strong..then you could (like then) get cut off..
reply
urbanriot @ 8th Apr 11:48AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :
I believe caps in any network help to prevent congestion problems.
If this were true then Cogeco would not count late evening / early morning bandwidth towards the bandwidth cap, and would advertise this 'bandwidth free time', as that would free up a massive amount of congestion - 80% of the congestion, if earlier provided numbers are accurate!
said by katmeef :
The analogy that a car costs more than gas stands true for me.
I don't understand your analogy and I don't believe that you can translate car / gas to [????] / internet (?!)
reply
Krispy @ 8th Apr 01:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by justice7ca :
We should be able to buy the bandwidth if we want to pay for it.
You can, we have several packages including a truly unlimited tier (yes it's marketed as commercial package but anyone can subscribe).
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Krispy @ 8th Apr 01:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :
I don't understand your analogy and I don't believe that you can translate car / gas to [????] / internet (?!)
Since it seems to be confusing some people I'll explain (note that I said explain and not defend)...
Imagine you have a 16 year old and they come to you and say "Hey, I got my license and I want a car" and you say "Sure, you have to pay for it yourself though" and they say "Ok, here's $20...done" because they're of the belief that a car costs $20 as that's all it costs them to hop in your car and drive to wherever as they're a teenager and not intimately aware that you speny thousands of dollars initially for the car or that you have to pay a monthly insurance fee or that you have to bring it in for maintenance, etc.
My argument is that people stating that "A GB costs an ISP mere cents" is akin to the teenager assuming the cost of a car is simply the cost of gas as those folks that assume an ISP just pays mere cents for transit are forgetting about the infrastructure that has to be in place (and constantly maintained) in order to get that transit to you.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
CanadianIron @ 8th Apr 01:42PM:
Re: Usage Billing
nm misread
reply
uber69er @ 8th Apr 01:46PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by urbanriot :
I don't understand your analogy and I don't believe that you can translate car / gas to [????] / internet (?!)
Since it seems to be confusing some people I'll explain
(note that I said explain and not defend)...
Imagine you have a 16 year old and they come to you and say
"Hey, I got my license and I want a car" and you say
"Sure, you have to pay for it yourself though" and they say
"Ok, here's $20...done" because they're of the belief that a car costs $20 as that's all it costs them to hop in your car and drive to wherever as they're a teenager and not intimately aware that you speny thousands of dollars initially for the car or that you have to pay a monthly insurance fee or that you have to bring it in for maintenance, etc.
My argument is that people stating that
"A GB costs an ISP mere cents" is akin to the teenager assuming the cost of a car is simply the cost of gas as those folks that assume an ISP just pays mere cents for transit are forgetting about the infrastructure that has to be in place (and constantly maintained) in order to get that transit to you.
I understand and agree with the analogy, but I see some people are suggesting time of use like the new hydro meters.
Thus the metrics change and the powers that be might consider this.
Although what some have pointed out is that it would be contrary to their corporate "greed".
Your thoughts?
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 01:52PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
urbanriot @ 8th Apr 01:53PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
My argument is that people stating that "A GB costs an ISP mere cents" is akin to the teenager assuming the cost of a car is simply the cost of gas as those folks that assume an ISP just pays mere cents for transit are forgetting about the infrastructure that has to be in place (and constantly maintained) in order to get that transit to you.
Ah, then that's a different argument. I have no idea what transit costs are and I'm not about to pretend that I do. While I might be able to figure out the raw costs, I'd probably leave out some form of overhead and even then I have no idea what Cogeco's various costs are, or whether or not they're optimized or streamlined.
Katmeef somehow tied that analogy into the congestion issue, and if the analogy is referencing transit costs, then... I have no idea.
Again, if Cogeco is doing this to cover operating costs, fine - admit it and be done with it.
If Cogeco is doing this to save up money to rebuild their network, fine - admit that and be done with it.
If Cogeco just wants more money, fine, that's acceptable.
But if Cogeco is claiming they're doing this to relieve congestion than my previous suggestions to advertise an off meter billing time will push a massive amount of heavy downloaders into off peak times which should completely resolve the congestion issue.
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 01:56PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
xeroid2 @ 8th Apr 01:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by urbanriot :
I don't understand your analogy and I don't believe that you can translate car / gas to [????] / internet (?!)
Since it seems to be confusing some people I'll explain
(note that I said explain and not defend)...
Imagine you have a 16 year old and they come to you and say
"Hey, I got my license and I want a car" and you say
"Sure, you have to pay for it yourself though" and they say
"Ok, here's $20...done" because they're of the belief that a car costs $20 as that's all it costs them to hop in your car and drive to wherever as they're a teenager and not intimately aware that you speny thousands of dollars initially for the car or that you have to pay a monthly insurance fee or that you have to bring it in for maintenance, etc.
My argument is that people stating that
"A GB costs an ISP mere cents" is akin to the teenager assuming the cost of a car is simply the cost of gas as those folks that assume an ISP just pays mere cents for transit are forgetting about the infrastructure that has to be in place (and constantly maintained) in order to get that transit to you.
OH YES KRISPY ... and don't forget the 1.5 MILLION you pay your CEO as well as all the other executives salaries. If you can't see corporate greed in this decision, then your blind as a bat!
There is only one thing we all can do to send Cogeco a clear message.
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 01:59PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Hamilton1 @ 8th Apr 02:12PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I'm sorry but If Cogeco didn't cut a standard user that has a max of 60Gb off after using more than 100gb, then what's the sense of even offering a pro plan?
If I were on the pro plan and saw that the standard subscriber could get unlimited usage after paying the 30 then why in the world would I stay on pro where I already pay an extra $25 + tax and then would pay up to 50 dollars more to get unlimited???? It just doesn't make any sense, and you would have to be a complete moron to do it.
So is there a clear answer here? is there a set limit for a STANDARD USER "60Gb" after the $30 limit is reached? or 80Gb
reply
urbanriot @ 8th Apr 02:12PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :
There is only one thing we all can do to send Cogeco a clear message.
I'm sorry, you might have left out what that clear thing was to do?
Krispy, someone might have mentioned an email address in a previous thread - I'm wondering if there's someone that we can direct our personal complaints and/or suggestions to or if this is the best place for that? I checked the Cogeco web site and I didn't see an email that might be suitable.
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 02:13PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 02:16PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
dad_of_3 @ 8th Apr 02:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Hamilton1 :
I'm sorry but If Cogeco didn't cut a standard user that has a max of 60Gb off after using more than 100gb, then what's the sense of even offering a pro plan?
It just doesn't make any sense, and you would have to be a complete moron to do it.
Your only taking "bandwidth" into account, theres a significiant difference in speed as well between standard and pro..
said by Hamilton1 :
So is there a clear answer here? is there a set limit for a STANDARD USER "60Gb" after the $30 limit is reached? or 80Gb
This has already been answered...they won't tell you the actual upper limit...because it will depend on the congestion of your node, customer complaints.. etc..
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 02:27PM:
Re: Usage Billing
What i'd like to see are competitive rates to Teksavvy .. and by competitive, i dont mean the same as or better, but generally close.
»www.teksavvy.com/en/resdsl.asp?ID=7&mID=1
At least add these:
# Other Charges
* Additional Bandwidth - $0.25/GB/mo.
* Pre-Purchased Blocks - $10/100GB/mo.
* $25 - Moving during the first month of the activation date
* $25 - For any speed change after activation(ex: from 5 Meg to Basic, ...)
Let me log in online and buy blocks of 100GB at a time or something.
They unlimited account as Krisspy had mentioned is far above and beyond the cost of switching to DSL. The speed difference from 5M and 10M doesn't mean as much to me as the bandwidth cap. I spend very little "time" downloading as it is. 60GB might have worked fine back in 2000, but now it feels like we're being limited.
Why do i feel like they're taking cues from cellphone companies with these plans? I hate telus/bell for those..
Raise the bitcaps, 150GB (standard) / 250GB (pro) respectively, imo.
A lot of people, myself included have never ever talked about switching from Cogeco.
We're discussing those options now.
reply
ancodia @ 8th Apr 02:28PM:
Re: Usage Billing
if only our government/crtc wasn't so spineless ...
»Politicians Oppose Time Warner Cable Meters
reply
mattei @ 8th Apr 02:30PM:
Re: Usage Billing
OSI layers 1 through 4? Ok. We're paying for metered use of layer 3 and above (not PDUs, right?) when subscribed to HSI. All of Cogeco's digital service offerings use the same physical network for data transport. Analogue television still holds a chunk of the available bandwidth on that same network. Care to get specific?
I believe bit transfer caps in any network shift usage patterns and concentrate demand. The result, at peak, is an increase (lower GB accounting, higher 95th percentile).
Congestion problems really do cost the customer money in a metered scenario. A network incapable of handling peak demand will distort any normalized bandwidth ratio optimizations resulting in artificial connection limitation (under utilized downstream), downstream retransmission packet cost (byte accounting inflation from delayed ACKs), and request packet (CM->CMTS, limited contention slots) collisions among a host of problems.
That's before we get into intentional RSTs. Something that relates to the throttling occuring since 2001 on Cogeco's network.
quote:
Cogeco admits they started throttling back in 2001 instead of moving to metered billing, which they claim "would not dissuade ‘abuses’ of the network."
Is HSI multi-channel upstream yet (just HSI, I'm not referring to the whole pipe)? Dedicated stream for Cogeco's VoIP service...or is v1.1 QoS (UGA to Best Effort) the preferred arbiter? I've heard rumors of DOCSIS v3 but until I see a new modem I'll be assuming v1.1.
reply
anon @ 8th Apr 02:36PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
diskdocx @ 8th Apr 03:07PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Hamilton1 :
I'm sorry but If Cogeco didn't cut a standard user that has a max of 60Gb off after using more than 100gb, then what's the sense of even offering a pro plan?
If I were on the pro plan and saw that the standard subscriber could get unlimited usage after paying the 30 then why in the world would I stay on pro where I already pay an extra $25 + tax and then would pay up to 50 dollars more to get unlimited???? It just doesn't make any sense, and you would have to be a complete moron to do it.
So is there a clear answer here? is there a set limit for a STANDARD USER "60Gb" after the $30 limit is reached? or 80Gb
I raised this exact question waaaay back on page 2, and Krispy did respond to it by saying she would pass the concerns along.
In my opinion, the only benefit to the Pro plan is the speed. But, since practically the only time I see anywhere near to max speed is when I'm transferring off usenet, it is definitely a trivial overall advantage.
I did calculate out that the break even point, for monthly cost + overage is 105 gigs - anything less than that would be cheaper on Pro (unless you aren't hitting 60 gigs), anything more would be significantly cheaper on Standard.
IMO you need to either increase the Pro cap (perhaps 150 or even 200 gigs), have lower (not higher) maximum overage (say $20) or abandon it completely.
As far as the vague network disruption cutoff, there is NO WAY on Standard that you could cut a user off before 150 gigs, since that is defined as allowable on the Pro package (100gig base, + max $50 in overage at $1/gig means you are allowed to use 150 gigs on Pro).
I would think that a legitimate CRTC complaint could be made if Cogeco cut off a standard user at less than 150 gigs, due to network disruption, but would allow them to use 150 gigs, at a faster speed, if they pay more and upgrade to a Pro account. Disrupting the network isn't solved by paying more money.
I would think that if you are going to be using in the neigbourhood of 100-200 gigs, then likely you'll have no problems staying on standard. If you intend to be using upwards of 200 gigs, in otherwords well over the maximum overage even on Pro, then you likely will be getting cut off on Standard, and in fairness probably should be on the Pro account.
reply
Hamilton1 @ 8th Apr 03:14PM:
Re: Usage Billing
From what I've seen even with pro most don't get anywhere near the 16 Mbps which is what the big difference is between the 2 accounts.
Standard $45 + $30 cap limit = $75
Pro $70 + $50 cap limit = $120
So a difference of $45 + Tax = $50.85
So which do you think most would rather pay if bandwidth wasn't an issue?
Seems like a no brainer to me, which is why I would assume there is a cap but we just aren't being told what it is right now.
reply
Krispy @ 8th Apr 03:42PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by uber69er :
I understand and agree with the analogy, but I see some people are suggesting time of use like the new hydro meters.
Thus the metrics change and the powers that be might consider this.
I've been doing my best to avoid bringing hydro billing into this but since you brought it up I'd just suggest you be careful what you wish for! If it makes anyone feel better know that the frustration you feel towards internet usage billing pales in comparison to my utter hatred of hydro companies for such things as my most recent battle with them »Does anyone here have a Hydro Smart Meter ?. Also note that with hydro I pay a deliver rate to get the electricity to them, a rate to deliver the electricity to me, a percentage to account for loss during transit and a debt retirement charge on top of the regular and TOU charges AND when my hydro goes out not only is my internet gone but I don't have water (I have a well and sumb pump) -- to be brutally honest I wish a fraction of those upset my internet usage billing were half as outraged at what the energy companies are doing....but I take a breath and digress :)
Now back on the topic of TOU, actually I personally agree with this and I believe it will eventually happen and you'll all probably hate me even more for saying this but in my personal opinion there should be no max charge, users should be billed for every bit they use all the way up and it's up to the user to manage their usage -- see, bet you didn't think you could hate me more eh?! Seriously though, there are many reasons I believe in this with the most important being my bias leaning in network security...people would care more about the spam spewing from their system or the malware automagically scanning their neighbours if they had to pay for that traffic. BUT that's just my personal opinion and I guess you're all lucky I'm not the decision maker.
said by uber69er :
Although what some have pointed out is that it would be contrary to their corporate "greed".
Your thoughts?
Well as I've explained in the past I kinda dug a hole for myself years back when I decided to identify myself as an employee on the forum so I can't really give you ALL my thoughts and that's not due to someone in management saying I can't but rather my own concern about a customer deciding to take something I said in the wrong context and scream at every Cogeco official they can find and make them do something to me (sad but it happens). Additionally this is a massive subject that I couldn't succinctly pull together in X words given the broad audience here - for example mattei has some interesting points but he/she also appears to have a better grasp of the technology so while I could probably have a more in-depth conversation with mattei and others that understand a cable network this would confuse other people and then they might take something out of context and freak out and then I'm spending the rest of my days in the neverending thread trying to explain myself. Lastly there's the confidentiality issues, there are simply some things that can't be posted in public for competitive reasons and when I got hired way back when I signed an agreement saying I wouldn't disclose this info.
