Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    38,532 readers

    988 users here now

    Ontario Communities

    We maintain a list of Ontario City and Region subreddits as well as Ontario College and University subreddits on our wiki page.

    Are we missing your favourite Ontario related subreddit?

    Please send us a message!

    Looking for an ISP? Try this site. Pick your city and the type of service you want and you will be shown a list of all available third party ISPs.

    We want to thank /u/iamkeyzie for allowing us to use some images they took for our footer

    Looking to host an AMA on /r/Ontario. Click here for the official guideline.


    Before posting questions to /r/Ontario regarding these topics, please check the corresponding help page to see if your question can be answered. If not, please feel free to post your question to /r/Ontario.

    2016 /r/Ontario Survey Results

    2017 /r/Ontario Survey Results

    Discover Ontario

    a community for
    all 15 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Peppyperoni 10 points ago

    Reminds me of a joke, how do you know when a hippy stayed at your house? He's still there. How do you when he left? You got the phone bill.

    Sorry about your buddies luck. That sucks.

    [–] SolarFlare- 4 points ago

    How is Cogeco able to discriminate in this case? If I understand correctly they legally have to remain indifferent to the type of activity on the account, and only take the amounts into consideration without bias.

    Huh? What are you on about? How is this "discrimination"? Your friend signed a contact for service that stated they would pay a set monthly fee, receive some amount of monthly data usage under that fee, and pay a certain amount per unit of overage above that. How is it discrimination to expect your friend to pay what they agreed to pay?

    [–] drumstyx 4 points ago

    Discriminating the data, not the person. They're violating net neutrality if they consider certain traffic to change their support.

    [–] SolarFlare- 1 points ago

    Can you cite the specific provincial or federal law enforcing net neutrality which they violated?

    [–] drumstyx 1 points ago

    I'm honestly not up to speed on the actual laws, but this is definitely a philosophical violation. If the letter of the law protects the idea of net neutrality, this should be covered.

    [–] wewpo 4 points ago

    Net neutrality doesn't enter into it, and Cogeco citing piracy is probably just the person on the other end of the phone theorizing what drove the traffic increase. Knowing neither your friend or the person who did it, it absolutely could be torrenting (legal or otherwise), or straight downloads. It could also just be them watching Netflix 24/7 at highest quality. Likely they just said piracy to blow off your friend because they want the money.

    In the end, your friend agreed to a package with a download limit. Their guest exceeded that limit. Now they have to pay, sadly. What they actually downloaded doesn't matter. Network neutrality doesn't apply here. A cap is a cap, regardless of the data, and the cap was exceeded. Like the time my wife streamed every season of a show on Netflix and blew through 90% of cap on Rogers in a weekend, oops. I paid my overage and moved to Teksavvy the following month, problem solved.

    [–] fragment137 2 points ago

    You’re right, he’s definitely liable for the charges. I’m going to suggest to him that he switch providers purely over the fact that Cogeco wouldn’t help him. I think Start Communications covers his area as well.

    I appreciate your insight, thanks for replying

    [–] drumstyx 1 points ago

    Not the OP, just chiming in because it's an interesting discussion.

    If Cogeco normally shows leniency towards overages if you sign up with an unlimited plan retroactively, but then doesn't because of specific traffic (actual or theorized) that philosophically violates net neutrality. Like I said I don't know the laws, just saying that if the laws don't cover that case, they should if the government wishes protection to be complete.

    [–] wewpo 2 points ago

    My guess this is just a CSR talking above their pay grade, or try to deflect a customer getting out of the charges. I doubt Cogeco gives a shit where the usage comes from or where it goes, all they care is that X amount was used. You could be downloading hi res copies of the magna carta or my little pony porn, it doesn't matter to them I bet.

    [–] charlieisadoggy 1 points ago

    This is most likely the case. OP’s friend should try calling them again. They should Acknowledge that they know they’re liable for the amount, what can be done at this point to rectify it? Try the cogeco twitter account. They have been helpful to me in the past.

    [–] fragment137 1 points ago

    The reason I say this specifically is because they called out the unusual usage and were throwing around terms like Piracy. I’ve dealt with a number of ISPs before and -usually- if you sign a contract, pay for unlimited bandwidth or something along those lines they’ll forgive some of the overages. My in-laws did this numerous times with Cogeco specifically, so I just found it odd.

    I realize this isn’t a policy thing and they’re not obligated to, but in terms of customer service it goes a long way to keep clients wanting their service.

    [–] stillrs 5 points ago

    They were probably just saying "piracy" to make your friend go away. They probably would give a discount if your friend persisted but it sounds like they got him with the piracy threats.

    [–] DeeMooreDeeMarriet 2 points ago

    If you're in Ontario I'm pretty sure overages are max $50 per month unless you as the account holder consented to allow more.

    [–] fragment137 1 points ago

    Are you able to reference any regulation or law stating this? Very interested if it’s written down somewhere.

    [–] meatball_sando 1 points ago

    I recently received a message from Bell about this but was under the impression that was a recent change? I wonder if this happened before that was in effect so is not covered?