Not sure if anyone's already started a thread on this, but for those that don't know - be prepared to start paying overage charges and usage fees for your home internet service (yes, wired connections like DSL and cable) just like wireless data plans. D: Now you have to watch your GB even on a hardline, always-on connection, or pay the (stupidly punitive and exorbitant) price.
For example, check out Shaw's updated page for their standard 'High-Speed' offering (http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/High-Speed/) - 60GB/mo usage and a whopping $2/GB if and when you go over! Okay, so say you go up to their 'Extreme' offering like I had - well, that's 100GB/mo and $1/GB overage (ooh, half price)... but still something you can EASILY hit just surfing YouTube (especially in HD) or Netflix, let alone downloads. Oh, and you know those massive WoW patches Blizzard likes to put out over BitTorrent, right? If you leave uploading on, you get charged for THAT, too. ;) This is combined download + upload usage. They don't offer an unlimited usage bundle; the 'best' being $50 (!) for an extra 250GB. If you pre-pay for it, so they can charge you regardless of whether you use it or not.
Telus' 'high speed' DSL isn't much better, at 75GB/mo and 125GB/mo for 'turbo' - their 'Optik' packages don't seem to say anything, however, but you HAVE to bundle in their expensive new TV offering to get it.
So, what do we do? The CRTC handed down a rule saying that even semi-independent ISPs can get shafted by their last-mile providers - Bell back east is preparing to try and crush them all with extremely punitive overage charges and low caps (something like 25GB/mo) for any ISP that uses them just to get the last mile to the door - that's a cost that was partly taxpayer funded (the building of the telephone system)! It's only a matter of time before the others follow.
Well, I used close to 300GB in November - Shaw hadn't started charging me for any overages yet, and they claim they'll call you and give you a month first to get it in order... but I've also heard rumours they're going to start that process Feb 1st. :/ So today, I finished hooking up my dry loop DSL from TekSavvy (http://teksavvy.com/en/default.asp) (switch it to BC in the top right; took me a while to notice that!) - yes, it uses Telus as the last mile and syncs at 6Mbit down/1Mbit up just like their standard 'high speed' package, but TekSavvy handles the rest of the infrastructure, including uplinks to the internet itself (I see teksavvy.com addresses in traceroutes, not Telus ones). AND, at least for now, their bandwidth charges are much, MUCH more reasonable - 200GB/mo usage with $0.25/GB overage - plus, I sprung for their static IP+newsgroups package ($4) and 'unlimited usage' option for an extra $10. Yes. Unlimited usage. No caps, no fuss, just 24/7 saturate your connection if you so desire. :P
I called Shaw and cancelled - their service is still amazing and it makes me sad to have to go (they're not even charging me for the remainder of the month like most would), but I did my best to politely explain to the CSR why I was leaving, told them I had switched to TekSavvy because I'm scared of $300+ internet bills - I can't nor do I want nor care to control what my roommates are using (provided it's not horribly illegal of course XD). He asked me if there was anything I could do for them to get me back, and I told him flat out - get rid of the usage charges, or offer a competitive/reasonable 'unlimited usage' option for $10-20. Of course he couldn't do it, but he wrote it all down, hopefully to pass up to corporate. ;)
So far, I'm lucky in that I'm getting a good 5.7-ish Mbit down and 0.87-ish Mbit up speedtest result for my 6/1 line, but of course running a cut up Cat6 from the demarc and getting something like under 7dB of line attenuation probably helps. ;) Their customer service has been prompt at getting back to me when I've had questions, and they're an ISP that is pretty much run by fellow nerds. The CEO posts regularly on DSL Reports/Broadband Reports (http://www.dslreports.com/), they have an official support forum there (guy told me the connection info for the newsgroup service that's part of the $4/mo static IP setup), and they're even rolling out dual-stack IPv4 + IPv6 accounts back east where supported, presumably with plans to bring it out here. :D Yes, you'll be able to get an IPv6 /56 from them and run it with your existing IPv4 setup. They take pictures of their rack and brag about the multiple 10Gb connections they have to run to it to provide our connectivity, and the CEO actually goes to rallies with signs to protest for Net Neutrality and against this Usage Based Billing initiative.
