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

[theonlywhiteout]

telus really isnt the only option, there is east link out in BC. of course here in alberta... honestly i couldnt say.

the thing is if shaw loses a lot of business to telus over this decision they will maybe reverse their thinking. if, however, things remain status quo... telus will of course follow suit.

people need to vote with their wallets and move from shaw to telus to do what we can to stop UBB

[zamler]

I find bandwidth caps to be a colossal joke. These ISPs advertise their faster and faster speeds, then punish you for it. What's the point of having ultra uber awesome bandwidth when you can hardly use it? 75 gigs/month for example is really not that much.

The sad part is if you don't like it, too bad for you moving to a competitor doesn't help at all.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is clearly anti-competitive behaviour - they're using their grip on internet to help their Cable TV business compete with Netflix. Thanks CRTC, you're useless.

I think you are partially right as to the intention of the ISP's in this case.

The problem is, alternative TV services like Netflix, streaming, torrents etc leech off the fact that while Shaw etc have had bandwidth caps since before anything like these services really existed, they were not enforced.

In all honesty, they are choosing to enforce them now in order to reduce load on their networks caused by these services, and I really can't fault them as a business for refusing to subsidize the real cost of the services. I would much rather the pay if you go over compared to the cut you off the instant you go over model as has been the only option in the past, albeit done very, very rarely.

Originally Posted by zamler

I find bandwidth caps to be a colossal joke. These ISPs advertise their faster and faster speeds, then punish you for it. What's the point of having ultra uber awesome bandwidth when you can hardly use it? 75 gigs/month for example is really not that much.

The sad part is if you don't like it, too bad for you moving to a competitor doesn't help at all.

What it means is that people who use a certain amount of bandwidth, need to pay for that bandwidth. Until now, the only thing you looked at when choosing an ISP was the speed they gave you. Now you also must consider the total bandwidth you will use. While I don't have a problem with any ISP charging for overages, I think the fee for going over your plan's limit is very harsh and they should have a more flexible model to use.

Actually just typing this I thought of the model that Rogers uses for Rocket Sticks. You get your x GB a month, and if you go over that they bump you to the next tier of service. If you get bumped over more than 2 months in a row, the only way you can maintain the service is by keeping that tier as your normal tier. This is a model I would support far more than what they are suggesting now.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

telus really isnt the only option, there is east link out in BC. of course here in alberta... honestly i couldnt say.

the thing is if shaw loses a lot of business to telus over this decision they will maybe reverse their thinking. if, however, things remain status quo... telus will of course follow suit.

people need to vote with their wallets and move from shaw to telus to do what we can to stop UBB

This is the last time I will mention this, because it is clearly hitting a nerve with you but do you honestly believe that Telus will never actually charge people the fees if they go over?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Rathji

In all honesty, they are choosing to enforce them now in order to reduce load on their networks caused by these services, and I really can't fault them as a business for refusing to subsidize the real cost of the services. I would much rather the pay if you go over compared to the cut you off the instant you go over model as has been the only option in the past, albeit done very, very rarely.

Absolutely untrue. If the issue is an issue of load/capacity then charging for caps does NOTHING to alleviate capacity shortages. Throttling is only effective for capacity, a practice they are well versed in using.

They have never proven that there are significant capacity issues. They have never revealed any network data showing that caps help them technically. They are charging overages at hundreds if not thousands of times the marginal cost of provding that extra GB of downstream bandwidth.

This is clearly anti-competive monopolist practices. I can't believe you would defending it.

If you really want UBB then sure, lets go there. Lets pay for each and every bit that you download at some standardized rate. So Grandma and Grandpa emailing their kids will pay $5 a month and Mr. Netflix pays $40 a month. Treat bits like utilities treat kWh. That's real UBB not this crap that these companies are ramming down our throats.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by GGG

Really shaw should be forced to charge there customers for HDTV bandwidth at the same rate they charge for internet bandwidth.

Isn't that kind of why HDTV costs more already?

[fredr123]

Switching to a different provider is a PITA when you've already invested hundreds of bucks in HDTV receivers, PVRs, etc. Having phone, TV and internet all bundled together makes the decision a bit more complicated too.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Absolutely untrue. If the issue is an issue of load/capacity then charging for caps does NOTHING to alleviate capacity shortages. Throttling is only effective for capacity, a practice they are well versed in using.

They have never proven that there are significant capacity issues. They have never revealed any network data showing that caps help them technically. They are charging overages at hundreds if not thousands of times the marginal cost of provding that extra GB of downstream bandwidth.

This is clearly anti-competive monopolist practices. I can't believe you would defending it.

