|
Shaw: It would cost too much money to implement this new billing method. CRTC: How much will it cost you? Shaw: We don't know we haven't looked into it yet, but we think it will cost A LOT! How are they getting away with this poo poo. Not to mention other ISP's have said it would cost barely anything to switch to that billing method.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
jizzpowered posted:How are they getting away with this poo poo. If they do get away with it, that's one thing. Right now they are allowed to look like jack asses and at the end, CRTC is going to make a ruling. And right now, all I hear is comparisons to the CNOC model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
When is the CRTC actually going to be ruling on it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:If they do get away with it, that's one thing. Right now they are allowed to look like jack asses and at the end, CRTC is going to make a ruling. And right now, all I hear is comparisons to the CNOC model. I mean why isn't the CRTC saying anything, hopefully they're at least taking notes down about this bullshit. After he said that I was hoping Konrad was going to say " How can you say it will cost you a lot if you haven't even looked into it.". Are these going to be going on all week or is it just today?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
So anybody else know anything about these new shaw data plans? I called and asked, and apparently they're not going to have the modems until next month sometime, and they seem to be routers as well, which worries me a bit. I had a bad experience with a dsl provider that had a modem with router capabilities that had scads of ports that could not be forwarded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Furnok Dorn posted:So anybody else know anything about these new shaw data plans? I called and asked, and apparently they're not going to have the modems until next month sometime, and they seem to be routers as well, which worries me a bit. The cisco devices that they will be using are very nice and won't have those kinds of issues. Even the dlink 604+ i was using from telus which is a 4 port + wireless + modem worked very well while doing heavy internet use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Sprawl posted:The cisco devices that they will be using are very nice and won't have those kinds of issues. Oh awesome. I'm super thrilled about these plans, I've the fastest internet I can get in my area (northern ontario) and its only about 5mbps, so this is going to be a massive massive boost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
So I can't get cable internet from a reseller because Rogers has reached their "threshold" in my town. It's confusing because this is a Rogers/Cogeco town so I don't know who owns what.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 00:01
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Is that through rogers or Teksavvy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
Sprawl posted:The cisco devices that they will be using are very nice and won't have those kinds of issues. Also, the SMC units that are being used 'right now' (Read: Whenever your install is booked) can be put in bridged mode, making them effectively a modem and a four port switch. The cisco units should be pretty soon, but I can't say what initial stock levels will be like, so there is a chance the SMC units will still be used past the point of the cisco units going 'live'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
EngineerJoe posted:Is that through rogers or Teksavvy? It's Distributel. I've always thought that cogeco owned the lines in my area though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 12:56
|
|
|
Has anyone else on the Teksavvy 15mbit cable had a problem where they were only getting 10mbit, and the Teksavvy support people just say "well, it says here you're at 15mbit"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 14:44
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:It's Distributel. I've always thought that cogeco owned the lines in my area though. I may be completely off base on this but wait a while and this might change. I think Cogeco is the cable co that were being big dicks about the wording of the original TPIA CRTC ruling and only allowing the independents 100Mbit connections at each POI. If Distributel is actually bothering with 100Mbit connections then they could get saturated real quick. The newer ruling fixes this and Teksavvy, Acanac, etc all have plans to move into Cogeco once the dust settles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 15:04
|
|
|
KvF's comments right now are really frustrating. Getting hung up on whether it's a "market failure" and saying that the structure seems competitive. Ugh. It's so anti-competitive, I thought that had been made clear over the course of the hearings! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Honestly I wish these hearings were about spinning off and regulating the last mile as a non-profit wholesaler and not just how much or how little the incumbents can gently caress the independents. That was the right answer but so many concessions have been made against the independents at this point that its not even a discussion point anymore, and the opponents of UBB are just doing damage control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
