|
A little off topic but, hey drakkus, are you @shawinfo? I hope Telus brings Turbo 15 back up to 250GB because of this.
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Looking at those plans and just general internet packages all over the web, when are we collectively going to start measuring download speeds in megabytes and not megabits? Maybe once you also have upload speeds that aren't 0.125 megabytes per second or less?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
status posted:Never, since it's been that way since the beginning of the internet. Besides, if ISPs decided to switch, they'd be flooded with calls by people who don't know any better asking why their internet package is suddenly 8 times slower than it was before. I doubt it. Those who don't know any better just know they get "internet"; they wouldn't have a clue about bits, bytes, bandwidth, dry loops, or whatever. It's not really like their bill would break down every feature of their service either. I doubt most people would even notice except those that went looking for the info. fishmech posted:Maybe once you also have upload speeds that aren't 0.125 megabytes per second or less? drat, so I guess never then, at least in North America.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
Bit rate is too engrained in the fabric of telecom anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 11:31
|
|
|
drcru posted:A little off topic but, hey drakkus, are you @shawinfo? Nope. @shawinfo is actually handled by the (social) media team, of which I am not. I don't speak in any sort of official capacity.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
Drakkus posted:(I work for Shaw, and this is my OPINION, and no more) I don't know you - but this framing of fairness and "has an impact" is bullshit. When we talk about UBB we're not talking about anything but last mile. Teksavvy has its own connections (that it pays for, that afaik are NOT related to Bell or Shaw) past the last mile. You appear to be (deliberately?) conflating bandwidth consumption past the last mile with actual bandwidth costs. Anything but cost+ in this is just pure robbery. Nationalize that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
quote:(I work for Shaw, and this is my OPINION, and no more) I think he's referring to the newer plans, not UBB. He's basically saying they are charging what they can get away with and until people stop them they will continue doing so. Most of the expenses are a known quantity and have been for some time now. If had anything to do with costs or fairness then these companies would be offering incentives for traffic control, like refunding unused traffic inside of peak hours, month to month bandwidth carry over or offering cheaper bandwidth outside of peak usage times. Cable revenues for many companies have started to flatten or fall and bandwidth is viewed as a very high profit item, cable execs have said as much publicly even. They're a business so I can't really fault them for it, it's just a shame people tolerate it so far. The packages themselves aren't totally offensive or something but it's very much Shaw having its cake and eating it too. Considering all of the speeds are most likely "up to" to whatever they're rated at and will likely be much lower, you're essentially paying a high price for the bandwidth alone. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 14:49 on May 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
If im understanding Shaws new packages come next month I can switch to the broadband 50 package get a huge upgrade in speed and bandwidth for only 10 dollars more? I'm on regular Shaw High Speed right now. http://shaw.ca/newpackages/?WT.mc_id=C995A2047S98
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 15:11
|
|
|
While it's nice that they now at least provide options, the new plans are pretty transparent. While the numbers are not identical it's fairly obvious that the unlimited options are simply rebranded maximum overage fees...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
Wow, I'm impressed. They at least implemented half the stuff we talked about in the public consult. After that conference call I was expecting something much worse. I look forward to seeing what this year's student plan will look like.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 15:34
|
|
|
After looking over their new plans, I'm still pretty happy that I switched to TekSavvy. I don't have or want cable TV, so from the looks of it, I'm left with the choice of Extreme 25/2.5 (same as Teksavvy), 250GB (50GB/month less than TekSavvy) for $59/month ($22/month more than Teksavvy), or the 50/3, 400GB package (plus cable I don't want) for $48/month more than what I have with Teksavvy. The extra speed would be nice, but 25Mbps is already pretty good, and I wouldn't pay $48 more for really that alone. It'll be interesting if Teksavvy will be able to offer a higher speed in the near future, though.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
