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

[Jedi Ninja]

No changes until I reset my modem. Speedtest.net: 22.95 Mbps download, 2.45 mbps upload. (Shaw Extreme.)

However, I've been having a hell of a time getting an IP address from Shaw lately, taking multiple router and modem reboots and usually at least 1/2 hr of frustration. Anyone else have issues like this, or should I be tossing my router?

[TurnedTheCorner]

My connection's been flaking in and out with Shaw for about the last 3 or 4 days now, so you're not alone.

I unplugged my modem and all cables for a few minutes, then re-connected everything. Is there more I need to do to reset it?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

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..

I like Roger's approach: their modems give you a "speed boost" when they "detect the network has unused capacity". Basically, throttling peak hour bitrates, but they've framed it as a positive. And let's face it, my 7.5 Mbps connection is basically throttled all the time (to 7.5 Mbps - but the modem and everything have the capacity to go faster - and they do when PowerBoost is active), so Roger's offer would be an improvement.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by freakinsaprikin

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.

The conflict of interest arises from the fact that the internet company is also the cable distributor, and now also the broadcaster. They are using the argument of UBB to preserve their market in other areas, not because their internet network is on the verge of collapse.

Aside from their shareholders, they still need to answer to government and regulatory bodies to ensure that their actions aren't harmful to competition or consumers. UBB is/was on both counts, which is why the government stepped in and overruled the so-called regulator that is the CRTC (which is filled with ex-telecom cronies anyway).

I've got no problem with businesses maximizing profits. In fact, I'd love to see the market opened up to foreign competition and then we'll realize how badly we've been getting hosed on wireless, internet, etc. Shaw, Bell, Rogers all live in a regulatory bubble where they are protected from competition, and they use that protection to gouge consumers.

Let's not forget that this whole UBB controversy was started by the big telecom companies lobbying for regulations that would place retail-like caps on wholesale competitors, effectively denying them the ability to differentiate themselves and profit from offering a more competitive product than the big guys. Blatantly anti-competitive and monopolistic move.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

The conflict of interest arises from the fact that the internet company is also the cable distributor, and now also the broadcaster. They are using the argument of UBB to preserve their market in other areas, not because their internet network is on the verge of collapse.

Aside from their shareholders, they still need to answer to government and regulatory bodies to ensure that their actions aren't harmful to competition or consumers. UBB is/was on both counts, which is why the government stepped in and overruled the so-called regulator that is the CRTC (which is filled with ex-telecom cronies anyway).

I've got no problem with businesses maximizing profits. In fact, I'd love to see the market opened up to foreign competition and then we'll realize how badly we've been getting hosed on wireless, internet, etc. Shaw, Bell, Rogers all live in a regulatory bubble where they are protected from competition, and they use that protection to gouge consumers.

Let's not forget that this whole UBB controversy was started by the big telecom companies lobbying for regulations that would place retail-like caps on wholesale competitors, effectively denying them the ability to differentiate themselves and profit from offering a more competitive product than the big guys. Blatantly anti-competitive and monopolistic move.

Yes...what he said.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

I've never really understood this logic. Yes, it is their job to police themselves..otherwise issues (such as monopolies) go to litigation..where they could potentially lose.

I work in the oil industry. Believe me...I would love to tell the regulator that it's not my companies job to police itself...(I found a regulatory loop hole! Yahoo!!) I'm guessing that argument wouldn't go too far.....and not many people would be defending me if I had.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

I've never really understood this logic. Yes, it is their job to police themselves..otherwise issues (such as monopolies) go to litigation..where they could potentially lose.

They police themselves to go as far they can to maximize risk/reward with respect to litigation. This is obviously so otherwise companies would never face litigation on these issues.

Obviously Shaw's not going to just go do whatever they want and flaunt the law. But it's in their best interest to do everything they can within that law.

That's what I meant, it's not Shaw's job to decide if they need to be split into 2 companies, or to decide to create regulations to make sure that they, and Telus and Bell don't abuse their position as a pipe provider to shore up their position as a content provider. They comply with them if they exist.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

Obviously Shaw's not going to just go do whatever they want and flaunt the law. But it's in their best interest to do everything they can within that law.

That's what I meant, it's not Shaw's job to decide if they need to be split into 2 companies, or to decide to create regulations to make sure that they, and Telus and Bell don't abuse their position as a pipe provider to shore up their position as a content provider. They comply with them if they exist.

Not necessarily. Doing so may lead to change in the law, like opening up the market to foreign competition, for example.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by photon

Obviously Shaw's not going to just go do whatever they want and flaunt the law. But it's in their best interest to do everything they can within that law.

And there is the difference of opinion....I think they are flaunting the law with their anti-competitive practices.

15 years ago..being an internet service provider and a television provider made sense as there was very little cross-linking between those industries (ie. streaming media)...today, not so much.

...I think they found their loophole...we'll see how long they are allowed to keep it open.