If you really want UBB then sure, lets go there. Lets pay for each and every bit that you download at some standardized rate. So Grandma and Grandpa emailing their kids will pay $5 a month and Mr. Netflix pays $40 a month. Treat bits like utilities treat kWh. That's real UBB not this crap that these companies are ramming down our throats.

If you honestly think that little Billy will keep downloading his tentacle rape hentai and gundam smashing series' by the hard drive full if his parents suddenly have to pay $50 the first time he goes over by 50GB (a fairly small amount if you are torrenting a lot) then you are really misunderstanding how things work.

People torrent because it is:

a) Free
b) Convenient

If you suddenly don't make it free, do you honestly think that the same amount of people will still be putting 10-20GB HD movie rips up on torrent sites for people to leech off? Think of it this way, would you spend $10-$40 in order for someone else to be able to download a movie for free (or spend if they go over their own bandwidth cap)?

It does make Usenet a more attractive option though, so maybe people will start to use it more. Still has the same problem, except there isn't as big of a bandwidth usage issue that people have to deal with.

Same thing with Netflix. It is a crazy cheap service if you don't need to factor in bandwidth costs. An hour of content on Netflix is about 1GB(?). If you are a moderate user, then your viewing habits won't change much, but if someone is watching 80-100 TV episodes a month and a bunch of movies on top of that, do you would think they would maintain that use when considering the cost they are now paying for it?

All these things mean that either network traffic will go down, or people will start to pay through the nose, which will allow Shaw/Telus etc to upgrade their networks.

Bottom line is you should pay for what you use. At work, I need to pay the real cost of my traffic, because I have a level of service that our company demands. If we don't get that level of service, then our business does not function. Home users should not be any different if they require that same service, but realistically they still are, since all home users are billed the rates they are because they are connected to an over subscribed network infrastructure that allows for such a discount. Most residential users would have a fit if they got the bill I get at work for 100Gb of network traffic.

[Russic]

Perhaps it's that I don't watch as much tv as I used to, but I think I could cancel my cable outright and still download everything I watch in less than 60 gigs per month (shaw high speed). By my calculations I'm downloading about 12 hours of tv per week which should come to about 10 gigs per week or 40 gigs per month. That still leaves about 20 gigs for movies and netflix.

Even if I had to throw a few extra bucks towards an upgrade to extreme I don't see a big problem here (for me).

[corporatejay]

How about instead of charging me for internet over usage, you stop charging me for channels 1-200 since I don't think I've watched more than 6 hours of SDTV in the last 12 months.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by KTrain

This could hurt some Netflix folks. Cloud based storage too.

With the profits they're turning it kind of bugs me but they're a business so they have the right to do it. We can only speak with our wallets. Sadly, our options are limited.

I disagree strongly with the concept that just because they are business they have a right to gouge their client base. Customers don't have a choice in this market - there is no market outside two service providers who offer nearly identical services with very similar restrictions.

Had Shaw simply started enforcing caps, I'd be fine with it. But by lowering the caps significantly they are signaling that this is a purely a cash grab.

Just look at the "data package" prices. 10Gb for $5 a month. Next step up is 60GB for $20. So on top of 57$ for extreme with a low cap of 100GB, I would need to spend an extra $20 to achieve the same service I had last year.

Shaw ripped me off and there is little I can do about it. I'm pissed. Just canceled my digital phone and cable, and am seriously considering switching to Telus out of principal (they also are slightly cheaper for similar service).

[Jimmy Stang]

The three things that make this hard to swallow, for me at least, are:

- As mentioned, the caps are not just being enforced now, but they have also been lowered. This ensures that some users that based their level of service on their use will now be exceeding their new, lower cap. And pay more. Or get a new package. And, of course, pay more.

- There is no easy way to track your own bandwidth usage. I suppose I could do something at the router level (hopefully), or just trust Shaw's estimate about what I'm using. I don't imagine how I could ever exceed 100 GB a month, which is what I now get with Extreme, but I have nothing to base this on. At least with my mobile data plan, Fido gives me an exact figure of what I'm using and I can adjust my habits accordingly. Each user's actual usage should be available to them automatically without having to request it.

- There is no viable competitor to move to. Telus will undoubtedly be enforcing their caps soon, and their customer service is abysmal to start with. Independent providers, like Nucleus for example, are similar in price and (I believe) just lease the bandwidth from Telus and Shaw. So if the big ISP wants to throttle, cap, etc., you'll be affected as well.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Rathji

People torrent because it is:

a) Free
b) Convenient

If you suddenly don't make it free, do you honestly think that the same amount of people will still be putting 10-20GB HD movie rips up on torrent sites for people to leech off? Think of it this way, would you spend $10-$40 in order for someone else to be able to download a movie for free (or spend if they go over their own bandwidth cap)?