Backov posted:When we talk about UBB we're not talking about anything but last mile. Teksavvy has its own connections (that it pays for, that afaik are NOT related to Bell or Shaw) past the last mile. I wasn't talking about wholesale UBB, and I 100% agree with you that UBB of TPIA (wholesale) customers is shenanigans. I was talking about retail UBB in general, specifically that of the new Shaw plans. I feel that, especially in the case of bell, TPIA customers pay for a pipe, and what they do with that pipe is their own damned business. I feel that retail is different in that the expectation from customers of a 'dumb pipe' is simply not there, and if providers were required to maintain the capacity to support near-total utilization by their customers, we'd probably be paying even more than we do now. Even so, the backhaul upgrades, node splits, and tier reclamations to provide the level of capacity customers *do* expect are expensive, and UBB models are about passing on costs to People Who Use It More, even if said people do not necessarily contribute much to that cost. I'm not saying that more usage = higher cost. I'm saying that model makes sense to people, and because a perfect model would mean the costs get passed onto the 9-5ers who make up the majority of your userbase, it aint gonna happen. I'm also saying that you're pulling 250+ Gigs a month, you're not an innocent bystander, because if the caps are high enough, unless you're intentionally *only* using it off-peak, there is a certainly a higher than average contribution to the costs. At the end of the day, this whole argument over costs to provide the service is completely and totally moot. In a market like this one, price is NOT determined by ($Cost to Provide) + (%Expected Profit). It's determined by ($What the Other Guy is Charging) - ($How much less we need to charge to steal the Other Guy's Customers). Until/Unless the market changes, that's the model these companies are going to be working under, and I feel these plans are Pretty Good Overall, considering that fact.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
The only thing is that 250GB isn't that much to begin with and easily reached when your household uses Netflix, Hulu, etc. Not to mention that 250GBs usually costs the ISP next to nothing as most of that content is provided by a local CDN. On top of that, most of the peering contracts between ISPs and the US tend to be cost neutral.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
I've done 175gb this month, reducing my usage from normal. (I usually do around 200-250) The fact alone that I have a single roommate also using the connection would throw me over the 250gb cap. Comparing Shaw Extreme ($59, 25/2, 250GB) vs. Teksavvy ($55, 15/1, unlimited) it's clear Shaw isn't really offering much improvement to its clients, considering what Teksavvy is offering (and handing over the TPIA rate to Shaw for last mile.) less than three fucked around with this message at 01:53 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Considering all of the speeds are most likely "up to" to whatever they're rated at and will likely be much lower, you're essentially paying a high price for the bandwidth alone. Shaw's speeds are definitely 'Up To', however they are *usually quite good about what is and is not 'acceptable' speeds. I'm not saying they'll roll a truck if you're only getting 95 of your 100 megs down, but if you have actual legitimate concerns that you aint gettin the speeds you're payin fer, Shaw will do whatever they can to fix it. I work for Shaw, and I've only seen a few cases where speeds lower than 75% of advertised were declared "The Best We Can Do", and most of those were due to poo poo like owners of apartment buildings refusing to get the shoddy wiring fixed, or to allow access for us to do it. *The caveat here is that if the lower speeds are systematic across an area (and for reasons more complex than simple saturation, which is normally fixed fairly quickly), there are some cases where the 'acceptable' speeds for a particular package are, officially or not, lower than one would expect. These are pretty much all geographically remote, and given the scale of the network upgrades going on, I expect most or all of these areas will be fixed by the time these plans are out. I hope.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
Does anyone know if Telus is actively improving Optik service in areas? I'd like to bump up to the 25Mb "Turbo" but it wasn't available when I had it installed. Mostly so I can record or watch 2 HD channels at the same time 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
Drakkus posted:However, I don't know if a flat +$ for unlimited would fly, since the data caps seem to be intended as a way to distribute costs in a way that *feels* fair, and a bigger pipe, if you're using it at peak, has a larger impact. Drakkus posted:I don't think it's unfair to charge heavy usage at peak more than the baseline. For example, Virgin in the UK rates data differently based on peak and off peak, but you won't see that happen here because there's no $ to be made in overage fees/automatic plan changes. It gets said time and time again that there are many more effective ways to control peak congestion. Slapping on a flat data cap is not one of those. The data cap is to squeeze extra profit out of a service they've already sold people, and you don't have to look further than the latest Shaw corporate minutes to see that. less than three fucked around with this message at 02:00 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:The only thing is that 250GB isn't that much to begin with and easily reached when your household uses Netflix, Hulu, etc. Not to mention that 250GBs usually costs the ISP next to nothing as most of that content is provided by a local CDN. On top of that, most of the peering contracts between ISPs and the US tend to be cost neutral. I agree. IP transit is so cheap that we may as well call it free. I'm saying the cost