All that said, do I think this is corporate "greed" - with my real world professional hat (note that I didn't say 'Cogeco' hat but 'professional' hat) on I say no, this is not corporate "greed" but rather a company doing what it's supposed to in this capitalistic society we live in which is to cover operating costs, create capital for future growth and services and pay it's shareholders so they continue to believe and invest in us so we can continue to grow. With my Utopian weekend bandanna on I would say yes in the same way I'd claim that the farm market owner down the street is greedy for marking up a can of soup 60% when he should be giving it away free to those in the community. But here is where I will stop and just say I'd love to live in Gene Roddenberry land but I don't and, for the last time, this is not the thread to debate economics in.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Krispy @ 8th Apr 03:43PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :
Krispy, someone might have mentioned an email address in a previous thread - I'm wondering if there's someone that we can direct our personal complaints and/or suggestions to or if this is the best place for that? I checked the Cogeco web site and I didn't see an email that might be suitable.
I have a snail mail address but just clarifying if there's an email address I can direct you all to so I'll get back to you on this.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Krispy @ 8th Apr 03:45PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by justice7ca :
What i'd like to see are competitive rates to Teksavvy .. and by competitive, i dont mean the same as or better, but generally close.
I don't mean to dismiss your suggestion at all but just remember that Teksavvy is not the same as Cogeco as they don't have to maintain a massive infrastructure like we do.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Krispy @ 8th Apr 03:54PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by mattei :
OSI layers 1 through 4? Ok. We're paying for metered use of layer 3 and above (not PDUs, right?) when subscribed to HSI. All of Cogeco's digital service offerings use the same physical network for data transport. Analogue television still holds a chunk of the available bandwidth on that same network. Care to get specific?
While I can't get into details in a public forum let's just say that's something being worked on as many with a digital box in certain areas may or may not notice. Yes I'm being vague but I have to for competitive/confidentiality reasons but if you read between the lines I'm saying that this (and many of your points below) were a factor in the decision making.
Believe me, don't believe me...up to you but the reality is we do not do intentional RSTS - cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye. The Vuze report was compiled using 23 alleged Cogeco customers with zero details as to their hardware or internal network settings.
said by mattei :
I've heard rumors of DOCSIS v3 but until I see a new modem I'll be assuming v1.1.
I've seen the modem and I've got the speedtests to prove it.....well I will when I go home and do a new speedtest tonight so it shows up at the top again! Check »/archive?cid=19 later on tonight if you're interested.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
uber69er @ 8th Apr 04:19PM:
Re: Usage Billing
If you remember I was a contributor to that thread.
We established that even with my "annal and hyper vigilant" efforts to save money it was all for nought.
I like your idea that users should be billed for every bit they use.
If in your Gene Roddenberry world (you stole that from chronoss by the way) where the base rate for my service was
adjusted combined with your model would I end up like I will with hydro.
Cogeco just sqeezing my efforts into profit?
reply
katmeef @ 8th Apr 07:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :
Katmeef somehow tied that analogy into the congestion issue, and if the analogy is referencing transit costs, then... I have no idea.
I meant that there's much more to the cost of the network than just the bandwidth alone. I was bringing it up in reference to previous posts in the thread, I should have quoted it I guess to avoid any confusion, but was too sleepy to find it (working nights).
said by urbanriot :
But if Cogeco is claiming they're doing this to relieve congestion than my previous suggestions to advertise an off meter billing time will push a massive amount of heavy downloaders into off peak times which should completely resolve the congestion issue.
I am far removed from any department that deals with billing, I honestly don't know any more about usage billing or caps than what has been posted here. Please don't take my agreement with a previous posters analogy as any sort of official claim. :)
reply
dad_of_3 @ 8th Apr 10:02PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Hamilton1 :
From what I've seen even with pro most don't get anywhere near the 16 Mbps which is what the big difference is between the 2 accounts.
Standard $45 + $30 cap limit = $75
Pro $70 + $50 cap limit = $120
So a difference of $45 + Tax = $50.85
So which do you think most would rather pay if bandwidth wasn't an issue?
Seems like a no brainer to me, which is why I would assume there is a cap but we just aren't being told what it is right now.
I was just pointing out that there are a lot of people that don't download a lot, and that perhaps 16 Mbit is more to their liking (compared to having tons of bandwidth). I'm on Pro, I get a constant 15.2 Mbit..
That being said, I personally would rather more bandwidth than speed, which is why after June I will switch to standard, probably will pay the overasge most months. I download a lot, this makes more sense for me as well....The kicker for me will be the "magic" number. I live in Granny country, I know my node isn't close to being congested...So I'm hopeful
reply
Fireblade @ 8th Apr 10:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by dad_of_3 :
That being said, I personally would rather more bandwidth than speed, which is why after June I will switch to standard, probably will pay the overasge most months. I download a lot, this makes more sense for me as well....The kicker for me will be the "magic" number. I live in Granny country, I know my node isn't close to being congested...So I'm hopeful
Same here, not too many people in my area use Cogeco - most of the people on my street don't even own a computer.
reply
SmallWig @ 9th Apr 12:04AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
I don't mean to dismiss your suggestion at all but just remember that Teksavvy is not the same as Cogeco as they don't have to maintain a massive infrastructure like we do.
Great bridging technique. »www.aboutpublicrelations.net/ucmillen1.htm
You are correct Teksavvy is not the same as Cogeco. TSI is a ISP while Cogeco is a CSP (Content Service Provider).
This is why Cogeco is extremely careful to not cannibalize itself. It will be interesting to see how the max overage fees play out.
reply
xeroid2 @ 9th Apr 07:22AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
[All that said, do I think this is corporate "greed" - with my real world professional hat (note that I didn't say 'Cogeco' hat but 'professional' hat) on I say no, this is not corporate "greed" but rather a company doing what it's supposed to in this capitalistic society we live in which is to cover operating costs, create capital for future growth and services and pay it's shareholders so they continue to believe and invest in us so we can continue to grow.
Cogeco is not your NORMAL business. How did the company start? .... Is there political control behind the scenes we all don't understand? Why do I recall something about our former Prime Minister John Chretian and his brother being involved?
Most small businesses struggle to maintain there operating costs, and create capital for future growth. THIS is mostly caused by COMPETITION. Something Cogeco has yet to be really faced with. So in the mean time, Cogeco is taking full advantage of a lack of competition as well as taking full advantage of their own customers. This is what pisses people off. There really isn't justification in paying a CEO 1.5 million a year not to mention all the other high salaries Cogeco is paying out. All from the back pockets of your paying customers, lets not forget. Do you really think it takes an intelligent person worth 1.5 million to figure out how to increase the bottom line for Cogeco by raising rates and squeezing caps with little competition. Do you really think this intelligence is worth 1.5 million. I'd think if there were 30 internet providers of the same quality of services in Ontario and your CEO could figure out a way to make Cogeco the profit leader then perhaps he/she would be worth paying a reasonable salary with a percentage of profit sharing.
Your real world professional hat must be pulled over your eyes!!!
reply
xeroid2 @ 9th Apr 07:27AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by justice7ca :
What i'd like to see are competitive rates to Teksavvy .. and by competitive, i dont mean the same as or better, but generally close.
I don't mean to dismiss your suggestion at all but just remember that Teksavvy is not the same as Cogeco as they don't have to maintain a massive infrastructure like we do.
PURE LOAD OF CRAP ... that's like saying everyone in Ontario who rents apartments don't pay property tax. Of course Teksavvy pays for infrastructure through who ever they would rent their infrastructure from.
reply
ancodia @ 9th Apr 04:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :said by Krispy :said by justice7ca :
What i'd like to see are competitive rates to Teksavvy .. and by competitive, i dont mean the same as or better, but generally close.
I don't mean to dismiss your suggestion at all but just remember that Teksavvy is not the same as Cogeco as they don't have to maintain a massive infrastructure like we do.
PURE LOAD OF CRAP ... that's like saying everyone in Ontario who rents apartments don't pay property tax. Of course Teksavvy pays for infrastructure through who ever they would rent their infrastructure from.
You're arguing with a company shill. They'll never concede any valid point you make.
Only thing you can do is cancel services as that is all they will understand.
We will all find out in 3-6 months when the quarterly reports come out if this was a money grab or not.
reply
xeroid2 @ 9th Apr 04:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :
You're arguing with a company shill. They'll never concede any valid point you make.
That is evident.
said by ancodia :
Only thing you can do is cancel services as that is all they will understand.
So true and why many are now shopping around.
said by ancodia :
We will all find out in 3-6 months when the quarterly reports come out if this was a money grab or not.
Don't have to wait ... Google now and you will see Cogeco is paying high dividends in a recession.
reply
anon @ 9th Apr 10:32AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Hmmm...
Looks like it's a bumpy ride in the states for you cash grabbing ISP's
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···caps.ars
reply
Hamilton1 @ 9th Apr 11:00AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I loved the analogy that was described in the article a lot better than the speeding analogy that was delivered here.
First, the response: Time Warner Cable COO Landel Hobbs wrote earlier this week of the need for people to pay for the bandwidth they consume. "When you go to lunch with a friend, do you split the bill in half if he gets the steak and you have a salad?" he asked.
Fair enough. Bandwidth costs (a little bit of) money, and there's certainly no reason for customers to demand the ability to transfer 4TB of data a month for one flat fee. But TWC's steak/salad analogy breaks down when it's crafted more accurately. The real question is whether you would even have lunch with a friend at a restaurant that charged $45 for a salad and $200 for a steak. Certainly, in a free market, most people would go elsewhere.
reply
bricktoppp @ 9th Apr 11:41AM:
Re: Usage Billing
This is a money grab. Cogeco could slow your connection down to dial-up speed or cut you off after you go over the cap. Having your internet cut off automatically to avoid incurring extra charges isn't an option, this is all about scamming customers out of their money, not network capacity.
reply
metrotitan @ 9th Apr 11:45AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by SmallWig :
TSI is a ISP while Cogeco is a CSP (Content Service Provider).
This is why Cogeco is extremely careful to not cannibalize itself. It will be interesting to see how the max overage fees play out.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. This is about manipulating client behaviour to maintain their old content delivery models.
reply
anon @ 9th Apr 12:25PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by metrotitan :
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. This is about manipulating client behaviour to maintain their old content delivery models.
If true, this won't work. People can and will switch to an ISP if this is indeed the case and people are being forced to use their internet in a limited way.
Rather than keeping customers and potentially making money from them as an ISP, they'll simply move elsewhere. Cogeco likely sees themselves as a Television media company first and foremost; once they change that perspective they might understand they're equally an internet service provider.
If they treat their ISP customers like crap, its likely when they call someone else they may drop their Television at the same time.
Makes you wonder if they think things through...
We'll see how this pans out though. Krispy can't say anything other than good things, and many of you are trying to get Krispy to acknowledge corporate greed or something; even if true.. you'll never see K admit it, because of who this person represents.
I have had good experience with cogeco's internet service; they provide fantastic speeds at all hours for me. What i'm afraid of is a degradation in cost vs value.
You would think adding more customers, newer equipment and more up to date systems should in fact LOWER your TCO for your infrastructure costs, since routers improve, link speeds improve and bandwidth gets cheaper.
If things are getting better with the technology (and cheaper); we're doing something wrong.
I'm not as blunt to say corporate greed, i think its just more looking at the problem from a Cable TV point of view rather than an ISP one.
/rant
reply
ancodia @ 9th Apr 01:07PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Even if it's just cancelling TMN package, cancel something. Drive down the ARPU. They'll notice that.
reply
anon @ 9th Apr 02:31PM:
Re: Usage Billing
It's obvious this is a direct attack on people who download TV shows and movies. That is Cogeco's cash cow. It's also obvious that anybody working for cogeco is never going to admit it.
It's much easier to just cry "cost of network", that way they don't have to prove it (there is no way anyone could except cogeco), and the only people who would not believe Cogeco are the people that know all about this stuff, which unfortunately is not the majority.
Corporate misdirection at it's finest.
reply
metrotitan @ 9th Apr 02:24PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by justice7ca :said by metrotitan :
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. This is about manipulating client behaviour to maintain their old content delivery models.
If true, this won't work. People can and will switch to an ISP if this is indeed the case and people are being forced to use their internet in a limited way.
Shaping a user's behaviour is the name of the game; it's the most logical conclusion based on freely available evidence (anyone needing a primer should re-read the entire thread and follow the recent happenings with our neighbours to the south). I wish I could switch to TekSavvy, but for some reason I can only get 512k service in my area. Cogeco's gotta love that (not a shot, any business welcomes money).
reply
ancodia @ 9th Apr 04:47PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ComcastRulesAll :
It's obvious this is a direct attack on people who download TV shows and movies. That is Cogeco's cash cow. It's also obvious that anybody working for cogeco is never going to admit it.
It's much easier to just cry "cost of network", that way they don't have to prove it (there is no way anyone could except cogeco), and the only people who would not believe Cogeco are the people that know all about this stuff, which unfortunately is not the majority.
Corporate misdirection at it's finest.
Guess 'cost of network' includes loses in bad investments ...
MONTREAL–Cogeco Cable Inc. reported Thursday a $358.6 million second-quarter loss as the cable TV and Internet provider booked an after-tax $383.6-million non-cash charge related to its Portuguese subsidiary.
reply
anon @ 9th Apr 05:11PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :said by ancodia :
You're arguing with a company shill. They'll never concede any valid point you make.
That is evident.
said by ancodia :
Only thing you can do is cancel services as that is all they will understand.
So true and why many are now shopping around.
said by ancodia :
We will all find out in 3-6 months when the quarterly reports come out if this was a money grab or not.
