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

[Azure]

I'm sure the original backbone that was paid for by the taxpayers back when the telco companies were public was fiber. From there they might have paid for the switching equipment, etc, etc. The copper network I'd assume is the last mile connection.

Problem is, the original fiber is still being used, as well as the original copper, but I'm sure the switching equipment has ALL been updated. Which is a costly investment.

We're moving on the 40G now, whereas a couple years ago everything was a lot slower.

Photon, I never said the cash grab is a problem. I absolutely agree with maximizing profits. But, that is not the story being painted by Shaw, evidenced by a certain Shaw employee posting in this thread. Instead they talk about congestion, and how much it costs to provide unlimited bandwidth, and some juicy number that fluctuates anywhere from 10%-25% of the customers using 90% of the bandwidth. We're never given any real numbers outside of what Netflix and some others have told us. Which indicates to me that there is no problem with congestion, provided Shaw is staying up to date with the latest technology, and that lowering the caps has nothing to do with keeping some teenage punk from using all the bandwidth. Instead its all about maximizing profits, and keeping 'internet tv' out of the picture because in the end Netflix, Hulu and others are competing with Shaw, and they don't want that because it affects the bottom line.

Which is fine and all, but it doesn't look good for Shaw. I'd laugh if Telus didn't impose caps, and gained thousands of new customers.

IMO, this isn't that serious of a problem. Sure we all might not like it, but I think it will spurn more competition, and get more companies involved. If the Primus guy was right, and renting the fiber isn't that costly, but the true cost is in having your own building to do the switching, I can see companies starting to do that.

Especially if we consider that the internet is an untapped resource. We're talking about billions upon billions of dollars here. Paying out $150,000 for a switching center shouldn't be that big of a deal for an ISP.

Also, a few short years ago we were stuck with Rogers, Telus and Bell when it came to cell phones. Now we've suddenly got a whole slew of new providers that have added competition, and forced the big 3 to rethink their approach, and offer better deals. The retentions thread proves that. And Wind Mobile built out their own network.

[photon]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

What resolution is Netflix streaming at that you need 9 gigs per movie?

What Rathji said

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

Photon please.

Please what? I'm sorry I don't have the exact same knowledge about everything that you do, I'm asking the questions I would need answered in order to make the decision.

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

The entire copper network that TELUS uses now, including switches, stingers, and everything used that conveys phone line and the base of their ADSL network was all built while they were a government enforced monopoly. Not to mention huge cash reserves.

How can this possibly be correct? The only way for this to possibly be correct is for there to have been zero growth and zero change to the network since the point when it transitioned. I don't know much about the history, but Wikipedia says it was 1991, so unless things have been 100% static since 1991, "The entire copper network that TELUS uses now" cannot possibly be true. They use all or portions of that network, but they have obviously had to add to it to account for 20 years of growth, not to mention that the switches and stuff would have long been discarded for newer ones that could handle the capacity.

Also Wikipedia says Telus purchased the remaining ownership of AGT for $870 million. And it bought ED Tel for $465 million in 1995. So it purchased that infrastructure. If the sale wasn't good value, that's too bad, but how does that imply that Telus has an obligation to provide Internet at a specific price?

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

Shaw is the same, they laid their entire coax network under the same monopoly.

More info? I can only find info that Shaw went public in 1983. The same issue about what the network looked like in 1983 and now applies, even moreso.

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

Yes, they had to make a lot of improvements and upgrades. But lets compare this to a guy who is gifted a car from his dad, and then puts a sweet stereo system in it and lowers the suspension. Same idea... it wouldn't be so easy for the neighbor kid who isn't being offered a free car to suddenly match what his buddy has.

Hand waving arguments don't work, you say that's an apt analogy, I don't see anything to support that it is (other than that analogy supports your position, but how do I know you didn't choose it just because it does), or deny that it isn't, but I have to assume it isn't until shown it is.

Cisco CRS-1 or CRS-3 costs $90,000. How many of those would they currently need? A Cisco 10008 router like $200,000 empty, $50,000 for each line card. How much of this is left over from 20-30 years ago when they were public? How many have they had to add? How much of the 1983-1991 era copper/cable network is still in use?

