Looks like shaw'll be the first to start charging you for excess usage.
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/internetdatausage
Likely as a result of the CRTC oking it for Bell.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/10/28/crtc-usage-based-billing-internet.html
Quote from: Tom on October 29, 2010, 10:26:08 AM
Looks like shaw'll be the first to start charging you for excess usage.
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/internetdatausage
That link gives:
Quote
Thank you for your interest in Shaw's Internet Data Usage policies. Please stay tuned as we develop information specific to your area on this topic.
What was it supposed to say that you wanted to point out?
Also, on the thought of capped plans with charges for overages, I'll play the wait-and-see game. I'm happy to jump ship to another provider if they provide a better/cheaper/higher-cap plan.
Still, I wouldn't mind getting Swedish-level internet access (100mb down, 100mb up? What?!).
Quote from: Thorin on October 29, 2010, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: Tom on October 29, 2010, 10:26:08 AM
Looks like shaw'll be the first to start charging you for excess usage.
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/internetdatausage
That link gives:
Quote
Thank you for your interest in Shaw's Internet Data Usage policies. Please stay tuned as we develop information specific to your area on this topic.
What was it supposed to say that you wanted to point out?
CONSPIRACY! MEMORY HOLE COVERUP!
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/High-Speed/ "75 GB/month data transfer" <-- was that always there?
from the 2nd link (CBC story)
Quote
Customers using the fastest connections of five megabits per second, for example, will have a monthly allotment of 60 GB, beyond which Bell will charge $1.12 per GB to a maximum of $22.50.
So someone exceeds the 60 GB, how fast will they hit the 80 GB "max" and then say "screw it, I'm gonna use 299 GB this month!" methinks that's the plan, it's like a built-in $22.50 surcharge for most young-and-stupid customers.
Quote from: Thorin on October 29, 2010, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: Tom on October 29, 2010, 10:26:08 AM
Looks like shaw'll be the first to start charging you for excess usage.
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/internetdatausage
That link gives:
Quote
Thank you for your interest in Shaw's Internet Data Usage policies. Please stay tuned as we develop information specific to your area on this topic.
What was it supposed to say that you wanted to point out?
It shows quite a lot of info for me.
High Speed Lite: 13G/mo
High Speed: 75G/mo
Extreme: 125G/mo
Warp: 250G/mo
Nitro: 500G/mo
BW Packs:
10G/$5/mo
60G/$20/mo
250G/$50/mo
as well as:
QuoteA charge of $2.00/GB for our High-Speed Lite and High-Speed Internet service, $1.00/GB for our Extreme, Warp and Nitro Internet services will be applied for usage beyond what is included in the Internet package subscribed to.
It does seem that shaw is treating Edmonton as a test bed. So if you're not /in/ Edmonton it may not even show this information. Or maybe not on shaw...
Quote from: Tom on October 29, 2010, 12:22:06 PM
It shows quite a lot of info for me.
High Speed Lite: 13G/mo
High Speed: 75G/mo
Extreme: 125G/mo
Warp: 250G/mo
Nitro: 500G/mo
BW Packs:
10G/$5/mo
60G/$20/mo
250G/$50/mo
the link in the OP ( http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/internetdatausage ) is "down" for now, apparently, essentially saying "under construction/rewriting" or similar.
Not sure how Tom is seeing those details he posted above ( different link? ).
edit: I found similar info here: http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/AboutShaw/TermsofUse/AcceptableUsePolicyInternet.htm#q8
Quote from: Tom on October 29, 2010, 12:22:06 PM
So if you're not /in/ Edmonton it may not even show this information. Or maybe not on shaw...
I just used LogMeIn to hit my home computer. In Edmtonton. On Shaw. Still the same "Thank you...plase stay tuned." blurb. Just like here at GoA.
edit: U guess
you gotta click the dropdowns then click GO, how stupid, I thought since my home service IS shaw, that they would do some of kind of lookup i.e. "is the visitor's computer in our IP range? Then let's see where they're hitting us from!"
verbiage now visible at home. and here at GoA.
methinks the UI police need to smack someone around at Shaw dev central, as putting a distracting Flash banner ad just BELOW a dropdown that lets you "localize" content that covers the rest of the page = fail.
flashblock ftw
What I saw, attached. I highlighted in red where Darren said the locale selector should be. Apparently I'd set my locale as St Albert some other day in the past, and it remembered.
I switched my locale to Edmonton, and then saw what you said you saw.
Nice of them to have different views for different locales without showing what locale I'm considered to be viewing from.
I guess we'll need to start watching our data usage... I wouldn't mind if they gave a discount to people who use _less_ than the cap. Then it'd be true pay-for-use, rather than flat-fee-with-a-penalty.
Yeah, their site sucks.
No limit policy for my local yet.
Quote from: Thorin on October 29, 2010, 01:57:44 PM
I guess we'll need to start watching our data usage... I wouldn't mind if they gave a discount to people who use _less_ than the cap. Then it'd be true pay-for-use, rather than flat-fee-with-a-penalty.
No phucking kidding.
Also, Thorin nailed it ... I like NEVER hit more than a dozen GB per month, unless I'm in a "big download" mood which is really rare. And yet they aren't even offering a "reduced rate with a low cap, then a per-GB penalty above that", nope they just add the penalty, and tbh I don't see an easy place to find out your current/projected usage.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on October 29, 2010, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: Thorin on October 29, 2010, 01:57:44 PM
I guess we'll need to start watching our data usage... I wouldn't mind if they gave a discount to people who use _less_ than the cap. Then it'd be true pay-for-use, rather than flat-fee-with-a-penalty.
No phucking kidding.
Also, Thorin nailed it ... I like NEVER hit more than a dozen GB per month, unless I'm in a "big download" mood which is really rare. And yet they aren't even offering a "reduced rate with a low cap, then a per-GB penalty above that", nope they just add the penalty, and tbh I don't see an easy place to find out your current/projected usage.
They apparently will send you an email, and possibly call when you're getting close to your limit. Then they do the same when you hit it, and again when you go X amount over iirc. And at that point a graph or meter should appear on secure.shaw.ca afaik. They've apparently redone their entire metering stuff, to make sure its "super accurate".
Quote from: Darren Dirt on October 29, 2010, 04:34:09 PM
Quote from: Thorin on October 29, 2010, 01:57:44 PM
I guess we'll need to start watching our data usage... I wouldn't mind if they gave a discount to people who use _less_ than the cap. Then it'd be true pay-for-use, rather than flat-fee-with-a-penalty.
No phucking kidding.
Also, Thorin nailed it ... I like NEVER hit more than a dozen GB per month, unless I'm in a "big download" mood which is really rare. And yet they aren't even offering a "reduced rate with a low cap, then a per-GB penalty above that", nope they just add the penalty, and tbh I don't see an easy place to find out your current/projected usage.
You can get a low rate with a low cap, but the problem is that it's also low speed. For instance, High Speed Lite is a mere 13GB cap. In truth, there's no reason now to tie speed to price of the package - Give everyone the same download speed, and simply charge more for higher caps, or even just charge for actual usage.
