|
Bonzo posted:So the Teksavvy DSL business rates stay the same? Hopefully... I forgot to ask, I'm an idiot. She told me they'd have new pricing plans available soon.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
less than three posted:That's bullshit. They tried it in the USA and everybody flipped out. And that's with caps of 300GB, not 25. Er, the ones that got people flipped out were Frontier DSL trying for 5 GB and Time Warner Cable trying for caps starting at 40 GB on the lowest cable plan. Most people really don't give a poo poo about Comcast's cap which is basically the only one any major company has. It's 250 GB and in most areas it's completely unenforced. If you're in an area where it is enforced, paying $5-$20 extra for a business internet plan removes the cap and also give you the ability to freely run servers on the line too. Also if they do enforce the cap on you, there's no actual overage fees iirc, you just either get told to stop or are offered an upgrade to business internet at the same speeds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
You see, I have no problem with paying extra for using the internet "a lot," as long as it's reasonable. $40 more for "unlimited" internet? Fine. I'll live. I'm still paying more that the rest of the developed world, but I'll live. Or make a "free" time period, like between midnight and 8 a.m. or something where I can go nuts. I'm willing to work with you ISPs, I pay you lots of money, WHY THE gently caress AREN'T YOU WILLING TO WORK WITH ME?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:So what happens to business accounts? Let's say I'm a graphic designer and I'm FTPing PSD files back and forth. Your average working from home person is not going to have a full T1 line or something. Business accounts are exempt, its targeted at residential service/access only.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Scylla posted:I spoke to a Teksavvy sales rep a few moments ago, and she told me that they wouldn't have DSL Unlimited anymore, even for current subscribers (which is what I have). I'm going to pre-emptively switch to TekSavvy Cable though so I don't have to worry about it or get stuck in a rush of customers, but I suspect then my 200 GB cap will actually be enforced. And then some time in the summer UBB will hit cable too, but at least Rogers actually provides some speed to resellers, unlike Bell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
univbee posted:You see, I have no problem with paying extra for using the internet "a lot," as long as it's reasonable. $40 more for "unlimited" internet? Fine. I'll live. I'm still paying more that the rest of the developed world, but I'll live. Because they dont have to. They have been given the green light to price their only competition out of business. The cable company across town is charging the exact same fees. They control the pricing of any isp using their government subsidized lines. Why would they have to make any effort to give you a better deal?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Viktor posted:Business accounts are exempt, its targeted at residential service/access only. Does anyone know if there are any restrictions for business accounts? Can I get one for my home? Currently with the plan I mentioned earlier there's a family of four using the connection + a small-time sports association to whom we rent out our basement. We've managed not to bust our cap so far (coming close at ~90GB usually). If I'm going to have to end up paying $10 more for less bandwidth I'd just rather get a business account, which seems to have a much more reasonable 300GB cap. Could I do this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Saw this article just now, Netflix is rating the ISPs with charts to show who is giving the best throughput: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/canada-comes-out-on-top-as-netflix-rates-north-american-isps.ars Shaw/Rogers do quite well. Wonder how long that'll be the case?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:Does anyone know if there are any restrictions for business accounts? Can I get one for my home? Currently with the plan I mentioned earlier there's a family of four using the connection + a small-time sports association to whom we rent out our basement. We've managed not to bust our cap so far (coming close at ~90GB usually). If I'm going to have to end up paying $10 more for less bandwidth I'd just rather get a business account, which seems to have a much more reasonable 300GB cap. Could I do this? Back in 2004 I had a business account with Rogers. I didn't have to show them any official papers or anything. The account was a little more expensive but was faster then residential offerings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:Back in 2004 I had a business account with Rogers. I didn't have to show them any official papers or anything. The account was a little more expensive but was faster then residential offerings. I figure at worse, the fact that we have tenants (who are a business) would work to our advantage. It's just kind of amazing that for the same price as their lovely 6/1 25GB offering I could get a legit business connection with a 300GB cap. Hell, I'm sure I could get my tenant to pay the difference between the current price and the business account.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Interesting sidenote, one of the local ISP's (Bell Aliant) made some changes today to their plans drastically reducing new subscriber fees and adding this nice bit:http://bit.ly/hBeHOg posted:Exclusive access to Bell Aliant’s Video on Demand content library, including the latest movie & DVD trailers, coverage of local events, live Atlantic Canadian concerts & sports coverage and much more No mention of UBB yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