Only downside is the fact that it's all prepaid, and you have to pay the activation fee, buy a modem, etc. all up-front - so the first month was almost $200 for me. X.x;
I'll keep an eye on how things go with my new service, but Day 1 is going great. :P At the risk of sounding like a shameless plug, too, if anyone else is interested in TekSavvy's stuff, let me know because I can get $1/mo knocked off for referrals. ;) Feel free to ask me questions or have me run tests, too - if you want to know, say, what my latency is like to a certain server or anything like that. n_n
I do believe I'll be telling Shaw to go take a flying, flaming fuck-you leap off a short pier, then. The SVN I do my day job out of is ~40 gigabytes nowadays. I am consistently pushing a gigabyte or more per day just on work internet useage, nevermind YouTube, streamed video, audio sample downloads, and Steam game purchases/game updates. I would likely estimate my monthly useage to be ~200 gigabytes, personally. Before my roomies are counted.
Here's a story the CBC did on it. The only media coverage I've seen on it, Not surprising being Bell and Shaw not wanting bad press about them on thier networks.
http://openmedia.ca/blog/cbc-explains-usage-based-billing (http://openmedia.ca/blog/cbc-explains-usage-based-billing)
Here a petition on to stop it http://openmedia.ca/meter (http://openmedia.ca/meter)
: Selkit January 14, 2011, 01:55:44 -07:00
I do believe I'll be telling Shaw to go take a flying, flaming fuck-you leap off a short pier, then. The SVN I do my day job out of is ~40 gigabytes nowadays. I am consistently pushing a gigabyte or more per day just on work internet useage, nevermind YouTube, streamed video, audio sample downloads, and Steam game purchases/game updates. I would likely estimate my monthly useage to be ~200 gigabytes, personally. Before my roomies are counted.
See, that's exactly it - I'm always uploading videos and stuff of the bands that I'm in, or songs - some of which are uncompleted raw tracks (okay, you can compress them into a .bz2 or similar, but 96KHz/24-bit WAVs are NOT small. Compressible, but still not small!) - I'm not a
business so there's no way I could afford a proper unmetered line with crazy upload speeds, but it's not like I'm the stereotypical only-consumer-of-content either. :/ Considering my Shaw upload was 1Mbit and my TekSavvy upload is also 1Mbit, meh - I'm eating the downgrade in downstream, but it's still 'good enough' for my needs right now. :p
: WKoot January 14, 2011, 05:17:26 -07:00
Here's a story the CBC did on it. The only media coverage I've seen on it, Not surprising being Bell and Shaw not wanting bad press about them on thier networks.
http://openmedia.ca/blog/cbc-explains-usage-based-billing (http://openmedia.ca/blog/cbc-explains-usage-based-billing)
Here a petition on to stop it http://openmedia.ca/meter (http://openmedia.ca/meter)
Thanks - it was late last night and I didn't have any good links on the issue off-hand. :)
How much YouTube HD would you need to do to hit 60 GB? I'm thinking a lot.
I think some of this is down to (and I apologize if it sounds like I've drunk the Kool-Aid here) making sure everyone's getting a decent Internet experience - ISPs used to be able to tell us we were getting "unlimited" data without actually having to budget bandwidth for a significant number of people using massive amounts of it. Was that a little dishonest? Yeah, probably - they should've been up front about what "expected" usage was. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and people are going to have to start paying for those massive amounts of bandwidth.
Will ISPs use this as an excuse to make some extra money above and beyond the cost of providing that additional bandwidth? Yeah, probably.
I think the concept of well-defined limits and overage charges is one we're going to have to get used to, though. The days of "unlimited" are on the decline.
I don't think Shaw's limits are too unreasonable. This has been happening in the mobile phone arena, too, and recently T-Mobile UK reduced their cap on "reasonable usage" of their phone data plans from 3 GB to 500 MB. Yeah, you read that right. I don't know about you guys but I routinely use 1 GB of data a month on my phone, and I don't tether or watch a ton of videos or anything. Now TMUK is saying the limits will only apply to new customers, but someone's still getting screwed here.
I think the key is to be reasonable in defining what constitutes a "normal" amount and what constitutes an "excessive" amount of bandwidth. Maybe the government should be making that determination rather than leaving it to ISPs and telcos with a profit axe to grind. At the very least, they should ban use of the word "unlimited" unless it really means unlimited and force companies to be very up-front about what they're delivering.
: Silvermink January 14, 2011, 10:07:03 -07:00
How much YouTube HD would you need to do to hit 60 GB? I'm thinking a lot.