When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, though, charging for actual usage is ridiculous. The hardware can support X amount of bytes transferring through it. When people aren't maxing out the hardware, those extra bytes don't get saved up to be used later. It's not like gasoline, or gas to heat your house, or water. I'm with the commenters on the original article about Bell - this is just one more way to grab extra money by companies that are already flush with cash. Too bad it's such a big investment to build out your own network, otherwise we might see someone start up a new company to challenge the big players.
This page is showing me nothing but advertising garbage WTF?
If it helps, this is what I see:
But where do you see your usage there?
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 30, 2010, 09:56:10 AM
But where do you see your usage there?
You don't. Thats just an information page.
Okidok, news on the front:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24949041-Shaw-charging-for-extra-bandwidth.~start=784
QuoteWe wanted to thank everyone for their participation in the Edmonton Trial of this program. We have taken the results, and we have heard all of your honest feedback, and will now be moving forward with the program across our service areas.
We have adjusted the levels of included usage on our packages as detailed at: ?www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServic???sage.htm
As part of this process, those select customers in Edmonton who have been on the program will be refunded any money spent on data packs, and all customers will be returned to the first notification stage.
Letters are being sent to Edmonton customers who were part of the program to further detail this in the coming days.
As we begin rolling out this program across our service areas, and fully training all of our customer care reps, feel free to send us any questions that you may have about how the program works, or you can contact our e-Care teams by Live Chat. (?www.shaw.ca/chat)
So now they have seen it as a success, and are rolling out the program across all their service areas. Yay?
Boo :P
Like charging people money is solving anything (other than Shaw's ivory backscratcher gap). This is akin to automated speed traps, sure it does something, just not fixing the problems.
The tongue-in-cheek "interpretation" by "Shaw_theif" nails it:
Quote
Hi this is shaw we have decided that the overwhelming popularity of this telecom robber baron plan is in the best interests of you the consumers. In the interest of serving your needs we have reduced most packages caps by a significant amount so we can offer you our grade A value packs IE
10 GB for an additional $5/month
60 GB for an additional $20/month
250 GB for an additional $50/month
For those on higher packages that feel they have lost significant value to their package please feel free to buy the 250gig data pack which will allow you to use as much as you should be getting on your current packages if value+200% market inflation was enough for us.
These rates are far more fair then teksavvy and their 10bucks for 100 gigs. And we feel that we have let you use to much bandwidth already. So as such we will reduce your capacity because as you need more every year your allotment should be reduced and you can hit your cap sooner. Please enjoy these steals of deals we are offering. This way you will never be able to consider cutting the cord and breaking away for traditional media like the great CANWEST network. Also feel free to enjoy our fine selection of overpriced smut on our VOD service which costs 2x more for one viewing then a month of netflix(boooo netflix bad caps good!).
or, as "Nati" said:
Quote
Translation: We heard that you don't like our new charges, we don't care, we're going to over charge you any way. Have a nice day
PS: the URL is http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/internetdatausage.htm
Not in my market yet, but considering my monthly use is between 50GB and 160GB / mo this could be a big problem. Netflix has really added things up.
FYI later versions of DD-Wrt keep these stats...
Yeah, if I can find a decent DSL plan, I'm thinking of switching. I don't even go over my limit all that often anymore, and it still bugs me.
Over the past couple years, my monthly bill has gone up several times, for supposedly "Free" services like "SpeedBoost" and the 10 to 15mb upgrade, oh, and each time my bw allotment went down. Bull@%&# shaw, bull@%&#.
Ha ha, Shaw's corporate headquarters' IP range was banned from a forum: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/announcement.php?f=196&a=100
It'll be interesting the first time they charge a lawyer for overages without providing detailed data. Honestly, if they can't prove every bit of bandwidth they claim you used, you can pretty easily get that bill adjusted in small claims court. Most of us wouldn't bother, but imagine a lawyer who just got charged an extra $300 on their monthly bill...
I'm with you, Tom, I am a fickle, fickle consumer. I have no problem switching to another plan that appears to be better for me.
With my hosting going off site, I might be able to be a "fickle" user as well :D. Even play the two big ISPs off each other.
ahhhh, democracy*...
http://www.torontosun.com/tech/news/2010/12/22/16648926.html
*not! since FCC/CRTC != elected body
SOAB! Shaw just enabled this across BC and my usage pattern is BAD vs the caps!
Quote from: Tom on October 29, 2010, 10:26:08 AM
Looks like shaw'll be the first to start charging you for excess usage.
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/internetdatausage
Likely as a result of the CRTC oking it for Bell.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/10/28/crtc-usage-based-billing-internet.html
hmmm... this article gives a different perspective on the CRTC and this change in billing -- and reminds us that competition (i.e. "the little guys" is the reason for this change)...
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/CRTC+good+guys+Really/4184769/story.html
Quote from: Lazybones on January 28, 2011, 09:57:24 AM
SOAB! Shaw just enabled this across BC and my usage pattern is BAD vs the caps!
D'oh, hopefully not too bad...?
Quote from: Mr. Analog on January 28, 2011, 10:37:31 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on January 28, 2011, 09:57:24 AM
SOAB! Shaw just enabled this across BC and my usage pattern is BAD vs the caps!
D'oh, hopefully not too bad...?
Between Bittorent and Netflix I am normally between 2x to 3x the limit for the standard shaw high speed account.
ouch!
Ya, if I leave my plan as is it would be over $200 for my dec use. If I upgrade to extreme or nitro there is less chance of that However then my cost for every month increases a lot
Yeah, I might be moving to DSL from teksavvy or some other place. Even if it means a lot slower downloads (5-6mb vs 15). Its cheaper, and has a 200G cap most times, rather than like 120G or whatever shaw has on most plans now.
Quote from: Tom on January 28, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Yeah, I might be moving to DSL from teksavvy or some other place. Even if it means a lot slower downloads (5-6mb vs 15). Its cheaper, and has a 200G cap most times, rather than like 120G or whatever shaw has on most plans now.
In my new place I just booked Telus, HS turbo (15) and I don't do any kind of torrenting or HD movie downloads so I should be alright I think.
Just would be nice if they DROPPED the rates for those who are way under the "cap". Charge a lower base rate + a reasonable per-GB rate after that.
A semi-monopoly makes it hard for the consumers to demand those kind of reasonable changes to fee structures.
Teksavvy has a reasonable cap at 200GB and upload speeds of 1Mbit, for less than I pay now. I might have to check them out, however I wonder if their rates will be impacted when TELUS starts charging more upstream.
Indications are that TELUS will also switch to HARD caps and charging overage shortly.
Quote from: Lazybones on January 28, 2011, 01:00:35 PM
Teksavvy has a reasonable cap at 200GB and upload speeds of 1Mbit, for less than I pay now. I might have to check them out, however I wonder if their rates will be impacted when TELUS starts charging more upstream.
Indications are that TELUS will also switch to HARD caps and charging overage shortly.
The CRTC backed down slightly, Network operators are now required to charge 15% less to bulk customers than they charge to their own retail customers, so smaller ISPs can still differentiate a little.
