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

[TurnedTheCorner]

It could rise if time was the constraint on people's consumption.

Hypothetically, let's say someone uses their cap towards purchasing and downloading movies in iTunes. They watch as much as they can download. They watch something immediately after downloading something, and don't have a download queue. They don't stream the movies.

If, in a week, their normal downloading and viewing habits before the speed increase let them download and watch 7 movies. With the speed increase that might allow them to squeeze in more movies to download and watch on the weekends, since it takes less time to download. Let's say this jumps to 9 movies a week.

That's 8 more movies in a typical month. If those are HD movies, the time constraint being softened has significantly added to the usage, around the magnitude of 50-ish GB, give or take.

[Jimmy Stang]

Using my Slingbox and streaming other content to myself at work, and remotely controlling my home computer. All three of these will use more data. The remote desktop will likely be negligible, but streaming to myself will now use 2.5 times more.

The tradeoff for me is that the quality/experience will be improved by the same amount, which I'm obviously in favour of, but it will definitely eat up more.

I understand the other side of the argument, however. Just because my Netflix movie will be fully buffered to full HD in the middle of the opening credits and not the end of the credits, I'm not suddenly going to be able to watch more movies than I did previously. Not today, anyway. But the move to internet-delivered media isn't going to suddenly halt, which is why traditional businesses like cable TV and broadcasting are worried. Again, not today, but they see the writing on the wall.

My skepticism comes from the fact that Shaw was making the UBB argument that their network couldn't cope with all of this new traffic and that it was necessary to keep the current level of service. UBB is a revenue generator for shareholders and a protector of Shaw's other businesses, full stop. Network congestion gets solved by building a bigger and better network, not by financially discouraging its use. The entire concept of UBB only exists because the market is protected from competition, which is why neutering (or attempting, at least) the independent ISPs was the first step taken by the big players so that consumers wouldn't have a viable option to move to.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

It could rise if time was the constraint on people's consumption.

Hypothetically, let's say someone uses their cap towards purchasing and downloading movies in iTunes. They watch as much as they can download. They watch something immediately after downloading something, and don't have a download queue. They don't stream the movies.

If, in a week, their normal downloading and viewing habits before the speed increase let them download and watch 7 movies. With the speed increase that might allow them to squeeze in more movies to download and watch on the weekends, since it takes less time to download. Let's say this jumps to 9 movies a week.

That's 8 more movies in a typical month. If those are HD movies, the time constraint being softened has significantly added to the usage, around the magnitude of 50-ish GB, give or take.

Except for the fact that with a 15mbps connection you can already download movies faster than you can watch them.

I can see the argument if you're talking about the difference between dialup and broadband, or 1.5mbps and 15mbps. Those jumps in speed make a marked difference in how can you use your connection. But I can't think of a single service you can use with a 25mbps connection that won't work with 15. Thus why I don't see how you would be using more data.

I do agree with everyone that says that caps are too limiting, and that they're most likely being put in place to restrict people from using their competitor's services. I read a transcript of Shaw's recent conference call with shareholders, and it looks like they're going to try and reintroduce UBB this summer. I think we need to keep on the CRTC and convince them that this is anticompetitive. For me, Shaw has the best internet service, and I'd hate to switch just to make a point, so hopefully there's a resolution to this that doesn't involve UBB.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I can see the argument if you're talking about the difference between dialup and broadband, or 1.5mbps and 15mbps. Those jumps in speed make a marked difference in how can you use your connection. But I can't think of a single service you can use with a 25mbps connection that won't work with 15. Thus why I don't see how you would be using more data.

Depends on how many tasks/people are sharing a connection.

[Yamer]

Increased download speed has done me no benefit, but the increase in upload is very noticeable.

[Rathji]

I am very happy with the upload increase, but noticed my download speed isn't as fast as it used to be. I wonder if the changes are taxing the infrastructure enough that it is causing an issue.

[MacGruber]

So is Shaw actually going to go ahead with the UBB anyways?

[Bob]

Originally Posted by MacGruber

So is Shaw actually going to go ahead with the UBB anyways?

Supposedly. There was a locked thread with this link:

http://business.financialpost.com/20...s-this-summer/

[MoneyGuy]

I do few torrent downloads so don't expect to ever exceed my limits. If I do four to five two-hour downloads each week (maybe half HD and one half not HD), how close will I be to my limit? How many of these could I do in a month?

[Bob]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I do few torrent downloads so don't expect to ever exceed my limits. If I do four to five two-hour downloads each week (maybe half HD and one half not HD), how close will I be to my limit? How many of these could I do in a month?

You should check the Shaw site to get a ballpark figure on your usage (can be way inaccurate), or run some sort of bandwidth monitor on your PC or (ideally) router.

I use Tomato firmware on my Linksys router and it does all the bandwidth accounting automagically, breaking it down by days, weeks, and months.

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

I notice they took their usage meter off of the Shaw services page. I find it laughable that they would remove the one tool that could potentially be used to get a handle on monthly data usage before their new scheme s brought in. This is a farcical cash grab, and I'm sick of this sort of garbage.