I think some of this is down to (and I apologize if it sounds like I've drunk the Kool-Aid here) making sure everyone's getting a decent Internet experience - ISPs used to be able to tell us we were getting "unlimited" data without actually having to budget bandwidth for a significant number of people using massive amounts of it. Was that a little dishonest? Yeah, probably - they should've been up front about what "expected" usage was. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and people are going to have to start paying for those massive amounts of bandwidth.
Will ISPs use this as an excuse to make some extra money above and beyond the cost of providing that additional bandwidth? Yeah, probably.
I think the concept of well-defined limits and overage charges is one we're going to have to get used to, though. The days of "unlimited" are on the decline.
I don't think Shaw's limits are too unreasonable. This has been happening in the mobile phone arena, too, and recently T-Mobile UK reduced their cap on "reasonable usage" of their phone data plans from 3 GB to 500 MB. Yeah, you read that right. I don't know about you guys but I routinely use 1 GB of data a month on my phone, and I don't tether or watch a ton of videos or anything. Now TMUK is saying the limits will only apply to new customers, but someone's still getting screwed here.
I think the key is to be reasonable in defining what constitutes a "normal" amount and what constitutes an "excessive" amount of bandwidth. Maybe the government should be making that determination rather than leaving it to ISPs and telcos with a profit axe to grind. At the very least, they should ban use of the word "unlimited" unless it really means unlimited and force companies to be very up-front about what they're delivering.
Well-reasoned, Silver, but unfortunately what defines "reasonable" and "excessive" is a nasty grey area. I am not filesharing or otherwise flooding the network with illegitimate traffic, I'm using Shaw's top-tier home service precisely as it was intended; High speed media service to permit access to online services. Here's a quick breakdown of local usage in this household:
- Windows updates on 2 brand new Windows 7 installs; Win7 itself is a 9 gigabyte OS, and you would be amazed to hear that Orka's PC has now pulled down 16 gigabytes (yes, 16) in updates, drivers, additional software, and god only knows what, from several different software vendors.
- Digital download purchases from Steam. Team Fortress 2 alone tends to consistently pull a few hundred megs in updates every few days, to say nothing of actually playing online with voice chat on or any other game's updates. Each downloaded purchase initially ranges from 3-4 gigabytes to over 10-15 (Black Ops, which I purchased on-disk, still pulled ~3 gigabytes off Steam once activated on Steam), plus periodical updates ranging from a few scant megabytes to several gigabytes (I'm looking at you, Champions Online...)
- Normal web browsing and YouTube. I can't even begin to guess what kind of bandwidth usage YouTube itself represents, but it can't be lightweight. There are three regular YouTube viewers in this household.
- Video and voice chat with coworkers via Skype, on days that I am telecommuting; We usually collaboratively screen-share during the workday. Consistently screen-sharing a 1920x1200 screen-cast cannot possibly be lightweight on bandwidth. Voice bit-rate's quite low on Skype, but it likely isn't an issue compared to the weight of sharing an HD screen-cast (Both up and down).
- SVN useage on a SVN that currently tops 40 gigabytes for its active working files, with frequent 30-40 megabyte single file uploads (One texture file for me is a .PSD at 2048x2048 or even higher sometimes, for working purposes, with anywhere from 1 to 15 or so layers).
- Stream-on-demand services like NetFlix, in addition to digitally delivered games from Steam and Impulse. I would guesstimate that an hour of SD content from NetFlix weighs in at about a gigabyte or so, HD content approaching 7-10 gb/hr.
At a glance, I would have to say my monthly bandwidth usage is likely in the ~150-250 gB range between myself and the room-mates. Shaw needs to set their caps at a somewhat more realistic level; None of the household bandwidth usage stems from illegal file-sharing or torrent-serving, but from legitimate uses, and it's hardly a constant flood of traffic; it's short, high intensity bursts of legitimate traffic. Having examined their ridiculously punitive costs and lack of reasonable alternatives, in an age where bandwidth is getting far less expensive by the day, I will have a few choice words for them when I cancel. Having the Damocles sword of a $50-150 punitive charge over my head for usage levels which we've sustained through ordinary use for years, is ridiculous; Our usage is not high because we're super-seeding XL TORRENTS++, it's high because we don't use a traditional phone here, cable is completely and utterly worthless (ergo, we don't have it), and none of Shaw's media offerings otherwise are worth a damn, so we rightfully use the internet as our nexus. It sounds like it's chiefly time for them to get with the 21st century, not attempt to punitively bill it into oblivion in some misguided attempt to turn people back onto their own outmoded services. I abandoned cable and a traditional land-line for several reasons.