Quote from: Lazybones on January 28, 2011, 01:00:35 PM
Teksavvy has a reasonable cap at 200GB and upload speeds of 1Mbit, for less than I pay now. I might have to check them out, however I wonder if their rates will be impacted when TELUS starts charging more upstream.
The article I linked to seems to imply that, yes, once the Big Corps change their pricing, it's gonna mean all the little guys who lease the "Final Mile" are gonna pay more, thus charging more to consumers, most likely.
PS: hmmm... is it too late to cancel my Telus HSturbo hookup? http://teksavvy.com/en/res-internet.asp I'll wait a few months to see if I'm using more than what the $32/month plan gives you (200gb) but I doubt it (gonna be $28/mo. for first 3 months with Telus).
TELUS == EVIL get off 'em sooner than later man...
Shaw's no better at this point. Dropping the caps while deciding to start charging for overages was a double kick to the groin.
Quote from: Thorin on January 28, 2011, 03:22:51 PM
Shaw's no better at this point. Dropping the caps while deciding to start charging for overages was a double kick to the groin.
Agreed, lesser of two evils tho
Is this a decent laptop?
http://www.telus.com/content/internet/promotions/easypc.jsp#specs
Cuz I might consider going on a X-year plan with Telus if they are offering about the same as what Shaw has been giving me ... and if I get a free laptop thrown in that's good.
PS: Telus HSturbo = 10-15 download speed, up to 1MB upload (vs. the 512 that I think my old Shaw HS offered), and cap 120GB monthly and $2/GB over that. 4GB per day = pretty tough for me to exceed imo. I was worried the cap mighta been more like 50 or 40 or something.
Getting locked into a Telus plan is probably the stupidest thing you can do.
But thats probably a $500 laptop. Which you'll end up paying for several times over with how much telus is charging you over some of the competitors.
Quote from: Tom on January 28, 2011, 05:11:36 PM
Getting locked into a Telus plan is probably the stupidest thing you can do.
But thats probably a $500 laptop. Which you'll end up paying for several times over with how much telus is charging you over some of the competitors.
No, buying an HP laptop I think trumps it, they are CRAP.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on January 28, 2011, 07:25:18 PM
Quote from: Tom on January 28, 2011, 05:11:36 PM
Getting locked into a Telus plan is probably the stupidest thing you can do.
But thats probably a $500 laptop. Which you'll end up paying for several times over with how much telus is charging you over some of the competitors.
No, buying an HP laptop I think trumps it, they are CRAP.
Heh. I went directly for a lenovo. Its pretty darn good, even if it isn't a true thinkpad (its an SL500, uses the ideapad firmware...).
Quote from: Tom on January 28, 2011, 07:30:02 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on January 28, 2011, 07:25:18 PM
Quote from: Tom on January 28, 2011, 05:11:36 PM
Getting locked into a Telus plan is probably the stupidest thing you can do.
But thats probably a $500 laptop. Which you'll end up paying for several times over with how much telus is charging you over some of the competitors.
No, buying an HP laptop I think trumps it, they are CRAP.
Heh. I went directly for a lenovo. Its pretty darn good, even if it isn't a true thinkpad (its an SL500, uses the ideapad firmware...).
All I know is what I saw at HP, not one laptop made it past 6 months and when they finally cracked them open the sheer shoddy quality of everything was stupefying...
DO NOT let it overheat, that's all I can say.
Can't beat the two Asus ones I bought now.
And the XBox/Kinect deal Telus had with their Inet and TV was worth the 3 year signup fee. That laptop I would say no.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Usage+based+Internet+billing+concept+whose+time+come/4182718/story.html
Quote
The average Internet subscriber uses between 15 to 20 GB and a "very small" proportion ever exceeds their cap, according to Telus. In order to surpass 250 GB, a consumer would have to download more than 50 high-definition movies in a month. Or, to put it another way, if every hour of HD represents 2.6 GB, you could stream 96 hours a month, or more than three hours a day, every day. Anyone watching that much video needs to get a life.
:shudder: I'm below average! (probably)
Quote
It costs more to send a heavy package across the country than a letter across town. People who use more electricity than their neighbours have to pay for their additional energy consumption. Drivers who travel long distances spend more on fuel than those who don't. Transit riders crossing zones pay more than those going one or two stops. The principle is simple: The more you use, the more you pay.
But Internet service subscribers seem to believe everyone should pay the same flat rate for unlimited capacity and their outrage at the end to the free ride has social media all a twitter.
There will always be a small cadre of users who demand more, bigger, better and faster. High-speed Internet will soon be worthy of the name, with speeds of 42 Mbps ready to be rolled out. Higher caps can be expected to follow. However, these enhanced services will come with a higher price tag. A Ferrari costs more than a Volkswagen.
That's as it should be. Most users won't need the increased speed or extra capacity and will be satisfied with a modest reliable service at reasonable cost. Much like they have now.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on January 29, 2011, 11:54:26 AM
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Usage+based+Internet+billing+concept+whose+time+come/4182718/story.html
Quote
The average Internet subscriber uses between 15 to 20 GB and a "very small" proportion ever exceeds their cap, according to Telus. In order to surpass 250 GB, a consumer would have to download more than 50 high-definition movies in a month. Or, to put it another way, if every hour of HD represents 2.6 GB, you could stream 96 hours a month, or more than three hours a day, every day. Anyone watching that much video needs to get a life.
:shudder: I'm below average! (probably)
Quote
It costs more to send a heavy package across the country than a letter across town. People who use more electricity than their neighbours have to pay for their additional energy consumption. Drivers who travel long distances spend more on fuel than those who don't. Transit riders crossing zones pay more than those going one or two stops. The principle is simple: The more you use, the more you pay.
But Internet service subscribers seem to believe everyone should pay the same flat rate for unlimited capacity and their outrage at the end to the free ride has social media all a twitter.
There will always be a small cadre of users who demand more, bigger, better and faster. High-speed Internet will soon be worthy of the name, with speeds of 42 Mbps ready to be rolled out. Higher caps can be expected to follow. However, these enhanced services will come with a higher price tag. A Ferrari costs more than a Volkswagen.
That's as it should be. Most users won't need the increased speed or extra capacity and will be satisfied with a modest reliable service at reasonable cost. Much like they have now.
Its too bad those analogies make no sense.
inorite
cuz virtually all those analogies have a base cost of "0", pretty much. So it makes sense you pay for what you "use".
instead, weekend-only internet email-only users are paying the same as folks who watch Youtube a half hour per night.
But without a cap + extrafee then those who watch 2 HD movies every night pay no more than either of the above.
So I say drop the base to virtually 0, and charge only for actual usage. Simple solution.
So I have been researching alternatives... Looks like everyone should sit and wait. Teksavvy carries its service over Bell mostly, and from the sound of it they are about to get hammered by Bell, thus their rates will change SOON.
Looks like the big 3 have screwed everyone.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on January 29, 2011, 12:22:14 PM
inorite
cuz virtually all those analogies have a base cost of "0", pretty much. So it makes sense you pay for what you "use".
instead, weekend-only internet email-only users are paying the same as folks who watch Youtube a half hour per night.