I just sent them a bloody novel about my feelings on their plans to implement UBB. I would highly suggest everyone go to their page http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/ and click on "Email us" in the body of the paragraph.

Maybe is they get enough eloquent but ticked off people telling them to get ready for cancellation, they will reconsider this nonsense. If it goes through, it's Teksavvy for me.

[MacGruber]

i was really curious to see what shaw was going to do with their new tv with more internet stuff built in but... if they go with UBB they can forget my business. if telus switches over, ill start using 6 megabit service with unlimited if i have to

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Crazy Bacon Legs

I notice they took their usage meter off of the Shaw services page. I find it laughable that they would remove the one tool that could potentially be used to get a handle on monthly data usage before their new scheme s brought in. This is a farcical cash grab, and I'm sick of this sort of garbage.

That's brutal. It was on there literally a few days ago because I have been periodically checking out of curiosity.

As if the actual cost to deliver bandwidth wasn't being overstated enough as it is, now they don't want you to see how much you're actually using either.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Crazy Bacon Legs

I notice they took their usage meter off of the Shaw services page. I find it laughable that they would remove the one tool that could potentially be used to get a handle on monthly data usage before their new scheme s brought in. This is a farcical cash grab, and I'm sick of this sort of garbage.

I just sent them a bloody novel about my feelings on their plans to implement UBB. I would highly suggest everyone go to their page http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/ and click on "Email us" in the body of the paragraph.

Maybe is they get enough eloquent but picked off people telling them to get ready for cancellation, they will reconsider this nonsense. If it goes through, it's Teksavvy for me.

I was just about to come on and post this. After reading about their plans, I logged in to see what my usage was this month, and the freaking meter is gone. WTF Shaw?

[Nehkara]

Wow. Shaw is going to crash and burn for this decision.

Well, off I go to research Telus packages.

[Fire]

Someone has to pay for Jim Shaw's $16000 a day pension he is receiving for the rest of his life.

[Jimmy Stang]

It's funny how Shaw is using the consultations as justification for going ahead with UBB. I was at one of them and trust me, at times I actually felt bad for the Shaw staff as they were hearing it from all sides. Nobody there wanted UBB.

I did promise to post my experience at the consultation, but a vacation got in the way, so I apologize for not getting around to it.

Basically, it was a room of about 40 users and a few Shaw people. The usual graphs and charts printed in large format and hung on the walls, although they didn't really show much. Yes, usage is increasing, but the graphs were without metrics and the Shaw people weren't able to tell us the scale. At times, people were grilling them pretty hard about the actual cost to deliver internet, and the answers would be vague and incomplete. At times, people started to get pretty angry and, of course, everyone wanted their say.

That being said, at the time I got a sense that Shaw was legitimately revisiting the idea. The admitted that they misjudged the response and that they dropped the ball, and that they took their customers opinions for granted. Even going as far to say that the consultations should have been done in advance to prevent this mess.

Later in the meeting, we broke out into smaller groups and suggested how to move forward. Different pricing schemes were talked about and many good suggestions were made. But the general sentiment was that Shaw is already charging a reasonable rate per month, and to punitively slap a disproportionate amount on top of that isn't going to accepted. People indicated that they wouldn't mind paying for internet like a utility, but that would mean that a gig would cost x dollars a month, that it would have to be tied to the actual cost to deliver the product plus a markup, and would need to replace a monthly flat rate. So if you are on vacation and use no internet, you pay nothing. If you are an avid torrenter, you pay more. Having a monthly rate and disproportionate overages was widely rejected.

The big complaint was that Shaw markets their plans based on speed and charged a premium, and then wants to charge an additional premium on usage overages. Someone suggested that if you are going to bill based on speed, then make the usage unlimited. If you are going to charge on usage, max the speed out for everyone. Many other idea were discussed, but I cannot state enough that the proposed pricing structure was rejected vocally by a diverse group of customers. Some people wanted unlimited everything, while others were OK with caps provided they were much higher and would continue to grow as technology increased, and others wanted the price tied to the actual cost of the bandwidth and not an arbitrary number that was actually higher than their included usage in their monthly plan.

Literally everybody in the room rejected Shaw's planned UBB structure, and most of them did so vigorously and vocally.

I'd like to see what Shaw's plans are before passing judgment, but the statements that "our customers told us at the consultations that they like usage based billing" are complete and utter nonsense.

[The Yen Man]

Who in their right mind would believe Shaw when they said their customers told them they welcome usage based billing? I'm sure everyone is thrilled to pay more money for the same service they were getting before.

[Cain]

We already switched to nucleus.

Yes nucleus buys resell's shaw's product, but this way shaw doesn't get as much money and it is nucleus who determines how they sell it, not shaw.

They tried to keep us by offering a pretty decent package of cable/internet, but we just said no...making a point by choosing a different provider.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Who in their right mind would believe Shaw when they said their customers told them they welcome usage based billing? I'm sure everyone is thrilled to pay more money for the same service they were getting before.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of users who believe their bill will go down based on their low usage. Obviously they don't know that there is still going to be a monthly rate on top of the UBB.