Shaw Internet - Magical New Speeds and Lots-o-bandwidth, fickle geeks appeased

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

not defending....educating. HUGE difference. I don't like the changes either, but I think people should know ALL of the information before making a decision.

the argument is that with 1% of the users using 25% of the bandwidth, its not fair for the other users on the same node to have their service saturated. And yes, saturation is a real problem, especially in large centers like Vancouver and Calgary. If you don't believe me, call any TSR and ask how many calls they get a day on 'slow speeds'. Shaw is splitting nodes on average of 1 every 3 days in Vancouver to relieve saturation issues.

Should people who earn more than $1M a year be taxed more than people who earn $40K a year? It's a relevant debate.....

Also, as content continues to be data heavy, limits will change to reflect them (ie/ they will go up). It's not meant to stop people from using the internet, its meant to stop abusers from abusing it.

This is misinformation not education... HUGE difference

Yes it might be the case that it is only 1% of the users, but we have yet to see proof of that, except off the cuff remarks by Shaw employees. Caps in developed, highly industralized nations like Japan and South Korea and nowhere near the pitiful levels Shaw has established. Even Comcast, who is the model for Shaw has 250GB limits for their 15 mbps service.

This is about Shaw making sure the they have their hand in the pie of online content providers, people are going switch away from old tech like delivered TV, it is happening every day and Shaw is scared. Because Shaw didn't invest in infrastructure spending now there is congestion? Shaw has had a problem with congestion for many years, speeds drop in the evening and weekends for virtually every customer.

I am no fan of Telus, but I am glad that Telus is making a big play - Shaw will be caught with its pants down.

I am sorry for the aggressive tone of this post, but I hate condescending posts like these

[photon]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Nice quip.

Lots of ISPs have, there's tons out there demonstrating that it's cheap. Teksavvy, distributel, Cogeco, etc. They all operate their own routers and POIs, seems to be a robust enough market for them to get financing to do so, and they're all making money offering unlimited internet.

Ok so what's the problem then? If Shaw's not providing the kind of Internet you want, take your business elsewhere. If they reduce their bandwidth so much that people can't even send an email without incurring a charge (as was said), then people will leave and an alternative will take its place.

Either Shaw is allowed to operate their business as they see fit, or they aren't. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It isn't cheap to build the main network which works to my point above about natural monopolies. Sadly for you I guess, that main network wasn't built by the giant incumbent telcos either though. They were public entities when that backbone was built, ie you and I paid for it not Bell.

Nice try though.

Who paid to build Shaw's network?

What do you want? Regulatory control over every ISP and what they can and cannot do? Isn't that what you are complaining about right now?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

And if you say that capacity isn't cheap then sure I agree but bandwidth caps aren't the tool to address that. Bandwidth caps do very little to reduce peaks. Time of use pricing or throttling are the only tools capacity constraints.

Every other place I buy bandwidth caps is their primary tool for capacity constraints... I share a 100Mbit or 1Gbit connection, but I can only use a limited GB per month, and I pay large overages unless I buy buckets. I track my usage and roll up to the next bucket when I need to (or pay an overage if I know it's an anomaly rather than a trend). They know in advance how much people are in general are going to use and scale their network appropriately.

If I saturated my connection I'd use up my monthly allotment in a few days. If I need a connection I can saturate, then I pay FAR more for a far slower link.

It's not a perfect measurement, but a perfect measurement isn't needed, they know how much in general they need and they know how much peak they need to not degrade the service level.

I don't want throttling, I would rather have a lower limit and have to pre-buy buckets of extra bandwidth if I know I'm going to go over or be a heavy user.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

a whole lot of fear being spread in this thread.

Fact is that less than 1% of shaw high speed and extreme users go over their limit, yet that 1% of users accounts for nearly 25% of bandwidth used. Those are the people that are going to be hurt by this ruling.

It was mentioned above that these overage fees (pushed back to mid-Feb, btw) will not be charged on the first overage, or the second overage. it will only be charged if you go over THREE STRAIGHT MONTHS. if you go over 2 months, and not the 3rd, you're back to having zero strikes.

if you want to know how much you are using right now, call in 310-shaw. It's open 24 hrs, and here's a hint...if you call after about 8 or 9, you will talk to someone almost immediately.

I am def. not a fan of the new UBB, but users like Greysdir are just spreading fear about a new form of billing that most likely will never effect most of you.

btw, if you can't tell, I am kinda in the know, so please feel free to ask me any questions you may have.

