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

[llama64]

I wonder if Shaw will realize that a 100GB cap on a 15 mbps connection is ridiculous - especially with the rise in video delivery services.

I get that they need to safeguard conjestion during peak times - but I really don't think data caps are the answer to this. And vastly overcharging for data overages is abusive (their data packs seem to be hitting a 30cent per GB target... why 2$ for overages?).

For the extreme package, I'd accept a return to the previous level (125GB) and a max hit of .5$ per GB.

I'd prefer that abusers just got throttled down till the start of the next billing cycle though... Maybe a combination of UBB + throttling. Course that is coming from a network health perspective, not a profit based perspective.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by llama64

I wonder if Shaw will realize that a 100GB cap on a 15 mbps connection is ridiculous - especially with the rise in video delivery services.

I get that they need to safeguard conjestion during peak times - but I really don't think data caps are the answer to this. And vastly overcharging for data overages is abusive (their data packs seem to be hitting a 30cent per GB target... why 2$ for overages?).

For the extreme package, I'd accept a return to the previous level (125GB) and a max hit of .5$ per GB.

I'd prefer that abusers just got throttled down till the start of the next billing cycle though... Maybe a combination of UBB + throttling. Course that is coming from a network health perspective, not a profit based perspective.

While I agree that the bandwidth caps should not have been lowered, when they decided on charging for overages, I think you have missed that they actually picked a price per GB on overages that was half of their main competitor (telus obviously). Shaw's, now former(?), pricing scheme was for high speed users to be charged $2 per GB and Extreme or better users to be charged $1 per GB, with even lower rates available by buying data bundles. Telus contract says they can charge twice that ($4/$2) for similar plans.

From Shaw's perspective, I think it makes more sense to charge a small amount for overages rather than paying extra for throttling equipment and the support that equipment would require. Take your example of 50 cents/GB: If little Billy, who is downloading 400GB of anime every month that his parents have no idea about because they never heard a peep about it, suddenly will have a huge bill if Billy keeps it up. It wouldn't be a bill to break the bank ($300-600 extra under the former plan) but it would still be an extra hundred bucks, which is a huge amount to be paying.

They get the same result, but with less cost to them in the long run.

Shaw makes more money, rather than costing them more money, and it can potentially cost customers less in the long run, which they could pass along to consumers or invest to make their product better.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Rathji

While I agree that the bandwidth caps should not have been lowered, when they decided on charging for overages, I think you have missed that they actually picked a price per GB on overages that was half of their main competitor (telus obviously). Shaw's, now former(?), pricing scheme was for high speed users to be charged $2 per GB and Extreme or better users to be charged $1 per GB, with even lower rates available by buying data bundles. Telus contract says they can charge twice that ($4/$2) for similar plans.

The big difference is Telus doesn't charge anything even if there website indicates otherwise.

Telus on the record to CTV said they wouldn't be charging for overages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1ItlDwebRc&t=1m44s

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by ikaris

The big difference is Telus doesn't charge anything even if there website indicates otherwise.

Telus on the record to CTV said they wouldn't be charging for overages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1ItlDwebRc&t=1m44s

How is that a big difference? Shaw never charged anyone any overages either, they just had it on their website.

It isn't really surprising that, in the aftermath, Telus has come out and said they don't want to charge, because they saw the huge backlash that Shaw got when they started moving towards it. If they had no intention of charging for it then why have it in their contracts? Why make the claim that they 'can't' yet track the traffic to make it possible?

Telus comes out smelling like roses on this because they adopted a wait and see attitude about actually putting it into practice. In hindsight, it was clearly a genius move and I have no doubt it will net them a huge amount of customers.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Telus comes out smelling like roses on this because they adopted a wait and see attitude about actually putting it into practice. In hindsight, it was clearly a genius move and I have no doubt it will net them a huge amount of customers.

Telus is getting customers not due to any "genius move" on their part, but because Shaw just cost themselves a boat load of customer trust.

Had Shaw not dropped the limits, that would have stopped a lot of people from jumping ship. The way Shaw handled this initially runs counter to their entire communications strategy: "People powered". Interestingly, when I called into Shaw to complain in early January, the guy I talked to mentioned that there was a lot of internal dispute over the move which was causing a re-evaluation. This re-evaluation was announced this week. This gives me hope that Shaw will do the right thing. Telus sitting on the fence will actually lose out ultimately by not engaging their customers in good faith.

