Shaw charging for overages

[Mr. Analog]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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. ?

[Mr. Analog]

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.

[Thorin]

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.

[Tom]

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.

[Mr. Analog]

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!

[Lazybones]

quote 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.

[Tom]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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...

[Thorin]

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!

[Tom]

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..

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.

[Mr. Analog]

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.

[Thorin]

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.

[Tom]

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.

[Thorin]

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/