Jump to content

Talk:Cogeco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marketing or Facts?

[edit]

This article needs a full rewrite in my opnion, ommiting much of the bias and technology reports. Pretty silly as it is, looks like an internal pamphlet or a marketing article. 99.240.198.86 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely.... and after patiently waiting 12 years for someone to do just that... I decided to spend some time doing it, while hunkering down and hiding, (hopefully safely) from that scary coronavirus (COVID-19) that has spread across planet Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WildStar (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very yes. As someone who uses Cogeco for internet, I can truthfully say that their service is much less than perfect (though definitely quite good). --BranER (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I get feedback with my questions/responses here in this Discussion - I might do a complete re-write? Editing an entire page (by myself,) will often harbor the attention (ire?) of another editor, thus I should devote an extended time on various time-zones for typos, grammar, corrections, and a sure-fire critical reception. Get your suggestions in soon or it may be 'too late.' Mutuussentire (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little balance could be added for sure. A reference the CBC story (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/04/22/tech-vuze.html) about Cogeco being the worst ISP in Canada for interference with BitTorrents might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.248.120 (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a controversy section near the bottom of the article, with the CBC reference. I do think there was a Vuze pdf file that may make another (better) reference, also deleting some of the tech reports plus including a better history would be a good idea. I must say, I've not been a cogeco customer for a few years and my interest level is low, so I won't be doing it. 99.240.198.86 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph irks me the greatest. If they or the 'powers that be' need a commercial page, they shouldn't be here, or perhaps Cogeco & Cogeco Cable Inc. should be two distinctions on Wikipedia? Bitorrenting is at least downloading, but upload is severely capped, which I find ruins my ratio. The entire section of which-box-is-which, should be a direct link to an alternative site, which provides comparisons against boxes from Rogers and Shaw. Many phone calls (I receive) from Cogeco or a call center to offer VOIP, which starts off saying "Good day _____, I am pleased to announce that in your area we have a strong interest in Internet Phone..." I might as well say "I am declining." de facto, but the statement is untrue. VOIP is NOT AVAILABLE in my area, once the caller looks up my phone number, oh now they're "...sorry." I could continue, but I am waiting for Cogeco to arrive here for an upgrade sometime between 9-5pm. You'd think that they could book an appointment time of say 9:30am or vaguely say "between 10am and 12pm." Waiting sucks, either it is for technical support, or network technicians fixing my broken connection in my entire neighborhood. I am also waiting for the powers of media to offer a package of just the Internet, since both TV and Internet work with bandwidth, why can't I download TV from Cogeco by the GB? The idea of paying double (TV & Internet) for getting less is irritating. Mutuussentire (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Full rewrite completed. — WildStar* 20:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Limited HD Channel selection?

[edit]

Someone should point out that Cogeco offers a very limited selection of HD channels compared to Rogers 64.229.221.33 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about comparing prices of HD vs Std. Def. TV between cable providers - there shouldn't be a distinction between the two. Why am I paying for cable channel(s) twice? Mutuussentire (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cogeco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cogeco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cogeco&oldid=1206736510"