[theonlywhiteout]

photon honestly i just dont think you're getting it or your choosing to ignore what the point. i honestly dont care to debate it further. my statement is quite simple and is 100% fact.
shaw and telus were products of a monopoly for cable and telephone in alberta and bc. the bulk of their infrastructure that they've worked off since was established during this monopoly. for a competitor to build the same infrastructure makes no fiscal sense unless they get huge grants from the government. shaw and telus dont have a debt to the public, but the goverment does have the responsibility to step in and prevent price gouging when a monopoly or duopoly exists.

if you disgree thats fine but thats the simple reality as i see it and many canadians do, too.

[photon]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

honest to god photon really?

Yes really. Maybe "the government used to own Telus and Shaw therefore they should give everyone cheap bandwidth" is a valid argument for you, but it isn't for me.

Remember it's not a question of if the pricing is reasonable, it's a question of a) should Telus/Shaw be compelled to provide a specific level of pricing and b) why should they be compelled.

You seem to be saying that they should be compelled because they used to be owned by the government 20 to 30 years ago, that doesn't make any sense to me without more support.

Others say because they form a natural monopoly, and in this area I can be convinced, if it is in fact a monopoly.

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

No one is saying that we should be given discounts in perpetuity but, lets first acknowledge the fact that both telus and shaw had sky high pricing before they started competing with each other.
We weren't getting any kind of benefits.

So? No problems here, that's how a free market works. Companies work to benefit themselves, competition works to benefit the consumer by forcing the company to do something better than the other company, better being defined as better for the consumer since it's the consumer that decides which company to go to.

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

THEN we wound up in a situation where these 2 giants of phone and cable were so big and so established with all the infrastructure gifted to them

So you say, Telus purchased AGT and ED Tel, and Shaw went public in circumstances I can't find, so you'll have to have more detail here to convince me of "gifted".

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

that new companies are impossible to form and compete, thank to the CRTC allowing them to do whatever they want for pricing as a wholesaler.

If it's a natural monopoly then that's the CRTC/government's responsibility, not Shaw's or Telus'.

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

Where are these discounts in perpetuity you speak of?

People want more bandwidth for the same price, that's been the common refrain of the thread, Shaw is charging too much and should be forced to provide more for the same price, or the same for less, for the various reasons you've put forward (that they got infrastructure while being a crown corp).

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

People want the OPTION of another cable and telephone provider to compete with telus and shaw but that option isn't possible because of a) perhaps the market is too small b) the start up cost is too high c) any other reasons. Because of this we need the CRTC and government to protect Canadians and encourage competition, and discourage anti competitive acts. This is the backbone of a capitalist society... the idea that competition will drive better innovation, pricing, and quality of product. We don't have that.

And that's fine, none of that is Shaw's or Telus' responsibility. As I've already said, I have no problem with governments stepping in to moderate a monopoly/oligopoly, provided that it is in fact such.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

...

Which is fine and all, but it doesn't look good for Shaw. I'd laugh if Telus didn't impose caps, and gained thousands of new customers.

...

AFAIK Telus has pretty much always had caps, at least in recent history, which has been written into the contracts as billing at a much higher rate (sometimes double, IIRC) what Shaw is charging per GB. The problem is, as some people in this thread have indicated, they cannot figure out which traffic is for internet, which is for TV and which is for phone, so they cannot reasonably bill you for being over your "internet cap".

You are right, people will no doubt switch over to Telus this fiasco. I also think that even though Telus isn't able (or willing) to track usage and bill their overages at the present time, that once the market is used to the idea, they will be 'magically' able to track it.

Great plan on their part though, to make Shaw take the brunt of the fallout for this.

[photon]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

photon honestly i just dont think you're getting it or your choosing to ignore what the point.

Well I'm certainly not "getting it" with some of what you are saying, but that's because I'll ask questions I need answered in order to "get it" but they aren't answered. Sounds more like you mean "agree with me" than "get it".

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

my statement is quite simple and is 100% fact.
shaw and telus were products of a monopoly for cable and telephone in alberta and bc.

So say you, I haven't been able to find anything about Shaw's history along those lines. So I asked the question about Shaw, you say I'm "not getting it" or I'm "ignoring" it, when in fact I'm just asking for the information...

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

the bulk of their infrastructure that they've worked off since was established during this monopoly.

