Shaw charging for overages

[Darren Dirt]

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

[Lazybones]

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!!!!

[Darren Dirt]

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...

[Mr. Analog]

I hope the Gov't finally squashes this crap

[Lazybones]

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.

[Tom]

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".

[Darren Dirt]

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...

[Lazybones]

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

The 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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[Mr. Analog]

It keeps striking me over and over as to how absurd this whole ordeal is.

[Tom]

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:

I 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.

[Tom]

Heres the latest reply, and my followup:

On 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*

[Thorin]

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.

[Melbosa]

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.

[Lazybones]

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.