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

[photon]

What exactly is the modem transmitting when no computers are on? Diagnostic information? "Hello I'm Here". If it's more than kilobytes or maybe megabytes a day I'd be shocked. That's what, 0.005% of the cap?

What could your modem POSSIBLY have to say to the monitoring stuff that would take up 5GB a day?

EDIT: This is also presuming that the graphs are real-time or near real-time, which they may or may not be. Maybe the adding of amounts from previous days doesn't happen daily, or it updates daily but doesn't get the correct info daily, so it goes flat for a while then has a spike, etc.

Obviously if they're going to be billing based on this, it can't be flaky, but I wouldn't trust their stats quite yet, what they say and what my router says are pretty different.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by photon

What exactly is the modem transmitting when no computers are on? Diagnostic information? "Hello I'm Here". If it's more than kilobytes or maybe megabytes a day I'd be shocked. That's what, 0.005% of the cap?

What could your modem POSSIBLY have to say to the monitoring stuff that would take up 5GB a day?

Yeah, I don't think it was communication from the modem to shaw.

It would be interesting to know exactly how much data a modem consumes just in idle.

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by photon

What exactly is the modem transmitting when no computers are on? Diagnostic information? "Hello I'm Here". If it's more than kilobytes or maybe megabytes a day I'd be shocked. That's what, 0.005% of the cap?

What could your modem POSSIBLY have to say to the monitoring stuff that would take up 5GB a day?

EDIT: This is also presuming that the graphs are real-time or near real-time, which they may or may not be. Maybe the adding of amounts from previous days doesn't happen daily, or it updates daily but doesn't get the correct info daily, so it goes flat for a while then has a spike, etc.

Obviously if they're going to be billing based on this, it can't be flaky, but I wouldn't trust their stats quite yet, what they say and what my router says are pretty different.

Issue is, who regulates it?

Shaw can say you consume whatever they want to say, and what is the recourse?

Kinda like if there was no one who would ever check gas pumps to make sure they are actually delivering the proper amount of gas at the set prices.

Shaw can come in and say you used 500GB last week and what can a customer do about it? How do you prove one way or another? As far as I know, there is no oversight, no one to check to make sure Shaw is giving it's customers a fair shake and the true usage stats...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Unfortunately the link won't go directly to the page, but if you start here:

http://teksavvy.com/en/res-internet.asp

And then in the very top-right of the page switch from ON to AB. Then click on "residential" in the top-right, followed by "High Speed Internet".

A bit cumbersome, but you'll see that it is there.

Nucleus, a Calgary-based company offers some cable plans. They are pretty much the same cost as Shaw but have a slightly higher cap (for example, Extreme is 125 gigs instead of 100).

There are a few other competitors in the Calgary area (or at least companies that offer service in the Calgary area). This is a list that I came across: http://www.canadianisp.ca/

The site is also a bit cumbersome, but it will give you s starting point if you are determined to switch from Shaw. The majority provide DSL, however a few offer cable plans. It at least gives you a starting point.

Personally, I'm going to wait until the dust settles before I take any action. I want to ensure that these competitors will still be allowed to compete in the new environment.

Found it. Also, looks like they're offering unlimited bandwidth for an extra $10/mo.

Why the distinction between DSL and Cable? For a given download/upload, does it matter?

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by SebC

Found it. Also, looks like they're offering unlimited bandwidth for an extra $10/mo.

Why the distinction between DSL and Cable? For a given download/upload, does it matter?

I think that it is just the technology (telephone infrastructure vs. cable infrastructure) and nothing more. I have always been a cable guy myself (well since I "graduated" from 56K dial-up back in the day), so I don't have any first hand experience with DSL. I would imagine that you'd get close to the advertised rates for either service.

Even though Extreme cable is 15 down and 1 up, I would be quite happy with 6 down and 1 up on DSL. The only reason I went from Shaw's regular high speed (7.5 down and 0.5 up) was to increase my upload speed to make my VPN-ing and Slingboxing better. 15 down is nice, but I rarely take advantage of it. I would gladly split download speed in half to double my upload speed, even if the difference is disproportionate.

[photon]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

Shaw can say you consume whatever they want to say, and what is the recourse?

The law? You can't charge someone for something they didn't use. If they do, sue them, you'll win.

They're not going to be billing someone right away, they have to go over for a few months in a row before things start to kick in, if there's an issue that gives lots of opportunity for people to either figure out there's some kind of issue like an open/cracked wifi, virus infested computer acting as a bot net, etc...

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

Kinda like if there was no one who would ever check gas pumps to make sure they are actually delivering the proper amount of gas at the set prices.