Telus paid to buy AGT. I don't know the circumstances of Shaw going public. Bulk implies a certain amount when I haven't seen anything beyond your handwaving assertions to support it. To you this may all be 100% fact, but to me it's just bare assertions so far, I'm not sure why asking for support for "100% facts" is seen as "ignoring" or "not getting it".

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

but the goverment does have the responsibility to step in and prevent price gouging when a monopoly or duopoly exists.

As I've said over and over and over and over and over, I don't disagree with this.

Lol, I'm going to have to being every post with:
DISCLAIMER: I support the concept of government intervention in monopolies to ensure the concerns of the consumer are adequately factored in.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

If it can be shown that it is a natural monopoly, then I would agree that some degree of control should be exerted.

Quite simply, this is an anti-competitive measure that is designed to kill off Netflix and will leave a huge amount of off-peak bandwidth unused. That would not be possible in a competitive market - a competitor without an interest in cable TV would continue to offer unlimited service the way Shaw has been profitably doing up to now, and Shaw's Internet business would cease to be profitable.

[photon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Quite simply, this is an anti-competitive measure that is designed to kill off Netflix and will leave a huge amount of off-peak bandwidth unused. That would not be possible in a competitive market - a competitor without an interest in cable TV would continue to offer unlimited service the way Shaw has been doing up to now, and Shaw's Internet business would cease to be profitable.

Sure, don't forget I'm the Internet's #1 fan and anything that threatens it, be it making it less available or less open or whatever, I'm emotionally against.

But my emotions are irrelevant, so that's why I'm trying to dig through the FUD being kicked up by the "OMG $5/GB!!!!eleven" crowd, bad arguments are bad arguments regardless of if they come from a position I emotionally support or one I emotionally oppose.

To me Internet is almost as necessary as water/sewer/gas/electricity.

I agree with the conflict of interest between Shaw/Telus being Internet providers and them being TV/Phone providers and them manipulating one to support their position in another, and that's a prime spot for regulation to ensure it doesn't happen.

[ikaris]

At least for now if you use Telus Optik Internet, you have no issues with bandwidth and the speed is just as good as Shaw Extreme. I regularly go around the 200 to 300 gig mark.

Also they have great deals if you switch over. I'm very happy that I did.

[theonlywhiteout]

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/downloa...n-Petition.pdf

amazing but lengthy read. its very technical in areas and had me scratching my head more than a few times, but it basically explains in black and white why the crtc ruling should be overturned and how were getting a raw deal

[zamler]

If I'm understanding this whole mess correctly, customers for example that use TekSavvy will see their cap go from 200GB to 25GB. Who here that thinks that is a good thing, raise your hand.

I don't see how this is nothing more than Bell etc. trying to protect themselves from Internet based content.

[pylon]

Bottom line, this is due to the Netflix phenomenon.

I am seriously considering canceling cable altogether, as there is so many work arounds to get content, and watch sports. Since Netflix became available, I have yet to order one thing from Shaw VOD. If you are a savvy enough shopper, blu-rays can be had for less than $10. What does VOD charge for an HD rental? $6 for 24 hours.

This is a lazy way for them to not have to compete. I see this going the way of cell phone plans. You will call to cancel, and they will lure you to stay with unlimited bandwidth, x # of no charge VOD rentals etc. But either way, it stinks, and makes me hate Shaw even more.

[Hack&Lube]

At this point, I basically consider broadband internet a public utility and can only think of it in that regard and not something controlled by a oligopoly of communications companies that only care about how much money they can extract from you and whom have very distinct conflicts of interest in this area because their traditional business competes directly with online businesses for which they hold the lock and key to the pipeline.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Here is a better, more organized petition and actions to stop this problem.

http://www.antiubb.com/what-can-i-do/

[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Here is a better, more organized petition and actions to stop this problem.

Originally Posted by First point on website

Internet in Canada is already amongst the most expensive in the world. UBB will make it even expensive.

Lol.. they forgot an "r", I think they meant "Internet in Canada is already amongst the most expensive in the world. UBB will make it even expensiver."

EDIT: That site is terrible, I think someone from grade 9 wrote it.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by photon

Lol.. they forgot an "r", I think they meant "Internet in Canada is already amongst the most expensive in the world. UBB will make it even expensiver."

EDIT: That site is terrible, I think someone from grade 9 wrote it.