But without a cap + extrafee then those who watch 2 HD movies every night pay no more than either of the above.
So I say drop the base to virtually 0, and charge only for actual usage. Simple solution.
Instead of like $1-4/GB, they should charge us what it costs them plus a reasonable amount for profit (say 40%?).
I'd gladly pay $0.02/GB. And thats /double/ what it costs them. 100% profit!
Quote from: Tom on January 29, 2011, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on January 29, 2011, 12:22:14 PM
inorite
cuz virtually all those analogies have a base cost of "0", pretty much. So it makes sense you pay for what you "use".
instead, weekend-only internet email-only users are paying the same as folks who watch Youtube a half hour per night.
But without a cap + extrafee then those who watch 2 HD movies every night pay no more than either of the above.
So I say drop the base to virtually 0, and charge only for actual usage. Simple solution.
Instead of like $1-4/GB, they should charge us what it costs them plus a reasonable amount for profit (say 40%?).
I'd gladly pay $0.02/GB. And thats /double/ what it costs them. 100% profit!
LOL @ 2cents per GB ... people like me would have a $2/month usage charge.
I doubt it costs them that little, when you take into account the minimum non-usage cost they would have to apply to every active account (to cover admin/overhead including HR, gov't fees, etc.).
But obviously $1/GB is extremely unfair to those who aren't micro-users like me. Nobody would stay on with them if they had a $200/month rate for what they previously were previously paying $40-$80 per month... I'd say they gotta find some compromise, a "0" base rate ain't gonna work obv... but a flat-per-unit rate is gonna be unfair to somebody (including the business providing the service -- remember capitalism only works if both the consumer AND the producer benefits from the exchange.)
Quote from: Darren Dirt on January 29, 2011, 01:18:04 PM
Quote from: Tom on January 29, 2011, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on January 29, 2011, 12:22:14 PM
inorite
cuz virtually all those analogies have a base cost of "0", pretty much. So it makes sense you pay for what you "use".
instead, weekend-only internet email-only users are paying the same as folks who watch Youtube a half hour per night.
But without a cap + extrafee then those who watch 2 HD movies every night pay no more than either of the above.
So I say drop the base to virtually 0, and charge only for actual usage. Simple solution.
Instead of like $1-4/GB, they should charge us what it costs them plus a reasonable amount for profit (say 40%?).
I'd gladly pay $0.02/GB. And thats /double/ what it costs them. 100% profit!
LOL @ 2cents per GB ... people like me would have a $2/month usage charge.
I doubt it costs them that little, when you take into account the minimum non-usage cost they would have to apply to every active account (to cover admin/overhead including HR, gov't fees, etc.).
But obviously $1/GB is extremely unfair to those who aren't micro-users like me. Nobody would stay on with them if they had a $200/month rate for what they previously were previously paying $40-$80 per month... I'd say they gotta find some compromise, a "0" base rate ain't gonna work obv... but a flat-per-unit rate is gonna be unfair to somebody (including the business providing the service -- remember capitalism only works if both the consumer AND the producer benefits from the exchange.)
Sure, theres the main monthly fee, say $15-25/mo, then you pay for your bw on top at 1-2 cents per GB. If they really claim its about how bandwidth is soo expensive, this should make up for it.
What really gets me is that it isn't usage totals that require the costs; its usage throughput that matters. Its how big the pipe needs to be for the amount of consecutive users at any given time. Whether you download 50MB or 5GB doesn't matter to the infrastructure. Its not like tires on a car that wear through use. Its how many cars can be on the road at once.
Like tv, it should work that the subscription handles the cost of service delivery, whether I watch those channels or not. Watching a channel doesn't wear down the street hub for the service delivery.
Just my 2 cents from my cell phone :P
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24963062-
How the charges will work on shaw.
At least it isn't as bad as Bell in Ontario. 25gb cap on their highspeed!
Here is direct from my sister after she raised the issue (on my behalf) to her superiors at Shaw:
QuoteWe are sorry to hear of your disappointment with the adjustments made to our internet data usage levels and our introduction of usage based billing. The Internet landscape is constantly changing and we have decided to make some changes to evolve internet usage through the Shaw network. We have always had limits in place but over the last few years, we have not been enforcing them. Today customer habits are shifting to much more streaming of content and higher usage. Our network needs to continue to expand to support increased usage. Internet usage is not free; there are huge costs to maintaining and expanding the Shaw network.
In June 2010, we increased our data usage levels for our Internet Usage pilot program. This was done as a test to minimize customer impact by reaching fewer customers during the notification period. Based on data collected from this trial, we have learned that by keeping our Included Usage levels closer to the original values, we can still maintain customer value as well as our competitive advantage. As such, we have adjusted our included data usage levels as follows effective December 16, 2010:
Internet Service - Usage Limit
High-Speed Lite: 15 GB
High-Speed: 60 GB
High-Speed Extreme: 100 GB
High-Speed Warp: 175 GB
High-Speed Nitro: 350 GB
Upon review of your account, we see that you are currently subscribed to Shaw High-Speed Extreme Internet. You included data usage limit is 100GB per month (download and upload combined). If this limit is exceeded, you will be immediately notified on your next Shaw invoice. Once the first notification has been made, a bandwidth monitoring tool will be made available through our Shaw Online Customer Care website (https://secure.shaw.ca). Once registered, you will be able to monitor your daily and monthly bandwidth usage going forward.
It is important to note that customers will not be billed on the first overage occurrence. Billing for extra usage will commence once the included data limit has been exceeded for 3 consecutive months. Charges for extra data used above your usage limit will vary from $1 to $2 per GB depending on your internet subscription. Overage charges are noted as follows:
Internet Service - Charge per Excess GB
High-Speed Lite: $2
High-Speed: $2
High-Speed Extreme: $1
High-Speed Warp: $1
High-Speed Nitro: $1
With all internet subscribers, we understand that there may be times when you may exceed the monthly amount included in your package. Usage can increase for a variety of reasons, so we offer options that will allow you to continue enjoying the best Internet experience possible. Upgrading your internet to the next package level will provide an increased data usage limit along with a faster internet connection. Alternatively, data packs have been made available to provide additional data usage allotment when needed.
Data packs are a monthly subscription and can be added to any internet package level (individually or in multiple quantities based your data needs). Our Internet data packs are as follows:
Data Pack - Price
10 GB: $5 per month
60 GB: $20 per month
250 GB: $50 per month
For additional help in finding the right internet package for you or to understand internet usage further, please visit us at: http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/internetdatausage.htm
Obviously a bit of a form letter, which some of you may have seen before. At least you have to offend 3 months strait before you get charged.
Again, I just have a hard time with the justification of usage limit and charges. Next we will have to pay for hours over what TV hours alotment we get with our subscriptions.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/teksavvy
http://www.dslreports.com/comments/2564
"Teksavvy is selling you the CAR, but Bell is selling you the ROAD" good analogy (I think?)
