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

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh and it seems I've already been enabled, Shaw speedtest put me at 22Mbps and just tried a torrent on a private tracker where I typically max my connection and got as high as 3 megabytes / second, though it seemed to throttle back to 1.7MB / s after a while, I wonder if they're limiting encrypted packets or something.

Yep, my speed has gone up too. Had to reset the modem earlier today, and when it kicked back in my upload speed has pretty much doubled.

[photon]

I'll have to restart my modem, I was uploading 100MB files for work today and it was slower than usual not faster.

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

I'm now peaking 27Mbps down, but only 0.97 Mbps up.

What gives? I ran the test several times.

[llama64]

60% increase in speed.

Should translate into 60% increase in the data limit (from the original 125GB limit). If our limits are lower then 200GB, I will be looking at other options.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by llama64

60% increase in speed.

Should translate into 60% increase in the data limit (from the original 125GB limit). If our limits are lower then 200GB, I will be looking at other options.

I'm not defending Shaw, but I don't see the logic in this. Because you can download more quickly means you're going to download more?

[TurnedTheCorner]

There shouldn't be caps at all, it's not like we're consuming anything finite.

I had Nitro last year, but routinely only got about half the advertised speed. Went down to Warp, and consistently got about 60-70% of advertised speed. So I've stayed on Extreme since. Just tested this morning - my upload seems to have improved, but dl seems to be at the 15 area still. I'll re-start my modem and see if it changes anything.

[photon]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

There shouldn't be caps at all, it's not like we're consuming anything finite.

It is finite, but it's finite in width.

At every point where connections are consolidated, there will be a limit to the amount of bandwidth that can be handled. Since it can be saturated it's finite.

And that limit is usually smaller than the combined theoretical maximum of all the incoming connections, because no one uses their maximum 100% of the time (just like cell phone towers couldn't handle it if every subscriber in their radius made a call all at the same time).

So there's different ways to respond to this.

One would be to do nothing and let the throughput degrade for everyone as usage goes up.

Another is to discourage constant use and put a cap on how much you can use.. not because the resource is finite, but to limit people from using the maximum constantly.

Another way would be to have network infrastructure all along the way to handle the theoretical maximum, but consumers obviously wouldn't pay for that level of service (go to a data center and look at the price difference between x GB of data and an unmetered connection).

Another would be to charge by amount used (ideally setting it low enough to actually be reasonable).

There are other ways to.. throttle connections once they get past a certain transfer limit. Have different rates for different times of day so off-peak times, etc..

[Jimmy Stang]

Although I appreciate the speed upgrade, one of Shaw's reasons/concerns/justifications with bringing in UBB was because their network couldn't handle the increased use. They stated that their network simply couldn't keep up with the load.

UBB gets shelved indefinitely, a few weeks pass, and all of a sudden the network is healthy enough to increase everyone's speed by 65% down and 250% up. It certainly blows a few holes in the UBB argument in the first place, IMO.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I'm not defending Shaw, but I don't see the logic in this. Because you can download more quickly means you're going to download more?

That's exactly what will happen. You will reach the limit faster, and when you cross it you will rack up extra charges even faster. More speed means absolutely nothing to me since I already hit my 100GB cap with 15MBps.

So yeah, don't increase my speed if you aren't going to increase my data limits. Shaw still has a lot to make up for for dropping our limits at the same time they implemented their crap idea of data charging.

[photon]

Yeah, there's no way people would want a car that hits the speed limit in 4 seconds when there's cars that'll do it in 20..

My usage isn't determined by how much I can download given my speed, no one's is. Otherwise no one would want anything more than a 1.5Mbps connection, since you can download 500GB in a month with a 1.5Mbps connection.

My consumption is determined by what I want to consume, not by what's available, I don't finish one download, realize I'm under the cap, and go and find more stuff to download.

As long as the cap meets my needs, the faster the connection the better!

And they aren't charging extra for data at the moment, they backed off that and did some public consultations.

[TurnedTheCorner]

http://wordsbynowak.com/2011/02/22/1...ng-supporters/

10. Data is not a utility. There have been many attempts, including by the CRTC, to equate internet usage to a utility such as electricity or gas. Very simply put: it is not. The electrons that make up the data that passes to and fro over the internet are limitless and are not consumed and destroyed every time a YouTube video is watched. The “pipes” and other equipment over which these electrons flow are, of course, finite and therefore need to be continually expanded as the amount of traffic grows. These are two very different things, however. In electric-bill parlance, we’re talking about delivery and usage – the nice people at the hydro company bill us for both and the big ISPs would like to do the same. The difference is, the actual kilowatts that go over the hydro company’s pipes ARE finite and ARE destroyed once they are used. If you want to talk about fairness, then yes, it is okay to charge internet users for delivery, but how is it fair to charge for consuming a non-consumable?

...