Don't have to wait ... Google now and you will see Cogeco is paying high dividends in a recession.
Dividends won't last long, here is where your money is going.
»ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0904···s/cogeco
reply
peterboro1 @ 9th Apr 05:51PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Cogeco CEO on BNN right now with that sexy muffin Amanda and uncle Kevin talking about caps.
Open your wallets.
»www.bnn.ca/squeezeplay.aspx
reply
xeroid2 @ 9th Apr 05:55PM:
Re: Usage Billing
No surprise in this story. When faced with competition at their Portugal Operations, something Cogeco is not use to here in Canada, they fail miserably. Cogeco plans to take the gloves off in its fight against growing competition in Portugal after writing down about half of its investment there due to deep customer losses.
"We currently have a problem in Portugal," CEO Louis Audet conceded during a conference call. "We are well aware of it and we are taking decisive steps to fix it."
Cabovisao ( Portugal ) accounts for just 16 per cent of Cogeco Cable's overall EBITDA earnings.
Let me guess ... there's little competition here in Canada so if Cogeco just raises our rates by 16% .... problem solved!
So lets see now ... if you or I screw up in business, make a bad investment or can't be creative enough to deal with competition can we then just turn around and raise our rates to our very own loyal customers to make up for our own mistakes?
It would be wise right now for Cogeco to hang on to it's solid and loyal customer base here in Canada, find ways to reduce overhead, costs and improve the services they offer before competition strikes here in Canada without raising rates! When competition does arrive, Cogeco has already shown that they will struggle.
reply
anon @ 9th Apr 06:10PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
xeroid2 @ 10th Apr 08:15AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Net Neutrality: an information post
In the live television interview posted above, Louis Audet said yesterday that charging for going over caps is the answer to net neutrality. HUH? No explanation so I have no idea what he is talking about? I'm not sure if he knows what he is talking about? He also said that those who use more bandwidth will pay more and those that use less bandwidth will pay less? NOT TRUE ... those that use less will pay the same today and more tomorrow!
This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation.
How does this threat to Internet freedom affect you?
Such corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:
Who will be affected?
Small businesses -- The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
Innovators with the next big idea -- Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for the top spots on the Web.
Bloggers -- Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips -- silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.
Google users -- Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like Cogeco to guarantee another search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
iPod listeners -- A company like Cogeco could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service it owns.
Online shoppers -- Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices -- distorting your choices as a consumer.
Telecommuters -- When Internet companies like Cogeco favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
Parents and retirees -- Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
Political groups -- Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their Web sites and online features to work correctly.
Nonprofits -- A charity's website could open at snail-like speeds, and online contributions could grind to a halt if nonprofits don't pay Internet providers for access to "the fast lane."
Big phone and cable companies are trying to eliminate Net Neutrality, the principle that protects our ability to go where we want and do what we choose online.
I think I understand now what Louis Audet might have meant when he said "charging for going over caps is the answer to net neutrality". Maybe he meant it's going to help Cogeco gain control over what they can control on the internet? A potential new revenue generator for Cogeco at our expense!
reply
katmeef @ 10th Apr 09:14AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :
Online shoppers -- Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices -- distorting your choices as a consumer.
How does one equate UBB to manipulation of eBay or Kajiji search results?
True I don't have any hard facts other than what I've learned in this thread, but I can certainly say that UBB is not going to cause that!! lol :)
reply
mattei @ 10th Apr 02:14PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :Believe me, don't believe me...up to you but the reality is we do not do intentional RSTS - cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye. The Vuze report was compiled using 23 alleged Cogeco customers with zero details as to their hardware or internal network settings.
After reading a few of the related links here it looks like there was some debate on the subject over time. I believe that Cogeco does not intentionally reset TCP sessions (fake/forged RST, in the Comcast sense). I'm going based on what I've read in under an hour, not anything I claim to have seen or done personally. Will application layer DPI cease when metered billing takes effect? If not, will DPI-based "rate shaping" continue on monetized transfer units?
said by Krispy :said by mattei :
I've heard rumors of DOCSIS v3 but until I see a new modem I'll be assuming v1.1.
I've seen the modem and I've got the speedtests to prove it.....well I will when I go home and do a new speedtest tonight so it shows up at the top again! Check »
/archive?cid=19 later on tonight if you're interested.
Tease. Now I feel like I'm driving around in suburbia with a 1 litre tank after watching my sports car being driven on mountain roads in an advertisement, at 150+ km/h, without speed traps or obstacles. I've still gotta pay the same insurance, deal with the same maintenance schedule, use half my tank to get to the gas station,... :p ;)
v3.0 can clear up many of the concerns I listed if applied properly.
reply
katmeef @ 10th Apr 04:46PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :I noticed that once you reach 100% bandwidth consumption for the month, your gauge after 100% turns red instead of green and it slowly increases. What happens when it hits the top? Termination for the month?
See here
Did you hit the top of the red section / what happened?
reply
Fireblade @ 10th Apr 06:21PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :said by Fireblade :I noticed that once you reach 100% bandwidth consumption for the month, your gauge after 100% turns red instead of green and it slowly increases. What happens when it hits the top? Termination for the month?
See here
Did you hit the top of the red section / what happened?
I hit the jackpot 2 days ago, no e-mails, warnings, phone calls, slowdowns, etc.
reply
katmeef @ 10th Apr 07:41PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
I hit the jackpot 2 days ago, no e-mails, warnings, phone calls, slowdowns, etc.
LOL @ Hitting jackpot, makes me wanna go play some slots :)
good to hear there's no problems.. I am too lazy to do the math atm, are you at the point where you would have hit the $$$ cap yet?
reply
Fireblade @ 10th Apr 07:43PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :
LOL @ Hitting jackpot, makes me wanna go play some slots :)
good to hear there's no problems.. I am too lazy to do the math atm, are you at the point where you would have hit the $$$ cap yet?
Looks like you made this post seconds before I posted this one! :p
The red bar was full long before the additional usage bandwidth would have been used up. I was at 120% the day before yesterday and it was full. So, as it stands I don't think we need to worry about that right now. The jackpot reward seems to be another day with internet service! Huray!
Here's proof.
1.50 x 20 = $30
reply
katmeef @ 10th Apr 07:53PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
Looks like you made this post seconds before I posted this one! :p
jinx you owe me a soda!! :p
reply
vuarra @ 10th Apr 09:56PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Perhaps we should start wondering exactly when you will be cut off ;)
reply
diskdocx @ 10th Apr 09:59PM:
Re: Usage Billing
My money is on between 150-200 gigs on Standard.
reply
anon @ 10th Apr 11:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Thank you, Cogeco, for making the decision to switch to TechSavvy so easy.
reply
Hamilton1 @ 11th Apr 09:40AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by diskdocx :
My money is on between 150-200 gigs on Standard.
My guess is when you hit 100Gb's your going to get an email warning and then after 105Gb's your toast unless you agree to upgrade to the pro account.
reply
roxx @ 11th Apr 11:22AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by stew2 :
Thank you, Cogeco, for making the decision to switch to TechSavvy so easy.
Ditto this action Stew... I just downgraded from the enterprise tier and I am moving in a few weeks. I can guarantee once we get settled into the new house we will not be going back to Cogeco.
Take that to the powers that be Krispy. I am sure some other company will be glad to get my dollars in this down economy. The actions they are taking are leaving a very sour taste in even the higher tier customers. Its only a matter of time before you start limiting our UNLIMITED use, which I will have you know still had the 512 gig limit in the bandwidth page after numerous complaints to get it changed.
reply
Hamilton1 @ 11th Apr 12:14PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I think they need to redesign the meter to include the $30 Cap and then add some on top of that.
reply
rickardsred @ 11th Apr 01:37PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by stew2 :
Thank you, Cogeco, for making the decision to switch to TechSavvy so easy.
Until Bell gets the CRTC to pass their latest tarrif which will impose the same caps and usage based billing onto all DSL resellers....Welcome to the Internet in Canada 2009! Enjoy the illusion of choice...
reply
diskdocx @ 11th Apr 03:33PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Hamilton1 :said by diskdocx :
My money is on between 150-200 gigs on Standard.
My guess is when you hit 100Gb's your going to get an email warning and then after 105Gb's your toast unless you agree to upgrade to the pro account.
Right. Because downloading over 100gigs on Standard would cause "network congestion", which would interfere with other users on your node. Upgrading would of course fix all that :P
Time will tell. I still think it is unlikely that Cogeco would be that ballsy.
reply
Hamilton1 @ 11th Apr 04:23PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I for one certainly hope I'm wrong, but hey if they want $1.50 for one measily Gb, and they didn't ditch the pro account then I don't see them letting us standard users get 150Gb's for only $75 when pro users would pay $120 for the same amount of bandwidth.
Boy do I hope I'm wrong but I guess time will tell.
reply
anon @ 11th Apr 07:07PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Clipped out most of that, hoping for a quick and short answer to something I must have missed. I have not recieved anything in the mail from Cogeco except invoices. Just want to know when this for real kicks in so I know the general (or exact if you have it) date to call in to drop from Pro to Standard, please?
said by Krispy :
Here’s your officially unofficial notice that shortly you will be receiving a letter informing you of a change to bitcap policies as Cogeco begins usage billing – note that there will be a 2 month monitoring period where numbers appear on your bill but NO MONEY IS CHARGED TO YOU during this 2-month period, this is to help customers understand what the impact will be to them BEFORE we start to bill. The letter will have full details but basically the gist is that there’ll be a per Gigabyte overage charge dependent on plan with a maximum charge, for example
reply
anon @ 11th Apr 08:39PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Personally, I'm waiting to hear from some enterprising user who decided to hell with the caps he was going to download all he could to see what cogeco did.
If they charge you the $30 AND shut off the net, april will be the last month I'm a cogeco subscriber. If it's $30 max and you can download to your hearts content, I can deal with it. It's a scam, but I can deal with it. I far prefer to watch my TV on the internet when it's convenient for me then at a predetermined time over the airwaves or via cable tv or satellite. $30 to keep my habit up I guess I can deal with.
But ladies and gentlemen, don't believe the hype, bandwidth is cheap. I personally run a few servers for my company (a web development firm) and I can buy 1500GB blocks of data for literally a few dollars.
Don't believe me? Check out godaddy.com, 1500gb transfer for $6.99 a month. So how can cogeco justify $1.50/gb? More money does NOT equal less network congestion...
reply
diskdocx @ 11th Apr 09:11PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Hamilton1 :
I for one certainly hope I'm wrong, but hey if they want $1.50 for one measily Gb, and they didn't ditch the pro account then I don't see them letting us standard users get 150Gb's for only $75 when pro users would pay $120 for the same amount of bandwidth.
Boy do I hope I'm wrong but I guess time will tell.
No argument at all. But I'm not sure how Cogeco could cut you off. In their AUP, the rationale for cutting a user off is if they interfere with the network.
If you are on a node where downloading over 100 gigs causes excessive disruption, then I assume they could not sell any plan with over 100 gigs of transfer.
I would think the CRTC might be interested if customers were being cut off for disruption, but being reconnected if they moved to a more expensive (and faster) plan.
Remember, these billing changes are to ensure that everyone has access to a high quality internet experience (wink, wink), so I'm sure Cogeco wouldn't oversell a congested node.
And, if there's no congestion, and no problem with residential customers paying for 100gig Pro accounts, or 200gig Business accounts, I can't see any reason, per Cogeco's new AUP, why a Standard account using 150-200 gigs would cause any problems.
reply
Fireblade @ 12th Apr 08:00AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Just got this in the mail an hour ago - it's about a week late.
reply
diskdocx @ 12th Apr 11:53AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
Just got this in the mail an hour ago - it's about a week late.
No, it's actually about 2 weeks too early.
But don't worry, they should be able to fix that before actual overage charges start.
:P
reply
anon @ 12th Apr 02:18PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Switching to TekSavvy after being 8+ years with Cogeco.
The usage billing is ridiculous, definitely not worth my money.
reply
anon @ 13th Apr 10:32AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 13th Apr 11:29AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
x01 @ 13th Apr 05:40PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by medjed :
Switching to TekSavvy after being 8+ years with Cogeco.
The usage billing is ridiculous, definitely not worth my money.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think I'm in the exact same boat. I've been with cogeco since the beginning. At the moment I'm sitting on the fence until I get my first bill, but after that, I believe that will be my course of action.
reply
x01 @ 13th Apr 06:11PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I was thinking about the usage billing today and came up with a few question that hopefully someone will be able to answer.
A couple of months ago I remember reading about how gamers were cheating with online games by flooding an opponent ip address which would cause the opponent to be kicked from what ever gaming server due to lag.
Now my question are.
1. Will it possible to force data onto my internet connection that will cause my meter to spin? What if someone on the internet decided to perform a dos attack on my ip address just to run up my bill? Is this possible?
2. If I believe this is the case, or I believe that the metering is not accurate, or incorrect will I have any recourse? The only reason I ask this is because in the past I have gotten an warning, and when looked at my usage on the cogeco website, I was well with in my limits. When I called tech support and asked, I was simply told that the website was inaccurate.
I'm not sure all these possibilities have been thought out completely.
reply
exseven @ 13th Apr 06:33PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by x01 :
1. Will it possible to force data onto my internet connection that will cause my meter to spin? What if someone on the internet decided to perform a dos attack on my ip address just to run up my bill? Is this possible?
2. If I believe this is the case, or I believe that the metering is not accurate, or incorrect will I have any recourse? The only reason I ask this is because in the past I have gotten an warning, and when looked at my usage on the cogeco website, I was well with in my limits. When I called tech support and asked, I was simply told that the website was inaccurate.
1. if the traffic ends up at your modem then i assume it will run up your usage, will it run up your bill, maybe but how would cogeco know thats not just you download fast?
2. again i dont know what billing/call center will do for this but if you think the meter is inaccurate why not run your own at home to compare with before the billing starts... just make sure it is off the wan port of your router not a lan port (and getting only part of the traffic)
edit: »www.polarcloud.com/tomato
reply
anon @ 13th Apr 07:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
The amount of bandwidth consumed in DDoS'ing you to the amount that would cause concern would be more than enough that you'd definitely notice and would be such a massive attack that it would be impossible for your ISP not to notice. Your scenario is an exaggerated scenario that would probably never happen and I'm sure your ISP would take care of it if it did.