Originally Posted by oilyfan

This is misinformation not education... HUGE difference

Yes it might be the case that it is only 1% of the users, but we have yet to see proof of that, except off the cuff remarks by Shaw employees. Caps in developed, highly industralized nations like Japan and South Korea and nowhere near the pitiful levels Shaw has established. Even Comcast, who is the model for Shaw has 250GB limits for their 15 mbps service.

This is about Shaw making sure the they have their hand in the pie of online content providers, people are going switch away from old tech like delivered TV, it is happening every day and Shaw is scared. Because Shaw didn't invest in infrastructure spending now there is congestion? Shaw has had a problem with congestion for many years, speeds drop in the evening and weekends for virtually every customer.

I am no fan of Telus, but I am glad that Telus is making a big play - Shaw will be caught with its pants down.

I am sorry for the aggressive tone of this post, but I hate condescending posts like these

InCoGnEtO is correct. Can't guarantee the exact numbers, but confident enough that if he is off he is still close enough to get a couple of points in horse shoes. I don't find the post condecending at all, but rather voicing the other side of the argument. Facts make for an improved debate.

The counter argument to the carriers having their hands in the pockets of the content providers is that the carriers are subsidizing the content providers by providing extremely low cost distribution. The reality is that content can't survive without distribution, and distribution is meaningless without content, so as consumers we can only hope the two sides strike a balance where they can both make a reasonable profit and our services continue to improve and be stable.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

one more thing...I consider myself a heavy user (non-gamer, but lots of torrents), I am on extreme, and I have never gone over my 100g limit. The closest I got was 65G in Nov.

Lol..no doubt, considering Shaw also throttles torrent traffic. I'd be under 100GB on torrents too if I got crap transfer rates all month long.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

it will only be charged if you go over THREE STRAIGHT MONTHS. if you go over 2 months, and not the 3rd, you're back to having zero strikes.

Citation Needed.

Not doubting you at all, just want confirmation. I haven't read all of this thread and have mainly used other sources for my info on this but this is the first that I've heard that your three months must be consecutive.

If that's the case, it's not as horrific as I had once guessed but it still sucks a fair bit.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Lol..no doubt, considering Shaw also throttles torrent traffic. I'd be under 100GB on torrents too if I got crap transfer rates all month long.

What's a good transfer rate? For all my torrenting life I've been on shaw and pleased enough with the speeds I've been getting. You mean to tell me that it can go faster?!

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't want throttling, I would rather have a lower limit and have to pre-buy buckets of extra bandwidth if I know I'm going to go over or be a heavy user.

Amen! This is what I was trying to say earlier. Nobody wants a 1 TB (terabyte! not gigabyte) bucket monthly, because that's only a 3 megabit DSL connection to deliver 1 TB in 30 days.

[photon]

I saturate my Shaw connection with torrents regularly.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

the argument is that with 1% of the users using 25% of the bandwidth, its not fair for the other users on the same node to have their service saturated. And yes, saturation is a real problem, especially in large centers like Vancouver and Calgary. If you don't believe me, call any TSR and ask how many calls they get a day on 'slow speeds'. Shaw is splitting nodes on average of 1 every 3 days in Vancouver to relieve saturation issues.

Assuming this is true, how much do you think bandwidth caps will help? My guess would be that people scaling back their bandwidth use will find their off-peak usage (downloading) more expendable than their peak hour usage (streaming). Perhaps a "primetime" cap would be more appropriate, just like you can get phone plans with limited daytime minutes plus unlimited evenings and weekends. As it stands now Shaw is restricting off-peak bandwidth that's just going to go unused.

[zamler]

I can't believe anyone (besides a Shaw employee) would defend what Shaw and others are doing. The wave of the future is to use more and more bandwidth, not less. And it's complete rubbish that it's hard to go over 60Gbyte/month. It's EASY to do this, especially if a family is sharing a connection, which is very common.

The worst part is, people are going to by paying the same amount per month (or more if prices go up) and get less. This is not progress, it's a cash grab.

[FlamesPuck12]

So are we the only country that uses UBB?

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

So are we the only country that uses UBB?

Australia does. And they are one of the world leaders in crappy internet.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Citation Needed.

Not doubting you at all, just want confirmation. I haven't read all of this thread and have mainly used other sources for my info on this but this is the first that I've heard that your three months must be consecutive.

If that's the case, it's not as horrific as I had once guessed but it still sucks a fair bit.