That's not the issue. The issue that ISPs are bringing up is that video streaming is jamming up their network. This is an issue of capacity, that means that at peak times they need more bandwidth to alleviate the congestion. How much you can download has very little to do with this as it's essentially an issue of users at one time not downloading. A download cap does nothing to alleviate capacity constraints at the peak. Downloading data has essentially no marginal cost for an ISP off the peak meaning there is no economic reason to charge any more for it.

Furthermore, reducing capacity goes to reducing the providers costs. Do you think that capacity reduction will be reflected in bills becoming cheaper? I don't.

All these things mean that either network traffic will go down, or people will start to pay through the nose, which will allow Shaw/Telus etc to upgrade their networks.

In a competitive market they would need to upgrade their networks anyway. Canadian investment in broadband is significantly behind other developed countries as many studies have demonstrated.

Bottom line is you should pay for what you use. At work, I need to pay the real cost of my traffic, because I have a level of service that our company demands. If we don't get that level of service, then our business does not function. Home users should not be any different if they require that same service, but realistically they still are, since all home users are billed the rates they are because they are connected to an over subscribed network infrastructure that allows for such a discount. Most residential users would have a fit if they got the bill I get at work for 100Gb of network traffic.

I have absolutely no problem with this. But if you want to pay for what you use then why would you support paying a flat rate up to a certain GB limit even if you don't use it? That's essentially just giving your money away to ISPs. And what you're talking about is upstream data which is a whole other ballpark and not relevant to this discussion. Because if you're paying exorbitant amounts for 100gb of download then that's your problem.

[Meelapo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Absolutely untrue. If the issue is an issue of load/capacity then charging for caps does NOTHING to alleviate capacity shortages. Throttling is only effective for capacity, a practice they are well versed in using.

They have never proven that there are significant capacity issues. They have never revealed any network data showing that caps help them technically. They are charging overages at hundreds if not thousands of times the marginal cost of provding that extra GB of downstream bandwidth.

This is clearly anti-competive monopolist practices. I can't believe you would defending it.

If you really want UBB then sure, lets go there. Lets pay for each and every bit that you download at some standardized rate. So Grandma and Grandpa emailing their kids will pay $5 a month and Mr. Netflix pays $40 a month. Treat bits like utilities treat kWh. That's real UBB not this crap that these companies are ramming down our throats.

I like this "pay for what you use" model.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is clearly anti-competitive behaviour - they're using their grip on internet to help their Cable TV business compete with Netflix. Thanks CRTC, you're useless.

What are you talking about? Haven't you enjoyed the radio success of such Canadian bands as: Rhymes with Orange, Sloan, Tea Party and The Odds?

[llama64]

Just got of the phone with Shaw...

Their support people had no idea what I was talking about when I asked about a bandwidth meter. Apparently they think it's ok to only inform you that you've gone over AFTER you've gone over.

In order to get a current bandwidth reading you need to call into tech support, get bounced around until you land in the right department and ask them. No utility/service is provided.

Shaw is full of horse####.

[MickMcGeough]

Ugh, sounds like I bailed on Shaw just in time. I was a customer for 8 years but in the last couple years I've had awful luck with customer support, and now this?

[Jimmy Stang]

Does anyone know if uploads count toward the cap as well? I'd imagine that they would, even though uploads are severely throttled as it is.

I tend to watch my slingbox every now and again at work, and it is using my home connection to stream the video to me. Sometimes I'll let a recorded concert, soccer game, etc. play on my second monitor as background noise. Based on a quick calculation, this uses about 0.36 gigs per hour (800 kbps), which could add up I suppose.

FYI - this thread on a techy forum has some people smarter than myself monitoring their bandwidth while watching a movie on Netflix in HD. The gist of it is that you're probably going to use about 2 gigs per hour of HD Netflix viewing, which is obviously about 3 gigs for a 1.5 hour movie.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r241...-of-bandwidth-.

[photon]

Yeah so for Netflix, 75GB / 3GB = 25 movies, almost one per day, which seems like a lot to me.

Though if people are using Netflix to replace their TV and some people watch hours and hours of TV per day, it's not hard to see someone running past their cap fairly easily.

And that's not including other Internet usage, but normal web browsing doesn't use much at all, and if you use a lot downloading torrents, you already know you use a lot.

[La Flames Fan]

So, with all this complaining...who do you switch to? Are there any independents out there?