Talk:Rogers Hi-Speed Internet

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)

Extreme plus

Wouldn't the extreme plus plan include more monthly bandwidth? ¤Belinrahs ^talk/_contribs¤

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.

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)

Product Plan Pricing

I've removed the plan pricing from this article. Wikipedia is not the place for customers to get this information, particularly if it is uncited and undated. If anyone wants to know what they charge and what the rules are, I'm sure their website explains it more authoritatively and accurately than this page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. Many other articles, including FiOS (a similar service), Vonage and most laptops, include price. Are you saying they are all wrong? Wikipedia is a place for useful information. What is more useful than pricing? And since when is Wikipedia not a place for customers to get information about products and services they are interested in? Moreover, the pricing information is very useful in that Rogers only lets you check the price for services that are available within your postal code. For instance, I was interested in knowing the price for their 'Extreme Plus' plan, but since it isn't available in my area, I couldn't. Isn't that exactly what Wikipedia is about?Ahugenerd (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Ahugenerd -- when is money (pricing information) not important in this world?? Raysonho (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it seems like an advertisement. --staka (T) 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Then one can argue that all free software articles on wikipedia are advertisements -- they are promoting the software by saying that the cost is $0. On the other hand, why not improve the article so that it does not seem like an ad?? Raysonho (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying it seems like one. Information on internet service is usually short, as most are similar and can't really talk about the uniqueness. So you can't really add much.. --staka (T) 01:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy makes it clear that it is not a sales catalogue or price guide. There is no over-riding reason for this uncited pricing list of products to be on an article about the company.

Besides, which do you think is the best place to read about pricing? This unattributed and unreferenced list on Wikipedia, or the company's own website? Which do you think people will actually rely on to be accurate and up to date? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to bring it up every year. Pricing information is important, and this is not a price guide. The pricing information here is not street prices, and we are not comparing prices of competing products.

When money is not important anymore, or if there is a rogers page listing all the detailed information, then we don't need the information to be listed here. Raysonho (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is important or not is not the point. It is whether it should be on an encyclopaedia article about the company. If it is not a price guide then what is it? Who is the intended audience? Why do you believe that it is information that should be maintained on Wikipedia? The policy on this is quite clear and applies to cases exactly like this. This is a price list. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You still don't understand, this is NOT a price guide. Why don't you check with other pages that include pricing information?? Raysonho (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So I'll ask again; what is it? The policy states, and I quote; product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. These prices are uncited and unjustified. What other pages have is not relevant. We're discussing this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed the 2nd part, "street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, articles discussing products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions." -- However, the information here is not street prices. Further, we are not comparing the prices of competing products.

So you can say that the prices listed in the article do not have references to back them up.

The reason I asked you to look at other articles is that, do you think all of them are wrong and you are the only one who had read the "NOPRICES" article??? Raysonho (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question;If this is not a price guide, then what is it?

And I fail to see what the paragraph on street prices have to do with it. What you are quoting is an exclusion on the examples of justified reasons (It starts with, "On the other hand", as you omitted from your quote). It is not saying "prices that aren't street prices are all ok".

What happens on other articles is not relevant. If other article are failing to follow policy, then that is not a reason for this one to. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a features comparsion table. The only thing I don't like is the "Maximum additional usage charge" and the "Additional usage charge per gigabyte" columns. Otherwise, price is just a small part compare to the other information in the table. But, those 2 columns are really penalties instead of prices.

And you don't need the NOPRICES article to specify what you can include. The guide specifies what you can't include. Did the no price guide or any other guides talk about whether the word "this" can use used in the articles??

Well, you have not answered my question -- Do you think you are the only one who have read the NOPRICES article, and every single article that includes price or the $ sign is wrong?? Raysonho (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What other people have read is as irrelevant as what other articles have. The only consideration we should be discussing here is; does this article follow policy? And that policy says; "product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention". None of the further discussion within the policy negates this. These prices are neither sourced nor is there any justification for them, therefore they should not be on the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The prices here can be quoted, so instead of complaining in 2008 and now again in 2009, do you think you can do something constructive and add the needed references?? Raysonho (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing them won't solve the problem. They would remain no reason to justify their mention. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The prices are providing useful information. Raysonho (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And so we go full circle. "Useful" doesn't fall anywhere near the examples in the policy. "Useful" is not justification for listing prices. "Useful" means you are providing a price guide. Wikipedia is not a price guide. Useful information like this belongs on the company's website, not on an encyclopaedia article about the company. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, don't point to the "Wikipedia is not a price guide" everytime as your argument - it depends on how you read the guide. I've read the guide many times and think that it is not a price guide. Raysonho (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's try a different approach. What would you call a price guide? How would it differ from what is here currently? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How about listing the prices as a description of the distribution of the tiers? The tiers are not evenly distributed in either price or technology (speed/cap) and so there are large gaps between them (eg, between Lite and Express). It is of note to readers that Rogers has had this problem for a long time and it causes quite a bit of grief since a customer has to effectively choose between one extreme and another (eg, no middle ground between 3Mb/25GB and 10Mb/60GB). That would be one example of a good reason to list the prices of the tiers. Synetech (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a cite noting this inconvenience to customers? If not, then it is not up to Wikipedia to draw attention to it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question and Comment

I have Rogers internet and I would like to say a few things. First off, is there REALLY a limit on what you can download? Because I haven't gotten any warnings at all about 75% bandwidth or whatever, and I've downloaded quite a lot. And if there is, is there anyway to pay to raise it? Also, I DID see 1 warning a few days ago, saying Rogers will raise the internet speed from 7MB to 10MB by June 5. Maybe this should be added. (Sorry, I don't have a picture.) --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there is a limit. Next time I get a warning I'll take a screenshot to show you. It will show up at the top of any webpage (it's injected) with a link to acknowledge that you received it. If you have multiple users in your household then maybe someone else is seeing it if you go over 75%. Hacktivist (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I believe this statement on the page is untrue, as I have the Ultimate service, and do not even have basic Rogers Cable: "Ultimate is only available to customers who also subscribe to Rogers cable television. You must have a digital receiver and digital service." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.100.132 (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bandwidth Throttling Controversy

I'm curious if there is any confirmed test results of this controversy. The only two links right now link to two nerd rage articles where the only source of information is users. I have the Extreme plan and am a heavy downloader and always download at over one megabyte per second and upload at over 100 kilobytes per second. Since I am also a user and my results aren't a proper source I would be interested in seeing actual verifiable results of this claim. Hacktivist (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

From personal experience, Rogers certainly does throttle BT traffic. That said I don't think they throttle encrypted traffic any more; since I started encrypting all my BT traffic I haven't had a problem. Telanis (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)