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

[llama64]

The only way us consumers can handle these recent changes is by cancelling your cable (it's not hard actually), and refusing to use any more then the most basic internet service available. It sounds dramatic, but really, you'll find better things to do with your time then watching HD cat videos 4 hours a day (just me?).

It's a sad day in Canada when the ONLY avenue for customer action is through the cancellation of service. It's a sign of a broken market and ineffective regulation.

But since we are content to keep voting in the same corporate ######-nozzles who refuse to protect our interests, I doubt anything will change any time soon.

[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Hence NOBODY posts tidbits of an article in a post they create on this site, amiright?

You didn't say tidbits, you said "the information", which literally means all of it. You're the one making a vague distinction on what someone should and should not be posting, not me.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Not everybody has the sarcastic wit of photon. Some people, unlike you, could use a road map.

Sure, and some people care about where the map is leading them. A map's usefulness is related to how accurately it represents reality. As a map of "why", this site's usefulness is highly questionable.

And notice here how you're directing your comments against me, I should take the opportunity to fire back? Is that how rational discussions are supposed to work?

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Fine example of your great wit that nobody could e v e r achieve.

More insulting.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I am Canadian - Help save "Canadian". You can thank Molson for that Canadianism.

Pretty sure people said that before Molson came around, it being a well formed sentence and all.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Sometimes people just mean well.

And sometimes people just complain when things don't go the way they want.

Making poor arguments based on poor information means poor conclusions. It's not my job to make the site's author feel warm and fuzzy for having good intentions, they have their parents/siblings/spouse/friends/stuffed animals for that. If they're making poor arguments I can criticize those arguments on that basis. In fact anyone that opposes the UBB would welcome that, since criticizing poor arguments should result in better arguments, which would mean a stronger case for them.

"Bell has no right to decide how much I pay them to access the Internet from them" is not a good argument.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

If the internet is turned off in their home... They can lose business. I'm just assuming, but I'm not a smart as "photon"... whututhink?

Sure, but no one's talking about turning off the Internet.

I do business over my home Internet. I am fully aware of the caps (which were in place before all this started), and I'm fully aware of the SLAs. I know what my backup is if my Internet is unavailable, and I know what my backup is if my business requirements exceed the capacity of my consumer-grade Internet connection.

If I were running a business over the Internet, I would ensure that my business is not threatened by a single point of failure.

Most business that depend on the Internet has operated on the pay-per-use model for AGES already.

And your back-handed insults directed at me continue, you talk about a moderator's behaviour, when you're the only one here insulting an individual directly.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

And here, are you acting like a moderator?

If you think I'm not, report my post. The moderators often check with each other to see if they're going over the line or not. That's why moderators try to avoid moderating a thread they are actively participating in.

However I don't think I have violates ANY of the rules of the forum. I'm on the topic of the thread. I haven't insulted you or any forum member (you however have violated the rules of the forum by insulting me backhandedly).

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Are you creating an example for others to follow photon?

Yes, I would greatly like it if everyone pointed out poorly supported arguments when they occurred and tried to adhere to a standard of good reasoning and good evidence. That's the way adults discuss things IMO.

I would love it if people always attacked the argument rather than, as you seem to be doing, attacking the person.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Should follow this fine example of negative behavior?

What negative behaviour? Disagreeing with someone? That's not against the rules, so yes people should disagree when they actually disagree. Pointing out the ridiculousness of poorly formed and supported arguments? Definitely. Use of sarcasm against poor arguments? Sure, depending on the circumstance, I read many posts on this forum with excellent use of sarcasm, none of which have received moderator action. If there was only one bad argument on that site it would have been different, but the poor logic goes on and on and on so sarcasm seemed an appropriate response.

What negative behaviour are you specifically referring to. Maybe quote the exact phrase and specify why you think it's negative.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Please allow me to retort by saying this post is mostly you bullying.

Bullying who? I haven't said anything against you or the author of that site, everything I've said is against the CONTENT, the conclusions the site is making. How can you bully words?

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I posted something here that can point to others that may not know a direction to go. It might not be perfect but I came across it and thought I'd share.

And I never once said that you shouldn't have, or that you shouldn't be able to. You thought it was useful and you posted it. I thought it was poor and I posted that. But somehow you expressing your opinion is ok, but me expressing mine is not? Really?

