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

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

The conflict of interest that arises due to the the cable providers owning the last mile should be what gets dealt with. If the companies that own the last mile want UBB then they should be forced to be spun off from the Shaws, Bells and Rogers that own them. Have these last mile companies sell exclusively to independent ISP's and cable tv providers which then sell to the consumer.

This I agree with, although I am not totally convinced that the sole purpose of the bandwidth caps is to discourage normal use of Netflix. I do think that the purpose is to ensure there isn't abuse by Netflix customers (or people who use massive amounts of bandwidth, like file sharers) and I think there is certainly a cash grab motivation behind it, since they have reduced the caps.

For example, shortly after Netflix arrived, in November I think it was, I signed up for the free trial. At the end of the month, I had about 200GB of total usage (about 140GB more than normal ). Despite there not being any hint of any UBB, I was still in violation of my caps.

Shaw wanting to enforce the caps with a paying for overage system is going to restrict the usefulness of Netflix as a platform to get cheap content, but the simple fact is these caps have pretty much always existed, even before Netflix existed, means that you would have been going over anyway and facing disconnect every month had they decided to target you.

Taking that into consideration, I don't think you can clearly say that this is anti-competitive behavior that needs to be regulated. You can call it a cash grab, to target people who want to continue abusing Shaw's previous lack of commitment to enforcing caps, and I would support that 100%. You can call it a poor business choice, considering the position Telus is trying to establish in the market, and I would agree totally.

[photon]

GreenTeaFrapp good point, equal access to the customer should be a given since creating new routes of equal access is difficult (though not impossible, there are wireless ISPs).

Originally Posted by Meelapo

I don't want to get into the politics of everything (even though I don't understand it) but this capping business is pretty dumb. I checked the Shaw page and it says High-Speed now has a 60GB cap. Wasn't it 80-90GB before or something?

It used to be 60GB before, then they raised it to 75GB and then put it back down to 60GB.

Originally Posted by Meelapo

How is anyone going to get on board with cloud computing if it's going to cost us an arm and a leg?

The same way people get into cloud computing now, by having the appropriate connection. If you need a ton of bandwidth you get the connection that supports it. Are you saying there should be no limits at all? You do understand that's impossible let alone even sustainable.

It's a question of where those limits should be and how much people should pay to get more than what the average person needs. Businesses doing cloud computing have been under this model for ages.

Originally Posted by Meelapo

One thing I found interesting was a Netflix rep said it costs the telecos less than a cent to provide 1GB of bandwidth yet they are charging $2.50.

Incorrect in a few ways. First, it costs telcos less than a cent to GET 1GB of bandwidth, that's not how much it costs to deliver it. The cost of delivering it may be just as cheap, but without seeing actual info it's hard to say for sure.

Second, with Shaw, if you go over your limit then you pay $1 or $2 per GB depending on what plan you are on. If you know you are going to be a high user, you can either switch to a plan with more data, or you can pre-purchase buckets of bandwidth for much cheaper (down to 20 cents a GB). This is the part most people seem to miss or intentionally leave out because it doesn't help with the emotional rhetoric.

This is how cell phone plans work, you pay for a set of minutes, and if you go over you pay crazy fees.

Originally Posted by Meelapo

I understand it's a business and everyone has to make money but be fair about it.

Why do they have to be fair about it? Shouldn't companies be allowed to price themselves out of existence? Fairness comes out of competition, and if this market can't have competition, then fairness has to be imposed, but companies don't have to be fair, they have to maximize shareholder profits.

Originally Posted by Meelapo

I don't mind paying my $39.95 or $49.95 a month but I expect a big enough cap that I don't have to think about using the Internet.

Why should a company be obligated to provide what you expect?

How about natural gas? Do you expect to pay a flat rate and get as much as you want? What about your cell phone, do you pay $40 and expect a big enough minute pack that you don't have to think about it?

Lets look at cell phone plans for a minute.

Fido has their CityFido plan, 2,000 minutes for $35. That's 1.75 cents per minute. You have your base rate, $35, and you have your cap, 2,000 minutes. But what if you go over? Then you're charged 35 cents per minute! That's 20 times the base rate! With Shaw, you get 60GB for $37, that's 61 cents per GB. If you go over, you pay $2 per GB, that's only 3 times the base rate. So Shaw's cap is "less fair" but their overage rate is "more fair". And that's not counting that you can buy bandwidth in buckets at as low as 20 cents a GB, less than the per GB cost of the initial plan.

I agree with you that if it were me caps would be higher, I'm just trying to show that it's not quite off the charts of unreasonableness.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Bell is building the super net in Alberta on a government contract. So really, who owns the super net and the transport of bandwidth?