Quoteeffective December 16, 2010:
Internet Service - Usage Limit
High-Speed: 60 GB
Internet Service - Charge per Excess GB
High-Speed: $2
Data packs are a monthly subscription and can be added to any internet package level (individually or in multiple quantities based your data needs). Our Internet data packs are as follows:
Data Pack - Price
10 GB: $5 per month
60 GB: $20 per month
250 GB: $50 per month
zomg!
1. Shaw High-Speed: 60 GB base
$47.00/month standalone
up to 7.5 Mbps download speed, Up to 512 Kbps upload speed,
60 GB/month data transfer limit, $2/extraGB
which, speed-wise, is ALMOST equiv. to...
2. TELUS "HighSpeedTurbo": 125 GB base
$50/month ($25/month first 3 months)
download 10.0 to 15.0 Mbps, upload Up to 1.0Mbps,
125 GB/month download/upload usage, $2/additional GB used
therefore this BASE usage cap offered by Telus would cost $47+$120 = $167/month from Shaw(!) ... or with "advance" payment (via Data Pack) $47+$20 = $67
Either way, amazingly I guess I picked a good time to switch to Telus?
3. PS: the next step up in speed from Shaw = "High Speed Extreme": 100 GB base
$57.00/month standalone
Up to 15 Mbps download speed, Up to 1 Mbps upload speed,
100 GB/month data transfer limit, $1/extraGB
so I guess that's pretty much identical to Telus "High Speed Turbo" that I am getting. So I'll know in the future if I encounter the Telus Evil Experience (as I expect to, though hope not to).
sources:
1. http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/High-Speed/
2a. http://www.telus.com/content/internet/highspeed/highspeed_turbo.jsp
2b. http://www.telus.com/content/internet/highspeed/compare.jsp
3. http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/Extreme/
links unrelated to ^ previous post, but on topic with OP:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25381108-Telus-set-to-charge-overage.-sometime
http://bettween.com/telussupport/stefanz
http://gizmodo.com/5390014/internet-speeds-and-costs-around-the-world-shown-visually
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/10/raw.jpg)
We Canadians are WAY too polite... or else WAY too loosely populated (what the providers claim).
They like to claim that, but lots of countries with high penetration rates also have very low density outside of cities, yet they are all covered. So its just an excuse to not provide service.
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/02/01/liberals-slam-crtc-on-usage-based-billing/
Canadians are tired of being silently "polite"... now where's that petition?
http://openmedia.ca/meter
Dammit, the Shaw portal has been updated... the CAP calculation is Download + Upload for the month! It isn't a download cap it is a total traffic cap!!!!
some more articles -- linking to them cuz there's some worth-reading comments...
-------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/ubb-internet/bits-bytes-bills-and-bell-and-rogers-and-shaw-and-telus/article1893878/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/ubb-internet/bits-bytes-bills-and-bell-and-rogers-and-shaw-and-telus/article1893878/comments/
-------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tabatha-southey/ubb-oh-it-stands-for-unbelievable-business-baloney/article1895049/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tabatha-southey/ubb-oh-it-stands-for-unbelievable-business-baloney/article1895049/comments/
-------
http://www.xcrew.net/content/the_cost_of_bandwidth_canada_versus_the_world.html <-- we are just WAY too polite...
I hope the Gov't finally squashes this crap
Quote from: Mr. Analog on February 07, 2011, 01:33:33 PM
I hope the Gov't finally squashes this crap
FYI regardless of the Gov, the last mile providers Shaw, Telus, Rogers, and Bell will still be able to charge these usage based fees. The big difference is that the rule being debated would have forced sub-providers to the EXACT SAME fees as the host network... Right now the subs pay a specific fee for unlimited use and then charge their customers what ever they want... The last mile providers know they can't get away with the higher fees if their users can just hop over to a sub.
One slight bennifit to my business account, they haven't rolled the new system out to it yet, and may not for a while. I do see the new myShaw, but the usage tab shows "No Data".
owners of infrastructure, please wake up!
just charge a much lower and more realistic base rate, and a reasonable-profit per-GB usage rate, and the Power Users will pay 50-100 per month, while Average Joe will pay less than 30.
Internet has become like home telephone usage, in terms of virtual necessity, and once those phone lines were laid and paid for, there's no way telcos could justify charging 50, 100, or more per month for occasional-use phone customers. About time internet billing follows suit.
1 dollar per GB? Try 1 cent ... that's a lot more in line with actual COSTS...
Shaw has put its plans on hold.
http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/?WT.mc_id=C796A1718S98
- You may have to select your location to set the cookie first then try the link again
QuoteThe topic of Internet usage and billing is a diverse subject with many potential solutions. At Shaw, we value
the voice of our customers. We will be hosting customer discussions sessions throughout February and
March in service areas across Canada to engage in open dialogue on this topic.
Until this thorough consultation with customers has taken place, Shaw will not proceed with Internet usage
billing. To date no Shaw Internet customer has received a bill for any usage based charges.
Check back for meeting dates and times on Monday, February 14th. Together, we will find a solution
that works.
Quote
What is Internet usage?
'Usage' refers to the amount of content transferred to and from your modem while you?re online.
Different online activities consume different amounts of usage. Usage is generally measured in
megabytes (MB) or gigabytes (GB). One GB is equal to 1,024 MB.
Why is Internet usage a concern now? It never has been in the past.
Over the past five years, Internet traffic has increased by approximately 50 per cent each year. As the
digital landscape continues to evolve and new technology is introduced, it is anticipated that greater
demands will be made on the networks.
How much data do I need or am I using?
You can check how much data you're using by signing in to your Customer Centre account. If you do not
have an account already, you will need to register for one with your Shaw account number, telephone
number and postal code.
It keeps striking me over and over as to how absurd this whole ordeal is.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on February 09, 2011, 07:06:45 AM
It keeps striking me over and over as to how absurd this whole ordeal is.
I sent a nice little message to shaw at their shawfeedback address:
QuoteI would like to know why shaw feels it is necessary to bill $1-2 a GB when
Shaw's costs are already covered fully by the flat fees customers currently
pay, and when the ACTUAL cost of bandwidth is maybe one cent per GB (Which
again, is covered by the flat fees customers already pay).
I would rather not see a form letter, or a standard reply of any kind. I want
to actually see some valid reasoning behind the move to WAY over charge for
service that is already the most expensive on the planet.
Without any fancy accounting tricks, can Shaw show that the current rates are
unequivocally leading to negative balances? That is, it actually costs more to
run the network than shaw gets out of it?
To me, it seems as if Shaw has seen tens of millions in profits, even after
marking down HUNDREDS of millions in expenses and purchases. So clearly, shaw
has no valid reason to increase its fees for Internet services in any way.
If the market here in Canada were actually open, my Internet bill would have
been going down the past few years not up, and I would have seen much faster
speeds, and higher bandwidth allotments. Instead, I see almost the exact
opposite, my costs have repeatedly gone up, while bandwidth has repeatedly
gone down. All while Shaw rakes in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in
profit. I'm not sure what excuse Shaw have for that, but it better be a good
one.
If this pattern keeps up, I will have no choice but to find another Internet
provider. Even if it means slower speeds. I can not justify paying more, for
less.
Thank you.