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I understand that you are comfy with this ISP change SO STEP ASIDE or post without trying to intimidate others.

Where have I said I'm comfy with the ISP changes? It's not a "if you're not with me you're against me" world, it's possible to have a more nuanced point of view.

I could even agree with the concept of removing the UBB and still be against poorly made arguments you know.

And where have I tried to intimidate others? By disagreeing with them?? Sorry, but if someone is intimidated just because someone disagrees with them or criticizes their arguments because they are poor arguments, then they are the ones that need to step aside; adults should be capable of having their points criticized.

And the arguments I criticized were those made by a website. Am I intimidating the website? I didn't make those comments on the website, so I'm not intimidating the author...

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Obviously this conversation isn't for you being that the OP has a thumbs down icon suggesting that this is a move he does not agree with which is opposite to your opinion as you have so stated previously.

Sorry, if you think that disagreeing with someone makes you ineligible to participate in a thread, you are really on the wrong forum.

And no it isn't opposite to my opinion, assuming things can make one look foolish.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I understand that you want to poke fun at someone who is trying to make a difference but lacks the grasp of grammar and "speeling" that you have.

That's not what I was doing, for the most part I was poking at the poor arguments themselves. And when I was talking about the grammar and spelling, I was actually talking about the grammar and spelling and the site, not poking fun at the person.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Perhaps he is an immigrant? Maybe he learned how to type on a cell phone. His voice still has value or there would not be 53 comments of thanks, and posts of what others did to make a difference.

I really don't care why his arguments are poor, just that they are.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

This post is a low point for you IMO. I tried to have fun with your responses but your last bit was... Tasteless.

*shrug*

If you think making fun of nonsense arguments from a random website is tasteless that's fine, you are welcome to your opinion.

[HOOT]

Clearly photon is JR Shaw.

[photon]

I wish.. starting an ISP (or some bandwidth related company) just so I can have massive bandwidth for myself has always seemed like a good idea though.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by photon

You didn't say tidbits, you said "the information", which literally means all of it. You're the one making a vague distinction on what someone should and should not be posting, not me.



Sure, and some people care about where the map is leading them. A map's usefulness is related to how accurately it represents reality. As a map of "why", this site's usefulness is highly questionable.

And notice here how you're directing your comments against me, I should take the opportunity to fire back? Is that how rational discussions are supposed to work?

.....

More insulting.

.....

If you think making fun of nonsense arguments from a random website is tasteless that's fine, you are welcome to your opinion.

No you did an excellent job at trying to invalidate something I found useful, however, because you do not agree with the topic it's okay to make fun of it (the non informative junk) and thus make fun of me. Because you wrote it you don't see it that way.

Perhaps I did take your attack personally but I usually hold you as the alpha moderator and as such bullying shouldn't be in the cards for you. But that is just my view point.

I don't care to argue or debate with you or pick apart a post. That site will assist someone who needs a bit of direction.

I agree, nobody should not attack the individual or group. For that I will be a big boy and say sorry.

Sorry for attacking you. I felt you were poking fun at me because I found my link useful. It had some nice suggestions in it which is what I took away after reading it.

__________________________________________________ _______

Pieces I found useful.

First, sign the petition at http://openmedia.ca/meter.

Quit internet services with Bell, Shaw, Rogers. Look for independant internet such as TekSavvy, ElectronicBox, Acanac, B2B2C and others.

Quit your phone service with Bell! Check vonage for $9.95 plans.
(I assume Telus for westerners. I use magic jack, it's a bit spotty sometimes but mostly quite clear.)

If you have a cellphone, quit Bell.
(I know bell cell service does not make a lot of money. But picking and sticking with canceling Bell services ,who started this movement, is a good idea... Even if it is idealistic.)

We offer a wide range of sample template letters, but use your own message for maximum effect. Express why you are genuinely concerned with UBB and ask for action.
(Thanks for the samples I'll write my own though. It might help someone who needs a start if they have writers block)

E-mail the CRTC here.

E-mail the Minister of Industry, CRTC, chair of CRTC and prime minister here and so on...


In addition to writing to these services, we need to write to every service that could potentially be affected by UBB.
(Great idea! I didn't think to write netflix or Apple!)

THE FAXES (Free and VERY important)

NOTE: Use http://www.faxzero.com for FREE faxes!

(I didn't know about the FREE FAX SERVICE!)


Spread the word.
(Thanks be to god?)