This is similar to what a Shaw CSR told me (and I posted earlier in the thread). Once month over and you get a warning, and three consecutive months and you start getting billed.

I don't think that I'd mind if they actually billed like a utility, where you truly pay for what you use. Grandma who checks her email once a week should pay for her actual usage (next to nothing) and an avid torrenter should pay for his. The problem with the new structure is that they want the best of both worlds: a monthly fixed price and then a disproportionate cost for overages. As also mentioned by someone else, I'd also be in favour of it being based on the time of day as well. The rate is higher when the network is actually seeing congestion (prime time) but is really cheap in off-peak times (overnight). That would actually make a difference with network performance instead of being seen as a cash grab.

The funny thing is, I don't think that I'll exceed my bandwidth unless I make major changes to my lifestyle. I don't torrent but I watch the occasional Netflix show, I watch my Slingbox remotely, I stream music from my home PC, plus all of the usual downloads, updates, etc. At most, I peak at around 60 GB/month on a 100 GB plan. As more things become available online, however, I see that increasing.

I think what concerns me is that, because consumers connect their TVs to the internet and start consuming content differently, Shaw is making these moves to protect their traditional business of cable TV and, most notably, their new presence in the broadcasting industry with Global. The trend is going to continue and in a year or two, these caps are going to seem smaller than ever. Shaw won't have any incentive to raise them to a realistic level when the time comes because it will either eat away at their profits from overages or eat into their profits from cable.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by photon

Either Shaw is allowed to operate their business as they see fit, or they aren't. Which is it?

I agree 100% with photon that Shaw should be allowed to run their business however they want but isn't this new development about companies like Shaw/Bell telling the smaller guys what they can and cannot do because they rent off their system.

It seems backwards that the CRTC says you have to rent your lines to these people for more competition for no more than X amount of dollars but you can also tell them how much they can or cannot charge and tells them if they need to charge overages or not.

I think Shaw and Bell all well within their rights to maximize profits for their shareholders but it shouldn't be the CRTC's job to do that and most of the time it feels that way. It's never what is best for the Canadian user but what's best for the big Canadian companies. CRTC won't let us watch US commercials but they sure do like letting us get it without any vasoline!

Also I phoned Shaw yesterday and told them the day I see my bill with 1 penny or more of overages I'm switching to Telus that day. I don't care if they have the same rules or the internet isn't as good I'm not paying Shaw anymore more than I have to especially when they are going to charge me 200 times their cost.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by zamler

I can't believe anyone (besides a Shaw employee) would defend what Shaw and others are doing. The wave of the future is to use more and more bandwidth, not less. And it's complete rubbish that it's hard to go over 60Gbyte/month. It's EASY to do this, especially if a family is sharing a connection, which is very common.

The worst part is, people are going to by paying the same amount per month (or more if prices go up) and get less. This is not progress, it's a cash grab.

My company pays for bandwidth overages at work, and without a 2 month grace period to remind me of the limit. Why should it be any different for residential customers?

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Lol..no doubt, considering Shaw also throttles torrent traffic. I'd be under 100GB on torrents too if I got crap transfer rates all month long.

what are you being capped at? I regularly get 1.5Mg/sec on a torrent.

[The Yen Man]

Well, I guess I should be happy it's at least at 60 gigs now instead of 15 gigs back in 2001.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Rathji

My company pays for bandwidth overages at work, and without a 2 month grace period to remind me of the limit. Why should it be any different for residential customers?

How much do you pay and how much bandwidth do you get?

Curious question...

[bubbsy]

Well it's official, Canada has the most garbage internet for the cost. This law goes in effect as stated by the ruling made by the CRTC yesterday, in March nationally.

What a crock this is. I'm pretty pissed off, good thing i didn't go out and sign up for netflix, or apple tv.

I'll have to ensure i watch less hockey online (Center ice on game center) now too.

I would really love to compare the cost of triple play services across the delevoped and developing nations. Canada has got to be close to, if not, the worst of the lot.


here is an article covering the CRTC ruling yesterday:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/cr...based-billing/

In a telecom decision handed down yesterday, the CRTC has mandated that Bell Canada and other telephone carriers must offer wholesale internet access service providers a 15% discount on retail usage Billing rates beginning March 1, 2011.

The federal regulators decision means that starting in March, third-party Internet access providers will be required to cap internet usage for consumers in Ontario at 25GB. The regulator has set the cap in Quebec at 60GB.