Thank you Photon. That was a Gr8 post that helped the people who don't want to have this cap going forward. I like the fact that you didn't post the useful information from the topic in the link.

Are there moderators for moderators?



1. For example - alternatives to the regular ISP's.
2. By singling out on provider we as a people can force change.
3. We have a voice. Even if some of us can not spell well.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by photon

Lol.. they forgot an "r", I think they meant "Internet in Canada is already amongst the most expensive in the world. UBB will make it even expensiver."

EDIT: That site is terrible, I think someone from grade 9 wrote it.

Photon trollin' like a pro!

[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Thank you Photon. That was a Gr8 post that helped the people who don't want to have this cap going forward. I like the fact that you didn't post the useful information from the topic in the link.

Um, if there's useful information in the link, why would I post it here?

That's the point of having a link! So I don't have to post the useful information here.

In fact posting the useful information here would probably be illegal, copyright laws and all that.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

1. For example - alternatives to the regular ISP's.

If someone can't find the alternatives to the regular ISPs for their area, they don't deserve to use an alternative ISP.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

2. By singling out on provider we as a people can force change.

Are you saying you weren't aware that people could force change in this way until you read about it on antiubb.com? Or that you still don't know that and won't until I copy and paste that information from antiubb.com to here?

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

3. We have a voice. Even if some of us can not spell well.

You can spell well, you just did it right there. w e l l

But if I must, I will now post things that I learned on antiubb.com:

• With antiubb.com, I can "Help save Canadian".
  
• Bell has the power to kill the Internet. The site however is unclear if it has always had this power and is now only revealing it to the world, or if it recently acquired it in a quest.
  
• Being the most expensive is bad and everyone who is the most expensive deserves to have it cheaper. Of course this means that the next most expensive is now the most expensive, and they'll get it cheaper too, until eventually everyone gets it for zero. Actually I like this plan now.
  
• It's a scam to sell something for 100x what it costs to make. HOLY CRAP SOMEONE START A PETITION TO BAN CHINA!
  
• I learned usage based billing will kill Internet TV, cloud computing, and HD movie downloads. Who is going to tell the providers of Internet TV, cloud computing, and HD movie downloads that the usage based billing that they've operated on for millions of Internet years will kill the Internet?
  
• An 8 and a ) make a smiley that can interrupt a serious list in a moderately amusing way.
  
• People who use the Internet professionally lack the ability to secure the source of their livelihood and will all become unemployed when Bell kills the Internet.
  
• The more times I repeat something, preferably with hyperbole and irrational contradicting arguments, the truer it becomes.
  
• Progress does not regress.
  
• It's every person's right to decide for themselves what they should pay. I want to pay this website for it's wisdom, and it's my right, so I choose negative $11 million dollars.
  
• FREEDOM!!!
  
• Corporations are bad.
  
• I will never get the IQ points I lost reading that site.
  
• EDIT: I also learned how to make a list, but not from this site, unless that information is hidden somewhere.
  
• EDIT2: I have now learned that Bell stole the Vorpal Sword of Slay Internet from a young boy trying to slay the Jabberwock, the hooligans. I cannot remedy this, but if anyone else wants to pursue a quest to restore the sword to its rightful owner, I can aid by providing a kitten.
  

Anyway, that's what I learned, I hope that by sharing it I have met the random arbitrary unspoken requirement you have for posts in this thread.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by photon

Um, if there's useful information in the link, why would I post it here?

That's the point of having a link! So I don't have to post the useful information here.

In fact posting the useful information here would probably be illegal, copyright laws and all that.

Hence NOBODY posts tidbits of an article in a post they create on this site, amiright?

Originally Posted by photon

If someone can't find the alternatives to the regular ISPs for their area, they don't deserve to use an alternative ISP.

Even Emo's need inspiration

Originally Posted by photon

Are you saying you weren't aware that people could force change in this way until you read about it on antiubb.com? Or that you still don't know that and won't until I copy and paste that information from antiubb.com to here?

Not everybody has the sarcastic wit of photon. Some people, unlike you, could use a road map.

Originally Posted by photon

You can spell well, you just did it right there. w e l l

Fine example of your great wit that nobody could e v e r achieve.

Originally Posted by photon

But if I must, I will now post things that I learned on antiubb.com:

• With antiubb.com, I can "Help save Canadian".