Print some of our messages or write your own and send them by mail to the prime minister, the CRTC, the NDP, the liberal party and the minister of industry. Real letters have much more weight and it will cost you $2.55 to send all of them.

(Actually, when a politician say's it's a weighted issue. They really mean it! They weigh the amount of letters for a specific topic and it must reach a goal or the protest is ignored!)


Mailing to the parliament does not require a stamp and is free postage! (Good to know if you didn't before!)

__________________________________________


Did some of you find any of this useful?

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by photon

I wish.. starting an ISP (or some bandwidth related company) just so I can have massive bandwidth for myself has always seemed like a good idea though.

Enmax's Envision fibre runs down the Transportation Utility Corridor (TUC) literally a stone's throw from my house. I've often dreamed of phoning them up and asking for a drop to be run to my house.

[La Flames Fan]

I'm reading a lot of the "r/canada" Reddit page and some good ideas/resources to deal with this UBB BS.

I for one, do NOT welcome our new corporate overlords.

http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/

[La Flames Fan]

From someone's post on Reddit. A list of phone numbers etc. to lodge a complaint:

Here is a Resource With All the UBB Numbers, Links, Faxes and Emails You Need!
Letter Templates
Phone Numbers
Competition Breau
Telephone: 819-997-4282
Toll-free: 1-800-348-5358 (Canada)
Toll-free TTY: 1-800-642-3844 (for hearing-impaired only)
Menu Guide after dialing to save you time:
For English press 2 - for French 1 For complaints press 5 Speak and be heard!
CRTC 1-877-249-2782
Fax Numbers
CRTC 1-819-994-0218
Tony Clement 1-613-992-0302
Industry Canada 1-613-954-2340
Prims Minsters Office 1-613-941-6900
Emails
Jack Layton - LaytoJ@parl.gc.ca
Micheal Ignatieff - Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca
Tony Clement - Clement.T@parl.gc.ca
Newspapers
National Post Note: Not really a "Newspaper" .
Globe and Mail
The Toronto Star
Vancouver Sun
Montreal Gazzette
Ottawa Citzen
CRTC Contacts * CRTC Link Choose Tariff, Write “File # 8661-C12-201015975 – UBB Call for Comments.”
CRTC Complaints
CRTC Board Members
Links Credit - Graysdir et. al...
If you want to contact your local MP, and ask them what THEY are doing to prevent the destruction of the Canadian internet, please send them a FAX or written letter. You can find out who your local representative is here: http://howdtheyvote.ca/findmember.php
Fight back! Visit Open Media's facebook page, and join the fight - Thousands of Canadians working together to put an END to metered billing! http://www.facebook.com/openmedia.ca
Please sign the petition! Forward it to your friends, family, and co-workers. We need to act on this, or every single Windows update, web page, and email will cost you money. http://openmedia.ca/meter 150,000 signatures and growing fast, but we need YOUR support!
Email the link: http://stopthemeter.ca
Share it on Facebook
Tweet it
Support this campaign by making a small donation to our Stop the Meter Fund. This donation will cost you a lot less than a metered Internet.
Event invitation for a rally to stop usage-based billing for this Friday, February 4th 2011. Link
Better Business Bureau
Understanding UBB Infographic
Bell Compliants
Anti User Based Billing "What Can I Do" - Thanks Antiubb101
Industry Canada
NetFlix
Steam - Too Expensive to Download Games now
Find Your Local Member of Parliment

[c.t.ner]

Well regardless of your political party connection, it looks like this campaign has garnished enough names (200,000) to get the attention of the opposition parties. (Liberal & NDP)

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...socialcomments

So does anyone want to have a guess as to the magic number that'll get the attention of the Conservatives. 300,000... 400,000?

(Personally I'm shocked it's taken so long for these two to get on board with this campaign, this is an easy topic to spin in their favour.)

[SebC]

I propose an amendment to the CRTC decision: in order to ensure that ISPs are not using bandwidth cap anti-competitively, any product/service that competes with products/services offered by the ISPs must be exempted from the bandwidth caps.

I wonder how Shaw would feel about that?

[photon]

Exempted might be too much, what's to stop the competitors from using so much that it affects Shaw's customers, forcing Shaw to upgrade, basically subsidizing the competition.