If you have a contrary opinion to this then the onus is on you to run a bandwidth monitor to prove this is a problem in the event that it happens.
reply
x01 @ 13th Apr 08:42PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I'm not sure if anyone is aware, but it would seem that Time Warner Cable company is instituting a similar policy to cogeco.
Apparently the Americans are pissed.
Just some reading if anyone is interested if anyone cares.
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···caps.ars
»www.tomshardware.com/news/time-w···530.html
reply
urbanriot @ 13th Apr 09:36PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by x01 :
I'm not sure if anyone is aware, but it would seem that Time Warner Cable company is instituting a similar policy to cogeco.
Not just them, but a number of ISP's in various other EU countries and a friend in India also complained his ISP instituted caps. It's like a big ISP "Generate More Revenue" symposium was held somewhere, and everyone decided to equally suck.
reply
anon @ 13th Apr 09:41PM:
Re: Usage Billing
A throughput cap will only hurt consumers and legitimate transfer-intensive services like steam, youtube hd, xbox live, and other upcoming video sites.
The large few ISPs like to say that it's 1% of their subscribers who aren't playing fair. That's just not the truth. They see a trend emerging and they're not happy about it.
You don't institute major policy change because of 1% of your users. You do it because in less than a year, it could be 15%-20% using as much as the 1% currently uses.
Online content providers are now offering larger quality services and more transfer-intensive services. Cogeco certainly didn't like that. They have to pay for traffic outside their own network.
Current caps and metered service are both short term stop-gaps. They will not prevent the inevitable.
The only real solution is to increase network capacity.
reply
anon @ 13th Apr 10:46PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Was going to buy Orange Box and Saints Row 2 on steam (Yes I know PC version of Saints Row isnt all that good, but hey it's on sale $29.99.)
Uh-oh! 20+ GB download for legitimate online software from an online distribution system!??!?!!? Guess I cannot download it, since this would be a pretty big chunk of bandwidth under the 60GB limit. A bit more than one third for those who are not good at math. Cogeco must not know that these exist...
reply
Steve @ 13th Apr 10:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by gordon freeman :
A bit more than one third for those who are not good at math. Cogeco must not know that these exist...
Sure they do - they just want you to pay for it.
reply
Snickerdo @ 13th Apr 11:03PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Steve :
Sure they do - they just want you to pay for it.
... which doesn't cost Cogeco anywhere near $1/GB. Not even ballpark. We're talking exponential differences here. I know what Tier 1 and 2 transit costs. I've debated this with Cogeco folks through IMs.
These fees exist for no reason other than to discourage node traffic, which in turn prevents them from having to invested in upgraded network infrastructure. This isn't about losing money on bandwidth, this is about finding a way to not have to invest in network upgrades. It's also about discouraging use in online television and the like, since this effects Cogeco's core TV business. When the TV side starts losing money, the loss needs to be made up somewhere.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
Steve @ 13th Apr 11:07PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Snickerdo :
This isn't about losing money on bandwidth, this is about finding a way to not have to invest in network upgrades.
How would you suggest they pay for these network upgrades? In any case it's going to come from the users, and it doesn't seem ridiculous to make the heavy users pay more for it.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site
reply
Snickerdo @ 13th Apr 11:10PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Steve :
How would you suggest they pay for these network upgrades? In any case it's going to come from the users, and it doesn't seem ridiculous to make the heavy users pay more for it.
Network upgrades are planned years in advance. If they're only just out of money for upgrades now, that means they weren't planning anything correctly years ago. If that's the case, just imagine what it will be like five years from now. We'll either have 10GB bandwidth limits with $10/GB for overages, or we'll have a network so broken that it'll be like the old Wave days.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
Steve @ 13th Apr 11:13PM:
Re: Usage Billing
So you're saying that the light users ought to be subsidizing the heavy users, where usage can differ by many orders of magnitude?
reply
anon @ 14th Apr 12:51AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Perctrax :
The amount of bandwidth consumed in DDoS'ing you to the amount that would cause concern would be more than enough that you'd definitely notice and would be such a massive attack that it would be impossible for your ISP not to notice. Your scenario is an exaggerated scenario that would probably never happen and I'm sure your ISP would take care of it if it did.
If you have a contrary opinion to this then the onus is on you to run a bandwidth monitor to prove this is a problem in the event that it happens.
Note to self: only DDoS during off-peak hours so no one will notice.
As metered billing of residential connections (potentially) increases, and data-centre/pwned bandwidth remains competitive and cheap, I see this becoming an actual problem, especially for those that have sub10gb limits.
I guess another factor is whether the same IP gets spooled out or not with every restart.
But you are correct, it sounds exaggerated now.
reply
Snickerdo @ 14th Apr 12:52AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Steve :
So you're saying that the light users ought to be subsidizing the heavy users, where usage can differ by many orders of magnitude?
No, I'm saying a network should be planned properly so that the ratios are in place to prevent bullshit like this from happening. Not only that, but those "lite" users aren't so lite anymore. It's bad planning, pure and simple.
Basically, what Cogeco is doing is the equivalent of an employer not only not giving you a cost of living increase raise, but also making you take a paycut. Multimedia content has risen considerably in the last few years. Instead of planning their network to handle these bandwidth loads, they're trying to cut people off. If their network can't handle the load, fine. What I find insulting is this whole 'bandwidth isn't free' argument. Bandwidth costs money. Network maintenance costs money. What is insulting is that we're being expected to believe that the extra $30 or $50 or whatever is actually going to have an impact. It won't. That's not Cogeco's goal. Cogeco's goal is to discourage the use of rich media content. Pure and simple.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
Last Parade @ 14th Apr 01:20AM:
Re: Usage Billing
quote:
Cogeco targets heavy downloaders
April 13, 2009
Steve Arnold
The Hamilton Spectator
Downloading movies and other Internet content is going to get more expensive for the heaviest users.
Cogeco Inc., the largest cable-Internet operator in Ontario with more than 370,000 Internet customers, is set to start charging its heaviest users between $30 and $50 a month extra for chewing up bandwidth.
“We’re doing this so we can give the best service to all of our customers,” said Marie Carrier, Cogeco’s director of corporate communications. “This is not something we’re doing to make money; it’s to better manage our service.”
Cogeco is not the first Canadian Internet provider to impose such charges — Rogers and Bell Sympatico both added caps and special charges last year.
Most Internet plans come with a monthly cap on the amount of information you can send or receive. For Cogeco, that cap ranges between 10 and 100 gigabytes.
For most customers that’s more than enough — Cogeco’s standard Internet package comes with a 60-gig cap in a month. That’s enough to visit 1.25 million web pages or send and receive 6 million e-mails.
It only gets to be a problem when you start downloading movies — they average four gigs each and a high-definition movie can be up to 10 gigs.
Starting June 1, customers will be charged between $1 and $2.50 for each gig of data over their limit. Overage charges will be capped at between $30 and $50 a month depending on your plan.
“We’ve found that 1 per cent of our customers are using the majority of our bandwidth,” Carrier said. “They use the majority of our service to the point where service is getting slower for everyone else.
“The only people who will pay these overcharges are those who download movies a lot,” she added. “We want to make the customer responsible for their usage.”
The new fees apply to residential users only, but plans are being developed for business users.
sarnold@thespec.com
905-526-3496
reply
nitzguy @ 14th Apr 01:25AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Snickerdo :said by Steve :
Sure they do - they just want you to pay for it.
... which doesn't cost Cogeco anywhere near $1/GB. Not even ballpark. We're talking exponential differences here. I know what Tier 1 and 2 transit costs. I've debated this with Cogeco folks through IMs.
These fees exist for no reason other than to discourage node traffic, which in turn prevents them from having to invested in upgraded network infrastructure. This isn't about losing money on bandwidth, this is about finding a way to not have to invest in network upgrades. It's also about discouraging use in online television and the like, since this effects Cogeco's core TV business. When the TV side starts losing money, the loss needs to be made up somewhere.
C'mon snick, they'd be foolish not to protect that investment. There is a TON of equipment that is used to bring those cute little TV channels from headend to the subscribers home...those aren't cheap either...And if you're only hooked up to just internet paying lets say $50/mth for internet and being able to download all you want and those movies and TV shows (legitimate or otherwise) vs. having someone pay double for the same cabling?
C'mon, its a no-brainer. That's just smart business. If they think that anyone can do better, they'd challenge you to start up your very own Cable Company/Indie ISP/etc...
Cogeco's in a business to make money, and if they have to protect one side of their business by making the other side suffer, I'm sure the bean counters somewhere have said "you know, at X price, we can afford to lose Y customers and still make a profit".
They lose Y customers, they still make a profit, sure, you get some negative PR and some unhappy users but...overall, not bad, you save on having to take the time and money to upgrade network infrastructure and you still hit your revenue targets....Unfortunately in this day and age, nobody makes money by being innovative in this field. Cogeco was the first cable company Worldwide to roll out DOCSIS 1.0, but that was when innovation led to something good...not when innovation will bleed customers from your TV side of the business.
Also, network upgrades are probably not planned years in advance :). Capital budgets are set out on a year by year basis, so any upgrades that occur for FY10 are probably being tabled for the start in September 1, 2009...but I'm sure beyond that nothing is written in stone in regards to a number to complete any upgrades if scheduled.
Having excess capacity doesn't help Cogeco, so...the goal is to be as close to 100% as possible :). Again, just smart business. If I was a shareholder, I'd expect nothing less...alas, I am not :).
But, good on you I guess if you can make some noise...I don't think it'd help much though.
reply
Fireblade @ 14th Apr 01:37AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I wouldn't want to be a Cogeco shareholder after how beat they got in Portugal.
reply
urbanriot @ 14th Apr 01:45AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Last Parade :
“We’re doing this so we can give the best service to all of our customers,” said Marie Carrier, Cogeco’s director of corporate communications. “This is not something we’re doing to make money; it’s to better manage our service.”
I'm sorry to read this as it's an outright lie. If Cogeco wanted to better manage their service they could take into consideration some earlier suggestions made in this thread.
reply
katmeef @ 14th Apr 02:42AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Snickerdo :
Cogeco's goal is to discourage the use of rich media content. Pure and simple.
Now I don't know if Gixxer's experience is going to be typical once billing is rolled out, or if it's just due to the fact this is one of the 'test' months.... however, if COGECO's goal was to 'discourage the use of rich media content' as stated, how is Gixxer already way past the point where previously he would have been suspended, (without any suspension I might add)? »Bandwidth usage: share your experience under new rules.
From his posts, looks to me like he's now able to download considerably more than was allowed before, and in exchange for this the service will cost more $$$.
Just my personal "non-official in any way" observation..
reply
metrotitan @ 14th Apr 08:13AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :said by Snickerdo :
Cogeco's goal is to discourage the use of rich media content. Pure and simple.
Now I don't know if Gixxer's experience is going to be typical once billing is rolled out, or if it's just due to the fact this is one of the 'test' months.... however, if COGECO's goal was to 'discourage the use of rich media content' as stated, how is Gixxer already way past the point where previously he would have been suspended, (without any suspension I might add)? »
Bandwidth usage: share your experience under new rules.From his posts, looks to me like he's now able to download considerably more than was allowed before, and in exchange for this the service will cost more $$$.
$30/month ain't chump change to a lot of people. I personally will be using rich online media a lot less. Our household will probably end up channel surfing a little more often. Yay for Cogeco, more eyeballs on your crap.
With such low caps, the math simply doesn't add up for the "we have to do something, bandwidth is so expensive" hypothesis. Keep in mind that the caps have essentially gone DOWN since the new policy was announced (real world 85 or so gigs for the regular monthly fee before, now 60GB). I haven't heard of any spike in bandwidth costs, have you? Quite the opposite.
reply
CanadianIron @ 14th Apr 09:33AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by mapledonut :
The large few ISPs like to say that it's 1% of their subscribers who aren't playing fair. That's just not the truth. They see a trend emerging and they're not happy about it.
You don't institute major policy change because of 1% of your users. You do it because in less than a year, it could be 15%-20% using as much as the 1% currently uses.
...
Current caps and metered service are both short term stop-gaps. They will not prevent the inevitable.
The only real solution is to increase network capacity.
said by Last Parade :
We've found that 1 per cent of our customers are using the majority of our bandwidth,” Carrier said. They use the majority of our service to the point where service is getting slower for everyone else.
Even though previously people had their internet cut off when they reached the caps, the evil 1% was still interfering with everyone elses service. Now that they will be paying more money rather than being cut off, their increased usage will no longer impact anyone. Too bad we don't live in PR spinland where this would be true.
reply
Moonchild @ 14th Apr 09:39AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Interesting read...
»www.tomshardware.com/news/time-w···530.html
reply
xeroid2 @ 14th Apr 10:24AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I think Cogeco has heard enough of what it's customers are saying and thinking. Will they listen, I doubt it. Maybe it's time we take are concerns to CRTC directly.
Does anyone know how to air our concerns there? Anyone willing to start an on line petition we can send to the CRTC and Federal Government?
reply
exseven @ 14th Apr 10:52AM:
Re: Usage Billing
i do believe the crtc has a website xeroid. but i dont want to have to type google crtc into my address bar since you didnt either
reply
katmeef @ 14th Apr 10:55AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by metrotitan :
$30/month ain't chump change to a lot of people. I personally will be using rich online media a lot less. Our household will probably end up channel surfing a little more often. Yay for Cogeco, more eyeballs on your crap.
With such low caps, the math simply doesn't add up for the "we have to do something, bandwidth is so expensive" hypothesis. Keep in mind that the caps have essentially gone DOWN since the new policy was announced (real world 85 or so gigs for the regular monthly fee before, now 60GB). I haven't heard of any spike in bandwidth costs, have you? Quite the opposite.
