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

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Fire

The only thing I don't like is instead of paying $39.00 a month I will have to pay $59.00 a month.

I was going to say....i'm not a Shaw customer (I left them years ago after poor service and quality) but this is a 50% increase for the cost of service for most people and no on is overly annoyed with this?......

60 bucks a month (720 dollars a year up from 480!) is a hell of a lot to pay for internet access alone. Especially if you consider that the increase in performance won't be anywhere near the 50% price increase (speeds are never even close to what they advertise them). If people are actually happy with this I guess I should go buy some shares in shaw as they are going to make a killing off of this gouge.

[photon]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

I was going to say....i'm not a Shaw customer (I left them years ago after poor service and quality) but this is a 50% increase for the cost of service for most people and no on is overly annoyed with this?......

What 50% increase? The pricing on the existing plans hasn't changed at all, and their bandwidth allocations have doubled or more.

The prices only go up if you decide to change plans to something faster that costs more.

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by photon

So that seems reasonable, bump up for the rest of the month, back to what you were at at the beginning.

That right there is what's really impressed me.... aside from everything else including actually listening to their customers.

I'm still deciding between Shaw and Telus, but for right now, Shaw has retained me as a customer until I see how Telus implements their UBB strategy.

[Tinordi]

I don't see how this is great news, basically to get Shaw's internet you have to buy their TV service as well.

http://wordsbynowak.com/2011/05/27/s...ainst-netflix/

It’s hard to see how requiring someone to take a service they don’t want (TV) in order to get the one they do want (higher-speed internet) wouldn’t qualify as tied-selling. Of course, the Competition Bureau has been letting wireless companies get away with tied-selling for years. A customer can buy a cellphone outright from a provider but, with some exceptions, the carrier won’t unlock the device, thereby forcing the customer to buy monthly service from them as well. That’s tied-selling in a nutshell.

From Shaw’s perspective, it’s no surprise the company wants to lock customers into a service they don’t want. Like most other ISPs, the cable company is running scared of Netflix and other so-called over-the-top video providers, so this sort of tied-selling is a sneaky move. After all, does the company really care how well Netflix and other online video providers do, or how much data internet customers use when they’re still paying up for that TV service? Of course not. Shaw still gets the same revenue from the customer.

First, the big ISPs tried throttling, then they tried UBB. Neither worked, so now they’re collectively trying to slow Netflix et al with regulation. Unless Canadian regulators are a bunch of loonies (and the jury is out on that), that too won’t work. Tied-selling, where customers have to pay cable companies for video whether they want to or not, may be their final kick at the can.

Over to you, Competition Bureau.

[Jimmy Stang]

^ If the new plans are in fact tied to separate services (TV), then yes, we haven't heard the end of it. It will be interesting to see how this is handled when these plans start to roll out.

I am generally happy with the changes made to the existing plans, but not making the new broadband plans available to non-TV customers seems counterproductive. So you've got a user who is willing to fork out a substantial premium a month for internet and internet alone, but you're going to require that they get an additional service that they don't need or want? Suddenly this isn't as appealing to the heavy users who these plans are targeted to.

[Jimmy Stang]

On second thought, perhaps this "Personal TV" business means that the TV portion essentially comes with the product for free. A user of Warp is paying just about $107 for the standalone version, where the comparable "Broadband 50" will be available for $94.90, including Personal TV. So essentially they are getting equivalent internet, plus some TV channels, for less than before.

I'm not sure why Shaw would word it as such that it appears that you need to purchase more services than you want when they could be spinning it to show what they're throwing in for free. And why add TV for free anyway? To boost their subscriber numbers, even if those subscribers aren't actually watching it?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the ambiguous wording, but it seems like the new Broadband 50 is better value than the old Warp plan, even if you don't factor in the TV. So with the new plan, you end up paying less anyway, and you get free TV whether you want it or not.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

Most likely, you won't either. Consider that most people's office networks are 100mbps. It'll be strange, but the bottleneck won't be the internet connection between you and your ISP any more.

We pulled CAT6 cable in our office recently. Price is low enough to justify it and it makes sense to prepare for the future. Most of our computers have gigabit LAN already, so that side isn't a problem either.

The switching part is still in the process of being upgraded, but eventually we'll be using gigabit+ on everything, so speeds like 250mbps would work for us.

It doesn't cost that much to have the equipment that can utilize speeds like that, and its only going to keep getting cheaper.

[sclitheroe]

So I was thinking about this at work today...what, exactly, is anyone planning to do with a 100+ megabit connection? That's the equivalent of two uncompressed 1080p bluray streams simultaneously...

The upstream improvement will be a big boon to online backup users, and its better for gamers, especially in multi-user households.

But seriously, what are ya'll planning on doing at 100 megabits per second downstream? ... That you couldn't accomplish at say 10-20?

[TurnedTheCorner]

I have Shaw Internet without TV as of July 1.

[Tinordi]

Why would you need TV if you have a 100mbps connection?