comes in providing the throughput required for a customer base with 50+Mb pipes, and that those who are higher than average usage are, statistically speaking, probably contributing more to the maximum throughput required. (Unless your usage is mostly off peak, in which case you're pretty much getting screwed.) Also, regarding the 250 GB thing: All the existing plans will, at least for now, be handled as Shaw has always handled them. A specific team will contact the highest users, and have a conversation. (And I mean the *really* high users. You usually have to go pretty far over, systematically, to get the phonecall). This is going to eventually change, and the plans are to have a system where you are temporarily bumped up to a higher package, much like the new plans, but the details have not been announced, which means for the forseeable future, the caps on existing packages are *extremely* soft ones.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
priznat posted:Does anyone know if Telus is actively improving Optik service in areas? I'd like to bump up to the 25Mb "Turbo" but it wasn't available when I had it installed. 2HD and 1SD is the standard 15/1 optik If you got to your tv and click menu system info and then connection info it should tell you the supported streams.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
less than three posted:That's fair. But that's not what Shaw is doing. I agree. It's not about controlling peak congestion, it's about 'passing on the costs' (Read: Offsetting increased cap ex, thereby boosting/maintaining profits) in a way that *looks* fair, at a glance, if you don't really understand what causes congestion. Without a healthy level of competition, there is no disincentive for a company not to do this, and with a natural duopoly, that is unlikely to change without government intervention. I was arguing that, statistically speaking, if the caps are high enough, people who go over them are almost certainly contributing higher than average to peak, which means it's not a complete screw-job. Still, it's admittedly a pretty moot point, since none of this is really about passing on costs anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:The only thing is that 250GB isn't that much to begin with and easily reached when your household uses Netflix, Hulu, etc. Not to mention that 250GBs usually costs the ISP next to nothing as most of that content is provided by a local CDN. On top of that, most of the peering contracts between ISPs and the US tend to be cost neutral. 250 GB a month = the ISP claiming to only be able to handle sustained download at 797 kilobits per second
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
I spent 40 minutes on hold to get a sales representative tonight who didn't know anything about the new packages and couldn't help me, she promised to give me a callback next monday but I doubt it. Whenever Shaw feels like getting around to giving me a callback im pretty tempted just to tell them to shove it up their rear end and that im going with Telus. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 03:45
|
|
|
Sir Liquid Jerk posted:I spent 40 minutes on hold to get a sales representative tonight who didn't know anything about the new packages and couldn't help me, she promised to give me a callback next monday but I doubt it. My understanding is that most frontline Shaw people found out about this at the same time we did. If you want to upgrade to one of the newer plans you should probably wait until they are available, then a wait time if they are backlogged with upgrades/run out of docsis 3 modems.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 07:37
|
|
|
After being stuck with 95 GB per month for so long in Ontario, 250 GB sounds like a godsend to me. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
Sir Liquid Jerk posted:I spent 40 minutes on hold to get a sales representative tonight who didn't know anything about the new packages and couldn't help me, she promised to give me a callback next monday but I doubt it. Does Teksavvy not exist in your area? If it does, give them a call. There's a 90 per cent chance you'll be very much helped, and if you're not, give me their name and I'll go upstairs and slap them. (Not really but yeah. Unless it's Louise. She wouldn't mind.)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 13:56
|
|
|
Sprawl posted:2HD and 1SD is the standard 15/1 optik That's weird, I do have the 15/1 but only get 1 HD channel at a time. I should phone Telus up and beef at them I guess. The installer told me this would be the case but he did mention it's a good idea to phone up to pester Telus about it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:I work for Teksavvy. Yes, they will exist in a year. The only way they might not exist in a year is if the government, despite changing Industry ministers, goes head on into allowing foreign investors to come in and AT&T buys up Teksavvy for a big enough price to make a family company sell to create AT&T Canada. Even then you're going to get awesome service.* (Plus, there's the whole UBB thing that this thread was started on.)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:Sure, unless they shut down last-mile resale. That's what I'm concerned about. The very existence of last-mile resale sticks in the craw of some hardcore conservatives, and what with this new majority... Unless the Conservatives have this completely hidden agenda hidden from even those who accuse them of a hidden agenda, I can't see them protecting Bell over the last mile. Haven't heard anything otherwise. Our biggest hurdle with Paradis is the fact he might want to conduct everything in French.