I must of missed it but they haven't explained it but for anyone confused by the "midnight madness sales" they mean off peak no metering. So say 1am-6am any traffic would not count towards your monthly cap. It's mind boggling they are trying move consumer habits as the huge issue this day and age is video streaming, not P2P/downloads. Edit: Oh hey Bell, here's CISCO forcasting Canadian traffic. quote:In Canada, IP traffic will grow 3-fold from 2010 to 2015, a compound annual growth rate of 26%. It's really what Bell is fighting to kill off as IPTV uses the same physical network but not counted. Viktor fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jul 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
Haha loving Mirko is getting more and more upset, and he's getting called out on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
jizzpowered posted:Haha loving Mirko is getting more and more upset, and he's getting called out on it. He always sounds like if he hasn't convinced the CRTC that Bell deserves to make more money, he's going to get fired. If that's just how he talks, strange. If it's real, he deserves every penny he gets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:He always sounds like if he hasn't convinced the CRTC that Bell deserves to make more money, he's going to get fired. Nothing is acceptable to Bell, and your lucky they even show up 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
May I just vent about Bell for a bit? So for about the past 10 years, our family's house has used Rogers for phone, TV, and Internet, and never really had a problem with any of those. The 60 GB cap we have sounds puny, but we've only gone over it once in those 10 years, since we're not a download-heavy family (no Netflix, we usually purchase physical copies of games, etc.). However, about a couple months ago, my dad switched over to Bell for the satellite TV and for a couple other reasons. And we would be getting an apparently better deal on the Internet (faster speed, larger cap) for at least a couple of years. Now, we're perfectly happy with our satellite TV. No problems there. The Internet and phone were another story. Right off the bat, the technician screwed up the connections, so someone had to come over the next day to fix what the first guy did. Once up and running, it didn't seem any faster than Rogers' speeds (maybe even a bit slower), plus it was a bit finicky accessing certain sites. I could've lived with it, though. And then, about a week into having Bell, we would get intermittent disconnections throughout the day, any day of the week. Plus, you could regularly hear static over the phone lines. We had about three guys come over to identify the problem and none could. My dad even made a phone call to Bell and was told the problem was outside the house by one person and inside the house by another guy who was taking the call in India. We switched our modem and that didn't help. Ultimately, the problem was with the node far down the street, and it would take at least a couple of days to fix whenever they got around to it. So we just said screw it and went back to our old Rogers plan, minus the cable TV. Luckily we still had all the cables and connections from Rogers, so it was an easy and painless switch back, and it was done today in less than an hour. We looked briefly at Teksavvy, but at this point we just wanted something that definitely worked for us in the past. So yeah, at least from my experience, Canadian internet access does suck, but Bell sucks more than Rogers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
This guy sounds like he might be about to come out with some heavy-hitting stuff against Bell!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
Argh, can you summarize? I'm not around speakers until after work 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
I honestly wonder what kind of horrible pro telco ruling the CRTC is going to lay down upon us heathens. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
The commissioners seemed to be a bit tired of Bell's poo poo during the hearings, though they might start getting swung back when the lobbyists get their claws into them. Bibic's basically just playing for the cameras; he knows damned well that his company can bend the ears of the commissioners whenever they please. Still, it seems like they aren't completely opposed to capacity-based solutions, and they listened pretty closely to the 95th percentile proposals. It seems like they're far less likely to go with per-user UBB and, instead, go with some sort of aggregated congestion-related fee. That's not the worst thing in the world, as long as it's aimed at peak usage instead of off-peak usage. (That's probably the best part: they seem to be receptive to the idea of peak billing instead of general usage billing.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
Why haven't any of these ISPs decided to go with peak-times throttling? It's what the British ISPs do for the most part, and it actually is a solution to the claimed problems of congestion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why haven't any of these ISPs decided to go with peak-times throttling? It's what the British ISPs do for the most part, and it actually is a solution to the claimed problems of congestion. Because there's no extra revenue in that, which UBB/AVP is actually about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
less than three posted:Because there's no extra revenue in that, which UBB/AVP is actually about. Also Bell hasn't even been able to give a straight answer on where exactly the congestion is, or more importantly, why the wholesaler fees they've been raking in for years aren't being used to build out infrastructure to support the traffic from wholesalers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