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Why would you need TV if you have a 100mbps connection?

We were joking at work about live-streaming torrents...which led to my question above - other than illegally obtaining content (which I'm not judging, I partake, that's simply what its considered legally right now), I'm not sure how the average or even power user is going to utilize a 100 megabit pipe, so I'm looking for ideas. (and even when using torrents, on a good torrent with existing connections you can already typically pull them down in real time, and on a poor torrent, having more bandwidth isn't going to help)

I run the excellent PRTG monitoring software for my router at home, and even on peak days, when working from home, with my online backups running in the background, a single long-running torrent, RDP and VPN'ed into multiple sites, email, web surfing, and some streaming radio, my utilization was pretty much consistently 5 megabits per second.

If say, I had netflix, and my wife was home, and we had VOIP, and she was also video Skyping with her friends, I'd reasonably say let's triple that 5 megabits..that takes me to 15 megabits...which still leaves enough headroom to stream two uncompressed bluray videos and have a tiny bit of headroom under 100 megabits left to play with.


So while 100 megabits+ is tantalizing, the pragmatic side of me is having a really hard time seeing the benefit when my 15 megabit pipe runs on average at less than 100% utilization.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

So I was thinking about this at work today...what, exactly, is anyone planning to do with a 100+ megabit connection? That's the equivalent of two uncompressed 1080p bluray streams simultaneously...

The upstream improvement will be a big boon to online backup users, and its better for gamers, especially in multi-user households.

But seriously, what are ya'll planning on doing at 100 megabits per second downstream? ... That you couldn't accomplish at say 10-20?

I asked pretty much the same question earlier in the thread, and someone pointed out that it'll help families (or roommates) who share a connection. Two people can be watching Netflix movies, and not worry about someone torrenting and playing COD at the same time.

You mentioned uncompressed video streams. If these kinds of speeds become common it'll be only a matter of time before services like Netflix offer Bluray quality streaming video. I'll be sure to get the unlimited data plan when they do.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I asked pretty much the same question earlier in the thread, and someone pointed out that it'll help families (or roommates) who share a connection. Two people can be watching Netflix movies, and not worry about someone torrenting and playing COD at the same time.

You mentioned uncompressed video streams. If these kinds of speeds become common it'll be only a matter of time before services like Netflix offer Bluray quality streaming video. I'll be sure to get the unlimited data plan when they do.

For the most part, its the increase in upstream that is required to facilitate multiple users. It's actually the disparity between download and upload speeds that causes issues with multiple connections - a 15 or 25 down 5 up would be sufficient for most people and would eliminate the congestion/contention.

If the speeds drive new technology, that will be great, but in the meantime, do you really want to spend $1000 a year in ISP fees waiting for them to arrive? Or do you want to wait for the content, and then upgrade.

Maybe I'm just not feeling like being an early adopter this time for connectivity...maybe I need to turn in my geek card, I dunno.

[pylon]

In case it has not been mentioned, Shaw will also be launching a Netflix competitor as well. It will be a flat rate movie streaming service, and less than $20/ mth. Also I was told the library of movies and programing will be much fresher. The source on this is mega reliable. Supposed to launch by the end of this year.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by pylon

In case it has not been mentioned, Shaw will also be launching a Netflix competitor as well. It will be a flat rate movie streaming service, and less than $20/ mth. Also I was told the library of movies and programing will be much fresher. The source on this is mega reliable. Supposed to launch by the end of this year.

Sounds dope.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

I would think that the processors on most home routers (even those with gigabit LAN) would not be capable of handling that kind of bandwidth on the WAN/routing side.

Also to echo Sr. Mints question, what is "personal TV"?

According to the NCIX forum Shaw will be providing new routers.

Quote: (Hyperlight @ May 26 2011, 11:36 AM)

"Its some SMC piece of garbage. I seriously doubt it will do 100mbit ESPECIALLY under load."

--------------------------------------------------------------

"No, not that one. They were talking about a new Cisco AIO unit.

Yes, I brought up that point specifically. Consumer routers we sell today will not handle those speeds."

[SebC]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

So I was thinking about this at work today...what, exactly, is anyone planning to do with a 100+ megabit connection? That's the equivalent of two uncompressed 1080p bluray streams simultaneously...

What is the point of asking a question if you already know the answer?

Haha, stupid people who kneejerked and are now stuck with Telus for 3 years!

[Draug]

Originally Posted by SebC

Haha, stupid people who kneejerked and are now stuck with Telus for 3 years!

You should probably thank them instead of make fun of them .... I would say that the horrible backlash against shaw for their original UBB proposal resulting in the new and more reasonable plans they now offer.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Draug

You should probably thank them instead of make fun of them .... I would say that the horrible backlash against shaw for their original UBB proposal resulting in the new and more reasonable plans they now offer.

Thanks, TheyCallMeBruce!

(See page 22)

[Azure]

Yeah, the backlash is the only reason Shaw now offers these plans.

Sucks for the people that switched to Telus and are now locked into a contract.