I am Canadian - Help save "Canadian". You can thank Molson for that Canadianism.

Originally Posted by photon

• Bell has the power to kill the Internet. The site however is unclear if it has always had this power and is now only revealing it to the world, or if it recently acquired it in a quest.

They can kill your internet if you have them as a provider? Um... Are you a teacher? You come across like one.

Does this kid need a Editor? Yes. Does the Calgary Sun? Yes.

Originally Posted by photon

• Being the most expensive is bad and everyone who is the most expensive deserves to have it cheaper. Of course this means that the next most expensive is now the most expensive, and they'll get it cheaper too, until eventually everyone gets it for zero. Actually I like this plan now.
• It's a scam to sell something for 100x what it costs to make. HOLY CRAP SOMEONE START A PETITION TO BAN CHINA!

Ouch... Sometimes people just mean well.

Originally Posted by photon

• I learned usage based billing will kill Internet TV, cloud computing, and HD movie downloads. Who is going to tell the providers of Internet TV, cloud computing, and HD movie downloads that the usage based billing that they've operated on for millions of Internet years will kill the Internet?
• An 8 and a ) make a smiley that can interrupt a serious list in a moderately amusing way.

It will poison internet usage in some lower income homes that depend on the internet and in some lower class homes they will not have enough homeopathic remedy to heal the internet themselves and some may die.

Originally Posted by photon

• People who use the Internet professionally lack the ability to secure the source of their livelihood and will all become unemployed when Bell kills the Internet.

If the internet is turned off in their home... They can lose business. I'm just assuming, but I'm not a smart as "photon"... whututhink?

Originally Posted by photon

The more times I repeat something, preferably with hyperbole and irrational contradicting arguments, the truer it becomes.

• Progress does not regress.
• It's every person's right to decide for themselves what they should pay. I want to pay this website for it's wisdom, and it's my right, so I choose negative $11 million dollars.
• FREEDOM!!!
• Corporations are bad.
• I will never get the IQ points I lost reading that site.
• EDIT: I also learned how to make a list, but not from this site, unless that information is hidden somewhere.
• EDIT2: I have now learned that Bell stole the Vorpal Sword of Slay Internet from a young boy trying to slay the Jabberwock, the hooligans. I cannot remedy this, but if anyone else wants to pursue a quest to restore the sword to its rightful owner, I can aid by providing a kitten.
  

And here, are you acting like a moderator? Are you creating an example for others to follow photon? Should follow this fine example of negative behavior? Will you allow them to follow in your "precedent" that you set here?

Please allow me to retort by saying this post is mostly you bullying.

I posted something here that can point to others that may not know a direction to go. It might not be perfect but I came across it and thought I'd share.

I understand that you are comfy with this ISP change SO STEP ASIDE or post without trying to intimidate others. Obviously this conversation isn't for you being that the OP has a thumbs down icon suggesting that this is a move he does not agree with which is opposite to your opinion as you have so stated previously.

I understand that you want to poke fun at someone who is trying to make a difference but lacks the grasp of grammar and "speeling" that you have. Perhaps he is an immigrant? Maybe he learned how to type on a cell phone. His voice still has value or there would not be 53 comments of thanks, and posts of what others did to make a difference.

This post is a low point for you IMO. I tried to have fun with your responses but your last bit was... Tasteless.

Originally Posted by photon

Anyway, that's what I learned, I hope that by sharing it I have met the random arbitrary unspoken requirement you have for posts in this thread.

Yes you have.

[jammies]

Nope, the internet is already full of crap, pimping sites that are further crap is therefore wrong, and proprietors of such need to be mocked to discourage other fools.

That UBB site is full of specious hyperbole: "UBB is the work of millionaires wanting to screw the average citizen such as you and me once again. If you think about it, these people work 5 hours per week and get higher bonus year after year while we have to work full-time – and now we won’t even enjoy great internet."

I'm all for "Down with The Man!" but that's just ridiculously dumb. For one thing, corporate fascists put in a lot of overtime to make sure the consumer gets screwed - 5 hours a week is hardly enough to even get properly started.

I can't say I'm happy about UBB, but the debate needs to move away from Facebookian rhetoric in the "omg they stole my internetz!!!!!!1" style. That only convinces people that already held the same opinion being ranted about.