1. Everyone else makes it work. I love pointing out how unlimited or practically unlimited internet usage is common in just about every other country because this disproves every argument there is in support of UBB. If ISPs in every OECD country except Canada, Australia and New Zealand can make it economical to give customers big or non-existent usage limits, why can’t we? (See OECD broadband portal, table 4g.) The price of bandwidth continues to fall globally, so those countries aren’t having conversations about whether the internet is like electricity or whether it’s fair to charge heavy users extra, they’re talking about how to make all of their citizens heavy users. The reason we’re not having that conversation is because all those other countries have something we don’t: competition and consumer choice between providers, which keeps prices reasonable and usage limits high.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/S...58?nocomment=1

Nice consultation.

[photon]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

[I]10. Data is not a utility. There have been many attempts, including by the CRTC, to equate internet usage to a utility such as electricity or gas. Very simply put: it is not. The electrons that make up the data that passes to and fro over the internet are limitless and are not consumed and destroyed every time a YouTube video is watched. The “pipes” and other equipment over which these electrons flow are, of course, finite and therefore need to be continually expanded as the amount of traffic grows.

Which is exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/S...58?nocomment=1

Nice consultation.

Well you could wait until Shaw actually, you know, releases their plan before coming to a conclusion on it.

But even if they go with the same plan or a worse plan, so? They're a business, they can package their product however they want.

If you don't like it, choose someone else. Or start a new ISP that looks like what you'd want.

If you think that there isn't enough competition because of the laws and rules, then that's not Shaw's fault, talk to the CRTC and/or the government.

Why complain when Shaw is doing exactly what it is supposed to do; make the most money they can by putting the cost/service point at what the market will bear?

[TurnedTheCorner]

The internet was built for complaining?

Regarding the speed upgrade, I'd be pleased if I consistently get 20 down. Given my past experience with Shaw's speeds, I'm skeptical.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by llama64

That's exactly what will happen. You will reach the limit faster, and when you cross it you will rack up extra charges even faster. More speed means absolutely nothing to me since I already hit my 100GB cap with 15MBps.

So yeah, don't increase my speed if you aren't going to increase my data limits. Shaw still has a lot to make up for for dropping our limits at the same time they implemented their crap idea of data charging.

But you haven't explained how a faster connection will make you consume more data. Photon's analogy is right on. Getting a faster car doesn't necessarily mean you'll drive more, especially if your current car is already pretty fast. And a faster pipe doesn't mean you'll consume more. Now that I'm on the Warp plan I don't watch more movies, or torrent more music, than when I was on Extreme.

[photon]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Regarding the speed upgrade, I'd be pleased if I consistently get 20 down. Given my past experience with Shaw's speeds, I'm skeptical.

I'm the opposite, it's unusual when I can't max out my connection, even during supposed "peak" times. Even this morning downloaded a few updates for some things and was getting over 2.5MB/s, which is fun.

The few times when it has gotten slow whenever I've called they've indicated that network upgrades are already scheduled for x timeframe and things get back to normal at that time.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by photon

Which is exactly what I said.

Why complain when Shaw is doing exactly what it is supposed to do; make the most money they can by putting the cost/service point at what the market will bear?

Because, in my opinion, they are trying to make the "most money" by inhibiting competition in another industry...television.

Shaw isn't capping because too many people are reading Calgarypuck or CNN, but because the majority of "high bandwith users" are consuming other things, like television shows and movies...which is in a direct competition with their Shaw television service.

Capping internet usage inhibits competition, such as netflix, itunes or whatever else is out there in the television industry..which is my major beef with what Shaw is doing.

[secol]

still stuck at 13 DL but 1.67 UP

[jayocal]

8.85 down and 2.40 up. Weird. Shaw Extreme.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Because, in my opinion, they are trying to make the "most money" by inhibiting competition in another industry...television.

Shaw isn't capping because too many people are reading Calgarypuck or CNN, but because the majority of "high bandwith users" are consuming other things, like television shows and movies...which is in a direct competition with their Shaw television service.

Capping internet usage inhibits competition, such as netflix, itunes or whatever else is out there in the television industry..which is my major beef with what Shaw is doing.

Sure, I can see the reasoning in that, but again that's not Shaw's job to police themselves, if they think they can do it under the rules then they'll do it.

If they need to step in and separate Shaw TV from Shaw Internet (and Telus TV and Telus Internet, etc) or put in some kind of rules to prevent that kind of thing then so be it.

[freakinsaprikin]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Because, in my opinion, they are trying to make the "most money" by inhibiting competition in another industry...television.

Shaw isn't capping because too many people are reading Calgarypuck or CNN, but because the majority of "high bandwith users" are consuming other things, like television shows and movies...which is in a direct competition with their Shaw television service.

Capping internet usage inhibits competition, such as netflix, itunes or whatever else is out there in the television industry..which is my major beef with what Shaw is doing.

At the end of the day Shaw isn't a charity, they are a business. The only people they are accountable to are their shareholders.

Shaw is only responsible for making the most money it can, not making sure netflixs business model works by piggy backing off the ISP's infrastructural.

If Apple and Netflixs don't like it, they should start to provide internet service like Google is trying to do.