Yes, $30 is not a trivial amount. On the other hand, and and at risk of sounding like a broken record, transport fees are only a fraction of the cost of maintaining a network.
To me it seems (I concede I may have a biased view) that to put the previous caps side-by-side with the present is not a fair comparison. (Speaking of HSI-Standard) Yes, now it's 60G before extra billing kicks in... But once the $30 is reached, where is the end of that cap? Before - once you were done, you were done...
Ever the optimist, my personal and entirely unofficial view of this is a transition from the old days of soft&hard caps (which I always tried to avoid) to more of a pay-as-you-go structure: more bandwidth for a max of $30 dollars, and I'm not forced to get the whole $30 if I don't need it. Once the $30 cap is reached, I then can download arbitrarily until I'm deemed to be causing problems for the network (in whatever capacity that may be).
I know there were people who, with the previous system, would have liked an option to pay more and not be suspended for the rest of the month when the limits were reached.. Just as I know there are other people today who would prefer to keep things the way they were.
reply
QuickSurfer @ 14th Apr 11:22AM:
Re: Usage Billing
»www.crtc.gc.ca
I sent my complaint in this morning.
reply
anon @ 14th Apr 11:53AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :
I think Cogeco has heard enough of what it's customers are saying and thinking. Will they listen, I doubt it. Maybe it's time we take are concerns to CRTC directly.
Does anyone know how to air our concerns there? Anyone willing to start an on line petition we can send to the CRTC and Federal Government?
They are going crazy over in the teksavvy forum about Bell's new tariff, look to them for an example of what can be done. Nothing.
Resistance is futile
reply
dad_of_3 @ 14th Apr 11:55AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :
Once the $30 cap is reached, I then can download arbitrarily until I'm deemed to be causing problems for the network (in whatever capacity that may be).
You see, this is the slippery slope....Cogeco is going to determine what constitutes a "problem" on the network. If the criteria for this determination is similar to "pre sept 2007" , then your describing a soft cap. Personally I'm on a node that is not congested..yet..Pre sept 2007, I never, ever recieved a warning of any kind, and I went over the cap regularly, and by a lot.
I would suspect that anyone living near a university campus, or in a large urban area, will get the short end of the stick...While those in "granny territory" will be able to pay the $30.00 and keep on truckin...
reply
mousky @ 14th Apr 12:37PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I personally will be using rich online media a lot less.
Exactly what Cogeco wants you to do.
reply
anon @ 14th Apr 01:51PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 14th Apr 04:25PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
wallee @ 14th Apr 04:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I think Cogeco should handle this the way Rogers does their portable internet USB stick thingamajig.
You by a package. It's a set price with a soft cap. Once you pass the soft cap you pay a per gig fee until you reach the next package level. Then they just bill you the next package price. You can keep passing the limits until you reach their top package which might be an unlimited package. Seems like the best way to pay for what you use.
reply
mattei @ 14th Apr 04:35PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by exseven :
1. if the traffic ends up at your modem then i assume it will run up your usage,...
Of course it will.
said by exseven :
...will it run up your bill, maybe...
AUP says: Of course it will.
said by exseven :
...but how would cogeco know thats not just you download fast?
"Network Management Practices"?
reply
mattei @ 14th Apr 04:38PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Steve :said by gordon freeman :
A bit more than one third for those who are not good at math. Cogeco must not know that these exist...
Sure they do - they just want you to pay for it.
He's already paid for it. A billing change has altered his online behaviour.
reply
Fireblade @ 15th Apr 08:54AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by dad_of_3 :
I would suspect that anyone living near a university campus, or in a large urban area, will get the short end of the stick...While those in "granny territory" will be able to pay the $30.00 and keep on truckin...
That's what I'm thinking too, it probably explains why I could get around 170% before getting terminated while my friend got reamed at only 120% on the same package. Yay for granny territory. I'm willing to pay the $30 to go unlimited, but if they want a penny more, I'll return their kind generosity.
reply
Gruesome @ 15th Apr 11:57AM:
Re: Usage Billing
This is hilarious, I have been testing Cogeco Standard VS Teksavvy Premium side by side for many months. I decided on that the 300Gb for 39.95 a month with Teksavvy suited my specific needs better. No big deal, not mad at cogeco or anything, just prefer a different product. What is so funny is when I went to cancel my Cogeco High Speed The guy asked why I was leaving and what I was getting and I told him. So he tries to get me to stay saying they have new tiers and pricing coming in June. I imagine this must be the new program, Lmao, imagine if I had stayed to see this.
Teksavvy is billing me .25 for going over my 300 GB
If this is the new plan, I would have been enraged.
Plus if this info is available here why was he not willing to give it to me over the phone, I have always found Cogeco very odd in the way it communicates its information.
This plan looks like a loser to me but you never know
reply
anon @ 16th Apr 01:59PM:
Re: Usage Billing
As much as I hate feeding a threadzilla...
said by Krispy :
My argument is that people stating that "A GB costs an ISP mere cents" is akin to the teenager assuming the cost of a car is simply the cost of gas as those folks that assume an ISP just pays mere cents for transit are forgetting about the infrastructure that has to be in place (and constantly maintained) in order to get that transit to you.
I think what most people are finding wrong with this argument is that when it comes to additional bandwidth costs this is very much the case. There are both fixed and variable costs. At the beginning of the month I make my loan and insurance payments and fill my gas tank. This allows me to drive X km. If I want to drive further, gas is ALL I have to pay for. Granted, I'll be due for an oil change/new tires sooner, but the costs for wear items are trivial compared to the fixed monthly costs or the cost/km of the gas.
Simply saying that network infrastructure costs money isn't doing much to explain why overage charges aren't in line with the actual cost of the bandwidth used. After all, the network was there and paid for with the initial bandwidth. Cogeco obviously isn't losing money when people don't exceed their limits.
I see that the bandwidth used by Cogeco VOIP is exempt from the meter. Is anything else? Are we getting a break on peering charges when traffic is within the Cogeco network, for example...
- accessing Cogeco's website/webmail
- P2P between Cogeco users (perhaps even on the same node)
- Cogeco's USENET servers (as bad as their retention is)
- getting portscanned daily by multiple servers @cogeco.net
There are also several issues that should probably be addressed. So far, the overage notifications are running about a week late. How is a customer supposed to avoid extra-billing if they are not aware of their usage until after they are already getting billed?
How accurate is the billing going to be? From the posts I've seen, the currently in use monitor is pretty far from accurate. Will our bill have a guessed at number on it?
I don't mean to sound bitchy, but a lack of an accurate measurement and notification system does concern me.
I think that when other posts here said that they were willing to pay for use over their caps, they were expecting something more like what the actual bandwidth costs. As a HSI only subscriber I'm not particularly worried right now, as I don't often go over the 60GB a month, and doubling that will only cost me $2.00 to go with a business account, but what I'd really prefer was an account where I paid a base rate for the connection + bandwidth based on actual useage (at a realistic cost).
Meh, I'll stop here before this turns into more of a rant...
reply
anon @ 16th Apr 01:39PM:
Re: Usage Billing
»www.thespec.com/News/Business/article/548008
reply
x01 @ 16th Apr 05:44PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Someone pointed this out to me. Apparently Time Warner has had a change of hart about usage billing.
»blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/···c-1.html
I haven't researched this yet, so I don't know if it's true or not.
reply
urbanriot @ 16th Apr 05:47PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Probably. NPR had a feature about it yesterday and they said they had an unexpectedly large outpouring of complaints regarding the issue.
Time Warner's retraction is also news on front page of BBR.
reply
x01 @ 16th Apr 05:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Aarawn :
I see that the bandwidth used by Cogeco VOIP is exempt from the meter. Is anything else? Are we getting a break on peering charges when traffic is within the Cogeco network, for example...
I wonder if anyone can answer this for me. Does this mean only Cogeco voip is exempt, or does this mean all voip is exempt. If only Cogeco Voip is except, isn't Cogeco using it's existing monopoly to kill off other markets?
Does anyone see a problem with this.
reply
x01 @ 16th Apr 05:54PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by urbanriot :
Probably. NPR had a feature about it yesterday and they said they had an unexpectedly large outpouring of complaints regarding the issue.
Time Warner's retraction is also news on front page of BBR.
So what's wrong with us? Do we need to complain more?
reply
Krispy @ 16th Apr 05:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by x01 :said by Aarawn :
I see that the bandwidth used by Cogeco VOIP is exempt from the meter. Is anything else? Are we getting a break on peering charges when traffic is within the Cogeco network, for example...
I wonder if anyone can answer this for me. Does this mean only Cogeco voip is exempt, or does this mean all voip is exempt.
Only Cogeco VOIP is exempt and at this point that's the ONLY thing that is exempt.
said by x01 :
If only Cogeco Voip is except, isn't Cogeco using it's existing monopoly to kill off other markets?
Does anyone see a problem with this.
No but I'm sure many will disagree with me and we can add another few pages to the thread while net neutrality gets dragged into (and confused by) the bitcap thread.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
anon @ 16th Apr 06:27PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Let me get this straight: I can keep each of my several digital set-top boxes turned on all the time (which I do -- I mean, why turn them off?), and suck up, shall we say conservatively, 20 megabits per second of bandwidth all day, every day, plus another huge whack of bandwidth for the unused analog TV signal I'm receiving, but if I exceed 100GB of IP traffic per month, I'm charged extra and deemed to be degrading service for others? Come on. This has nothing to do with Internet service and everything to do with horrendously-managed TV service. HFC provides what, 700 MHz of downstream per node? There's plenty of bandwidth to go around; the problem is that Cogeco, like the rest of the industry, is too greedy and disorganized to agree upon, develop, and manage the technologies to use it effectively.
The sad part of this is, it means that obsolete services such as conventional television networks/channels/stations will continue to thrive at the expense of IP-based services that have the potential to offer consumers an infinitely better experience.
Canada can do better, if only the CRTC would lead the way.
reply
xeroid2 @ 16th Apr 06:39PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I JUST HAD TO COPY THIS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE:
Time Warner Cable is pulling the plug on its plan to charge its broadband customers by the byte in four U.S. cities, including Rochester, New York, ending a controversial experiment that critics said would harm internet innovation and customer pocketbooks.
The announcement came, fittingly enough, at a rally in the City of Rochester Thursday, and was made by the state's senior U.S. Senator, Chuck Schumer.
The news is a win for consumer groups like FreePress, who contended that the plan from New York-based TWC would stifle online innovation and that the company was imposing download limits to protect its lucrative cable television business from disruptive online video services.
reply
exseven @ 16th Apr 07:07PM:
Re: Usage Billing
please remember TV is broadcast not unicast like your internet traffic, plus all those stations that people who watch in analog suck up 6mhz each (same for dtv channels, but you can fit many into a digital mux, and only 1 to an analog)... so get your grandma to upgrade to digital along with all the other people in the service zone and maybe the analog will be freed up for other use.
Dont forget the guy down the street with his ham radio interfering with everything, cb's that can get in or other frequency's that cant be used for whatever reason. That 700mhz gets used up pretty quickly
reply
anon @ 16th Apr 07:13PM:
Re: Usage Billing
all i know is i pay 114.00 a month just for light high n tv.if this price gets any higher,i will go else where,and all so been not even getting the speed i pay for ya do something to get us close to what we pay for n now bump it lol whatta joke
reply
urbanriot @ 16th Apr 07:10PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by x01 :said by Aarawn :
I see that the bandwidth used by Cogeco VOIP is exempt from the meter. Is anything else? Are we getting a break on peering charges when traffic is within the Cogeco network, for example...
I wonder if anyone can answer this for me. Does this mean only Cogeco voip is exempt, or does this mean all voip is exempt. If only Cogeco Voip is except, isn't Cogeco using it's existing monopoly to kill off other markets?
Does anyone see a problem with this.
Nope. Cogeco provides the internet, period. Anything that uses the internet detracts from your bandwidth counter. Third party VOIP providers use the internet thus detracts from your bandwidth counter.
reply
exseven @ 16th Apr 07:17PM:
Re: Usage Billing
if you are having issues with speeds start your own thread and maybe somebody here will help you.
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 16th Apr 07:46PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Well, I assume you mean multicast, not broadcast, but yes, I acknowledge that comparing DTV usage to Internet usage is a bit on the apples-to-oranges side; however, I'd argue that there's still wasted bandwidth on the DTV side caused by "always on" set-top boxes and that this could have been prevented had the industry gotten its act together. Also, I know that analog consumes an outrageous amount of bandwidth and that was sort of my point -- the fact that anyone can still get analog service is ridiculous. Simply put, I think Cogeco has put TV ahead of Internet and that's because (a) they figure there's more money in it and (b) they're a poorly regulated monopoly so nobody's stopping them. This isn't good for consumers and it isn't good for the evolution of technology.
reply
exseven @ 16th Apr 07:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
nah i meant broadcast, multicast would be closer to switched digital where a channel is requested and then tuned vs. all channels all the time just encrypted
switched digital would be nice, freeing up bandwidth from those channels nobody watches like CPAC
reply
anon @ 16th Apr 07:59PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by x01 :said by Aarawn :
I see that the bandwidth used by Cogeco VOIP is exempt from the meter. Is anything else? Are we getting a break on peering charges when traffic is within the Cogeco network, for example...
I wonder if anyone can answer this for me. Does this mean only Cogeco voip is exempt, or does this mean all voip is exempt. If only Cogeco Voip is except, isn't Cogeco using it's existing monopoly to kill off other markets?
Does anyone see a problem with this.
Actually, my point wasn't about Cogeco giving preference to their own VOIP product as it was about the relative costs of internal vs external traffic. I don't expect them to charge for that bandwidth any more than I would expect to see useage billing coming from digital cable. But lets face it, it doesn't cost Cogeco as much to transfer data internally as it does to get it in from the net.
And no, Krispy, I wasn't making a net-neutrality point because of pricing, but if Cogeco started shaping all VOIP traffic EXCEPT their own, then that would be a different matter entirely...