As a followup, I just got off the phone with a Shaw representative, inquiring about my usage history. I'm surprised they didn't previously send a notice; Of the past six months, we've been over-limit for four of them on ordinary network traffic. Unfortunately, I need an elevated cap more than I need raw speed (Rarely used to its fullest, in any case, and rarely even close to its actual advertised rate). Suppose it's time to wave them goodbye as customers using their Extreme service for four years now, and see about alternatives.
: Selkit January 14, 2011, 03:09:09 -07:00Well-reasoned, Silver, but unfortunately what defines "reasonable" and "excessive" is a nasty grey area.
Yeah, one of my main thoughts was that a neutral body like the CRTC (just an example, as I'm not sure how neutral the CRTC really is) should do some kind of study to determine where those lines should be and that they should be enforced by an appropriate legal framework. Then the ISPs should use those numbers to build tiered plans that will meet everyone's needs at prices that incorporate a fair, but not gluttonous, profit.
Also, while I'm dreaming, I'd really like a pony.
Unfortunately, left to their own devices, corporations will do the profitable thing instead of the "right" thing (I don't believe corporations are moral agents, but rather machines designed to generate profit as efficiently as possible, ergo the scare quotes) - if they can get away with inflating the overage price, they'll happily do that. This is one of the reasons I'll never be a 100% laissez-faire capitalist. :)
The CRTC is chiefly the reason we have this problem in the first place, so their usefulness in regulating the mess they've created is questionable. Still, any government serving any positive benefit at all, is better than no government serving no use, or worse, far too much government serving no purpose. And I'm inclined to agree with you. Total laissez-faire is a recipe for exploitation and "profit at any cost to anyone but us" methodology. $2 per gigabyte is ludicrous, frankly, on a landline; The average bulk data cost is hovering around 10 cents per gigabyte for large providers. A 2,000% markup is not reasonable, it's punitive and profit-motivated. I did politely make sure to inform the Shaw representative precisely what I thought of their executive level's poor choice. For those of you who are considering a new ISP, as horrible as it is for me to suggest this? Telus. If you have phone and data service on the same plan, they are actually incapable of accurately monitoring usage, and in the event that they do finally figure it out, their caps are higher than Shaw's at comparable tiers. Personally, I'm signing up with TekSavvy and keeping a careful eye on Primus offside.
The bright side is, that for those of you with more moderate internet use, you're unlikely to actually hit Shaw's higher tier caps. Decide for yourselves what you would like to do, though honestly? Sending a message to them by voting with your wallet will hopefully discourage this behavior. Start thinking of alternatives to cable service and their overpriced, undercompetitive VOIP service (I'm actually thinking of filing a marketing complaint if they call me a seventh time in six months to advertise their digital cable and phone services after having been told every single call to remove me from their marketing list). Encourage them to be a bit leaner and meaner by supporting alternatives. Laissez-faire works both ways; Left to their own devices, uninterfered with by consumers actually pandering to them, companies do change. ;)
: Selkit January 14, 2011, 03:52:08 -07:00
As a followup, I just got off the phone with a Shaw representative, inquiring about my usage history. I'm surprised they didn't previously send a notice; Of the past six months, we've been over-limit for four of them on ordinary network traffic. Unfortunately, I need an elevated cap more than I need raw speed (Rarely used to its fullest, in any case, and rarely even close to its actual advertised rate). Suppose it's time to wave them goodbye as customers using their Extreme service for four years now, and see about alternatives.
Well, it remains to be seen if and when Telus will crack down on TekSavvy out here, but as of right now I do have their unlimited cap usage bundle and loving it. :) Let me know if you want any more info there and such. Found out their IPv6 trial is just back east for now, but it's planned out here as soon as Telus' last mile infrastructure they have to use suppports it.
Static IP and newsgroups seem to work great, too. n.n
I'm not the computer techy in the family, my dad is. When he hears of this he'll shit bricks the size of shoe boxes. >_<
My dad is rather cheap, and very liberal, and in every 'fee' and 'tax' he is charged with he retaliates with never ending tirades about all the woes of the common labourer being screwed over by the "The Collective Establishment." Even when said fees and charges are justified. . . like in healthcare.
