Telus Lowering Monthly Caps

[The Yen Man]

Yah, I'm pretty happy with my Shaw Broadband 50 package, that allows 400 (or 450? don't remember) gigs per month. I use maybe 150 max per month, so I was pretty choked at first when they were going to do 100 gig.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by KTrain

No, I was just saying that it'll be a good excuse for those people without contracts to move to someone else. Those who signed contracts for something as silly as a lowend laptop or X-box could have a much tougher time moving their business.

See, this I do not understand. I did sign one of those 3 year discount deals and got a laptop in early 2010 (which was my primary computer for 2 years and was actually a really solid laptop, so no regrets on that one), but this is the point - it's a contract. When I signed it, I presumably agreed to certain restrictions on data usage. However, the counterparty cannot later unilaterally CHANGE those terms, so if you're on one of these contracts I don't see how they're not stuck with whatever they originally offered. I can't remember the terms I signed up for.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Yah, I'm pretty happy with my Shaw Broadband 50 package, that allows 400 (or 450? don't remember) gigs per month. I use maybe 150 max per month, so I was pretty choked at first when they were going to do 100 gig.

400 for Broadband 50, and 50 extra for being part of "Shaw Friends"

Originally Posted by AR_Six

See, this I do not understand. I did sign one of those 3 year discount deals and got a laptop in early 2010 (which was my primary computer for 2 years and was actually a really solid laptop, so no regrets on that one), but this is the point - it's a contract. When I signed it, I presumably agreed to certain restrictions on data usage. However, the counterparty cannot later unilaterally CHANGE those terms, so if you're on one of these contracts I don't see how they're not stuck with whatever they originally offered. I can't remember the terms I signed up for.

Except the contract says they can, and IIRC it specifically mentions monthly bandwidth limits.

[KTrain]

Don't be surprised if they've included a stipulation about be allowed to change the terms of the contract.

[AR_Six]

Depending on the terms, that may not be enforceable. You cannot add a stipulation to a contract that says "I get to change the terms of the contract as I please". That would simply be void.

[PsYcNeT]

I'm pretty sure Telus has a fairly competent group of lawyers and deep pockets, so have at 'er if that's the case. I know they fend off dozens of lawsuits every year over service access and underground utilities. Their contracts are likely fully legal.

[AR_Six]

You'd be surprised. A lot of large companies with extremely competent legal personnel put all kinds of illegal stuff in their contracts on the assumption that the average consumer, when pointed to the contract, will simply say "well, I signed it, so I guess that's that". Essentially all you have to do is put in a severability clause that says if any provision of the agreement is determined to be void or unenforceable it will be severed and the remainder of the agreement remains valid and binding.

Hell, you know when you go into underground parking and buy a ticket to put on your dashboard that has a bunch of legalese on the back about how they're not liable for this, that and the other thing and by parking there you agree to X, Y and Z? Entirely meaningless.

Anyway as I say I don't remember what was in there. If it just gave them the option to reduce the cap by up to 50% in year 3 or something relatively specific like that it's probably fine.

[MrCallahan]

To my understanding, these caps are more "guidelines". I have never actually heard of anyone getting charged extra for exceeding their bandwidth. I have exceeded mine on a few occasions, and have never had any additional charges placed on my account.

Has anyone else has the opposite experience? and actually paid for and overage?

[Rathji]

It is commonly known that Telus has not charged for these overages in the past, but the only logical result of them lowering the caps would be them also enforcing the policy, since it will only create a public uproar, similar to what Shaw faced last year.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Rathji

It is commonly known that Telus has not charged for these overages in the past, but the only logical result of them lowering the caps would be them also enforcing the policy, since it will only create a public uproar, similar to what Shaw faced last year.

Exactly. It just doesn't make sense to me. From what I understand, some of the higher-end Shaw speeds are much better than anything that Telus offers, so it would be wise to offset that with more generous caps.

I'm not a fan of caps in the first place, but for Telus to try this after Shaw attempted and failed is just strange. And although we'll never know for sure, but I think that Shaw lost a few customers to Telus during that debacle.

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but maybe it is Telus' turn to take the heat and eventually the industry as a whole will gradually lower their caps due to the lack of competition. Hopefully not, but Shaw obviously tried to lower caps and monetize the overages before. Unlikely for now, however, as both companies seem to be in the same ballpark with caps now anyway.