Personally since I don't use the phone very much, I decided to buy my own ATA and use a per minute provider. It's averaged out to around $6.50/month since August '08 (not including the $30 ebay PAP2)
But here's another question... Cogeco WiFi. Will use of a hotspot add to my transfer total? I drive truck, and I noticed that one of the places I deliver to (besides having a nice big parking lot) is beside a Cogeco WiFi location. I don't imagine there's a lot of other people connected between 12-8am. I wonder how much Usenet I can grab while I'm sleeping.
reply
x01 @ 16th Apr 08:19PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by xeroid2 :
I JUST HAD TO COPY THIS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE:
Time Warner Cable is pulling the plug on its plan to charge its broadband customers by the byte in four U.S. cities, including Rochester, New York, ending a controversial experiment that critics said would harm internet innovation and customer pocketbooks.
The announcement came, fittingly enough, at a rally in the City of Rochester Thursday, and was made by the state's senior U.S. Senator, Chuck Schumer.
The news is a win for consumer groups like FreePress, who contended that the plan from New York-based TWC would stifle online innovation and that the company was imposing download limits to protect its lucrative cable television business from disruptive online video services.
It's a wonderful thing. How do we make Cogeco see the light?
reply
anon @ 16th Apr 08:49PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 16th Apr 09:05PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by x01 :said by Aarawn :
I see that the bandwidth used by Cogeco VOIP is exempt from the meter. Is anything else? Are we getting a break on peering charges when traffic is within the Cogeco network, for example...
I wonder if anyone can answer this for me. Does this mean only Cogeco voip is exempt, or does this mean all voip is exempt.
Only Cogeco VOIP is exempt and at this point that's the ONLY thing that is exempt.
said by x01 :
If only Cogeco Voip is except, isn't Cogeco using it's existing monopoly to kill off other markets?
Does anyone see a problem with this.
No but I'm sure many will disagree with me and we can add another few pages to the thread while net neutrality gets dragged into (and confused by) the bitcap thread.
Heya, I was passing bye and saw this...
Yes, I see a problem. I very much do see a problem.
Eh Krispy what kind of FUD are you pulling here?
Only Cogeco voip is exempt, yet people will complain...
I mean WTF. No chit people should/will complain. Cogeco is monopolizing voip. DUH.
Krispy, now tell me this:
In that Hamilton article Cogeco says, "anyone using over 60-gigs is a movie thief".
So in other words, Krispy, All 60-gig+ users are thiefs, pirates, and foul of the law.
Yet, Krispy, Cogeco also has a 100-gig tier.
Yet, Krispy, at the same time Cogeco says they want to profit off their customers warez and movies stealing buy charging the user more for this.
Tell me, Krispy, your thoughts on this.
Since you said "suits" are looking here, Tell me, Krispy, what do the "suits" have to say about profiting off of illegal activities?
(Keep in mind Cogeco said this is ILLEGAL activities they are profiting from, per the press release)
Thanks in advance, Krispy, for any reply you have to give on the above issue.
If a "suit" replies, please identify yourself. TY.
Or maybe you wish to state: You are not a cogeco customer hence you can go to hell?
I may not be a Cogeco customer today.... Maybe people I know in Cogeco territory are also not Cogeco customers "today" (or are). But I will, and I intend to have an influence, and a say. I expect a reply.
Thanks and best regards.
reply
anon @ 16th Apr 11:50PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by well well :
In that Hamilton article Cogeco says, "anyone using over 60-gigs is a movie thief".
So in other words, Krispy, All 60-gig+ users are thiefs, pirates, and foul of the law.
Yet, Krispy, Cogeco also has a 100-gig tier.
Yet, Krispy, at the same time Cogeco says they want to profit off their customers warez and movies stealing buy charging the user more for this.
Tell me, Krispy, your thoughts on this.
Since you said "suits" are looking here, Tell me, Krispy, what do the "suits" have to say about profiting off of illegal activities?
Interesting ethical dilemma you pose.
Did you know that Revenue Canada and the American IRS insist that you report all income regardless if it is earned in the pursuit of illegal activity.
Is this a parallel conundrum?
This has always irked me. It's bad enough that they want to put me in jail for years but then tax the money I make.
That's just wrong. Just my little observation form the trenches of the criminal underground.
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 16th Apr 09:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by exseven :
nah i meant broadcast
I'm very surprised to hear that, though it certainly reinforces the argument that bandwidth is being managed inefficiently.
reply
urbanriot @ 16th Apr 10:16PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by well well :
Only Cogeco voip is exempt, yet people will complain...
I mean WTF. No chit people should/will complain. Cogeco is monopolizing voip. DUH.
I'm sorry, you expect Cogeco to count your VOIP usage against their customers bandwidth? Switch your point of view, and look at it as a benefit or a bonus to Cogeco customers.
I need crayons to connect the dots as some of you people seem to be ignoring the fact that third party VOIP uses the internet while Cogeco VOIP does not, it's on a separate stream. Again, your internet provider, whether it's Bell, Cogeco, whoever offers the internet. Your third party VOIP uses the internet. That usage counts against the bandwidth counter, as expected.
reply
digitalfutur @ 16th Apr 10:41PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Just got my letter today. Before opening it I thought it was a rate increase! Charges seem pretty fair to me, but we've also never exceeded the 60 GB cap. Average is about 40 GB. Like 98% of the Cogeco subscriber base.
Bitcaps don't bode well though for legit movie downloads from Microsoft or others, which average about 5GB in HD. But then that's competition for cable VOD...
So Krispy, did you warn Chelle before posting this topic? She hasn't been this busy in months ! :)
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. "Walk the Talk".
reply
anon @ 17th Apr 07:08AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by digitalfutur :
Average is about 40 GB. Like 98% of the Cogeco subscriber base.
Where did the 98% figure come from?
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 17th Apr 11:05AM:
Re: Usage Billing
The more I've researched and thought about this issue, the more concerned I've grown and I believe that action is necessary.
Poor regulation of our Internet infrastructure today, in the information age, is as dangerous to our economy as poor regulation of transportation, power, and water infrastructures would have been in the industrial age. It must not be allowed to happen. If you're reading this, I urge you to contact the CRTC at http://www.crtc.gc.ca and your local MP via this link, and make yourself heard on this issue. Hopefully, they will follow the lead of forward-thinking US politicians like Charles Schumer and stop this thing in its tracks.
reply
Krispy @ 17th Apr 11:13AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by well well :
Krispy, now tell me this:
In that Hamilton article Cogeco says, "anyone using over 60-gigs is a movie thief".
I didn't say that and I don't care what the traffic is, I just care about the amount of traffic not the content.
said by well well :
Tell me, Krispy, your thoughts on this.
Well as I mentioned above I don't care what the content is but on a personal level I do find it hard to believe all the hosts downloading hundreds of gigs a month on a continuous basis are doing so with wholly legal content. But, again, ultimately I don't care what it is, I just care about the totals.
said by well well :
Since you said "suits" are looking here, Tell me, Krispy, what do the "suits" have to say about profiting off of illegal activities?
They've never said anything about it to me but maybe someone from there will heed your request and answer you but until then I have no idea.
said by well well :
Or maybe you wish to state: You are not a cogeco customer hence you can go to hell?
I would never do that, I'll answer (or not answer!) any question regardless of your customer status.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
katmeef @ 17th Apr 11:14AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Keith, have you read peoples experiences here »Bandwidth usage: share your experience under new rules. ?
Granted I don't know if this will be the norm or anything in the future - I'm a technician - but I think some people might end up liking this way more...
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 17th Apr 11:44AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I have indeed been following that thread closely, but I'm afraid my point is being missed. Charging consumers for bandwidth has the effect of detering them from using high-bandwidth services, and this makes businesses less likely to develop and market such services. This is bad for innovation, bad for the economy, and bad for Canada, especially since politicians in the US are taking stances that oppose such charges. Cogeco's policies may be good for Cogeco, and may even be good for many of Cogeco's customers, but consumer Internet services are too important to be governed by such myopic perspectives. As a de facto monopoly that affects a critical element of our infrastructure, Cogeco must be regulated and, in this case, it must be stopped.
reply
Fireblade @ 17th Apr 11:50AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :Keith, have you read peoples experiences here »
Bandwidth usage: share your experience under new rules. ?
Granted I don't know if this will be the norm or anything in the future - I'm a technician - but I think some people might end up liking this way more...
It better be the norm buddy!
reply
katmeef @ 17th Apr 11:54AM:
Re: Usage Billing
I hope so, but I don't know for sure! It's not something I have anything to do with at work, or anything I can find out about from my department.
reply
Gruesome @ 17th Apr 11:57AM:
Re: Usage Billing
Back on topic, I think the charges per Byte to be the most logical and fair way of billing.
To me Internet service is like water or gas, a commodity flowing through a pipe to your home.
I wouldn't be surprised in the future to see your Internet Bill to be just like a gas or hydro bill, with network charges, and even peak time higher per gigabyte charges as they do with electricity.
Moving is this direction seems logical since phone television and Internet are basically all the same thing.
I also expect pricing will likely be regulated at some point
It seems like Cogeco's pricing plan is to gouge as many people as they can that go over the limit.
In other words don't charge .25 cents over no matter how high they go(which seems more fair)
But get big money from everyone that goes over the low limits by 10 to 20 GB.
As an example if you have the the standard package at $45 a month
You get 60 GB
Go 20 GB over and you pay $75 a month
This doesn't seem proportional at all
That's 94 cents /GB
Actually heavy downloaders would seem to have a better deal since the more they download the cheaper it gets
Under this new Scheme it would seem that someone downloading 300 GB per month will pay the same as someone downloading 80 GB per month
Their cost .25/GB lol
So basically it seems to me that anyone requiring between 10 to 20 more GB per month are going to be paying for the network upgrades to pay for the three hundred GB users
Like I said though its better to target the 10 to 20 over because there will be a lot more of them than the 300 over
Also its curious that under the new fees 60 GB would cost about $90, that means on the $45 plan you get $90 of bandwidth. What a deal!
I can only look at these fees and see them as a fine
They just seem way out of whack with existing charges
reply
peterboro1 @ 17th Apr 01:21PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Just got 2 page letter today with this graph. Called in and I haven't ever gone over 20GB. I can post the rest of the letter later if anyone is interested.
April 17 2009 Cogeco warning |
anon @ 17th Apr 01:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Krispy. Ty for the reply.
With whats going on (not just cogeco) it just adds more fuel to the fire, imo.
+1 for taking the time (thought you wouldn't).
Merci!
reply
Fireblade @ 17th Apr 02:49PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :
I hope so, but I don't know for sure! It's not something I have anything to do with at work, or anything I can find out about from my department.
Looks like it won't be that at all, so get your fill now. I called in 5 times to confirm a post on this forum and he was 100% correct. YOU WILL BE TERMINATED FOR THE MONTH ONCE YOU REACH YOUR OVER-USAGE BANDWIDTH. Basically, you're cut off after they steal that sweet 30. Nothing has changed, except now you're charged for that extra bandwidth.
reply
ancodia @ 17th Apr 02:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :said by katmeef :
I hope so, but I don't know for sure! It's not something I have anything to do with at work, or anything I can find out about from my department.
Looks like it won't be that at all, so get your fill now. I called in 5 times to confirm a post on this forum and he was 100% correct.
YOU WILL BE TERMINATED FOR THE MONTH ONCE YOU REACH YOUR OVER-USAGE BANDWIDTH. Basically, you're cut off after they steal that sweet 30. Nothing has changed, except now you're charged for that extra bandwidth.
Are you suprised? I'm not. Looks like Crapeco just got Crappier.
reply
Fireblade @ 17th Apr 02:55PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :said by Fireblade :said by katmeef :
I hope so, but I don't know for sure! It's not something I have anything to do with at work, or anything I can find out about from my department.
Looks like it won't be that at all, so get your fill now. I called in 5 times to confirm a post on this forum and he was 100% correct.
YOU WILL BE TERMINATED FOR THE MONTH ONCE YOU REACH YOUR OVER-USAGE BANDWIDTH. Basically, you're cut off after they steal that sweet 30. Nothing has changed, except now you're charged for that extra bandwidth.
Are you suprised? I'm not. Looks like Crapeco just got Crappier.
Actually, yes I am... I thought Cogeco was better than that.
reply
ancodia @ 17th Apr 03:06PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
Actually, yes I am... I thought Cogeco was better than that.
Management needs to cover their butts (their losses) in their mistake in buying Cabovisao. They have no alternative but to squeeze their customer base for every penny they can get. People really need to cancel/reduce their video services in response to this. They desperately need the money and this is probably your only chance to hurt them.
reply
Krispy @ 17th Apr 03:07PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Keith Mann5 :
I have indeed been following that thread closely, but I'm afraid my point is being missed. Charging consumers for bandwidth has the effect of detering them from using high-bandwidth services, and this makes businesses less likely to develop and market such services. This is bad for innovation, bad for the economy, and bad for Canada, especially since politicians in the US are taking stances that oppose such charges. Cogeco's policies may be good for Cogeco, and may even be good for many of Cogeco's customers, but consumer Internet services are too important to be governed by such myopic perspectives. As a de facto monopoly that affects a critical element of our infrastructure, Cogeco must be regulated and, in this case, it must be stopped.
By this logic hydro companies negate innovation because they use usage billing and last I checked electricity was pretty important to society. As for regulation...careful what you wish for (insert my generic hydro rant here!).
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
ancodia @ 17th Apr 03:10PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :said by Keith Mann5 :
I have indeed been following that thread closely, but I'm afraid my point is being missed. Charging consumers for bandwidth has the effect of detering them from using high-bandwidth services, and this makes businesses less likely to develop and market such services. This is bad for innovation, bad for the economy, and bad for Canada, especially since politicians in the US are taking stances that oppose such charges. Cogeco's policies may be good for Cogeco, and may even be good for many of Cogeco's customers, but consumer Internet services are too important to be governed by such myopic perspectives. As a de facto monopoly that affects a critical element of our infrastructure, Cogeco must be regulated and, in this case, it must be stopped.
By this logic hydro companies negate innovation because they use usage billing and last I checked electricity was pretty important to society. As for regulation...careful what you wish for (insert my generic hydro rant here!).