Bell's position seems to literally come across as "we aren't going to build out any more capacity for existing subscribers, so we have to beat the living hell out of their wallets until they learn to be loving content with what they have". That's what all that "disincentive" poo poo comes down to. They want to build out capacity, yes, but only to suck in new customers and convert people from satellite to IPTV. Good ol' Internet access can get hosed. (Which kind of nicely fits into the whole "post-PC" thing, doesn't it? Bell's interests are much like Apple's interests: converting people from using programs on their computer to using apps on their smartphones. If you're going to push people away from PCs, choking the poo poo out of wireline internet usage is a damned good way to do it.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 09:01
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:I honestly wonder what kind of horrible pro telco ruling the CRTC is going to lay down upon us heathens. None of them seem to like AVP. 95th Percentile is well regarded but CRTC thinks it'll be a litigation nightmare. Two members of CRTC really, really like Primus' proposal and every one on the inside thinks that'll be the choice they make. But again, it's just speculation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
Any details on the Primus proposal? I haven't really dug into it
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why haven't any of these ISPs decided to go with peak-times throttling? It's what the British ISPs do for the most part, and it actually is a solution to the claimed problems of congestion. I still think Shaw does this. Obviously speeds will decrease during peak times of congestion, but the speeds I get at different times of the day can be charted like clockwork. The only two conclusions are that either Shaw is throttling, or there is the exact same amount of congestion every day at the same time in my area. The latter doesn't seem very likely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I still think Shaw does this. Obviously speeds will decrease during peak times of congestion, but the speeds I get at different times of the day can be charted like clockwork. The only two conclusions are that either Shaw is throttling, or there is the exact same amount of congestion every day at the same time in my area. The latter doesn't seem very likely. It's the latter, and it's really not that unlikely. Most people work or go to school during the week, so the usage is pretty damned predictable. Weekends are less predictable, admittedly, but Monday to Friday it's almost uncanny how predictable it is. Seriously though, Shaw throttles upstream P2P traffic during peak hours. All other peak-hour slowdown, assuming you rule out the odd edge cases, is congestion. (Edit: Though there is more than one type of congestion, mind you.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
I still don't buy it. I've been charting the speeds I get at certain times of the day for a week now, and I'm getting the same speeds almost to the megabit at any given time. I would understand if the speeds were even slightly more variable, but when I can look at my watch and go "Oh, it's 6:30, I'm going to get 77mbs down." and it's accurate almost to the megabit every single day, then I have to wonder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 11:37
|
|
|
8ender posted:Any details on the Primus proposal? I haven't really dug into it I thought it sounded different but when I spoke to my boss, she said it's 95th percentile basically, just that Primus didn't want to work with CNOC in presenting it. So if they go with Primus, it's still technically a win over what Bell was offering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
I guess it was mentioned a while back, but what were these new hearings for and what's the significance of them? Are things just getting worse, but it's being mitigated by "the good guys"? All I know is that for me, I'm stuck with no wholesale options in my town and I have to keep paying to sign up for cable and being refunded when the application is rejected for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:I guess it was mentioned a while back, but what were these new hearings for and what's the significance of them? Are things just getting worse, but it's being mitigated by "the good guys"? These hearings will lead to a new way of how Internet is monitored and charged by all companies in Canada. If the message did get through to the CRTC, then Bell will no longer be allowed to double dip you and IISPs on Internet charges. If it did not get through, Internet in Canada will be left behind in the telecommunications world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
Thanks for that explanation. I was also wondering how this whole hearing thing was initiated. Was this planned ever since the first UBB hearings or did something else stir this up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Thanks for that explanation. This was called sometime after CRTC was told to reverse the UBB ruling. I always see a date of May in the CRTC documents about the hearing, but I'm not sure if May was when they called it, when it started or when they announced it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
So now...I guess the lovely internet will have to do until they reach a conclusion And it only gets shittier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
How accurate are the cable plans on teksaavy's site? It's time for me to renew with Shaw for my student plan and they are offering me 25Mbit down for $23/mo. I'd like to give my money to the little guy, but not if it's going to cost me more than twice as much to take a hit in speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 04:59
|
|