: Renwaldo January 14, 2011, 06:16:05 -07:00
I'm not the computer techy in the family, my dad is. When he hears of this he'll shit bricks the size of shoe boxes. >_<
My dad is rather cheap, and very liberal, and in every 'fee' and 'tax' he is charged with he retaliates with never ending tirades about all the woes of the common labourer being screwed over by the "The Collective Establishment." Even when said fees and charges are justified. . . like in healthcare.
Yeah, it's sad how blatant of a money grab this is, like Selkit said - $2/GB is an insanely punitive markup for something that costs them $0.10, if that.
My dad has shown some interest in all this as well-it's likely he may switch over, as well, depending on my experience over the next little while. I even have another two friends on Twitter waiting with baited breath to see how it goes. :p I'm voting with my wallet; I'm just sad I didn't do it sooner.
*pops head in* Yarr!
Switching to Teksavvy has been on my to-do list since I started hearing about UBB last fall. The thing that scares me is that I'll have to get the dry-loop service, and I have no idea how much they'll charge me for whatever "band" I end up having. But my current cap with Shaw is just 60 GB, and I blow through that much bandwidth easily.
I should give them a call tomorrow.
: Selkit January 14, 2011, 05:12:22 -07:00Start thinking of alternatives to cable service and their overpriced, undercompetitive VOIP service (I'm actually thinking of filing a marketing complaint if they call me a seventh time in six months to advertise their digital cable and phone services after having been told every single call to remove me from their marketing list).
Yeah, we get bombed with that crap constantly too. It's gotten to the point where any envelope from Shaw without the words "Your invoice is enclosed" on it just goes into the shredder unopened. I'd probably at least open them if the account was in my name, but it isn't - however, in our experience anything without those words on it is just more marketing crap.
: Renwaldo January 14, 2011, 06:16:05 -07:00
My dad is rather cheap, and very liberal, and in every 'fee' and 'tax' he is charged with he retaliates with never ending tirades about all the woes of the common labourer being screwed over by the "The Collective Establishment." Even when said fees and charges are justified. . . like in healthcare.
Hey, government services are free, aren't they...? ;)
Selkit wrote - " (I'm actually thinking of filing a marketing complaint if they call me a seventh time in six months to advertise their digital cable and phone services after having been told every single call to remove me from their marketing list). "
My Turn - 7 times in 6 months tells me that you didn't get on their carpet bombing list. . . I kid you not when I tell you that last spring Shaw's telemarketing center called me about 40 or 50 times in 7 weeks. I have an answering service that clearly states "telemarketing will be ignored" and yet I got the huge numbers of calls from Shaw. A few after that Telus called me about 30 times in 5 weeks. In both companies I suspect that there may be some people missing large clumps of hair walking around their call centers because they got frustrated with their constant failures to catch me in their annoyance traps.
: Thaeus January 14, 2011, 09:35:35 -07:00
*pops head in* Yarr!
Switching to Teksavvy has been on my to-do list since I started hearing about UBB last fall. The thing that scares me is that I'll have to get the dry-loop service, and I have no idea how much they'll charge me for whatever "band" I end up having. But my current cap with Shaw is just 60 GB, and I blow through that much bandwidth easily.
I should give them a call tomorrow.
I have their dry loop service. Band rate for me is the $12.odd one; once I'm home I'll post a breakdown pf my invoice for ya. *wants moar referals* XD
: Kithop January 15, 2011, 01:06:07 -07:00
: Thaeus January 14, 2011, 09:35:35 -07:00
*pops head in* Yarr!
Switching to Teksavvy has been on my to-do list since I started hearing about UBB last fall. The thing that scares me is that I'll have to get the dry-loop service, and I have no idea how much they'll charge me for whatever "band" I end up having. But my current cap with Shaw is just 60 GB, and I blow through that much bandwidth easily.
I should give them a call tomorrow.
I have their dry loop service. Band rate for me is the $12.odd one; once I'm home I'll post a breakdown pf my invoice for ya. *wants moar referals* XD
Okay - I went for pretty much the fully-loaded package - fastest speed, unlimited bandwidth and static IP. You prepay for your first month of service as well. Here's how my first month broke down:
TELUS-BC-RES-NRC $39.99 <- One-time activation fee
TELUS - Static IP BC $4.00
TELUS - Unlimited Bandwidth BC $10.00
TELUS-RES-DSL2-6M BC $35.95
TELUS-BC-BAND C $12.66 <- this is the band rate for my place in Surrey; New West is apparently about $1 cheaper. You'd have to call to find out your area for sure.