Cost per GB is estimated around .1$ for most major Telco's. Thinking you can get away with marking it up to 200x that amount is a tremendous abuse of customer faith. Just because it's half of Telus' rate doesn't make it any better - just shows that Telus thought they could rip their customer's off even more. And really, both rates have been in place for 4 years now and have exists to give them a way to punish network abusers. It wasn't until recently that it has become a tool to generate more revenue.

A price point of .5$ per GB is reasonable for overages assuming the data caps aren't abusive. I say this as a customer of Shaw - this is a price I would be willing to pay. Anything more and I consider walking.

I'm just glad we don't have to live under Bell's dominance - that company makes both Shaw and Telus look like angels.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by llama64

Telus is getting customers not due to any "genius move" on their part, but because Shaw just cost themselves a boat load of customer trust.

Had Shaw not dropped the limits, that would have stopped a lot of people from jumping ship. The way Shaw handled this initially runs counter to their entire communications strategy: "People powered". Interestingly, when I called into Shaw to complain in early January, the guy I talked to mentioned that there was a lot of internal dispute over the move which was causing a re-evaluation. This re-evaluation was announced this week. This gives me hope that Shaw will do the right thing. Telus sitting on the fence will actually lose out ultimately by not engaging their customers in good faith.

Cost per GB is estimated around .1$ for most major Telco's. Thinking you can get away with marking it up to 200x that amount is a tremendous abuse of customer faith. Just because it's half of Telus' rate doesn't make it any better - just shows that Telus thought they could rip their customer's off even more. And really, both rates have been in place for 4 years now and have exists to give them a way to punish network abusers. It wasn't until recently that it has become a tool to generate more revenue.

A price point of .5$ per GB is reasonable for overages assuming the data caps aren't abusive. I say this as a customer of Shaw - this is a price I would be willing to pay. Anything more and I consider walking.

I'm just glad we don't have to live under Bell's dominance - that company makes both Shaw and Telus look like angels.

I agree that the limits dropping are a big part of why Shaw customers are unhappy.

As for the price per GB, $2/GB is way too expensive, you are 100% correct, but you are overlooking the fact that they had many options, including data buckets or upgrading to another plan to avoid that charge. The same way you don't get a 100 minute plan on your cell phone, then use 200 and complain about the bill. To be honest, anyone who uses that much bandwidth should be on Extreme to start, so the real numbers we should have been discussing are $1/GB .

Although, all really doesn't matter now. We just need to wait for Shaw (and Telus I suppose) to figure out what they want to do.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm just glad we don't have to live under Bell's dominance - that company makes both Shaw and Telus look like angels.

Absolutely right. I just wish we could actually choose the best ISP and not the least worst one. Shaw used to fill that role in my mind, and hopefully they can regain some trust and return to it. I have always been a fairly happy Shaw customer and felt that I was treated fairly until the UBB controversy started. It seems like they recognize that they've got to patch up their relationship with the customers and I hope that they are genuinely interested in garnishing feedback.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Absolutely right. I just wish we could actually choose the best ISP and not the least worst one. Shaw used to fill that role in my mind, and hopefully they can regain some trust and return to it. I have always been a fairly happy Shaw customer and felt that I was treated fairly until the UBB controversy started. It seems like they recognize that they've got to patch up their relationship with the customers and I hope that they are genuinely interested in garnishing feedback.

Has there been any word of ways you can give feedback? I have a few ideas that I wouldn't mind being heard. Although, I bet you anything they read every word of this thread (among others).

Interesting note: a google of "Shaw UBB forum" comes up with the first 2 results being this thread.

[Jimmy Stang]

Here's a link to the "new" usage page on Shaw's site:

http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/

They give an option to send your feedback in via email. Most interesting is that you can request an invitation to a discussion about usage. Although time is at a premium, I'm probably going to request one in the hopes that I'll be able to attend.

At the very least, we should all consider sending in a rational email explaining why we think that the proposed UBB structure was flawed, and provide a few suggestions for them that would seem reasonable to us. Complaining on a forum is part of it, and it certainly helped raise awareness about the issue, but this is a pretty direct way that people can get involved.

[Russic]

My pessimistic guess right now is that in Shaw's eyes the two choices are:

a) lower data caps
b) just charge everybody more

[Tinordi]

The same way you don't get a 100 minute plan on your cell phone, then use 200 and complain about the bill. To be honest, anyone who uses that much bandwidth should be on Extreme to start, so the real numbers we should have been discussing are $1/GB .