Just make it cost + some some reasonable amount. Then the competitors can't take advantage, and Shaw has to compete up front, and it doesn't matter which get the clients both result in network growth to meet the capacity.

[Flames0910]

Honestly if it weren't for roommates I don't think I would even be worried about the cap. Sure I watch TV shows and movies online...but I also go outside from time to time.

I am against it in principle though - it's a ####ing terrible idea and starting cheap then ramping up prices is a surefire way to piss a lot of customers off. If it weren't for the regulatory environment it would be plain bad business as well.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

Exempted might be too much, what's to stop the competitors from using so much that it affects Shaw's customers, forcing Shaw to upgrade, basically subsidizing the competition.

Just make it cost + some some reasonable amount. Then the competitors can't take advantage, and Shaw has to compete up front, and it doesn't matter which get the clients both result in network growth to meet the capacity.

Off-peak bandwidth has no marginal cost to Shaw, so allowing them to charge for it gives them a competitive advantage.

[photon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Off-peak bandwidth has no marginal cost to Shaw, so allowing them to charge for it gives them a competitive advantage.

There's always the cost of the infrastructure to deliver it, that doesn't change peak or off peak, that's what I had more in mind when I said cost, no the $$/GB Shaw pays to their provider.

Say there's a subnet full of competition subscribers. Their usage is high enough that Shaw has to split the subnet and add $150,000 of network equipment to ensure all the customers can get their Internet at the advertised speeds and capacity.

Who pays that $150,000? The competition corp? They're the one generating the demand. If Shaw has to pay for it, then it's actually Shaw's customers paying for it, so Shaw's customers have to pay more so that Shaw's competition can get more without having to pay for it.

But I think I misunderstood your original proposal. Do you mean to say that since Shaw offers Pay Per View movies, any Netflix bandwidth (for example) used is exempt from caps? Aside from being a nightmare to even try and track equitably, or even define, what counts as what, that still means Shaw's customers are paying for the competition's customer's usage.

Shouldn't the costs should be the same? If you are going to have competition by forcing Shaw to share their infrastructure, then the sharing has to go both ways.. benefits and liabilities, so that the cost per unit product per customer is the same.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by photon

There's always the cost of the infrastructure to deliver it, that doesn't change peak or off peak, that's what I had more in mind when I said cost, no the $$/GB Shaw pays to their provider.

Say there's a subnet full of competition subscribers. Their usage is high enough that Shaw has to split the subnet and add $150,000 of network equipment to ensure all the customers can get their Internet at the advertised speeds and capacity.

Who pays that $150,000? The competition corp? They're the one generating the demand. If Shaw has to pay for it, then it's actually Shaw's customers paying for it, so Shaw's customers have to pay more so that Shaw's competition can get more without having to pay for it.

But I think I misunderstood your original proposal. Do you mean to say that since Shaw offers Pay Per View movies, any Netflix bandwidth (for example) used is exempt from caps? Aside from being a nightmare to even try and track equitably, or even define, what counts as what, that still means Shaw's customers are paying for the competition's customer's usage.

Shouldn't the costs should be the same? If you are going to have competition by forcing Shaw to share their infrastructure, then the sharing has to go both ways.. benefits and liabilities, so that the cost per unit product per customer is the same.

Now this analogy may not be 100% correct so please don't blast me, however I would like to use this as an example. This is second hand from a parent of mine who was a school teacher (retired now) and an elected council member.

The Government built the infrastructure for our utilities. As well for our phone line infrastructure we have today. Back before Enmax was formed our tax money went to build this infrastructure. Because it was already built by tax dollars the users would only pay for the gas they used and were not charged riders or transport fees. Then a corporation was formed under the government but not with the Government of Alberta Name (Eg. Enmax) infrastructure was paid for but even though the owners remain the same fees and excuses for more charges began to appear on our home bill. The infrastructure was already built, so why are we paying for it still? The government created this company as a for profit business even though the people have already paid for it. Effectively stealing the infrastructure that was already paid for and began charging the people ridiculous add-ons ; not using the infrastructure for what it was traditionally built for (Free transport of energy)... We see this system in many government controlled companies now. Taxes paid for it already but now we are going to pay more for profit.

Infrastructure was also built for communications and already paid for by tax dollars. Private companies bought the rights to use it, but it is still owned by the government/people and the difference is the profit does not go back to the government/people. Private companies my have upgraded but the main system is still public and if these companies are still dependent on that core system so IMO it would at least be tit for tat.