Bell BUILT the SuperNet, as in they were hired to do the work. They have nothing to do with looking after it. Axia does that.

[atb]

Michael Geist weighs in:

Much of the public anger has been pointed toward the CRTC and its decisions involving usage based billing and wholesale Internet access (interim approval, approval for UBB, first review, second review). Anyone taking the time to read the CRTC's decisions will likely arrive at the conclusion that it simply does not know what to do about the issue. In recent months, it has issued several decisions on essentially the same question - can (and under what conditions) Bell impose UBB on the regulated Gateway Access Service (GAS) that is used by independent ISPs? The Commission has ping-ponged back and forth with no clear idea of what it is trying to achieve. Indeed, the recent decisions have been almost completely devoid of policy analysis or linkages to the frameworks that are supposed to guide the CRTC, leaving the sense that the Commission is making it up as it goes along (the latest decision involves no analysis of why its approach is consistent with the policy direction, only a flat statement that is).

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5611/125/

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by photon

GreenTeaFrapp good point, equal access to the customer should be a given since creating new routes of equal access is difficult (though not impossible, there are wireless ISPs).

But the same issue exists even with wireless ISPs; the cost to enter is prohibitive and there's really no need to have dozens of different sets of infrastructure.

Why do they have to be fair about it? Shouldn't companies be allowed to price themselves out of existence? Fairness comes out of competition, and if this market can't have competition, then fairness has to be imposed, but companies don't have to be fair, they have to maximize shareholder profits.



Why should a company be obligated to provide what you expect?

How about natural gas? Do you expect to pay a flat rate and get as much as you want?

The difference is that natural gas is a fixed good that has to be paid for by your provider while bandwidth is like a road. Regardless of whether you drive on a road for 1 km or 100 km, the costs to the provider will be relatively similar.

What about your cell phone, do you pay $40 and expect a big enough minute pack that you don't have to think about it?

Lets look at cell phone plans for a minute.

Fido has their CityFido plan, 2,000 minutes for $35. That's 1.75 cents per minute. You have your base rate, $35, and you have your cap, 2,000 minutes. But what if you go over? Then you're charged 35 cents per minute! That's 20 times the base rate! With Shaw, you get 60GB for $37, that's 61 cents per GB. If you go over, you pay $2 per GB, that's only 3 times the base rate. So Shaw's cap is "less fair" but their overage rate is "more fair". And that's not counting that you can buy bandwidth in buckets at as low as 20 cents a GB, less than the per GB cost of the initial plan.

Since the cellphone companies are owned by the same companies looking for UBB, I don't think looking at their pricing strategy is a good example.

[Tinordi]

I pay $40 for unlimited NA calling and data with my mobile provider.

[Meelapo]

Originally Posted by photon

I agree with you that if it were me caps would be higher, I'm just trying to show that it's not quite off the charts of unreasonableness.

I think my point, though I didn't articulate it well or at all, was that I know we live in a world where we must pay for everything and the bottom line is all that matters. I don't mind paying extra but I think it should be reasonable. For example, for $39.95 a month I think 80-90GB is fair and for $49.95 maybe 125GB (those extreme folks). What is the point of giving us such fast access when we have to cut down on what we use. I don't download things so I'm not sure how much I use but from the sound of it if I use Netflix lots I'm going to start paying hefty fees.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

But the same issue exists even with wireless ISPs; the cost to enter is prohibitive and there's really no need to have dozens of different sets of infrastructure.

There's a few wireless ISPs though that seem to be making a go of it though, so it is possible. More for businesses though, it's pretty expensive for what you get compared to Shaw/Telus last time I looked into it. Maybe more a niche product.

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

The difference is that natural gas is a fixed good that has to be paid for by your provider while bandwidth is like a road. Regardless of whether you drive on a road for 1 km or 100 km, the costs to the provider will be relatively similar.

I'm not so sure, the cost for the line from your house to the point where it aggregates is similar 1 to 100km, but from that point the costs will increase depending on the usage of the clients.. if you have a subnet of people doing max 100Mbit vs. a subnet of people doing max 100Gbit, you'll need lots more equipment for the 2nd group.. plus your highway to the aggregation point will have to handle that much, etc..

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Since the cellphone companies are owned by the same companies looking for UBB, I don't think looking at their pricing strategy is a good example.

It's a good example of what the market is bearing and what people are paying. You can make an argument that it's all too expensive, or that it all needs to be regulated, or whatever, but the outcry over one while being content with another doesn't jive.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I pay $40 for unlimited NA calling and data with my mobile provider.

