Rogers Reportedly Considering Extra Fees for Wireless Data Priority

Electronista reports that Rogers is considering implementing a new “Data Priority Service” that would prioritize subscriber data packets for a monthly fee.


  1. pay more for less suck
    “Yeah, we know our network sucks and just to ensure that your experience on it sucks less than your neighbor’s, you can pay more for less suck”.

    I wonder what happens when every one is paying for less suck? Everyone is back to the level playing field they were before this scam started but all paying even more for their already over-priced services.

  2. Slippery Slope
    This is exactly why we need Real Net Neutrality rules for all Data Services instead of the watered down attempt at it the CRTC gave us.

  3. Mary Pretotto says:

    Hi, this is Mary with Rogers Social Media Team.

    We don’t comment on rumours, but I can say that at Rogers we always design our products and services with the customer in mind. As a result, we test many concepts and ideas with our customers. Sometimes we’re actually considering launching these ideas, but often we’re just testing concepts. Many of the ideas we test never get launched based on customer feedback.

  4. Where’s the service standard for existing customers?
    Could someone please explain to me how this wouldn’t be blatant fraud? All wireless providers are signing up more and more customers for the same limited resource. Any kind of “priority access” fee shouldn’t even be considered until there is a mandatory cap on subscriber-to-bandwidth ratio. Otherwise, it’s just an incentive to over-crowd their network without investing in infrastructure. In fact, I would argue that the government should hold off on any new spectrum auctions until the existing spectrum holders have demonstrated that they are making effective and efficient use of the spectrum they have.

  5. RE: Mary Pretotto
    Ah, like the idea of throttling BitTorrent networks? Or the idea of charging people based on how many TVs are in their house?

    Please spread your B.S. elsewhere. Oligopolies have no respect from consumers.

  6. @RogersMary
    How about the refusal to release unlock codes for UNSUBSIDIZED phones? This hardly benefits the consumer, it only benefits Rogers as it discourages Number Portability because of the need to acquire a new phone with the new provider.

  7. I can see it now. Throttling of all Rogers & Fido users to free up bandwidth for people who pay.

    How about they just stop signing up new subscribers so they don’t saturate their networks any further…

  8. @jd874
    That’s just crazy talk 😉

  9. can of worms
    I worry that outed Rogers reps won’t get a good reception online, especially from anonymous people in cafes who have no concerns about speaking freely — even if they out their PR selves.

    My peers and I have very little respect for the manner in which Rogers appears to limit our ability to enjoy the service they provide in the fashion they promote in their advertising.

    I look forward to the day when we can choose our carrier (and politicians) based on more than a careful consideration of which one is the least-bad for us and the least misleading in promises.

  10. @Bish
    Agreed, Rogers (and other companys) reps online tend to get a poor reception; unfortunately the rep themselves tend to attract the lightning even though the rep generally has no say in the decision making process.