1. Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Rogers implementing bandwidth caps

Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by Jazz, May 8, 2002.

  1. Jazz

    Jazz TRIBE Member

    Rogers has decided to implement bandwidth caps, and not a transfer speed cap as someone else posted... I had a feeling that this was coming, since bell announced their bandwidth caps...


    this sucks... thinking of changing over to look high speed once it's available...
  2. MARCin

    MARCin TRIBE Member

    That sucks left nut. I got a call today from my cable company, and they told me that they will have a 2gig cap, while we were using something like 50gig last month. Is there an unlimited alternative?

  3. vinder

    vinder TRIBE Member

    this fucking blows. they said they would not do a bandwidth cap and now they are.

    can't anyone keep to their word these days?
  4. atomic

    atomic TRIBE Member

    I would be curious to see if there's any truth when they say that the "hogs" are making the other users suffer. that sounds like a load of bull to me.

    I think bell, rogers and such are well aware of the explosion of file sharing and it's a way for them to make a lot more money. And it sucks because it seems like our alternatives are dwindling, and they were few to begin with.

    I've read elsewhere however, that this bit capping is already going on in other places like montreal, australia and new zealand. some are already in place and some are happening around the same time bell and rogers is doing theirs. I wonder what's up with this worldwide agreement to screw us. :(
  5. atomic

    atomic TRIBE Member

    just had another thought - this whole idea of bit-capping and charging premium services is detrimental to the future of the internet. nevermind file sharing, but eventually when bandwidth speeds explode, we have a new medium which can carry an unprecedented level of user-controlled content, like streaming audio, video, whatever. because these companies are charging premiums now, it's sending a message that the future of the internet can only be properly delivered to those with premium subscriptions - something which goes against everything the original intent of what the internet is supposed to be - freedom to exchange information.
  6. Balzz

    Balzz TRIBE Member


    Bandwidth is not cheap.
  7. defazman

    defazman TRIBE Member

    1 Gig? Fuck, I did that last night. So what, in a normal month I would have one day of downloading and 29 days of nothing....

    not quite worth $30, and I'm not paying $70 a month for service.
  8. Balzz

    Balzz TRIBE Member

    Sorry, the original intent of the Internet was strictly for official business. :)
  9. kyfe

    kyfe TRIBE Member

    actually it was developed by the army and was intended to be used as an information exchange for intelligence.... there's nothing intelligent about the internet these days:rolleyes:

  10. Subsonic Chronic

    Subsonic Chronic TRIBE Member

    Didn't Bob Dole say that he invented the internet?

  11. Rosey

    Rosey TRIBE Member

    actually, it was a US Air Force Project to develop a decentralized network that would allow for communication to be maintained in the event of a nuclear war.
  12. kyfe

    kyfe TRIBE Member

    Picky picky picky:D

  13. Plato

    Plato TRIBE Member

    crack rogers

  14. tommysmalls

    tommysmalls TRIBE Member

    i don't like the caps, but you know what - you get what you pay for.....i like the separation of packages for hard core types as opposed to more casual surfers.

  15. Jazz

    Jazz TRIBE Member

    this is Rogers we're talking about, you'll be lucky if it even works... after almost a year, they're still fucking up on my billing... how hard is it to have my rogers cable and rogers high speed ON THE SAME BILL...
  16. Balzz

    Balzz TRIBE Member

    ARPANET was spearheaded by the Department of Defense, not the Air Force. ARPA was primarily research oriented. Sounds like a contradiction doesn't it? :D
    Last edited: May 9, 2002
  17. kerouacdude

    kerouacdude TRIBE Member

    Actually it was Al Gore, though what he actually said was miscontrued by the press corps.
  18. Balzz

    Balzz TRIBE Member

    Al Gore. Although, what he meant was that he was part of the group that mandated the migration of government agencies from CLNP to TCP/IP.
  19. atomic

    atomic TRIBE Member

    yeah, I guess I should have chosen better words than 'the original intent'.

    I'm just grumpy now because this is going to have an adverse effect on all the dreamcast games I'm downloading now. ;)
  20. Skipper

    Skipper TRIBE Member

    This fucking sucks.

    Just when I was ready to break the ties from Sympatico, this happens.

    Oh well, customer service at Rogers can't possibly be any worse than at Bell.

    Are there any high speed alternatives? I wonder if this is going to fuel the wireless industry at all....or speed things along anyways..
  21. Swamper

    Swamper TRIBE Member


    "Bob Taylor, the director of a corporate research facility in Silicon Valley, had come to the party for old times sake, but he was also on a personal mission to correct some inaccuracies. Rumours had persisted for years that ARPANET had been built to protect national security in the face of a nuclear attack. It was a myth that had gone unchallenged long enough to become widely accepted as fact.

    ... The project had embodied the most peaceful intentions - to link computers at scientific laboratories across the country so that researchers might share computer resources."

    Where Wizards Stay Up late


    I read this book back when it came out in 1998 and it provided a lot of insight since it has material from people who originally worked on the project and were behind the invention/setup of Arpanet and it's expansion. Most of it is an interesting read but there is a lot of technical stuff there too in case you have insomnia and want a quick remedy.
  22. deep

    deep TRIBE Member

    Worst news I've heard all week. I do a couple gigs every day , letalone a month.

    The line about this being to improve service quality for the majority of users is total BS and just a cover for the fact that they want to make more money off broadband usage, file sharing programs, etc. Most of the file trading junkies I know set up most of their xfers over night and not at peak hours anyways. Why not improve the quality of the existing network infrastructure instead of looking to get more money out of the existing junk they're offering us?

    Bandwidth capping seems to be the trend all over the world, however. Most people have had to bend over and take it in the states. I'm hoping that a third party will come out with a non capped broad band service so people don't have to pick between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of ISP's. This elite level service they plan on offering in Sept 2002 better be damned good.
  23. The Watcher

    The Watcher TRIBE Member

    Damn this pisses me off...


    I'm not a web hog, I just know how to use a computer to it's full potential, why should I be punished for this.

  24. Bass-Invader

    Bass-Invader TRIBE Member

    this is what happens when competition is virtually non-existent.
    two companies isn't enough.
  25. The Watcher

    The Watcher TRIBE Member

    There cannot be competition, essentially, Bell owns the Phone Lines and Rogers owns the Cable...



    CRTC, are you not here to save us?

Share This Page