Gas pumps are a physical process though, not a digital one. Whatever keeps track of the volume could get clogged, have a fin break off so it's less accurate, etc.

A huge router that keeps track of all these numbers will either keep track exactly, give zeros because it's configured improperly, or not work at all.

For Shaw to do what you imply they would have to do it at the accounting level.. cooking the books. Either that or write custom firmware for each of the hundreds of models and vendors of hardware they have, which would be 10x more expensive than nailing a few customers for an extra $2.

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

Shaw can come in and say you used 500GB last week and what can a customer do about it? How do you prove one way or another?

Track your own bandwidth usage. There are plenty of apps and routers that do that. You can be sure there are many many people who do this and would notice if Shaw did a bandwidth = bandwidth + 15GB to everyone.

Or the customer can switch to someone else.

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

As far as I know, there is no oversight, no one to check to make sure Shaw is giving it's customers a fair shake and the true usage stats...

How do you know that about anything where you pay for usage? Maybe your gas and water meter is rigged to add 20%? Maybe the gas pump does pump less, and the guy who checks it gets a cut? Maybe a 50g chocolate bar actually is 48g?

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by SebC

I believe you, but can you help me find the Telus page for non-contract TV service?

You have to call them. I was told by their CSR about this. I wasn't able to find this info online.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by photon

The law? You can't charge someone for something they didn't use. If they do, sue them, you'll win.

So we have to start dragging our ISPs into court? You really think this is even remotely practical?

How do you know that about anything where you pay for usage? Maybe your gas and water meter is rigged to add 20%? Maybe the gas pump does pump less, and the guy who checks it gets a cut? Maybe a 50g chocolate bar actually is 48g?

I can weigh my candy bar. I know the fuel capacity of my gas tank. My water and power usage meters can be checked and replaced if I suspect they are not accurate.

But you have NO way of contesting your internet usage. What the ISP says you use is the end of it. It comes down to good will and trust. And I've learned I certainly cannot trust Shaw, they were onboard to screw everyone. They acted in their own self interests and showed no concern for me the customer. Which is why it's bye bye Shaw for me.

[photon]

Originally Posted by zamler

So we have to start dragging our ISPs into court? You really think this is even remotely practical?

Isn't that they way ANY situation where you think you are being taken advantage of works? If a company is stealing from its customers, what, other than the law, ensures that they are not ripping us off?

Originally Posted by zamler

I can weigh my candy bar. I know the fuel capacity of my gas tank. My water and power usage meters can be checked and replaced if I suspect they are not accurate.

You can measure your Internet usage, nothing's stopping you.

Originally Posted by zamler

But you have NO way of contesting your internet usage.

You can contest it the same way you'd contest any other usage of any other product you pay for. If you think you are being ripped off, you tell them. If they help you, great, if they don't you can either get service from someone else, or you can take them to court, or you can call the BBB, or you can contact consumer advocacy groups, or any other number of things.

This is no different than any other product you pay for.

Originally Posted by zamler

What the ISP says you use is the end of it.

No it isn't, you can measure it for yourself. Or you can switch to a different company.

Originally Posted by zamler

It comes down to good will and trust. And I've learned I certainly cannot trust Shaw, they were onboard to screw everyone.

Raising prices with permission from a regulating body isn't something I'd classify as warranting distrust that they're intentionally inflating bandwidth usage across the board.

If they were, you can be sure the forum at dslreports would know about it almost instantly.

Originally Posted by zamler

They acted in their own self interests and showed no concern for me the customer. Which is why it's bye bye Shaw for me.

Welcome to capitalism.

EDIT: Just out of interest, who would be your alternative to Shaw?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by photon

Welcome to capitalism.

For awhile it was looking like I was not going to have any recourse.

EDIT: Just out of interest, who would be your alternative to Shaw?

Not telling until it's done.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by photon

You can contest it the same way you'd contest any other usage of any other product you pay for. If you think you are being ripped off, you tell them. If they help you, great, if they don't you can either get service from someone else, or you can take them to court, or you can call the BBB, or you can contact consumer advocacy groups, or any other number of things.

This is just simply false. If I think my water meter for example is not correct, I can contact Measurement Canada. I know of no such service for Internet usage. Most commodity items we buy are regulated. When you buy produce, the scales used are regularly tested and certified. Same with gas pumps etc. No such model exists for bandwidth.

You live in a fantasy world if you think you will get anywhere with "advocacy groups" or the BBB. That's why the CRTC being overturned is so critical, we get competition. I can move to a provider that does not cripple my bandwidth and punish me for being a normal internet user.