No reply as of yet, but who knows, maybe they actually have real people read those emails, and it just takes time. To be honest I was fully expecting an auto reply form letter and nothing else.
Heres the latest reply, and my followup:
QuoteOn February 9, 2011, you wrote:
> Hi Thomas.
>
> Thanks for your email dated Feb 8th.
>
> We would like to thank you for your feedback regarding our Usage Based
> Billing system. As of right now our UBB system is on hold while we consult
> with our customers, and devise a system that includes input from our
> customer base. Thomas, it sounds like you are quite passionate about UBB
> as many of our customers are, as such we are setting up Town hall style
> meetings with senior members of Shaw leadership and as a Shaw customer you
> would be welcome to attend. If you would be interested in attending one of
> these meetings you can request an invite from:
> http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/. I apologize that this change
> caused you enough concern that you were considering switching providers,
> and we would value your input while we revisit UBB.
Hi, UBB isn't the only reason. Its also Shaw's constant changing of its
agreements (yes, I realize shaw reserves all rights to change any and all
agreements it has with its customers, but I don't have to like it). Over the
past couple/few years my bill has increased by $10-20 and by bandwidth
allotment has gone down (according to the current plans anyhow). Not to
mention the so called "Free" upgrades that just happened to coincide with
those price increases. Seems like false advertising. And sure, I don't mind
the faster speeds, but I really don't care about SpeedBoost, and I really
didn't ask for or need the 15mbps upgrade if it was going to increase my
monthly bill, but shaw gave me no choice. Its either 7.5 or 15. But then
again, the increased speed is mostly useless since neither the upstream speed
improved to balance the downstream speed, and the actual monthly bandwidth
allotment decreased making the faster speeds even less useful.
I think its a pretty despicable way of doing business. Increasing fees, while
decreasing service, and all the while laughing to the bank.
UBB is just an extension of Shaw's historic antisocial, anti consumer, and
anti competitive behavior.
> Thanks again Thomas and have a good day,
No, thank you.
> Gearoid - Rep 8913
> eCare Team
> Shaw Cablesystems GP
> | www.shaw.ca |
>
> ACCOUNTABLE BALANCE CUSTOMER FOCUSED INTEGRITY LOYALTY POSITIVE, CAN
> DO ATTITUDE TEAM PLAYER
So I did end up getting what ammounts to a form letter. *sigh*
The problem here is that it's not the overall usage that determines their cost, but the ability to maintain decent throughput during busy periods. This is very similar to how the electric system works - the system has to be built big enough to support the spikes in traffic. This means that they have to make sure to charge enough to be able to build out their system further if they anticipate higher spikes.
With Netflix coming online in Canada, those spikes may well happen between 6pm and 10pm (tv/movie watching time for most families). This may require Shaw to build out their system more to ensure customers still have decent service and don't quit over perceived "poor Internet connection".
What I'm really looking for is a price for a guaranteed minimum connection speed, not a never-attainable maximum. Build the system so that every customer can get their guaranteed minimum during the busy period. This is also how the electric system works - we can get enough electricity, even during the 5pm to 7pm supper-cooking spike.
Now, if they want to compare it to a utility, they'll have to compare it to electric; and electric happens to be a fixed fee plus a fee per actual, measured, usage. And the fee is quite small (7 to 8 cents per kWh?), and the meter is accurate.
Completely separately, I 100% agree with Tom that Shaw has been making money hand-over-fist in the last few years and that they certainly don't need to find yet another way to increase how much they charge us. CowGirl's been looking at Telus to see how much their package costs. Mind you, I'm not willing to enter a three year contract with Telus.
I agree wholey with Thorin. Pay-per-use like a utility is completely reasonable to me, and you all know I am a high user of the service. And if I pay for the premium delivery of that service (talking speeds now) I should get the mimimum speed I am paying for (this is where the subscriptions can vary and give ranges).
Shaw, Telus, or any ISP over commits their users, but even we do that at Work with say Storage. We have to play the whatif game for peeks, spikes and determine our needs. Its the same with the Virtualization game with products like VMware. You over commit and then you try and keep everyone happy during spikes and such.
A better model and one that accurately determines what I pay for is what I am using.
Utilities have two costs, the fixed delivery cost for infrastructure and the cost to produce the resource being delivered.
Shaw has infrastructure costs, the data is the resource. Their upstream cost to get the resource is almost nothing.
The electric company delivers a specific size line to your house and a bigger one to industrial parks and charge different delivery fees but the cost of the power is mostly the same.
If shaw can't support 1.4Mbit (max hd size) Netflix streams for more than a few customers they really should not be selling 7.5 and 15Mbit service to nearly all customers. There standard service should be 1Mbit or something.
Quote from: Lazybones on February 09, 2011, 06:04:48 PM
Utilities have two costs, the fixed delivery cost for infrastructure and the cost to produce the resource being delivered.
Shaw has infrastructure costs, the data is the resource. Their upstream cost to get the resource is almost nothing.
The electric company delivers a specific size line to your house and a bigger one to industrial parks and charge different delivery fees but the cost of the power is mostly the same.
If shaw can't support 1.4Mbit (max hd size) Netflix streams for more than a few customers they really should not be selling 7.5 and 15Mbit service to nearly all customers. There standard service should be 1Mbit or something.
Exactly! I was gonna post something similar but, damn work got in the way.
Quote from: Thorin on February 09, 2011, 04:23:17 PM
The problem here is that it's not the overall usage that determines their cost, but the ability to maintain decent throughput during busy periods. This is very similar to how the electric system works - the system has to be built big enough to support the spikes in traffic. This means that they have to make sure to charge enough to be able to build out their system further if they anticipate higher spikes.
With Netflix coming online in Canada, those spikes may well happen between 6pm and 10pm (tv/movie watching time for most families). This may require Shaw to build out their system more to ensure customers still have decent service and don't quit over perceived "poor Internet connection".
What I'm really looking for is a price for a guaranteed minimum connection speed, not a never-attainable maximum. Build the system so that every customer can get their guaranteed minimum during the busy period. This is also how the electric system works - we can get enough electricity, even during the 5pm to 7pm supper-cooking spike.
Now, if they want to compare it to a utility, they'll have to compare it to electric; and electric happens to be a fixed fee plus a fee per actual, measured, usage. And the fee is quite small (7 to 8 cents per kWh?), and the meter is accurate.
Good point re. needing to provide the "minimum" for customer impression reasons. I like the electricity comparison, but also consider this: electricity bills MORE "per unit" during Peak Time. Maybe the internet providers should consider that too -- have a reasonable base rate, a realistic small-profit per-unit rate, and an extra rate during Peak Hours that most non-addicts will never really be impacted by. Most average-joe user will be fine waiting until 9pm to check their Facebook, or understand their 20 minutes onload will cost a tiny bit more if they can't wait, while the hardcore movie-a-night streamers are gonna be cuing up their movies during the day or else in the evening, maybe. Everybody wins. ?
The only way we'd "win" is if ISPs didn't oversell their capacity... but not only were they greedy enough to promise bandwidth they really can't deliver but they had the gall to make it seem like it's our fault and try to charge us after the fact.