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

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

But I think I misunderstood your original proposal. Do you mean to say that since Shaw offers Pay Per View movies, any Netflix bandwidth (for example) used is exempt from caps? Aside from being a nightmare to even try and track equitably, or even define, what counts as what, that still means Shaw's customers are paying for the competition's customer's usage.

Shouldn't the costs should be the same? If you are going to have competition by forcing Shaw to share their infrastructure, then the sharing has to go both ways.. benefits and liabilities, so that the cost per unit product per customer is the same.

Precisely. Shaw is artificially capping bandwidth to hurt Netflix (Cable/PPV competitor), so Netflix shouldn't count towards a user's cap. Can't track it? Investment required to track it doesn't make it worthwhile? Well then, don't limit bandwidth. It's not like they aren't profiting without the bandwidth caps anyways.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

...

The Government built the infrastructure for our utilities.

...

They sure did, but you would be very naive to think that in the time from when Telus/Enmax/Shaw too over until the present day there were zero improvements made to the system. You would also be foolish to think that if Telus/Enmax/Shaw HAD paid for all thier infrastructure that they would not have charged extra when they were fledgling enterprises to recoup those costs.

The government subsidized many things in our country, much of it the result of the sheer size of the country in relation to our population. They did it so we could even have these services, not so we could expect a discounted rate for the rest of time.

[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Infrastructure was also built for communications and already paid for by tax dollars. Private companies bought the rights to use it, but it is still owned by the government/people and the difference is the profit does not go back to the government/people.

Telus purchased AGT and ED Tel, I didn't read anything about them not purchasing the infrastructure those companies owned. And I can't find anything about Shaw's becoming private. So as I said before, I have no way of evaluating the veracity of your claims here.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Private companies my have upgraded but the main system is still public and if these companies are still dependent on that core system so IMO it would at least be tit for tat.

Why is the main system still public if it was privatized? Do Shaw/Telus/Bell still receive taxpayer money for the infrastructure? Even if they received the infrastructure as a free gift, that's not their fault, that's the Government of the day's issue in how the privatized them.

IF the majority of the system was all they used, I might be convinced of the obligations you seem to be placing on them, but look at what the world was like in 1983 when Shaw went public. We were using MS-DOS 2.0. Computers used modems, and we measured RAM in KB, not MB or GB. It will take a lot of convincing to tell me the infrastructure established then is still the backbone for Shaw now.

All of that is pretty much irrelevant IMO, regardless of how Telus, Shaw, Bell, and Rogers ended up with the assets they have and who gave it to them for how much, that's what they have today. Navel gazing about past decisions by governments decades ago doesn't change what we have now.

The issue isn't about who owns what, if it was then it was an issue six months ago or two years ago too.

The issue should be around there being a natural oligopoly, and if there is how they go about fostering competition and fairness for all the parties. That's the job of the regulation body, not the job of Shaw/Bell/Telus. Their job is to maximize shareholder profits.

Originally Posted by SebC

Precisely. Shaw is artificially capping bandwidth to hurt Netflix (Cable/PPV competitor), so Netflix shouldn't count towards a user's cap. Can't track it? Investment required to track it doesn't make it worthwhile? Well then, don't limit bandwidth. It's not like they aren't profiting without the bandwidth caps anyways.

You have to have some kind of limit, bandwidth is a finite resource and every model of delivering it is dependent on overselling; on assuming that people will only use a small portion of the possible bandwidth they could use. There's no such thing as unlimited, and anyone who advertises that either has hard limits in their ToS, throttle you if you exceed some soft limit, kick off the high use users, or goes under after all their customers leave because of service degradation. Web hosting providers try to advertise this all the time but can never actually deliver it.

Far better to structure things so companies can compete directly, if a company wants to have huge caps, they should be responsible to pay for the infrastructure necessary to deliver that if everyone takes advantage of it.

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

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

I guess now forum thread titles are going to change from "WARNING 56K/Dial-up users" to "WARNING Canadian ISP users".

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by SebC

Precisely. Shaw is artificially capping bandwidth to hurt Netflix (Cable/PPV competitor), so Netflix shouldn't count towards a user's cap. Can't track it? Investment required to track it doesn't make it worthwhile? Well then, don't limit bandwidth. It's not like they aren't profiting without the bandwidth caps anyways.

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.