Canadian internet rated "third world" by Netflix

[Hemi-Cuda]

http://gigaom.com/2012/09/13/netflix...hts-violation/

Hard to argue

[Street Pharmacist]

Haha. No it's not. It's highly developed. Priced poorly maybe, but don't tell me it's third world. That's absurd.

Netflix's business depends on cheap Internet, so they are extremely biased. I agree it's expensive, but the same as Ethiopia? Come on

[Erick Estrada]

Pretty embarrassing what wireless/internet/cable providers are allowed to get away with in this country. The government has to find a way to get rid of the collusion.

[Regulator75]

How about Netflix Canada rated "third world" by Canadian users?

[Ark2]

Does anyone else see the adds for Netflix on this site? "Instantly watch The Toothfairy" starring the Rock. Yeah, that just about sums it up for the quality selection that Netflix Canada has to offer.

[Rathji]

Considering our major providers either have or have had longer, faster internet speeds, I really don't put much stock in a statement like that.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Wasn't that when there was a lot of posturing going on by a lot of parties about usage based billing? The article is over a year old.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

The article is over a year old.

It's new to Hemi-Cuda.

[GGG]

The thing is though we should pay for use. Now the fees and overages might be out of line but essentially Netflix only pays for content and gets free distribution so if there is an increased cost as a result of increased bandwidth use that should be absorbed by the people using the bandwidth and not the average customer.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

How about Netflix Canada rated "third world" by Canadian users?

You people realize that Netflix faces similar crippling licensing restrictions in the Canadian market as the ones that drove Pandora out of the market. Right? Netflix isn't purposely giving us substandard content to screw Canadians as I'm sure they know well that if they had better Canadian content they could sell more memberships.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by GGG

The thing is though we should pay for use. Now the fees and overages might be out of line but essentially Netflix only pays for content and gets free distribution so if there is an increased cost as a result of increased bandwidth use that should be absorbed by the people using the bandwidth and not the average customer.

How about no.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Wasn't that when there was a lot of posturing going on by a lot of parties about usage based billing? The article is over a year old.

That was actually in late 2011, because Shaw came out with their new plans in December of that year which essentially solved the issue as far as I was concerned.

Its funny, because still I look at US ISP bandwidth and I see the best plans available being:

Comcast 20 Mbps
Verizon FIOS 50 Mbps
AT&T 24 MBps
Century Link 40MBps

The FIOS is actually the best of those plans, since it has 25Mbps upload, so thats actually comparable to what Telus offers (and slightly better than Shaw - due to upload), but the rest of them are a step below what all Canadian ISPs offer.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Does anyone else see the adds for Netflix on this site? "Instantly watch The Toothfairy" starring the Rock. Yeah, that just about sums it up for the quality selection that Netflix Canada has to offer.

That's not entirely NetFlix's fault. Canadian telecommunication collusion also applies to distribution of content. It's much harder to secure copyright licensing in Canada than the US. In the US all the major networks stream their entire content. Canadian broadcasters and telecommunications companies have purposely conspired to prevent this.

Basically, lack of competition in Canada has resulted in companies just doing what they want and not re-investing back into infrastructure and content in a competitive manner.

[ZedMan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

That was actually in late 2011, because Shaw came out with their new plans in December of that year which essentially solved the issue as far as I was concerned.

Its funny, because still I look at US ISP bandwidth and I see the best plans available being:

Comcast 20 Mbps
Verizon FIOS 50 Mbps
AT&T 24 MBps
Century Link 40MBps

The FIOS is actually the best of those plans, since it has 25Mbps upload, so thats actually comparable to what Telus offers (and slightly better than Shaw - due to upload), but the rest of them are a step below what all Canadian ISPs offer.

FiOS can actually go even faster -- 150/75. The problem with FiOS is they stopped expanding the network a while back, so if you aren't in an area they've deployed it you're SOL.

There's also Time Warner/RoadRunner who maxes out at 50/5.

Calgary's pretty lucky to have Shaw in this case, who's cheapest plan ($30) has a 125GB cap that is much more reasonable than rogers ($45) and bell ($30) at 20GB. Although Shaw's upload speeds are pretty sad.

[Rathji]

Shaw has west of Manitoba, so its not like it is just Calgary that has those plans.

You can also get a free 50GB a month bump to your cap by signing up for Shaw Friends.

I totally forgot about Time Warner though, but even counting them, it still means that Shaw's best plan (100/10)is unmatched except by the limited range of FIOS. Not to mention that we have had those speeds for almost 2 years, when no provider in the US even came close except for Verizon's FIOS.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Shaw's 100 plan is 100/5, They also offer 250/15.

http://www.shaw.ca/internet/compare-plans/

[Rathji]

Has the 100MBps plan always been 5 up, or did it used to be 10?

The 250MBps plan isn't universally deployed at this time, so I didn't include it. I wonder how its deployment compared to Verizon's FIOS though, maybe it is close enough that if Zerizon is in the mix then the plan from Shaw should be as well.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Has the 100MBps plan always been 5 up, or did it used to be 10?

The 250MBps plan isn't universally deployed at this time, so I didn't include it. I wonder how its deployment compared to Verizon's FIOS though, maybe it is close enough that if Zerizon is in the mix then the plan from Shaw should be as well.

They used to advertise it at 10, then switched it to 5. I only know because I called once to complain the the upload always hit a wall on all speed tests (speedtest.net and shaw's own) around 5. When I called tech support, the analyst told me "We don't have a magic button that gives you more upload speed."

A few months later I called sales to ask if 250/15 was available in my area. I was told it was, but that I needed new hardware. I told here to ask for my service to be prepared for 250/15 and I would call back if I wanted the tech appointment for the hw upgrade. Since then, my ul has hovered between 8.5/9 on tests. I never called back for 250.

[Raekwon]

What do you do that requires 10Mbps upload and 5 isn't sufficient?

[TurnedTheCorner]

Nothing really, I just lucked into ul closer to 10 than 5. Go me!