Read this article?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...l+-+World+News)

But take a closer look and something far more insidious is going on. If bandwidth were actually billed like electricity or water, that might be fine. But what the CRTC approved is something different. Claiming that its profit and consumer welfare are exactly the same thing, Bell wants to remake Internet billing. It wants to make use of the most lucrative tricks from the mobile and credit-card industries by preying on consumer error to make money. And this ought not be tolerated.

Any rule that asks the consumer to guess at usage, and punishes you if you’re wrong, is abusive. Imagine being asked to guess how much electric power you need every month, with a penalty for mistakes. Yes, that’s what cellphone companies do – or get away with – but that hardly makes it a model. It’s a system of profit premised on human error, and this begins to explain Bell’s deeper interest in usage-based billing. Bell wants to make the horrors of mobile billing part of the life of Internet users. And that’s a problem.

The knowledge that penalties await heavy Internet usage does something quite terrible: discourage desirable behaviour. Most of Bell’s arguments for treating consumers as wrongdoers rely on the villainization of “bandwidth hogs” who use up everyone else’s bandwidth and generally bring misery to the land. But there are better words for big users of the Internet: “pioneers” and “innovators.” A nation that spends its time worrying about bandwidth caps is not a nation that leads.

[Tinordi]

And here's the best set of policy proposals I've seen on this issue. Special reference to Shaw and the TPIA connection problems. Classic monopolist.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5629/125/

Rather than focusing on the heavy vs. light usage, the CRTC should be driven by a single priority - fostering a competitive market by establishing rules that allow independent ISPs to compete. In the context of wholesale UBB, there are five steps that should be taken to address the competition concerns:

1. The UBB decisions to date should be rescinded.

2. The CRTC should ensure that the speed matching decision is implemented and vigorously enforced. Independent providers cannot compete with incumbents if they are offering inferior speeds. Effective competition requires the ability to offer equivalent speeds to consumers.

3. The CRTC should reverse its decision on ADSL-CO, a proposal that would have allowed independent ISPs to locate closer to the end customer. It is puzzling that the CRTC denied the application to allow for this service (the decision spurred the Denton dissent I quoted last week). The approach would promote more facilities-based competition as independent ISPs would expand their networks, lessen their use of the Bell network, and position themselves to offer greater customer choice.

4. For those independent ISPs that do not use ADSL-CO, the CRTC should require the incumbents to offer independent ISPs a bulk wholesale service that would allow them to allocate the data usage as they see fit - same overall usage but without the UBB.

5. The CRTC should turn its attention to cable providers with respect to wholesale services. While wholesale access is available using TPIA, it has not proven popular. Catherine Middleton and Annemijn van Gorp discussed the reasons in a 2009 paper, citing "high costs and technical limitations (the service is described as being 'rife with problems'), cableco wholesale divisions that are difficult to deal with, and low margins if service is actually provided." This must change, otherwise there is a risk of creating a single dominant cable provider with the telco (DSL) provider market share chipped away by the independent ISPs. A more competitive environment necessitates wholesale access to both cable and DSL and the CRTC should prioritize making the cable TPIA service a viable alternative for independent ISPs.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Russic

My pessimistic guess right now is that in Shaw's eyes the two choices are:

a) lower data caps
b) just charge everybody more

If they want to be competitive they won't be doing either of those things.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I agree that the limits dropping are a big part of why Shaw customers are unhappy.

As for the price per GB, $2/GB is way too expensive, you are 100% correct, but you are overlooking the fact that they had many options, including data buckets or upgrading to another plan to avoid that charge. The same way you don't get a 100 minute plan on your cell phone, then use 200 and complain about the bill. To be honest, anyone who uses that much bandwidth should be on Extreme to start, so the real numbers we should have been discussing are $1/GB .

Although, all really doesn't matter now. We just need to wait for Shaw (and Telus I suppose) to figure out what they want to do.

I'm on the Extreme and I swear my overage charges are $2 - but I can't seem to find that info on the new site. I remember this because it only enraged me more - the Extreme package is marketed to sell based on speed, but the corresponding data cap doesn't increase to match the jump in speed (it's nearly a 2 to 1 ratio). Which means that you can achieve your data cap faster and get punished for going over even more due to the higher penalty.

Translates directly into a cash grab. There is no reason the data overage charge should be different on any of the packages.

I assume Shaw has removed all explanation for data caps pending their reassessment - I can't even find the information documenting the data packages anymore.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm on the Extreme and I swear my overage charges are $2 - but I can't seem to find that info on the new site. I remember this because it only enraged me more - the Extreme package is marketed to sell based on speed, but the corresponding data cap doesn't increase to match the jump in speed (it's nearly a 2 to 1 ratio). Which means that you can achieve your data cap faster and get punished for going over even more due to the higher penalty.

