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

[Hack&Lube]

I've not used it myself, but I think we've seen this chart of average speeds and costs globally before, or it may have been another forum.

http://gizmodo.com/5390014/internet-...shown-visually

I have heard comments from friends from Korea talking about how fast they are able to stream HD media back home at very high speeds.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Here is a petition for shaw.

http://www.petitiononline.com/SHAWCAP/petition.html

[DownInFlames]

Online petitions are worthless, especially in this case. If you want to send Shaw a message, cancel some, or all, of your services. Shaw is beholden to their shareholders, not consumers.

The real culprit is the CRTC, whose decision to allow UBB was in the interests of the telcos. If you want to yell at someone, that's who should be your target.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Online petitions are worthless, especially in this case. If you want to send Shaw a message, cancel some, or all, of your services. Shaw is beholden to their shareholders, not consumers.

The real culprit is the CRTC, whose decision to allow UBB was in the interests of the telcos. If you want to yell at someone, that's who should be your target.

This is exactly true.

Once Bell got permission to, it would be ridiculous for everyone else to not follow along to some degree. ISPs could have adopted a strict pay if you go over once, but it appears they are targeting people who are seriously habitual abusers of the cap. I mean if you are going over 3 months in a row, you need to look at upgrading your service a tier or 2.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Here is a petition for shaw.

http://www.petitiononline.com/SHAWCAP/petition.html

To: Shaw Communications
We, the undersigned, are disgusted with Shaw Communications bandwidth caps and would like to say that we are extremely unhappy. Small bandwidth caps are just too little for most Shaw Communications users that spend a lot of time on the computer.


We would like Shaw Communications to remove or increase the limit so we won’t be harassed by the evil bandwidth police phoning or emailing us telling us to cut down.

I think they should have got someone who doesn't write like 12 year old to write their petition.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think they should have got someone who doesn't write like 12 year old to write their petition.

Or at least refer to them as the "cyber police" and add the line "consequences will never be the same".

[Vulcan]

Someone who didn't secure their wireless network and went over their 30 gigs a month.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/18...eless-network/

[Bob]

While I don't necessarily have a problem with the upfront revelation about overage charges, and the terms aren't especially egregious, what disappoints me most is that Shaw simultaneously dropped caps across the board by significant amounts when they had only recently increased them. If they had been left alone and they simply said "by the way, go over this enough and we'll start charging you", I'd be less incensed.

[Rathji]

I heard a rumor that this isn't actually going to be in effect at this time, but will start later on this year after they review the whole thing.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Someone who didn't secure their wireless network and went over their 30 gigs a month.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/18...eless-network/

Ha ha ... yes ... a "hacker" "hacked her wifi" that was left unsecured. Not laughing at the ignorance of the woman, but rather the reporter who makes it sound like she was victimized by Neo.

[Titan]

I am finding it a bit difficult to get too worked up about this issue. I should pay for what I use. That makes sense to me. I can see people getting upset about the reversal or how it was communicated. It also seems to me that you can go gonzo for two months, take a month to watch what you downloaded, then go gonzo again. Hard to argue with that. The one thing I do agree with is it is not right we are unable to monitor our own usage. That should have come first.

Also, I assume the infrastructure was built by private companies, should they not get to determine how they get paid for it? (if the gov't originally built it and sold it to the ISPs then that seems to be the same thing) Seems pretty fair to me. If we want universal access then let the government build and run the lines and we all pay through taxes.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Titan

I am finding it a bit difficult to get too worked up about this issue. I should pay for what I use. That makes sense to me. I can see people getting upset about the reversal or how it was communicated. It also seems to me that you can go gonzo for two months, take a month to watch what you downloaded, then go gonzo again. Hard to argue with that. The one thing I do agree with is it is not right we are unable to monitor our own usage. That should have come first.

Also, I assume the infrastructure was built by private companies, should they not get to determine how they get paid for it? (if the gov't originally built it and sold it to the ISPs then that seems to be the same thing) Seems pretty fair to me. If we want universal access then let the government build and run the lines and we all pay through taxes.

I'm almost of the same mindset. In a sense, having add-on data packages, or overage charges, as long as they are reasonable relative to the price of the base package (ie. an over-cap byte should cost the same, or less, than a under-cap byte), basically legitimizes high consumption users - we can no longer be harassed, threatened, denied service, randomly cut off, or throttled (p2p and net neutrality is a separate issue, I'm talking about over-cap throttling like some mobile companies do) simply for using a lot of bandwidth, since we've purchased the bytes.