[Raekwon]

Shaw offers a 250Mbit connection with 1 TB data for $115. Its a pretty sweet deal. Also shaw offers a stepup up program so if you go over you just get billed 1 tier higher that month although the next tier above the 100 and 250 are about $80 higher.

I don't think Shaw has enforced their bandwidth caps yet either.

[CubicleGeek]

Originally Posted by Super Nintendo Chalmers

I don't get internet providers. They actively provide incentive for people to keep switching than to stay with one.

The problem is that the major internet providers are also content providers themselves so there is zero incentive for them to allow a Netflix or Hulu to undercut their services and provide good bandwidth/price/usage. The rest of the internet providers use the infrastructure built out by the major providers.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

The rest of the internet providers use the infrastructure built out by the major providers.

Yet providers like Teksavvy have uncapped options for less than the majors' regular rates with caps. I've stuck with the Telus and Shaw because I could switch between them and pay $20/month.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Shaw offers a 250Mbit connection with 1 TB data for $115. Its a pretty sweet deal. Also shaw offers a stepup up program so if you go over you just get billed 1 tier higher that month although the next tier above the 100 and 250 are about $80 higher.

I don't think Shaw has enforced their bandwidth caps yet either.

I believe Jan or Feb 2013 is when they say the step-up billing goes into effect.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Shaw offers a 250Mbit connection with 1 TB data for $115. Its a pretty sweet deal. Also shaw offers a stepup up program so if you go over you just get billed 1 tier higher that month although the next tier above the 100 and 250 are about $80 higher.

I don't think Shaw has enforced their bandwidth caps yet either.

I actually got a letter and a call a bunch of years ago from Shaw...turned out the g'friend discovered file sharing. She mellowed out after I showed her the letter, and we didn't hear back from Shaw.

[MotoRacer]

they can and will be charging overages. When is the question

from 2011 article;

Shawn Hall, a spokesperson for Telus, told CTV News that the phone company was ready to begin overcharging customers as soon as this summer.
Shawn Hall (CTV BC)
“It’s only fair that people pay for how much Internet capacity they use,” Hall told CTV.
http://stopthecap.com/2011/04/27/wes...-to-gouge-you/

[FlameOn]

I think Telus is running into limitations of their network given their TV is a IPTV based solution IIRC. Probably why they decided to lower caps given the bad optics of it.

Shaw doesn't seem to charge that much for overages until you go several months over the limits. I went 5 months once where I was pulling double my cap and I still didn't get a call.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I think Telus is running into limitations of their network given their TV is a IPTV based solution IIRC. Probably why they decided to lower caps given the bad optics of it.

While I will agree that Telus could be reaching the top of their range for bandwidth, I don't think it's because of Telus being an IPTV provider. Essentially Shaw's TV signals are still a digital data stream. They just have better bandwidth available.

[CubicleGeek]

Originally Posted by ken0042

While I will agree that Telus could be reaching the top of their range for bandwidth, I don't think it's because of Telus being an IPTV provider. Essentially Shaw's TV signals are still a digital data stream. They just have better bandwidth available.

Correct, it has nothing to do with the type of transmission. Actually, IPTV is more efficient than broadcast, since you are only streaming the channel you are watching. Broadcast technologies are sending the information to your location whether you want it or not - your tuner just picks out the channel(s) you are tuned to.

Because of this, traditional cable companies inherently have more bandwidth than a traditional telephone company. One built out to support lots of channels of video going to a single location as opposed to building out to support several voice calls to that location. Coax to the premises actually offers an extremely high data speed (around 5.8 Gb/s given modern compression and transmission technology), but a large majority of that is used up by all the channels being broadcasted to your location at once even though you may only be tuned into several of them.

One of the trends that have started and you will continue to see happen is that traditional phone companies moving to multi-services are rolling out fibre both to new builds and also ripping out twisted pair in existing builds where makes sense. Traditional cable companies have started rolling out fibre in their new builds (since it is almost cost neutral to do so for a new community) and start moving to IP based technologies to leverage the immense bandwidth for existing coax infrastructure.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

Actually, IPTV is more efficient than broadcast, since you are only streaming the channel you are watching. Broadcast technologies are sending the information to your location whether you want it or not - your tuner just picks out the channel(s) you are tuned to.

IPTV is not more efficient anywhere other than the last mile of the buildout - once you have to aggregate hundreds or thousands of individual network streams for backhaul to the CO, you're going to end up needing more bandwidth than it takes to carry a couple hundred digital broadcast channels for simulcast to each household.