Talk:Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rogers Nonsense
I just wanted to document this somewhere. I've been putting up with rogers for the last 3 years because the DSL speed in my area could only reach a max of 1Mb/s. As of this month, this is no longer I now get about 4.5Mb/s
In that time I've had the following happen: 1. Rogers free unlimited photo uploads stopped working after 10GB (I have a total of 56 GB and growing almost weekly). After complaining for months it was raised 1-5 GB every time I complained. Finally I got a tech who told me what was going on. The free unlimited is on the photos but the network sending the photos was capped out at ~10GB. He said, and I quote, "It's not really unlimited we will just raise it for those who ask." Since it took months each time I ended up going with canadianwebhosting.com for my photo uploads. It also gave me the chance to customize the layout.
2. I've had Rogers contact me to say I was pinging the site carterfamily.ca too often and if I didn't stop the owner of carterfamily.ca domain would contact them, to have me shutdown. (I will note, I'm the owner of carterfamily.ca) I assured them I wouldn't report myself to them to have myself shutdown... but that wasn't good enough. I ended up creating a backup dns in house so I wouldn't complain to rogers to have myself shutdown.
3. Bit shaping. I run Fedora Linux. They have a release cycle of about 5-6 months. So I get a new iso image 2-3 times a year. Their primary download method is torrents. Because of the bit shaping technology it was estimating it would take 400 days to download 1 iso image. Fedora has multiple flavours which I like to have around so the estimate was around 4 years to get all of them. I understand Rogers wants to stop illegal downloading but why is it illegal to download free software?
4. Bit shaping (again). Seems that in the great wisdom SSL/VPN was now to be targeted as illegal downloading. Which made my work almost impossible. It took me 3 months to convince them to allow VPN to run faster.
5. Rogers will not allow home users to go for business accounts until the house is rezoned commercial. Talking with Rogers customer services this is how all companies do it. However, I still have yet to find a company that won't sell me a business line for my home office.
6. 95GB bandwidth. I work from home for an company in another country, and my hobbies all involve large amounts of traffic (ie web design and armature photographer) So I generate 100-200GB a month. So the final cost of my monthly bill is going up to ~$90.00 a month (including taxes). So I did the math. Acanac.net is offering $18.95 per month for unlimited bandwidth (1 year contract). Their regular monthly is $33.95. So with a dual WAN router at (33.95 x 2 = $67.90 and 4.5Mb/s x 2 = 9Mb/s) Rogers has just shot themselves in the foot. DSL couldn't compare to rogers price/speed, until they raised the price beyond the $68 threshold. It's now cheaper and we'd get more features to go with DSL.
7. For the last three days I've unplugged the ethernet cable and routed all traffic through a dsl line. The rogers web page for the last two days has reported 689MB total up/download. I contacted them and after 2 hours of trying to convince them of the problem their solution is to completely unplug the power to the modem for the next few days. To see if the page reports 0. Anyone see a problem here. If I didn't have the DSL line how would I work? IF I can't work, I can't pay the rogers bill!
So my suggestion to all rogers customers out there, see if you can get a hold of a router which measures your internet traffic. You could be paying for bandwidth which is being miss reported.
Update Sat Apr 12th, 2008:
The following is the stats when I phoned to complain a few days ago that my bandwidth usage was incorrect. (and they told me it must be my wife secretly plugging it in on me)
| Daily Usage | Download Usage (MB) | Upload Usage (MB) | Daily Total (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wednesday, April 09, 2008 | 392 | 297 | 689 |
| Tuesday, April 08, 2008 | 392 | 297 | 689 |
Today they read:
| Daily Usage | Download Usage (MB) | Upload Usage (MB) | Daily Total (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wednesday, April 09, 2008 | 2,090 | 43 | 2,133 |
| Tuesday, April 08, 2008 | 392 | 297 | 689 |
Rogers still insists there is nothing wrong with their bandwidth site and that I must have imagined the other statistics. I wonder what the numbers will look like tomorrow?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeyCarter (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rogersyahoo.gif
Image:Rogersyahoo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Extreme plus
Wouldn't the extreme plus plan include more monthly bandwidth? ¤Belinrahs talk/contribs¤
[edit] Illegal Filesharing
I thought downloading copyrighted music and stuff was legal in canada according to it's file sharing? I believe uploading is still illegal but still...--70.78.9.221 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to get a legal download (FreeSpace 2 opensorce engine, I need It for a mod) and it took my a month to find a non bit torrent version.We where thinking of suing rogers... 42 Don't Panic 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Remove "quotes" in traffic shaping area?
I have refactored the file sharing area and included a number of references for some of the more obvious claims. I think this portion can remain as-is.
However there are several other claims that I have not yet removed that I find questionable. They include several "quotes" from unnamed Rogers representatives. I searched for these quotes on the Toronto Star, Michael's site and in google, but got no hits.
I don't consider this to be a major problem, but as they were all added by a single anon user, 74.106.208.89, I'm inclined to delete them. Frankly, they don't sound entirely ridiculous, but I do find it a little hard to believe Rogers would have publically admitted some of these things.
Thoughts?
Maury 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- On further investigation it appears the statements are OR.
- The problem for Rogers is that the data channels, but down and upload, are shared among users. In order to save money, cable companies only install "enough" backchannel based on "normal" usage patterns. These patterns have changed dramatically with the introduction of P2P, leaving them gasping. Rogers has responded by slowing the P2P ports, in order to free up space on the backchannels and allow normal downloads using HTTP and such to work with reasonable performance.
- ADSL does not have this problem. Since every user has their own separate physical link, one user hammering with P2P has no effect on other users. The only bottleneck is the main outbound channel at the end offices, which are typically larger symmetrical lines anyway. Bell can easily respond to changes in traffic patterns by changing the partitioning at their offices, there's no need to change any hardware down the line.
- So not only were the claims unreferenced, in my judgment they are simply untrue. I have removed them.
- Maury 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unenforced Bandwidth Caps?
Unenforced bandwidth caps? Then what's the point of even having caps?
Good question, I'd like to know also. I hope that it doesn't mean you have to pay extra if you exceed the limit, do you? 142.108.95.92 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, should it be noted that Rogers Ultra-Lite and Lite customers prior to Jan 14 still has the previous 60 GB limit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.180.114 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