Ultimately, I'd like to see true utility model residential ISP service - break out my monthly fees in to separate delivery/infrastructure charges based on the performance and capacity of the pipe I have provisioned, and then charges for data carriage. Make it just like the water/gas/electron pipes coming into my house.

[Jimmy Stang]

Saw this tweet on Friday:

mgeist Michael Geist
RT @iainmarlow: Shaw refers to usage-based billing as "source for revenue" on earnings call. Thought was about bandwidth crunch?

Nobody here should be surprised. Dollars and cents, plain and simple.

I'm still maintaining a wait and see approach over the coming months, but once hockey season is over, I'll have decisions to make about where I'm spending my communications dollars. I'm not sure whether that will mean switching providers, cutting back or eliminating cable TV, etc. I was actually quite loyal to Shaw as they had always treated me fairly, and even though I probably won't exceed my cap, but the way this was handled has left a bad taste in my mouth.

[theonlywhiteout]

Originally Posted by Titan

I am finding it a bit difficult to get too worked up about this issue. I should pay for what I use. That makes sense to me. I can see people getting upset about the reversal or how it was communicated. It also seems to me that you can go gonzo for two months, take a month to watch what you downloaded, then go gonzo again. Hard to argue with that. The one thing I do agree with is it is not right we are unable to monitor our own usage. That should have come first.

Also, I assume the infrastructure was built by private companies, should they not get to determine how they get paid for it? (if the gov't originally built it and sold it to the ISPs then that seems to be the same thing) Seems pretty fair to me. If we want universal access then let the government build and run the lines and we all pay through taxes.

this isnt pay for what you use, its a cash grab. if they wanted usage based billing they would charge grandma checking her emails 10 bucks a month. they dont.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Titan

I am finding it a bit difficult to get too worked up about this issue. I should pay for what I use. That makes sense to me. I can see people getting upset about the reversal or how it was communicated. It also seems to me that you can go gonzo for two months, take a month to watch what you downloaded, then go gonzo again. Hard to argue with that. The one thing I do agree with is it is not right we are unable to monitor our own usage. That should have come first.

Also, I assume the infrastructure was built by private companies, should they not get to determine how they get paid for it? (if the gov't originally built it and sold it to the ISPs then that seems to be the same thing) Seems pretty fair to me. If we want universal access then let the government build and run the lines and we all pay through taxes.

Pay for what you use. Sounds great.

Question:

Would you support paying your electricity utility a flat fee of $100 a month regardless of how much you use and then if you use over a certain amount you then pay an arbitrary sum of 60 cents a kWh?

Because that's what's going on here.

You aren't paying for what you use at all. You're paying an arbitrary flat fee with no disclosure on what the fixed amortized costs are and then you're paying an overage fee that is not justified based on either marginal or average costs.

You're basically getting reamed because a monopoly is doing it and there's no regulator out there protecting them from the monopoly.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You're basically getting reamed because a monopoly is doing it and there's no regulator out there protecting them from the monopoly.

Actually it's worse. The regulator (the CRTC) has given the monopoly the green light to do it.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Pay for what you use. Sounds great.

Question:

Would you support paying your electricity utility a flat fee of $100 a month regardless of how much you use and then if you use over a certain amount you then pay an arbitrary sum of 60 cents a kWh?

Because that's what's going on here.

You aren't paying for what you use at all. You're paying an arbitrary flat fee with no disclosure on what the fixed amortized costs are and then you're paying an overage fee that is not justified based on either marginal or average costs.

You're basically getting reamed because a monopoly is doing it and there's no regulator out there protecting them from the monopoly.

While I do agree that is you are doing usage based billing it should be more usage based, the simple fact is Bell applied to the CRTC for a change that allowed ISPs in Canada the ability to charge for overages.

It may be a virtual monopoly, but it is regulated.

[Tinordi]

No it's not a regulated monopoly. It's a market regulated to favour monopoly. Big difference.

In a regulated monopoly, the monopoly has to come to the table, open its books and have the regular decide the rate structure based on a undifferentiated return for profits.

This situation is nothing of the type.

[ZedMan]

Looks like Shaw updated how they do the measurements... and surprise surprise, they went up. May want to take another look at your usage. Mine roughly quadrupled from what was reported before.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

Looks like Shaw updated how they do the measurements... and surprise surprise, they went up. May want to take another look at your usage. Mine roughly quadrupled from what was reported before.

It certainly doesn't help their case when their own bandwidth measurements can vary by a factor of 4. I'll stick with my router measurements.