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:Our biggest hurdle with Paradis is the fact he might want to conduct everything in French.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:Unless the Conservatives have this completely hidden agenda hidden from even those who accuse them of a hidden agenda, I can't see them protecting Bell over the last mile. Haven't heard anything otherwise. Our biggest hurdle with Paradis is the fact he might want to conduct everything in French. Have you actually HEARD anything from Industry about what they're planning to do? Has anybody? If you haven't, I really don't want to stake my internet access on people's confidence in Conservative goodwill.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
I... like these changes a lot. I get Shaw Extreme now and only if I go loving insane will I breach 200GB. I don't have Netflix or anyhing like that. Nearly doubling my speeds for the same price (my family bundles everything with Shaw), this is great news. gently caress, I wanted to hate Shaw so much but this stuff is reasonable. Unlimited would be nice but I just can't see myself using up that much bandwidth. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be happy or content with $60 internet that has to be bundled with television. Different Strokes for... yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be happy or content with $60 internet that has to be bundled with television. Because the only other option is telus which is $40 internet bundled with tv.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be happy or content with $60 internet that has to be bundled with television. Well, to be fair, the $59 for 25/2.5 is standalone, though obviously that's still a fair bit more than you guys charge. You do also advertise that you charge for stuff that we advertise that we don't, but that's a tiny sidenote, at best. (Though, it is taken into account when people are comparing.) The real answer though is you guys are "new" in the areas you're competing with Shaw, and people like to have everything with one provider, so they're naturally hesitant to switch unless it's everything.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be happy or content with $60 internet that has to be bundled with television. Because it's better than we feared it would be and a hell of a lot better than what Rogers and Bell are doing in the east. Obviously it needs to cost less, and be available standalone to be competitive on the international stage, but it's a step in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Drakkus posted:Well, to be fair, the $59 for 25/2.5 is standalone, though obviously that's still a fair bit more than you guys charge. You do also advertise that you charge for stuff that we advertise that we don't, but that's a tiny sidenote, at best. (Though, it is taken into account when people are comparing.) There will always be Canadians that go for the Coca-Cola and Pepsi of the telecommunications market even if a better deal is out there. Especially when Pepsi is providing your pop, water and energy drink while Faygo is only offering you pop. My point was less "gently caress Shaw for $60 internet/TV" and more "gently caress Canada for being content or considering it a step in the right direction for piss poor internet speeds at an expensive rate". There's a much bigger problem with Canadian telecom in focusing on the internet that's bigger than the current situation. And honestly, the biggest culprits are Bell and the CRTC.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
It's pretty clear that Shaw's packages are simply another angle to approach controlling the end-user's options so that a dying medium through which they decide what you watch, when you watch it is still patronized. I realize this makes me sound like a dirty hippy but I've been without TV for almost 10 years now. Being able to satisfy my boob tube urges through the internet and seeing this kind of manipulation for the coke and pepsi crowd is really upsetting to me. Im mad bro
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
Requiring television packages for the unlimited plans is clearly a move designed to protect their cable offerings. If they didn't require it people like me would get all their content through the internet, which is becoming easier, and easier to do legally. I'm still glad that they aren't reducing our caps and charging us outrageous rates for going over. Will this move make me stop criticizing their pricing plans? Not at all. They easily have the best plans of the big 4 now though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
Yeah. As someone who still wants a TV package this should be fine, but I know that a lot of people have no interest in it. If I was one of them I would certainly be annoyed that unbundling the two isn't possible.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
quote:From DSLReports: Standalone options are almost certainly going to be introduced, but I don't have the details. It's a pretty safe bet that they will be between 10 and 20 bucks higher than the 'With Legacy TV' amounts. (Bundling discounts with Shaw have been, historically, 10 bucks per additional product, but the new packages work a little differently, so who knows.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 02:26
|
|