Shaw charging for overages

[Mr. Analog]

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.

[Melbosa]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Usage+based+Internet+billing+concept+whose+time+come/4182718/story.html

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)

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.

[Tom]

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Usage+based+Internet+billing+concept+whose+time+come/4182718/story.html

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)

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[Lazybones]

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.

[Tom]

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!

[Darren Dirt]

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.)

[Tom]

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.

[Melbosa]

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

[Lazybones]

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!

[Melbosa]

Here is direct from my sister after she raised the issue (on my behalf) to her superiors at Shaw:

We 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.

[Darren Dirt]

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?)

effective 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/

[Darren Dirt]

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

We Canadians are WAY too polite... or else WAY too loosely populated (what the providers claim).

[Tom]

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.