[Flacker]

The feds are stepping in to potentially put an end to this cash grab. Good to see that someone is keeping the reigns tight on the CRTC!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/...t-clement.html

[photon]

Originally Posted by zamler

This is just simply false. If I think my water meter for example is not correct, I can contact Measurement Canada. I know of no such service for Internet usage.

If you think your Internet usage is false, you can measure it yourself, just like you can weigh your chocolate bar yourself.

Why do you think there's laws for how to measure gas and water and no such service for bandwidth monitoring?

Originally Posted by zamler

Most commodity items we buy are regulated. When you buy produce, the scales used are regularly tested and certified. Same with gas pumps etc. No such model exists for bandwidth.

Why isn't there? This model of paying for bandwidth usage is prehistoric in Internet years, I've had to do it for as long as I can remember. So why hasn't it come up?

Originally Posted by zamler

You live in a fantasy world if you think you will get anywhere with "advocacy groups" or the BBB.

I didn't say those would be effective, I said those were options. The only true option is the law, which you seem to agree with since you pointed out Measurement Canada which enforces laws. EDIT: Well not really enforces, establishes and measures compliance with?

Didn't we just see the CRTC's decision get overturned in response to a bunch of advocacy groups?

Originally Posted by zamler

That's why the CRTC being overturned is so critical, we get competition.

What's stopping all the competition from increasing your usage too?

Originally Posted by zamler

I can move to a provider that does not cripple my bandwidth and punish me for being a normal internet user.

I thought the issue was Shaw illegally padding the usage stats for all users, not them having a cap that you find unreasonable. Shaw thinks 100GB is fine for a normal user, Telus thinks 125GB is fine, Shaw charges $1 per GB if you go over, Telus charges $2 per GB.

Overturning this ruling doesn't directly change any of that.

[photon]

Originally Posted by zamler

Not telling until it's done.

Why?

[CKPThunder]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Just a comment to people who are flip flopping. The resentment by companies towards people who do this is growing. I know people in various places in the organizations for both Shaw and Telus and they have indicated to me in the last month or so that they are trying to trend more towards rewarding long term customers rather than rewarding people who have just signed up.

With Telus it isn't quite the same because they still need to build their customer base, but I wouldn't be surprised if the long term thinking of both companies trends this way.

I can understand the resentment towards people who flip flop but why would these companies reward loyal long term customers? I can see why it would be nice to reward long term customers, but from a financial side this would be stupid of them to do. Are there any companies out there that reward long term customers instead of new ones?

I'm sure the people you know are resentful cause this probably creates more overall work for them but I can't see why Shaw, Telus or Bell would reward long term customers. As a very long term customer of Shaw, if they ever call me up and offer me a deal as a long term customer which is better than the current deal for a new customer, then I will gladly donate the savings I make in the first year of the deal to CP.

Unfortunately, they won't be doing this cause they would actually be losing money from me if they did.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by photon

I thought the issue was Shaw illegally padding the usage stats for all users, not them having a cap that you find unreasonable. Shaw thinks 100GB is fine for a normal user, Telus thinks 125GB is fine, Shaw charges $1 per GB if you go over, Telus charges $2 per GB.

Overturning this ruling doesn't directly change any of that.

To add, my understanding of it is that all overturning the ruling will do is not allow the big telco's to charge extra to the smaller companies that "purchase" the bandwidth from them.

They are still within their rights to charge they're own customers what ever overage they feel like.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by photon

Why?

Because.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by Hanni

They are still within their rights to charge they're own customers what ever overage they feel like.

Yeah, this isn't an immediate win for everyone who uses Shaw, Bell or Telus. We'll still have to pay for overages right now. It will take a bit of time for smaller competitors to gain a foothold on any portion of the market.

Also, Shaw, Bell and Telus don't have to sell their infrastructure/bandwidth to smaller companies if they don't want to. Right?

[Top Shelf]

Just heard that Shaw won't be rolling this out quite yet, they will be reviewing it all in the next few months to determine what they are going to do going forward.

http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data...d=C796A1718S98

"The topic of Internet usage and billing is a diverse subject with many potential solutions. At Shaw, we value
the voice of our customers. We will be hosting customer discussions sessions throughout February and
March in service areas across Canada to engage in open dialogue on this topic.

Until this thorough consultation with customers has taken place, Shaw will not proceed with Internet usage
billing. To date no Shaw Internet customer has received a bill for any usage based charges."

[KTrain]

Glad I didn't increase my service or jump ship right away. I guess I'll just wait and see what's going to happen.