Krispy you know this issue is not as black & white as you (and Cogeco) keep spinning it. It goes beyond the simple 'bandwidth shortage' bs. We all know it. Give it up already.
reply
anon @ 17th Apr 03:29PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
As for regulation...careful what you wish for (insert my generic hydro rant here!).
Regulation is bad and definitely not something anyone wants to have happen. It will stifle innovation, quality of service and all of your providers will have no reason to offer you anything better than any other company.
reply
Krispy @ 17th Apr 03:13PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :said by Krispy :said by Keith Mann5 :
I have indeed been following that thread closely, but I'm afraid my point is being missed. Charging consumers for bandwidth has the effect of detering them from using high-bandwidth services, and this makes businesses less likely to develop and market such services. This is bad for innovation, bad for the economy, and bad for Canada, especially since politicians in the US are taking stances that oppose such charges. Cogeco's policies may be good for Cogeco, and may even be good for many of Cogeco's customers, but consumer Internet services are too important to be governed by such myopic perspectives. As a de facto monopoly that affects a critical element of our infrastructure, Cogeco must be regulated and, in this case, it must be stopped.
By this logic hydro companies negate innovation because they use usage billing and last I checked electricity was pretty important to society. As for regulation...careful what you wish for (insert my generic hydro rant here!).
Krispy you know this issue is not as black & white as you (and Cogeco) keep spinning it. It goes beyond the simple 'bandwidth shortage' bs. We all know it. Give it up already.
Em...what? Where did I talk about bandwidth shortages in the post you quoted?
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 17th Apr 03:50PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
By this logic hydro companies negate innovation because they use usage billing and last I checked electricity was pretty important to society. As for regulation...careful what you wish for (insert my generic hydro rant here!).
The analogy doesn't hold in any number of ways, but here are the most important ones:
1. Consumer perception. People are very used to paying variable electric bills, and even have a sense of how those bills are likely to fluctuate. They understand that they can save a little bit of money by turning off the bathroom light and a lot of money by turning off the air conditioner. The same sense of comfort doesn't exist for broadband. People will shy away from it if they're not sure how much it's going to cost.
2. Viable competition. Broadband-based services are still trying to displace things like conventional television and telephony, which don't incur the same sort of usage-based charges. As a consumer, I might choose conventional TV over Internet TV because the former is a fixed rate per month whereas the latter is variable (and significantly more expensive at Cogeco's rates). Electricity doesn't face this challenge.
3. Maturity and ubiquity of technology. Electricity is universally accepted. If I go to a venture capitalist looking for seed money to create a new electric appliance, he's not going to worry about whether there are enough people with electricity. The same isn't true for a new broadband service.
4. Service interruption. Nobody's going to cut off my electricity if I exceed a certain number of kWh. I might lose my broadband if I exceed my cap. I won't get a warning e-mail or a phone call from the hydro company telling me that I'm using too much power and bothering my neighbours; I might get such a notice from Cogeco, and I might feel intimidated as a result and seek to avoid it.
There are probably other disimilarities, but you get my point.
As for regulation: despite the many problems with our regulated utilities, I can only imagine how much worse the situation would be if they'd never been subject to regulation.
--
Keith Mann - Dundas, Ontario, Canada
ISP: Cogeco; Service=SOHO Standard (16D/1U/200GB)
keith@keithmann.com
»www.keithmann.com
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 17th Apr 04:47PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by ancodia :
People really need to cancel/reduce their video services in response to this. They desperately need the money and this is probably your only chance to hurt them.
Funny you should mention it: I'd been debating doing exactly that for some time -- I find most of the "Digital Select" channels useless and can get by with one "Theme Pack", and the most recent TMN rate increase was just too much given their horrible selection of movies and programming -- and AUB pushed me over the edge; I'll use the $40 I saved on my TV service to cover my Internet overages. I called earlier this afternoon and downgraded by video service significantly. My only regret is that the CSR (as always, very polite and professional) didn't ask me why. I guess I'll have to write to Cogeco directly.
--
Keith Mann - Dundas, Ontario, Canada
ISP: Cogeco; Service=SOHO Standard (16D/1U/200GB)
keith@keithmann.com
»www.keithmann.com
reply
diskdocx @ 17th Apr 04:57PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :said by katmeef :
I hope so, but I don't know for sure! It's not something I have anything to do with at work, or anything I can find out about from my department.
Looks like it won't be that at all, so get your fill now. I called in 5 times to confirm a post on this forum and he was 100% correct.
YOU WILL BE TERMINATED FOR THE MONTH ONCE YOU REACH YOUR OVER-USAGE BANDWIDTH. Basically, you're cut off after they steal that sweet 30. Nothing has changed, except now you're charged for that extra bandwidth.
Krispy can you confirm this?
If this is the case, why limit the overage charges at all?
While I don't typically chew through 300 gigs a month, it would have been nice to know I could pay for my overages, and not have to count every byte.
I don't think either Rogers or Bell cut customers off when they hit that max overage.
Very disappointing.
reply
Krispy @ 17th Apr 05:05PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Keith Mann5 :said by Krispy :
By this logic hydro companies negate innovation because they use usage billing and last I checked electricity was pretty important to society. As for regulation...careful what you wish for (insert my generic hydro rant here!).
The analogy doesn't hold in any number of ways, but here are the most important ones:
1. Consumer perception. People are very used to paying variable electric bills, and even have a sense of how those bills are likely to fluctuate. They understand that they can save a little bit of money by turning off the bathroom light and a lot of money by turning off the air conditioner. The same sense of comfort doesn't exist for broadband. People will shy away from it if they're not sure how much it's going to cost.
2. Viable competition. Broadband-based services are still trying to displace things like conventional television and telephony, which don't incur the same sort of usage-based charges. As a consumer, I might choose conventional TV over Internet TV because the former is a fixed rate per month whereas the latter is variable (and significantly more expensive at Cogeco's rates). Electricity doesn't face this challenge.
3. Maturity and ubiquity of technology. Electricity is universally accepted. If I go to a venture capitalist looking for seed money to create a new electric appliance, he's not going to worry about whether there are enough people with electricity. The same isn't true for a new broadband service.
4. Service interruption. Nobody's going to cut off my electricity if I exceed a certain number of kWh. I might lose my broadband if I exceed my cap. I won't get a warning e-mail or a phone call from the hydro company telling me that I'm using too much power and bothering my neighbours; I might get such a notice from Cogeco, and I might feel intimidated as a result and seek to avoid it.
There are probably other disimilarities, but you get my point.
As for regulation: despite the many problems with our regulated utilities, I can only imagine how much worse the situation would be if they'd never been subject to regulation.
While you have many fair points your basic argument seems to be "the internet is too new and the public too uninformed about bits and bytes to start charging for usage" - now while this may be true for some people I fail to understand how this changes an ISP costs or ability to both manage it's network while creating capital for future service growth. I'm sure way back when hydro was a fixed cost and they moved to usage billing someone, somewhere made same arguments many are making about bitcaps now -- there always seems to be an aspect of pain and resistance involved in anything new especially when it has the ability to affect wallets.
As for hydro not cutting you off...true, they just bill you for each and every watt and then when your bill passes a threshold in their billing system THEN they cut you off (even in the winter now) - of course they do send you threatening notices that might make you feel intimidated and make you seek to avoid the disconnection -- if you don't they'll cut you off AND charge you a reconnection fee AND possibly apply a security deposit to your account if it's happened before.
Lastly, as I've already stated somewhere in this thread I personally don't agree with the max charge, I think we should bill for every byte all the way up however the decision makers are nicer than I and I guess I can kinda understand where they're coming from which is, oddly enough, the same place you seem to be coming from which is that the general public is not yet fully up to speed on bytes and megabytes and gigabytes so they want to help this transition by helping customers avoid massive bills.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
Krispy @ 17th Apr 05:09PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by diskdocx :said by Fireblade :said by katmeef :
I hope so, but I don't know for sure! It's not something I have anything to do with at work, or anything I can find out about from my department.
Looks like it won't be that at all, so get your fill now. I called in 5 times to confirm a post on this forum and he was 100% correct.
YOU WILL BE TERMINATED FOR THE MONTH ONCE YOU REACH YOUR OVER-USAGE BANDWIDTH. Basically, you're cut off after they steal that sweet 30. Nothing has changed, except now you're charged for that extra bandwidth.
Krispy can you confirm this?
I'm trying to find out where this is coming from as I'm assuming the posters are being honest when they say multiple reps are telling them this but I've not heard of anything like this from anyone here so my gut reaction is it's simply not true and either the poster is misunderstanding what a rep said or a rep or two are inventing policy. I'll try and find out and get back to you but probably won't be until next week at this point.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper
reply
diskdocx @ 17th Apr 05:29PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
I'm trying to find out where this is coming from as I'm assuming the posters are being honest when they say multiple reps are telling them this but I've not heard of anything like this from anyone here so my gut reaction is it's simply not true and either the poster is misunderstanding what a rep said or a rep or two are inventing policy. I'll try and find out and get back to you but probably won't be until next week at this point.
Thanks Krispy, that sounds fair.
I might add however, it's possible that a rep or two might be misunderstanding as well.
Does anyone know what happens on Rogers and Bell after you exceed the max overage? Is there a cut off or is it truly unlimited at that point?
reply
Fireblade @ 17th Apr 06:13PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by diskdocx :
I don't think either Rogers or Bell cut customers off when they hit that max overage.
Very disappointing.
Correct, they don't the limit is $25 and you can go unlimited or very close to it.
reply
anon @ 17th Apr 06:52PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Wow long thread. My two cents - If internet costs more these days than it did a few years back and you need to charge people who use more bandwidth I can accept that. But the people who use less bandwidth should receive some kind of incentive too. This seems like a win-win situation for Cogeco where the customer isn't receiving any kind of benefit.
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 17th Apr 07:42PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
While you have many fair points your basic argument seems to be "the internet is too new and the public too uninformed about bits and bytes to start charging for usage" - now while this may be true for some people I fail to understand how this changes an ISP costs or ability to both manage it's network while creating capital for future service growth. I'm sure way back when hydro was a fixed cost and they moved to usage billing someone, somewhere made same arguments many are making about bitcaps now -- there always seems to be an aspect of pain and resistance involved in anything new especially when it has the ability to affect wallets.
Consumer ignorance is certainly a factor, but even informed consumers might very well opt for a non-IP-based service over a competing IP-based service on the basis of the Cogeco-imposed cost of the latter. This is the crux of my argument: Cogeco is, in effect, discouraging consumers from adopting IP-based services that consume a significant chunk of their bitcap. That is a Very Bad Thing for innovators who are trying to develop and market said IP-based services. They are at a signficant competitive disadvantage. The analogy to electricity breaks down because electricity wasn't trying to break into a market already dominated by an (inferior but established and artifically cheaper) power technology -- Cogeco wasn't offering unlimited pressurized steam for $50 per month while charging $2 per kWh beyond 30, up to a monthly limit of 60 after which those new-fangled electric lights of yours might go out if your neighbors started complaining about brownouts.
As for hydro not cutting you off...true, they just bill you for each and every watt and then when your bill passes a threshold in their billing system THEN they cut you off (even in the winter now) - of course they do send you threatening notices that might make you feel intimidated and make you seek to avoid the disconnection -- if you don't they'll cut you off AND charge you a reconnection fee AND possibly apply a security deposit to your account if it's happened before.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that the practice of discontinuing service to a customer who doesn't pay their bill is salient to this debate.
Lastly, as I've already stated somewhere in this thread I personally don't agree with the max charge, I think we should bill for every byte all the way up however the decision makers are nicer than I and I guess I can kinda understand where they're coming from which is, oddly enough, the same place you seem to be coming from which is that the general public is not yet fully up to speed on bytes and megabytes and gigabytes so they want to help this transition by helping customers avoid massive bills
I can imagine a number of ways to help customers avoid massive bills that don't involve setting a point at which their service is subject to disconnection. For example (and I'm sure there are many possible variants of this), the customer could be contacted at certain agreed-upon usage thresholds, at which point they would have some options: continue paying and damn the torpedoes; temporarily reduce their bandwidth to avoid incurring too much in the way of extra charges; or, discontinue their service for the remainder of the month.
Beyond this, we start to get into a debate over fair pricing, and I simply do not have enough information about Cogeco's costs to participate; however, I would hasten to point out that Cogeco does not face enough competitive pressure to ensure fair pricing.
--
Keith Mann - Dundas, Ontario, Canada
ISP: Cogeco; Service=SOHO Standard (16D/1U/200GB)
keith@keithmann.com
»www.keithmann.com
reply
katmeef @ 17th Apr 07:50PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Keith, can you give an example of what kind of innovation is being stifled by people having to pay for their internet usage?
I don't think the next generation lightbulb is going to run on bandwidth, or the next hybrid car will fuel up from the ethernet port... :)
Personally I enjoy watching TV on my TV... much better picture than rips from the net for the most part anyways... and my PVR brings a level of convenience you just don't get downloading one episode at a time. Once I stopped downloading TV and moved to VOD, PVR'd shows, and genuine DVDs, my bandwidth utilization patterns shifted significantly ...
reply
Snickerdo @ 17th Apr 07:54PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :
I don't think the next generation lightbulb is going to run on bandwidth, or the next hybrid car will fuel up from the ethernet port... :)
What a narrow, narrow, simpleton view.
The engineer designing the lightbulb is going to use his Internet connection to VPN in from home. The Internet connection is going to be used to send schematics between design teams. The Internet connection is going to be used to contact investors and clients.
The hybrid car being designed may use real-time data obtained over the Internet for simulation purposes.
Really dude, you don't get it at all. Stick with what you know and keep watching TV on your TV.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
katmeef @ 17th Apr 07:58PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Snickerdo :
What a narrow, narrow, simpleton view.
I am starting to remember why I get frustrated and tend to stop visiting this forum for years at a time :)
I don't think VPN usage transmitting schematics is high bandwidth usage. Nor are the GM engineers going to be using a residential connection for their R&D.