Speedtouch 516 DSL Modem $75.00 <- this is just a simple one-port modem I have in bridged mode in front of a router; you can get others with multiple ports or rent-to-own this; I bought it up front
Shipping for the modem $10.00
Total $187.60 + GST ($9.38) = $196.98 on my credit card.
My monthly fee going forward after this will be $35.95 + $12.66 + $10.00 + $4.00 = $62.61 + tax. Bit more expensive than what I was paying Shaw (about $55 after taxes), but the static IP includes some basic newsgroups (1Mbit/s rate limit, around 100 day retention I think), and the unlimited bandwidth option is totally worth it. :P
Thought this might be useful to people - a friend of mine found a little spreadsheet from digitalhome.ca with the prices, speeds, caps, and overage charges (as of January 10th) of the major carriers' residential plans: http://silvermink.net/ISP_Plans.xls (http://silvermink.net/ISP_Plans.xls)
: Silvermink January 15, 2011, 11:09:25 -07:00
Thought this might be useful to people - a friend of mine found a little spreadsheet from digitalhome.ca with the prices, speeds, caps, and overage charges (as of January 10th) of the major carriers' residential plans: http://silvermink.net/ISP_Plans.xls (http://silvermink.net/ISP_Plans.xls)
That looks a little off/out of date, though, for Shaw - their site says they're charging $2/GB for their regular High-Speed offering, and it's only $1/GB if you go even faster on 'Extreme' (the 15Mbit down one). Even so, good info to know!
: Kithop January 15, 2011, 11:12:57 -07:00
That looks a little off/out of date, though, for Shaw - their site says they're charging $2/GB for their regular High-Speed offering, and it's only $1/GB if you go even faster on 'Extreme' (the 15Mbit down one). Even so, good info to know!
Yeah, I haven't corroborated any of it, so take anything there with a grain of salt.
Well, Telus has started doing whatever they are going to do.
Just got a call from them today, that our family will be, as of feb. first I think it was, paying for any gigs we use over our limit... I didn't answer the call myself, but it sounds like about what was mentioned above... unbelievable prices if you go over a rather low cap...
With 4 computers plugged into this connection, 2 Ipods and a Xbox 360, most doing something online 24/7, I somehow dout we will stay under our limit... Right now 3 netflix movies are streaming, I'm trying this, somebody is playing COD on the 360 and my ipod is downloading a audio book...
I might have to look into teksavvy asap.
: Kell January 17, 2011, 05:23:07 -07:00
I might have to look into teksavvy asap.
So the Feb 1st rumour I heard wasn't far off. :/ Sent you a PM. c.c *more referral whoring*
I don't feel so marketing-whory, though, if this is as serious as I thought it would be when I first found out about this and flipped my shit on Twitter a month or two ago. :/
This is relevant to the discussion. Article. (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Vancouver+seeks+Internet+metering/3993791/story.html)
Shaw says we don't see the full picture.
Wrong, we do, we just don't think that the huge, rich companies already charging huge sums for internet, being able to make MORE money, is a good reason.
Think of it this way.
If the average internet using household, with 2 children and 2 parents and say, 3 computer users, 2 computers, and a game system, sucks down, I'd estimate based on those I know, 100-120 gigs a month these days...
And some, gamers, internet-addicts, people that make their livelyhoods online, suck down well over 200 (I know people that use much more than that.) What does this all do?
Lets see here, suddenly Shaw only has to supply those that DO monitor their bandwidth and stay under the new cap, say, 50 gigs a month, half of what they were using (I dout many suburban families will want to spend extra for bandwidth at those rates, they will likely limit themselves rather than spend, just as they would with long-distance). Now shaw is providing them with half the bandwidth, and getting the same ammount of money.
Meanwhile, those of us that are not about to stop what we do online, be it game or make our living, we will suddenly be paying out the ass for bandwidth... And likely, due to the cost, using less.
So, the net change is, shaw uses less bandwidth, and makes MORE money, for doing less, inconveniencing people, when they already turn sizable profits...
Capitalism, it works!