Translates directly into a cash grab. There is no reason the data overage charge should be different on any of the packages.

I assume Shaw has removed all explanation for data caps pending their reassessment - I can't even find the information documenting the data packages anymore.

I am 95% sure that in the 1 page letter I received last month introducing this new policy that a $2/GB charge overage was set on the Lite - Extreme packages. Of course, this letter has mysteriously disappeared as do most things of general importance do in this household.

[photon]

I'm positive it was $1/GB for Extreme and above, however the google cache pages seem to have gone missing too.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/S...verages-111131

EDIT: Bing's cache still seems there:

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=shaw+$2+per+gb&d=4510811049099671&mkt =en-CA&setlang=en-CA&w=d5fa94b9,927cb62b

[VladtheImpaler]

The knowledge that penalties await heavy Internet usage does something quite terrible: discourage desirable behaviour. Most of Bell’s arguments for treating consumers as wrongdoers rely on the villainization of “bandwidth hogs” who use up everyone else’s bandwidth and generally bring misery to the land. But there are better words for big users of the Internet: “pioneers” and “innovators.” A nation that spends its time worrying about bandwidth caps is not a nation that leads.

I like this. This is what I will tell Mrs. Impaler - "No, dear, I am not a porn addict. I am a pioneer - think of me as a 21st century Columbus".

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I like this. This is what I will tell Mrs. Impaler - "No, dear, I am not a porn addict. I am a pioneer - think of me as a 21st century Columbus".

And then promptly restrict port access for your Santa Maria...

[Jimmy Stang]

Here's a good blog post about the Shaw consultation in Vancouver:

http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/...gy-shaw-crates

I was selected (somewhat randomly, I understand) to attend one of the Calgary sessions, which took place last night in Bowness. Nothing dramatically different than what was described in the blog post for the Vancouver one, and I'll write a brief summary of my thoughts in the next few days. I'd do it sooner, but I'm pretty busy at work and I'm going on a vacation in a week, so I'm trying to get caught up before I go.

I actually think that the consultation was positive, and Shaw have admitted that they misjudged the response and made some mistakes with UBB. They have shelved it and are going back to the drawing board, hence the consultations. More to come later.

[Tinordi]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...t?hl=en&pli=1#

With video streaming we are still seeing regulators and policy makers locked into antiquated thinking about goods delivered in the physical world where there was a clear relationship between consumption and costs. While some small vestige of that phenomenon still exists in the digital world it is almost negligible in comparison. Also inapt are comparisons between broadband networks and older utilities like water, electricity, gas and oil in which products are physically “consumed” by end users to the exclusion of others.

These analogies betray notions of scarcity and exclusivity that simply do not apply in the Internet ecosystem. Rather the broadband Internet is characterized by abundance, non-exclusive access and use, and rapid innovation in services and network capacity. Beyond the local broadband duopoly wireline bottleneck, these characteristics are driven by dynamic innovation and robust competition. Regulators should take note.
If there are genuine problems with traffic volume and congestion because of the downloading of streaming videos from Netflix and similar services then last mile network operators have a suite of tools for dealing with the problem, which are trivial to implement. The fact that they regularly implement these solutions for their proprietary video streaming services without passing costs to the consumer through UBB, underscores the message that perhaps UBB applied against Internet consumption is being used for some other purpose.

Given the fact that the Internet consumes so little bandwidth on cable or telephone networks, because it is largely a non-rivalrous technology, compared to the proprietary rivalrous video streaming solutions deployed by the cable or telephone company itself. Yet, in terms of bandwidth allocation, it is sold at significant premium to those same services – on top of which are applied surcharges for bandwidth overage that are not clearly related to cost.

Moreover as we have shown video streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu and others delivered through CDN networks actually reduce the costs of Internet transit and last mile networks for the telephone and cable company. Any inordinate bandwidth consumption or congestion can easily be handled at virtually no cost by reallocating the bandwidth or channels assigned from the operator’s proprietary video streaming service or enabling deep deployment of competitive content distribution services.

In this context, the effectiveness of UBB in dealing with the issues it purports to address, and its impact on the end-to-end Internet value chain demand close examination. This practice reduces consumer demand for broadband services, may undermine competitors and may create disincentives for network investment. So who benefits from UBB? The significant risk is that UBB is really a mechanism to protect the market dominance of former monopoly local network operators and to help them leverage that dominance into the Internet ecosystem.