But I will 'stick to what I know' and go back to enjoying my weekend in front of my TV
Matt
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 17th Apr 08:38PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :
Keith, can you give an example of what kind of innovation is being stifled by people having to pay for their internet usage?
Well, to be clear, I don't think it's "people having to pay for their Internet usage" that's the problem, but rather it's "people having to pay more for their Internet usage if they use too much and having it possibly cut off if they use way too much and being able to get competing services without those disadvantages" (phew).
I wish I could give you a nice long list of innovations, because then I'd be a much better and probably richer innovator, but one example that jumps to mind is Internet TV. Geek that I am, I could, if I chose, stream content off the Internet, through my TVersity server, on through my XBox, and ultimately onto my plasma TV and 7.1 receiver and enjoy an experience equal to a VOD movie. Of course, the former would chew up my bitcap and the latter wouldn't; also, Cogeco isn't renting TVersity servers and XBoxes (or some comparable home-theatre PC system) for $16 a month (including 160GB PVR!). So why choose the former? Few would.
And that's the problem for those who would like to develop and sell Internet TV services. Cogeco's business model is slanted very significantly in favour of traditional content delivery. That, in turn, discourages people from coming up with other cool things that would eat up both bitcap and the relatively small bit of bandwidth Cogeco makes available for IP versus that devoted to analog and DTV.
Consider: who would ever have developed the central air conditioner if electricity were "kilowatt-hour-capped" so low that the average consumer would use up their electricity quota by the middle of the month if they turned the air conditioner on for more than 15 minutes a day?
--
Keith Mann - Dundas, Ontario, Canada
ISP: Cogeco; Service=SOHO Standard (16D/1U/200GB)
keith@keithmann.com
»www.keithmann.com
reply
katmeef @ 17th Apr 09:05PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Keith Mann5 :
Consider: who would ever have developed the central air conditioner if electricity were "kilowatt-hour-capped" so low that the average consumer would use up their electricity quota by the middle of the month they turned the air conditioner on for more than 15 minutes a day?
hmm. now that is food for thought. i will churn over this as I go eat breakfast at Wendys (I am basically on a vampire schedule)
reply
x01 @ 17th Apr 09:08PM:
Re: Usage Billing
I've been giving the usage billing a some thought and I think I can come to terms with it. That's not such a bad idea. The thing I'm having a hard time swallowing is the actual rates. I believe the over charge rate is totally insane. I just pulled out an old bill from a couple of months ago and it said that I was paying $47.20 for the standard 60Gig / month plan.
So if you do a little division, that works out to about $0.79/GB. My big problem is that now if I go over my 60, Cogeco is going to punish me by charging me $1.50 which is almost double. Now for the life of me, I can not think of a logical reason to justify this other than greed. If there is a logical answer for this, I would sure like to hear it.
reply
Snickerdo @ 17th Apr 09:14PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by katmeef :
I don't think VPN usage transmitting schematics is high bandwidth usage. Nor are the GM engineers going to be using a residential connection for their R&D.
You were the one who was a smartass and mocked the poster about how the Internet and innovation aren't linked. They are, more than you know. Whether or not a residential or corporate connection is being used is irrelevant. The fact remains that the two are linked.
Hell, ever heard of remote medical imaging? Maybe you'll see something on the TV about it someday, since the Internet clearly has nothing to do with innovation and education, at least to you.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
reply
Keith Mann5 @ 17th Apr 09:20PM:
Re: Usage Billing
Thanks for defending me, Snickerdo, but I didn't take offense at Katmeef's post -- I'm pretty sure he was asking a sincere question and trying to be lighthearted about it. Anyway I hope we can all continue this very interesting debate in a friendly way.
reply
ReiX896 @ 17th Apr 10:58PM:
Re: Usage Billing
In respects to IP Based Innovation the world is truly experiencing the first wave. Hulu and other legal content providers provide a multitude of media content unavailable to traditional content providers. Even at times surpassing the VOD features that even the highly inclined content providers cannot compete with. Google is also releasing High End QOS Voice Chat as well as Video over IP services for chat.
If Cogeco desires innovation to strive then it must adapt policies and bundles to reflect it. I as a Cogeco subscriber rarely extend past the bitcap provided to my standard package. But if Cogeco remains firm on keeping the provided bundles as each is. I know with in the next year I will be forced to find another ISP.
reply
DrunkenClam @ 18th Apr 09:24AM:
Re: Usage Billing
It really says how out of touch less enlightened people are with technology by saying these caps will not stifle innovation.
One such product is off site back up. If I want to back up multiple computers online so the data is safe and not physically at the location I am at in case of fire or theft, I can't back up as much as I would like because cogeco would cut the internet. Off site back up is a great idea. Go on itunes, if I want to download Lost season 1 that's 38 gigs, I would burn through most of my cap with one download. Ridiculous.
That's just one example, there are literally thousands of examples, from Medical monitoring, to security monitoring, using Skype video, the list is endless, and I don't wish to waste time typing it all out.
It's useless arguing with these Hidden cogeco employees and shills, all they are here to do is defend cogeco at all costs, and they are blind as to how they are screwing the consumer, (and the internet as a whole in canada) over. Everyone has a price to lie, and with the salary cogeco pays (it's not much), I guess some people are cheaper then others. I expect any day now to be told by someone from cogeco that cigarettes are healthy and we should smoke more. *cough cough*
Like with cell phones, america and Europe have a 90 percent penetration rate, in Canada only 60 percent because of the high prices and how we get screwed over. Same will happen with the internet if cogeco gets their way, people will just stop using it. Hopefully the Government will make the right decisions in the coming years.
reply
pnear @ 18th Apr 09:26AM:
Update: I've decided to switch
Based on the positive feedback I got to my last "here are my thoughts on the caps" post, I thought I'd provide you with an update.
After much consideration, I've decided to try out another ISP. I remember back in 2001 when Cogeco internet came to my neighbourhood I was thrilled, since DSL service was terrible in my neighbourhood. I switched, I convinced several of my neighbours to switch, and interestingly enough once there was competition in town Bell started paying attention to DSL problems and actually dug up a neighbour's front yard. It was good all around.
I came to love Cogeco's service, highlighted by the dedication of techs who volunteer to hang out here and help out the more savvy users and those who fell through the cracks of the call center. Excellent speeds and good service caused me to recommend Cogeco to many people, and I even caused my coworkers in Rogers territory to be jealous of the amazing service I'd found. My wife being a real estate agent passed along that glowing recommendation to literally hundreds of new customers.
Alas, the way I use the internet has changed. For the most part, Cogeco was helpful with these changes providing increased speeds and upload capacity to accomodate things like uploading HD video of the kids growing up to YouTube, remote desktop from work via Windows Home Server, and increased reliance on new media like HD video downloads on the XBox and high-resolution television content downloads from the big networks. In my perfect, hopefully not too distant future, I'll never visit a video store again, never have to record or watch live TV again, and always be connected to my family via HD video sharing and webcams. Cogeco's service no longer matches with my current needs, let alone my near future needs.
The month is only half-over, and I've already received my bandwidth warning. I don't think I've done anything differently this month, I do expect that my needs are only going to increase, and I really don't want to have to deal with worrying about bandwidth metering. I'm about to get on a plane for a week to go put bread on the table, and I'm honestly worried that my wife and kids will get stuck dealing with a phone call from Cogeco that they won't understand or worse yet be left without service while I'm away. It's just a stress that I don't need.
My new ISP's hardware should arrive in a week, and assuming that it all works out as expected I'll be saying farewell to you all. If it works out for a couple of months, I'll likely be saying farewell to Cogeco for CATV service as well.
My offer from before stands, even as a non-customer. I'd be happy to come into the office or chat via phone to decision makers to give them insight into what I consider to be a reasonable person's needs and commercial influencers to be. PM me if you want to take me up on that.
Pete
reply
DrunkenClam @ 18th Apr 10:45AM:
Re: Update: I've decided to switch
I'd be happy to come into the office or chat via phone to decision makers
Your passsive/aggressive style of saying you love cogeco, but are cancelling their service is fine, but after reading this it seems to me like your in fantasy land. Yea, Krispy might give you some more lip service, but I think the only person that might listen to you is this one:
»webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParl···nguage=E
reply
uber69er @ 18th Apr 11:06AM:
Re: Update: I've decided to switch
said by DrunkenClam :I'd be happy to come into the office or chat via phone to decision makers
Your passsive/aggressive style of saying you love cogeco, but are cancelling their service is fine, but after reading this it seems to me like your in fantasy land. Yea, Krispy might give you some more lip service, but I think the only person that might listen to you is this one:
»
webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParl···nguage=E He may be a demographic that the bean counters are actually afraid of.
With their little charts and graphs they only want him to skirt the caps and pay an extra couple bucks
a month and not leave Cogeco because of the hassle.
The tipping point he personifies is what keeps some of them awake at night I'm sure.
reply
anon @ 18th Apr 11:24AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 18th Apr 11:48AM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by DrunkenClam :
Hopefully the Government will make the right decisions in the coming years.
Yea, hopefully they step in and force all Canadian ISP's to provide the same crappy, vanilla internet service to all Canadians where there's no incentive to do anything better or different because it's all the same price. Viva La Revolucion!
reply
anon @ 18th Apr 11:51AM:
If under usage...is there a credit?
So can we get credits against overages?
reply
DrunkenClam @ 18th Apr 12:31PM:
Re: Update: I've decided to switch
said by urbanriot :
Yea, hopefully they step in and force all Canadian ISP's to provide the same crappy, vanilla internet service
You obviously don't understand. Having a regulated tier that ISP's provide ie: 10meg/800k service at 250 Bandwidth cap at 44.95 a month that would ensure all Canadians have an equal chance to use the internet at a fair price. All the other tiers would still be available for people who need more or less.
uber69erHe may be a demographic that the bean counters are actually afraid of.
With their little charts and graphs they only want him to skirt the caps and pay an extra couple bucks
a month and not leave Cogeco because of the hassle.
The tipping point he personifies is what keeps some of them awake at night I'm sure.
Cogeco doesn't care, because they don't have too. If some investors see a downward trend in the next quarterly report and ask why, then cogeco might start listening. Until then from lack of competition, they don't really have too.
We all want the same thing here. I hope cogeco does listen, but having been playing the corporate game for years now, it's very naive to think any change will happen, without competition that hits the bottom line or government intervention.
reply
Shamans @ 18th Apr 12:39PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Krispy :
I'm trying to find out where this is coming from as I'm assuming the posters are being honest when they say multiple reps are telling them this but I've not heard of anything like this from anyone here so my gut reaction is it's simply not true and either the poster is misunderstanding what a rep said or a rep or two are inventing policy. I'll try and find out and get back to you but probably won't be until next week at this point.
I'm interested as to what you will find out as well because if what Gixxer said is true then point #4 of your original post would have to be corrected/invalidated.
reply
peterboro1 @ 18th Apr 01:02PM:
Re: Update: I've decided to switch
said by DrunkenClam :
Until then from lack of competition, they don't really have too.
We all want the same thing here. I hope cogeco does listen, but having been playing the corporate game for years now, it's very naive to think any change will happen, without competition that hits the bottom line or government intervention.
I stated a thread »Here is a I-Zoom flyer in mailbox today, anyone try them? about something else and part way through an alternative reared it's pretty head to Cogeco.
So yes there is competition out there, not for everyone though. Most are happy and haven't looked like myself until this fell on my lap so to speak.
I'm not going to change the way I use the internet and one penny in over charges an I'm gone, simple.
reply
urbanriot @ 18th Apr 01:05PM:
Re: Update: I've decided to switch
said by DrunkenClam :
without competition that hits the bottom line or government intervention.
If there's no competition then there's a market. Cha-ching!
reply
anon @ 18th Apr 01:55PM:
Re: Update: I've decided to switch
64.95 for 5 mbps service? That is competition cogeco doesn't have to worry about...lol
reply
peterboro1 @ 18th Apr 01:58PM:
Re: Update: I've decided to switch
said by NoComp :
64.95 for 5 mbps service? That is competition cogeco doesn't have to worry about...lol
Not I-Zoom.
Read down the thread to what Nexicom is offering.
reply
Fireblade @ 18th Apr 02:26PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Shamans :
I'm interested as to what you will find out as well because if what Gixxer said is true then point #4 of your original post would have to be corrected/invalidated.
I spoke to a supervisor and a manager about it, once you run out of usage bandwidth - you will be terminated for the month, word for word "After you reach the bandwidth allocated by your internet package, your service will be blocked till 1st of next month" is what a supervisor told me. Try calling in and asking for yourself. I even called billing and they knew all about it which was a surprise. Krispy is obviously not in the loop, I'm not trying to insult, it's just the truth.
reply
Snickerdo @ 18th Apr 02:35PM:
Re: Usage Billing
said by Fireblade :
I spoke to a supervisor and a manager about it, once you run out of usage bandwidth - you will be terminated for the month, word for word "After you reach the bandwidth allocated by your internet package, your service will be blocked till 1st of next month" is what a supervisor told me. Try calling in and asking for yourself. I even called billing and they knew all about it which was a surprise. Krispy is obviously not in the loop, I'm not trying to insult, it's just the truth.
Well, it could be one of three things...
1. She is in the loop, but chooses not to talk about it.
2. She isn't in the loop (which I sort of have a hard time beliving)
The third, and in my opinion the most likely having worked in various roles in call centres, is that misinformation spreads like a wildfire. One person hears something, tells another, and another, and another. "Supervisors" at the Cogeco call centres aren't really managers or anything of the sort, they're just experienced phone agents who sit in an escalation queue, so they really don't know anything more than anyone else. I know a few of them who live here in Niagara and commute to Burlington. Once something like that spreads, it starts getting told to customers and customers believe it, whether it's true or not.
If what they told you really was the case, I'm of the belief that the system would have already been in place to boot you off this month once you hit the top of that red section. While I don't think it's impossible that what they told you is going to happen, I'm not exactly holding my breath, either.
This should really get up onto the front page o
Usage Billing