Well said, Mr. A, that's what I was getting at, too. A node might be able to support ten users at 5Mbps; Shaw and Telus both have no problem putting a hundred users on that node. Then when all hundred users are on at the same time streaming something from somewhere and they each get only 0.5Mbps and complain, Shaw and Telus are happy to blame the "high usage customers". The funny thing is, not one of those hundred users needs to be a high usage user for this problem to manifest - maybe they're all way under the limit, they're just all online at the same time. Meanwhile, another user could chew up four times the average but never be on when these hundred are on, therefore not actually adding to the congestion problem.
Now if they sold a service that said, "Max 5Mbps, Min 0.5Mbps, $xx/month", and maybe had a few different levels, then that'd be great. But they really, really, need to get away from the idea that it's the flow of data costs money - it's not, it's building enough infrastructure to provide reasonable service during spikes that costs money.
Quote from: Thorin on February 09, 2011, 10:07:40 PM
Well said, Mr. A, that's what I was getting at, too. A node might be able to support ten users at 5Mbps; Shaw and Telus both have no problem putting a hundred users on that node. Then when all hundred users are on at the same time streaming something from somewhere and they each get only 0.5Mbps and complain, Shaw and Telus are happy to blame the "high usage customers". The funny thing is, not one of those hundred users needs to be a high usage user for this problem to manifest - maybe they're all way under the limit, they're just all online at the same time. Meanwhile, another user could chew up four times the average but never be on when these hundred are on, therefore not actually adding to the congestion problem.
Now if they sold a service that said, "Max 5Mbps, Min 0.5Mbps, $xx/month", and maybe had a few different levels, then that'd be great. But they really, really, need to get away from the idea that it's the flow of data costs money - it's not, it's building enough infrastructure to provide reasonable service during spikes that costs money.
I pretty much agree with everything thats been said. And would like to add that the flat fees we currently pay already cover not only the current operation of the network, but also major upgrades as well. Not only has shaw been raking it in hand over fist, but they've also been doing some pretty massive upgrades to its network, rolling out FTTN, and in some areas, FTTH. So clearly, they do NOT need the increased fees. That profit includes any charges related to the network upgrades, AND the recent purchase of CanWest/Global.
Let me put on my tin foil hat and say that cable viewership might be tailing off causing them to try to find other revenue streams as people shift from watching television to downloading television. Same thing with home phone vs VOIP services.
My tinfoil hat looks like a duckie!
Quote from: Darren Dirt linkquote author=Darren Dirt link=topic=7595.msg50982#msg50982 date=1297302825]
Good point re. needing to provide the "minimum" for customer impression reasons. I like the electricity comparison, but also consider this: electricity bills MORE "per unit" during Peak Time.
You are confusing production capacity with the ability of the infrastructure to deliver again. Shaw creates little or NO content that they don't also charge for another way. They are only the last mile wire for you to get your home connected to the internet. The electric company long ago rolled out wire capable of delivering all the power you need to your home, and as communities grow they increase the size of their substations. At PEAK times it isn't the wires and relay stations that over load it is the capacity of the generators that is the variable problem, they have to run more of them LIVE and consume more resources to make the power. Netflix would be the content generator, and they seem to be able to generate the content and cover costs just fine an $8 per month.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on February 10, 2011, 09:08:15 AM
Let me put on my tin foil hat and say that cable viewership might be tailing off causing them to try to find other revenue streams as people shift from watching television to downloading television. Same thing with home phone vs VOIP services.
My tinfoil hat looks like a duckie!
Yeah, thats a pretty common oppinion. They want to try and restrict the growth of the internet as to keep a reign on their Content business.
One reason I think shaw and other ISPs like it should be stripped of their physical network business. Force them to split and operate the entity 100% separately. Then there'll be no conflict of interest, we'll get a decent internet, and they can continue to do what ever it is they do, just without direct control of the network.
Quote from: Lazybones on February 10, 2011, 09:27:25 AM
You are confusing production capacity with the ability of the infrastructure to deliver again.
I was mainly focusing on pricing models. If Shaw/Bell want to claim they are suffering due to maximums being hit/exceeded etc. then let's call their bluff, claim a willingness to pay a higher rate during "peak times" as long as the base rate goes down along with the non-peak per-unit rate. See what happens. Forget logic, this is about supply and demand, we the people can choose to express our demand in a different way to encourage the supply to be provided in a less insane way.
daretodream...
Shaw Customer Service Rep convinced woman to pay for data pack before Shaw was going to charge for data over-use: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25442404-Shaw-charging-for-data-packs-NOW
Also, Hitler weighs in on the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Mg6pq33Zc&feature=player_embedded
Also also, TekSavvy has increased the cap on their lower plan from 200GB to 300GB per month ($32 per month), and has brought back the Unlimited plan ($40 per month). Dang, I wish TekSavvy would serve the Edmonton market!
What I heard is that when shaw was trialing the data plan stuff, they were charging then, but right after they called a success they claimed any and all extra fees collected would re refunded, and the data caps returned to what they were before..
Quote from: Thorin on February 14, 2011, 03:47:38 PM
Also also, TekSavvy has increased the cap on their lower plan from 200GB to 300GB per month ($32 per month), and has brought back the Unlimited plan ($40 per month). Dang, I wish TekSavvy would serve the Edmonton market!
As far as I know they have DSL here in edmonton. Just not Cable, as shaw doesn't allow access to its coax.
What a freaking mess... this is something that should have been sorted out ages ago really but it took the popularity of Skype and Netflix to expose.
The worst part is that as consumers we're stuck between providers who are all doing the same thing.
Quote from: Tom on February 14, 2011, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: Thorin on February 14, 2011, 03:47:38 PM
Also also, TekSavvy has increased the cap on their lower plan from 200GB to 300GB per month ($32 per month), and has brought back the Unlimited plan ($40 per month). Dang, I wish TekSavvy would serve the Edmonton market!
As far as I know they have DSL here in edmonton. Just not Cable, as shaw doesn't allow access to its coax.
Here is the page to check if you can get DSL service: http://teksavvy.com/en/dslcheck.asp
Here is the page to check if you can get cable service: http://teksavvy.com/en/checkontariocable.asp
Neither of those say they're available at my current number or postal code, and I tried an Edmonton number as well and was told it wasn't available.
Quote from: Thorin on February 15, 2011, 02:09:09 PM
Quote from: Tom on February 14, 2011, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: Thorin on February 14, 2011, 03:47:38 PM
Also also, TekSavvy has increased the cap on their lower plan from 200GB to 300GB per month ($32 per month), and has brought back the Unlimited plan ($40 per month). Dang, I wish TekSavvy would serve the Edmonton market!
As far as I know they have DSL here in edmonton. Just not Cable, as shaw doesn't allow access to its coax.
Here is the page to check if you can get DSL service: http://teksavvy.com/en/dslcheck.asp
Here is the page to check if you can get cable service: http://teksavvy.com/en/checkontariocable.asp
Neither of those say they're available at my current number or postal code, and I tried an Edmonton number as well and was told it wasn't available.