Your data gets throttled beyond a certain point though, so rather than a cap that's the way they've opted to protect their network.

And unlimited calling really isn't unlimited, they depend on people not actually taking advantage of that, and if things get too busy you simply won't get a connection. Unless they only have a limited number of customers per cell, physics simply prohibits it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Meelapo

I don't mind paying extra but I think it should be reasonable. For example, for $39.95 a month I think 80-90GB is fair and for $49.95 maybe 125GB (those extreme folks).

You think that's fair, and the values Shaw thinks are fair aren't that far away from that. Personally I'd like double what they advertise for the amount, that'd satisfy my desire to not have to think about my usage.

Originally Posted by Meelapo

What is the point of giving us such fast access when we have to cut down on what we use. I don't download things so I'm not sure how much I use but from the sound of it if I use Netflix lots I'm going to start paying hefty fees.

But you probably won't. Unless you are watching a full length high def movie every single day you won't get close to 60GB. And if you do, you can prepurchase bandwidth buckets to cover your usage or upgrade to the next plan, whichever is cheaper. There'll be lots of warnings, or so they say anyway.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by photon

There's a few wireless ISPs though that seem to be making a go of it though, so it is possible. More for businesses though, it's pretty expensive for what you get compared to Shaw/Telus last time I looked into it. Maybe more a niche product.

I'm not really up on Wireless ISP's but from my impression has been that they exist in places where laying fibre is cost prohibitive.

I'm not so sure, the cost for the line from your house to the point where it aggregates is similar 1 to 100km, but from that point the costs will increase depending on the usage of the clients.. if you have a subnet of people doing max 100Mbit vs. a subnet of people doing max 100Gbit, you'll need lots more equipment for the 2nd group.. plus your highway to the aggregation point will have to handle that much, etc..

But that's getting more into a quality of service issue instead of just providing the service. In my road example, if the road capacity is not sufficient you get bumper to bumper traffic jams during peak hours. Buying natural gas, your costs are mostly variable based upon consumer usage. With high speed internet your costs are mostly fixed.

It's a good example of what the market is bearing and what people are paying. You can make an argument that it's all too expensive, or that it all needs to be regulated, or whatever, but the outcry over one while being content with another doesn't jive.

I think it has more to do with the wireless companies not petitioning the CRTC to make things worse for consumers.

[The Goon]

The Conservative Party may reverse the ruling.

[KTrain]

The Shaw meter is now available for everyone. You can log in to check it out. Turn off the pop-up block as it opens in a new window.

https://secure.shaw.ca

I was 17 Gigs and 6 Gigs over in November and December. At 31 GBs of my 60gig limit right now and only half way through my billing. I wouldn't even consider myself a heavy user.

[The Yen Man]

Yikes, I was 67 gigs over in November, and 37 gigs over in December. Good news is I'm on track for January (only 27 gigs so far for half the month). I guess no more leaving bittorrent on overnight for downloading.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by KTrain

The Shaw meter is now available for everyone. You can log in to check it out. Turn off the pop-up block as it opens in a new window.

https://secure.shaw.ca

I was 17 Gigs and 6 Gigs over in November and December. At 31 GBs of my 60gig limit right now and only half way through my billing. I wouldn't even consider myself a heavy user.

46 gigs with 7 days left. However the last 2 months were 90 and 77

[Prototype]

I'm about 60 gigs over, over the last two months... 40 for Jan. I'm going to have to change my ways.

EDIT: Just re-checked my bill... turns out I'm only about 20 over for the last two, and about 3 gig over for Jan... Didn't realize I'm on Extreme right now.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by KTrain

The Shaw meter is now available for everyone. You can log in to check it out. Turn off the pop-up block as it opens in a new window.

https://secure.shaw.ca

I was 17 Gigs and 6 Gigs over in November and December. At 31 GBs of my 60gig limit right now and only half way through my billing. I wouldn't even consider myself a heavy user.

Is it Modem Usage I am supposed to click on? Every time I do it just refreshes the Account Services page. I have never been able to check my usage.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Is it Modem Usage I am supposed to click on? Every time I do it just refreshes the Account Services page. I have never been able to check my usage.

Yeah, you need to turn off Pop-up blocker for the page.

[woob]

Don't switch to TekSavvy:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...et-billing.ars

[metallicat]

pmharper - We're very concerned about CRTC's decision on usage-based billing and its impact on consumers. I've asked for a review of the decision. -twitter

[metallicat]

Bwahaha suckers I only use about 9GB a month.