I thought it was mentioned before that if you use Bell, on demand and streaming from their services would not count against your bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:I thought it was mentioned before that if you use Bell, on demand and streaming from their services would not count against your bandwidth. Monopoly? Who, me? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/27/technology-internet-usage-based-billing-mezei.html posted:The federal government is being formally asked to overturn a CRTC decision that will force smaller internet service providers to charge similar usage-based fees as Bell, Rogers and Shaw. Excellent, now if it gains some traction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
I have a theory. Bell knew this would be a bitter pill to swallow. They come out with the announcement of a 25GB cap. People revolt and there is a huge story in the news. Bell then lets up and tries to come across as the good guy and increase the minimum cap to 75MB. It's basic negotiation really. You have a target figure in mind so you low ball everyone. They come back with a counter offer, and you offer up something a little better then before. The other party agrees and feels like they made some head way with you. Meanwhile, you really just tricked this person into accepting the number you had in mind in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Good point. And it's probably already successful. Come on, 75 GB is totally more than enough for everybody. Stop downloading porn. And games (that you paid for). Buy Linux on a disc. Don't work from home. Don't watch TV without a Telecom-Approved cable or satellite connection. Don't have roommates or kids, or alternatively, each house-occupant should have their own internet connection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:The Globe has reversed it's misinformed, idiot position from yesterday: The guy who wrote both pieces you linked doesn't know anything about anything. I mean for god's sake, he used to be in a ska band. Anyway I agree that any "compromise" Bell winds up making is just bullshit that leads them to their original target. This really sucks, I was looking forward to moving back into the city in a few months and getting TekSavvy internet. I'm obviously still going to move, but now I don't have a great ISP to look forward to. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
univbee posted:Not only is this no longer the case (isn't it closer to like 35 gigs now?), that's per user. What if you're a family with 3 kids? Or college roommates? Or just happened to get a certain digital download PC game for yourself (or even as a gift)? It's also an average, meaning 50% of people use more. Appealing to the status quo/lowest common denominator has resulted in fantastic policies like No Child Left Behind and is in no way something to strive for. Nope - I've got access to raw usage data, and I'm just letting people know that not everyone uses 50+gigs of data. You'd be surprised how many people don't use anywhere near their cap max. There are lots of people that just get emails and surf a little bit. It's not 50%, but it's not 1% either - and no, I can't release the data. The CRTC is all about base service level equality among _everyone_. Parachute Underwear posted:Maybe, but why is the lowest-priced Bell plan a 2 gig affair? When my family first got a computer in late 2000 we signed up with Videotron and had a 2 gig plan for $40. Eleven years ago. Bell is seriously bringing out a plan reminiscent of what we had literally a decade ago. The 2 gig data plan is really for those people forced to have crappy (think 512kpbs or worse) lines and/or need the cheapest possible connection. Good for email and that's about it - it does get used for cheap things like alarm systems and the like that only use a small amount of data and don't require much bandwidth. Business accounts are generally based upon the zoning of your building. So don't always expect to be able to get one. But if you can get a business POTS line, you can then order a business DSL on it which is 6mpbs instead of 5mbps, and unencumbered by UBB. (You'll pay more for the business POTS line and probably the business rate DSL).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
unknown posted:... I've got access to raw usage data [...] and no, I can't release the data. Is there a way for the public to get access to this data you speak of?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
I still don't understand what the government gains from Bell and large telcos retaining their power, short of taking direct bribes. Or is this a CRTC issue and not a government issue? But the MP I e-mailed pretty much defended the CRTC.