Theres a link at the top to select which province you're from, try selecting alberta, and see if it changed anything. I don't have a real land line phone number near me so I can't check.
This was an interesting read about just how screwed up Bell Canada and the CRTC are. It's long, though.
http://stopusagebasedbilling.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/c-deep-packet-inspection/
I went to one of those Shaw meetings last night. Mostly we were there to talk to them about what we want, rather than them saying much of anything. Though I did get some interesting numbers.
They say they have about 1000 homes per "local node", it takes them about 2-4 or 6-8 months to split a node depending on circumstances. This year they have planned to split 500 nodes, and if traffic keeps increasing at the rate it has, they'll need to do 1000 splits next year, and 2000 the year after.
Apparently, from 2002 through 2009-2010, traffic was growing at 50% per year. In the past 6 months or so, traffic has grown 60%, so this year we're a little ahead of things.
Uhh... Are they splitting because the number of homes on the node increased, or are they splitting down to less homes on the node to maintain a certain throughput capability? What you said that they said, it's not clear whether they have to split because their customer base is increasing rapidly or because more customers are maintaining or at least expecting a high throughput during the peak hours.
Quote from: Thorin on March 09, 2011, 03:31:53 PM
Uhh... Are they splitting because the number of homes on the node increased, or are they splitting down to less homes on the node to maintain a certain throughput capability? What you said that they said, it's not clear whether they have to split because their customer base is increasing rapidly or because more customers are maintaining or at least expecting a high throughput during the peak hours.
These days they said they don't increase customer base much. The node splitting is mostly to keep a certain service quality. So its mostly due to traffic increasing.
Also interesting, they start planning a node split if they see congestion on a node for a few minutes within a 4 day period.
Quote from: Tom on March 09, 2011, 03:48:00 PMAlso interesting, they start planning a node split if they see congestion on a node for a few minutes within a 4 day period.
I DO find that interesting because I've had some serious quality of service issues at my place. The peak download sticks between 5 and 7 Mbps, except during light usage hours when it peaks over 18 Mbps (I've even had >20 Mbps a couple times).
I'm sure they must see that, but they haven't done anything about it...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on March 09, 2011, 03:53:40 PM
Quote from: Tom on March 09, 2011, 03:48:00 PMAlso interesting, they start planning a node split if they see congestion on a node for a few minutes within a 4 day period.
I DO find that interesting because I've had some serious quality of service issues at my place. The peak download sticks between 5 and 7 Mbps, except during light usage hours when it peaks over 18 Mbps (I've even had >20 Mbps a couple times).
I'm sure they must see that, but they haven't done anything about it...
It takes them 2-4 months, or up to 6-8 months to do a node split. So it may just be taking time. Or you need to complain at them.
I don't see much problems. but then I'm still overpaying for a business plan with QoS. So my data is more important that everyone elses in the area ;D even at peak I see a full 15mbps plus SpeedBoost.
And I just changed everything over to Telus as of this Saturday, due to cost savings... so I'll let you guys know how that goes.
Oh, they also said they'll be getting back to us with what they come up with in May or so. Though there will be more meetings in April maybe.
If I don't like the solutions shaw comes up with in a couple months, I'ma probably switch to Tekksavvy.
Quote from: Melbosa on March 09, 2011, 04:02:16 PM
And I just changed everything over to Telus as of this Saturday, due to cost savings... so I'll let you guys know how that goes.
Well hopefully having a business account means you put up with less garbage from Telus, from a consumer perspective Shaw would have to get a whole lot worse before I'd go back to that mess.
Nope, residential account (all services - Phone, TV and Internet). But when the savings were (per month) $100 in the first 6 Months, $80 the next 6 Months, and $45 over the following 2 years (at todays listings), plus I will now get HD channels and a free PVR, I couldn't justify keeping Shaw. I can also use my XBox as a HD TV tunner as well with Telus.
Even after 3 Months of pestering Shaw every time I got a "package deal" letter though the mail, They wouldn't even consider a 3 year contract savings or any other loyalist deal. So during that 3 months I interviewed people in my office whom had Telus TV and Internet, whom had been Shaw customers till about mid last year. All were happy with the services provided by Telus, but none had to call for support yet.
Now you all know me well, and have heard me say I would never give another dim to that piss-pot of an organization. But after talking with my Sister whom works for Shaw Relations and Customer Service, I found out she was having similar complaints about pricing and Shaw had pulled all loyalist discounts about 6 months ago. She couldn't blame me for moving either.
So I hope I haven't shot myself in the foot for the next 3 years. With my hosting services now off-site, I no longer require the separate business account running in my house. All my downloads and gaming have been through Shaw residential for almost 3 years now, so not like I will miss having the Business like account for daily operations at my home.
The first time I have to call about service problems, I'll let you know if I made a BAD move.
Quote from: Melbosa on March 09, 2011, 04:02:16 PM
And I just changed everything over to Telus as of this Saturday, due to cost savings... so I'll let you guys know how that goes.
if it's anything like my experience, it blows.
seriously, though my SpeedTest.net numbers were decent, somehow the overall "feel" is not what is what with Shaw. Especially when I connect remotely. I'm going to ask them to replace the modem since I occasionally have disconnects that sometimes happen 4 or 5 times in 10 minutes :grrrrr: but if the 2nd modem doesn't resolve that, it's back to Shaw for me. Even if it means $5 or $10 more per month.
Mel, in your case I'm guessing it's a lot more coin -- and you probably won't find the same not-quite-up-to-snuff connectivity that I have encountered, since you're a business/power client.
edit: I gotta stop grunching.
Quote from: Melbosa on March 09, 2011, 09:53:38 PM
With my hosting services now off-site, I no longer require the separate business account running in my house.
So I guess you're not on a business service plan, wow didn't know that. so it seems very understandable you're trying a switch since you've got the whole package. I'm "off" cable again, and happily gonna stay that way, play no need for a home phone since usually I'm not at home, so my cell is fine. Therefore internet for me is just that, and nothing else to be "bundled".
I've had two separate accounts for 3 years with Shaw, and only used the business account, modem and bandwidth for hosting, never anything else (my activities were causing issues with service delivery prior to that change). Now that all my hosting is off-site, I have no need for that account.
But that business account is separate from the cost savings I am getting, in case you are wondering. The cost savings I listed is only the 3-Residential-Services bundle I had with Shaw comparing to the new 3-Residential-Services bundle I am getting with Telus.
So the CRTC had planned to re-visit this issue, and today they started a week of hearings on the matter. I've had a twitter feed on in the background, filtered for the hashtag #UBB, and it's interesting to read what people from inside the hearing room are tweeting.
Basically, Bell has come out and admitted that UBB is competition-based, not to relieve congestion, and that their UBB plan (and their new AVP plan) are all about reducing overall usage rather than congestion at peak usage.
Bell also had the audacity to claim that they've been very friendly and open and helpful to independent ISPs using their infrastructure, to which Konrad von Finckenstein said "BULL@%&#!" (paraphrased).
Actually sounds like progress could be made!
Metered billing: it's a lack of competition, not congestion
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/metered-billing-its-a-lack-of-competition-not-congestion.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
Nice summary.