Kell;
I had a nice, polite chat with one of their representatives not too long ago, explaining precisely why I will be switching away from Shaw at my earliest convenience, and why I do not simply believe, but know and understand that their "pay per usage" policies upcoming, are a simple cash-gouge. They're charging a 2500-3,000% markup on bandwidth (dependant on bulk rates, of course), providing $8 worth of bandwidth as part of my default package, and expecting that I will simply eat an overage charge for ~100-150 gigabytes (plus any monthly use on top of that) should I have to do a system reinstall at some point (Windows 7 updates are -heavy-, and my software/games, 95% of them are online digital-download purchases; My working software alone is 80 gigabytes plus to download, plus 40 gigabytes for the SVN to redownload, plus a Steam library of ~300 gb). Heaven forbid I should want to watch a Netflix movie at ~6-7 gigabytes per hour for HD content. For the rate I'm paying at a reasonable markup from bulk rates, I should be getting approximately 250 gb per month, allowing Shaw to make an extremely generous 300% markup off their bandwidth. Not a punitive 2500% markup for a third the cap I should have at the rate I pay.
Do not annoy a geek in the know. Especially not a geek who is choosing service to use professionally and currently paying for your second-highest tier of service on his fourth year as a customer. Shaw can take a hike.
I know the feeling.
As I told the telus rep that called here ages ago about me 'Going over my limit' (they dinged us like 15 bucks the third month in a row it happened then went away, "The day my internet usage means you are NOT making atleast a 100% profit off my using your internet, is the day I'll not phone in and yell at one of your reps every time you charge me overage fees."
These companies don't just turn a little profit, they turn MASSIVE profits, and have a heavy monopoly on a very, very widely used part of todays world. I mean, outside of gas and car insurance, their arn't many monopolies in canada as strong as those held by some ISPs/Telecom companies, and now they don't just want to rape us for our phone, internet, cellphones, AND TV, they want to charge us overage fees just for using them at the normal rate? If I had to pay a little for every gig over say... 500, or something else extravagant like that (For a household user anyway), I'd just sigh and accept it, but if I'm browsing artwork, uploading my photos, browsing photos, watching netflix, or playing a game, I'm going to be sucking down gigs an hour, 50-100 gigs a month is NOT a sensable cap for your average household, or even your above average single user...
If they want to charge us per gig, atleast set the caps at something sane.
TekSavvy is now offering Cable packages.
http://teksavvy.com/en/res-internet.asp#cable (http://teksavvy.com/en/res-internet.asp#cable)
Service Down Up Gig Cap Price
Lite Cable 3 Mbps 256 K 200 $27.95
Express Cable 10 Mbps 512 K 200 $36.95
Extreme Cable 15 Mbps 1 Mbps 200 $42.95
Extreme Cable Pro 15 Mbps 1 Mbps Unlimited $54.95
...in Ontario, yes, through Rogers. ;) Switch your province in the top right corner (yeah this caught me too). It's just via Telus' DSL last mile out here.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25316410-Limited-Greater-Vancouver-Area-Cable-startup (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25316410-Limited-Greater-Vancouver-Area-Cable-startup)
Limited Greater Vancouver Area Cable startup
Gang,
We are ready to take in some orders for cable in the Greater Vancouver Area but only in limited quantities as we only have a 100Mbit/s link.
If you are interested we will be processing these manually via the direct forum. We will not be sending out notices to all our customers due to the limited deployment. Once we're able to increase the capacity we'll be sending out proper notices.
regards,
Marc
--
TSI Marc - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Oh jeez. Wish I knew about that sooner - posted a thread in their direct forum to see if they'll switch me over (back? :P) from the DSL they JUST installed. c.c;;;
I'd love to get their 15/1 package, same as the Xtreme-I I had with Shaw, for basically the same price, but.. unlimited usage. C.C; No. Freaking. Brainer. Wonder if they can reuse my SB5100 (not SB5102) I purchased outright from Shaw already, and if they'll cut me any breaks for switching back from the DSL stuff.
..that and if they offer any unlimited on the 25/2 line. ;)
Thanks for the heads up!!
Whee... definitely want to get Teksavvy cable now.
Now going for TekSavvy cable myself; We called Shaw yesterday to cancel our Shaw service, and are getting TekSavvy service set up within the week (or so sayeth their representative). Opted for the 25/2 service. The cap on it is sufficient for my purposes, and even if it isn't, the overage charge isn't terribly punitive, unlike Shaw. I'll let you know how it goes.