[photon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not necessarily. Doing so may lead to change in the law, like opening up the market to foreign competition, for example.

Fair enough, I can see that.

Originally Posted by MacFlame

And there is the difference of opinion....I think they are flaunting the law with their anti-competitive practices.

15 years ago..being an internet service provider and a television provider made sense as there was very little cross-linking between those industries (ie. streaming media)...today, not so much.

...I think they found their loophole...we'll see how long they are aloud to keep it open.

Well they've been able to get away with it so far, and they obviously think they aren't outside the law, or can successfully argue their case, or figure it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.. They're making their bets as to how it's going to fall out (as are Telus and Bell and Rogers, since they're in the same situations).

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I unplugged my modem and all cables for a few minutes, then re-connected everything. Is there more I need to do to reset it?

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by photon

Fair enough, I can see that.



Well they've been able to get away with it so far, and they obviously think they aren't outside the law, or can successfully argue their case, or figure it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.. They're making their bets as to how it's going to fall out (as are Telus and Bell and Rogers, since they're in the same situations).

Yup...but that doesn't mean, consumers, such as myself, should not be angry over the practices.

Getting bent over hurts (owe...owe...owe..oh?) regardless if the perpetrator feels like they are the in the right or just feels like "its better to ask for forgiveness than permission". Either way..it's hurting the consumer (the bent over-er).

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Yes, to reset it, all you should need to do is unplug it for a minute and plug it back in again.

[secol]

oddly enough i test faster using speedtest.net (using the calgary server) than with the shaw speedtest

10.98 down, 2.4 up

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by jayocal

8.85 down and 2.40 up. Weird. Shaw Extreme.

Nearly the same for me, on Extreme. Weird. I rebooted too.

[Jimmy Stang]

Regarding the speed increase, I was noticing some painfully slow upload speeds earlier today (after reading this thread I thought that I'd see if I had the "new" speeds). My download was a respectable 15 Mbps, and my upload was an abhorrent 0.2 Mbps (it should be 1 on the "old" Extreme and 2.5 after the change).

After resetting the modem, trying it with a direct connection (no router), etc. to no avail, I gave them a ring to see what's up. The Shaw guy said that my modem had already been provisioned for the new speeds, so the 0.2 upload speed was especially bad, and even my downloads weren't looking very good. We did some resets and other testing, using different computers, etc. nothing changed. He also confirmed that there was no congestion in my area, and even if there was, it would be impacting my downloads more than my uploads anyway.

Long story short - it looks like my modem might be on the fritz. He scheduled me a service call for Tuesday, but if I wanted to, I could take my modem to a retail location tomorrow and swap it to see if that helps. UBB issues aside, I have always been pretty happy with Shaw's customer service. Sometimes it is a pain to get through, but they'll gladly swap faulty hardware for free, as well as free service calls. So if you're not getting very good speeds, maybe give them a call as you might have some hardware issues.

[Azure]

Until Shaw and Bell come out and prove without a shadow of a doubt that their network has congestion problems because people max out torrents on a daily basis, I don't think they have a case.

The fact that they aren't, when that information could be the whole backbone of their case to employ UBB, tells me there is no congestion.

But, I have no problem with caps, provided they are reasonable. 250GB/month is reasonable if you pay $30-$100 for internet.

[TurnedTheCorner]

I checked my connection this morning, and it is reset. My wireless connection to the PC only gets about 17 or so down, consistently. Oh wells.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

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.

Oh for the love...

I cap myself, or was going to before Shaw dropped it earlier this year. In December I started using Netflix. My monthly data consumption went from ~60GB to 130GB. Close to the same time, Shaw dropped the limit to 100GB. So yes, I will have to cap myself and monitor my usage (oh yay, another chore).

I want to use Netflix (and other streaming services) without having to worry about my data limits. More speed encourages me to try more services that consume even higher quantities of data. Stop thinking short term - this is a long term problem.

Our data consumption will rise rapidly (even if you don't torrent). Higher speeds will encourage higher consumption across the entire subscriber network. If the caps don't properly reflect a reasonable limit, we as consumers will get punished. The fact that Shaw's cable business is in direct competition with services like Netflix is telling - I give them zero room on this. If they don't treat their internet as a separate market, I will seek alternative services.

I'm happy with 15mbps. I gain nothing at all by having 25. I want more data overall - how is this hard to understand?

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm happy with 15mbps. I gain nothing at all by having 25. I want more data overall - how is this hard to understand?

Not hard at all, if you just said that then no one would be disagreeing with you.

But you wanting more data instead of faster data is a different thing than saying you use more data because of faster data.

Why would more speed encourage you to use more services, when existing services use only a small fraction of the speed available to you anyway? Netflix,Hulu,etc don't come close to using 15Mbps.

You are right that data consumption will rise, but you haven't made the case that it will rise because of higher speeds. It will rise simply because there are far more services available to people that use Internet data. None of those services though benefit from going from 15 to 25Mbps, you can't watch a Netflix movie faster.