Dudebro fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 23:31
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
A 56k connection with maximum utilization of it's bandwidth (it maxes at 64 kbps, so if you're topping the download at 53.3 k your upload will max at 10.7k, likewise when you max the upload at 33.6 k you can only download at 30.4 k) will provide 20 gigabytes of total transfer per month. I see no goddamn reason why a broadband line should ever be sold with less bandwidth per month than a dialup line, much less a tenth of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
unknown posted:Nope - I've got access to raw usage data, and I'm just letting people know that not everyone uses 50+gigs of data. You'd be surprised how many people don't use anywhere near their cap max. There are lots of people that just get emails and surf a little bit. It's not 50%, but it's not 1% either - and no, I can't release the data. That may be, but the fact of the matter is that we've gotten used to using the internet a certain way: I've been using tons of bandwidth for the better part of ten years (and even before that on dial-up) and am pretty sure I never caused any sort of hiccup for whatever ISP I was with. This is like if satellite cable swooped in and said you could now only watch 30 hours of TV a month. There are plenty of people who don't watch that much TV, but you bet your rear end people will be up in arms about it, and rightly so. EDIT: How widespread is your data sample anyway? Canada-wide, or a single community?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
This is all an **AA ploy to get people to count their bytes and discourage them from seeding their torrents, finally leading to the end of online piracy forever!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
I think it's actually a plot by zip.ca to keep their lovely mailed DVD subscriptions viable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
priznat posted:I think it's actually a plot by zip.ca to keep their lovely mailed DVD subscriptions viable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
unknown posted:Nope - I've got access to raw usage data, and I'm just letting people know that not everyone uses 50+gigs of data. You'd be surprised how many people don't use anywhere near their cap max. There are lots of people that just get emails and surf a little bit. It's not 50%, but it's not 1% either - and no, I can't release the data. Once again, if not everyone uses their data, why bother lowering the caps in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
I've got lots of raw data that says the telcos are nowhere near saturation in their bandwidth usage and this is a naked money grab because they have the CTCC in their pocket, but I can't show it to you
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:What makes it lovely? We were about to subscribe as a result. My friends who've used it loved it. I subscribed to it and could never get the movies I wanted. I had a lot of "well, I guess I could watch this sometime" movies wayyyyyy down in the list and those would always be the ones I got. So I removed all of those and then would end up getting nothing at all. This was when it first started up though so perhaps it's better now. It just seems like such an outdated way to do things, though. Digital distribution is better in every way and to think the ISPs could charge you more to stream a movie than the post office would charge zip.ca to ship a DVD across the frigging zone serviced by their distribution centre should make everyone even madder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
You hit the nail on the head there. The whole situation is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 00:45
|
|
|
rscott posted:I've got lots of raw data that says the telcos are nowhere near saturation in their bandwidth usage and this is a naked money grab because they have the CTCC in their pocket, but I can't show it to you They presented that data themselves to the CRTC but got approved anyways.  Parachute Underwear posted:Once again, if not everyone uses their data, why bother lowering the caps in the first place? Because then people who were at 75% of their previous cap will now have to hand over extra money, no effort needed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
Viktor posted:Excellent, now if it gains some traction. YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS fishmech posted:A 56k connection with maximum utilization of it's bandwidth (it maxes at 64 kbps, so if you're topping the download at 53.3 k your upload will max at 10.7k, likewise when you max the upload at 33.6 k you can only download at 30.4 k) will provide 20 gigabytes of total transfer per month. Pweller posted:This is all an **AA ploy to get people to count their bytes and discourage them from seeding their torrents, finally leading to the end of online piracy forever!  ) and traditional delivery hates it of course.
Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
univbee posted:Or make a "free" time period, like between midnight and 8 a.m. or something where I can go nuts. I'm willing to work with you ISPs, I pay you lots of money, WHY THE gently caress AREN'T YOU WILLING TO WORK WITH ME?! When I was doing my undergrad degree in Ottawa, the student government put together a petition and proposed to OC Transpo that they strike a deal to allow students to ride the bus with their student card. In exchange, OC Transpo would get a certain amount of money for every student at the university, regardless of whether that student would have bought a bus pass or not. OC Transpo's response: "right now, your students seem willing to pay the full price for bus passes [roughly $800 for the school year]. Why should we give you any kind of deal? If you don't want to pay as much, don't ride the bus." It is the exact same thing. What motivation do they have to decrease their costs? You already pay exactly what they want you to, and they're the only game in town. There is literally no reason for them to do anything that benefits you because what do they get out of it? This is monopolies 101, and the absolute #1 reason that they are specifically legislated out of existence in most forward-thinking parts of the world. [e] beaten, but I have a cool comparison to another monopoly. Except the current situation with internet access is more like if OC Transpo also owned every car company and all the roads, but it's okay because you can always ride a bicycle, it only costs you $2 for every hundred metres you go. orange lime fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
unknown posted:Nope - I've got access to raw usage data, and I'm just letting people know that not everyone uses 50+gigs of data. You'd be surprised how many people don't use anywhere near their cap max. There are lots of people that just get emails and surf a little bit. It's not 50%, but it's not 1% either - and no, I can't release the data. We don't need secret figures, the cable/telcos already had to submit proof of congestion awhile ago in response to a disputed tariff. The "proof" was fairly laughable which is part of what makes this seem all the more unreasonable. quote:I have a theory. Bell knew this would be a bitter pill to swallow. They come out with the announcement of a 25GB cap. People revolt and there is a huge story in the news. Bell then lets up and tries to come across as the good guy and increase the minimum cap to 75MB. Sure that's a common sales/negotiating tactic but that's not really what they're doing here. Any CRTC affirmed rates basically means that they can go hog wild on this for the next ten years. They use the CRTC selectively and ignore them where they feel it appropriate. This is essentially giving them the keys to the kingdom and potentially means that Canada will associate Internet usage with a utility - not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Another thing to make note of is how much content a GB is truly worth. For example: How much media (for instance, porn) could you have in 1998 with 1GB of space? Well considering the average image was probably 600x400 and the average video was 64kbps, quite a bit. So probably a couple dozen videos, and over a thousand photos. Today, most images are in the 1000's of pixels when it comes to resolution, and HD video content can be over 400kbps. So with 1GB of space, you'll get maybe 2 videos, and a couple hundred photos. So over time, that $2 you spend on that 1GB isn't going to go as far as it did before. The days of posting threads like  I went to a bikini convention [56K Warning]will now be I went to a bikini convention [Canada Warning]loving pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
whiskas posted:Today, most images are in the 1000's of pixels when it comes to resolution, and HD video content can be over 400kbps. So with 1GB of space, you'll get maybe 2 videos, and a couple hundred photos. Some sites have 1080p on their content so for 1GB were talking 10mins max.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
For any of you who switched to Telus (or remember their PR guy saying on TV that they wouldn't be charging overages.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
whiskas posted:The days of posting threads like It'd be funny if it weren't already true. I wanted to watch a stream today but since I only have about 5gb left until the 3rd I wanted to find a lower quality option. There wasn't one, so gently caress it I guess I'll be unentertained! I remember paying about a $100 overage back in the heyday of Napster when I had no concept of acceptable bandwidth use. I never thought I'd see those days again. Thanks CRTC!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
less than three posted:For any of you who switched to Telus (or remember their PR guy saying on TV that they wouldn't be charging overages.) Or perhaps, you are being hosed in the rear end on the street when a kind man offers you safety in his house, thankful for the offer you accept and enter the house at which point he locks you in the basement and fucks you in the rear end for three years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Or perhaps, you are being hosed in the rear end on the street when a kind man offers you safety in his house, thankful for the offer you accept and enter the house at which point he locks you in the basement and fucks you in the rear end for three years. This sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Thankfully due to Telus not following up on my web sign up they announce their bullshit before I've even switched over (not that I wasn't expecting it anyway).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 02:34
|
|