I have Telus, what should I do?
: Van_Fox January 27, 2011, 07:41:27 -07:00
I have Telus, what should I do?
For now, Telus isn't going to be enforcing bandwidth caps.
So Im ok? No Usage Based Billing for me?
I stream TWiT.TV all day some days and that is massive... a 1mbps stream would easily take up a few gigs for a whole broadcast day.
Definitely looking into this. Last month's bill already had a $10 overage charge so I'm dinged already.
: Van_Fox January 28, 2011, 04:23:38 -07:00
So Im ok? No Usage Based Billing for me?
That's what Telus said on TV a couple weeks back.
Party? ^0^ WOOOO
Telus finally does something right.
Oh god, I just learned of this all yesterday from an Ontario fur friend of mine who does IT work... It pisses me off that everything is starting to go the way of pay per use/ usage based billing.. I already try and find the most minimal cell plan for my phone cause I hate getting gouged for that.. which is sad because cellphones have insane potential now that's simply wasted because people took it and made it into one of the worlds greatest money sinks. I will also never touch XM radio systems for this reason too.
Sadly this all reminds me of a few TV show episodes, most notably Dinosaurs and Dragonball GT: They both had that one episode where they would like visit a hotel or something and as soon as they flicked on a TV/ got in bed/ Used the shower a little money meter would start rolling and charging them out the ass for every second. It sorta looks like that's what the future will be eventually.
Breaking News: TekSavvy will reduce caps too (in Ontario and Quebec at first) http://technology.canoe.ca/2011/01/30/17090056.html (http://technology.canoe.ca/2011/01/30/17090056.html)
: FurryJackman January 30, 2011, 06:30:27 -07:00
Breaking News: TekSavvy will reduce caps too (in Ontario and Quebec at first) http://technology.canoe.ca/2011/01/30/17090056.html (http://technology.canoe.ca/2011/01/30/17090056.html)
Deeper research reveals that this is only on DSL service, not cable. It remains to be seen where this will go on cable service and what will occur on the west coast. Sidenote; I am seeking to meet with my local MP to outline a few facts and hopefully enlighten a
powergrubbing parliamentary seat warmer fine, well-meaning politician about why this whole thing is a terrible misunderstanding with anticompetitive consequences and ulterior motives that those
conniving sons of bitches in Bell upstanding citizens in the CRTC erred upon
while receiving generous severance from Bell.
Cynical? Me? Why would you say that?
There was no need to cross those out XD This is the net, you can say whatever you like and not get in trouble.
IM A NAZI TERRORIST! IMMA BLOW UP DA WORLDS!!!!!!!!!
WARNING!
before you switch tech-savvy.... you may want to know how they are linked to the big nom nom monopoly companies like shaw and telus and how you will see your prices increase and/or your bandwidth decrease from 200gigs per month down to possibly as little as 25 gigs per month.
just spreading around some usefull infos.
and this especially effects the way the internet is used fundamentally. how we share information, limiting our freedom to do so. This also limits how much traffic independent internet sites will get. sites like youtube may slow down as you suddenly need to be aware how many videos you are watching to not go over your limit and get dinged money. this kills of creative individuals who may put cool open source material like video podcasts , radio shows, animated graphic novels, television shows, and your general potpourri found on ustream and youtube.
this is an injustice as far as a lot of people are considered. fight back. sign the patition and hope that we will reach an outcry loud enough that will threaten the jobs of politicians. for only if their jobs are at risk by public anger.. they will act in favor of the public.
1 Of 2 Canadian Ruling Forces ISP's Like TekSavvy To Cap Their Bandwidth to 25 Gigs A Month. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwHGL-GVdvI#ws)
2 Of 2 Canadian Ruling Forces ISP's Like TekSavvy To Cap Their Bandwidth to 25 Gigs A Month. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=664RUcbnsGc#ws)
these videos were just released yesterday, jan31st. while they are just one option... its a frigging good well informed one..
just spreading around some good info.
if you love this thing called the internet.. you should know how much its about to suck for you unless you stand up and do something to stop it.. march1st this becomes law.
Yes, TekSavvy has to use an incumbent's 'last mile' connection, but their backbone is separate. That said, you're right in that those carriers are (at least back east for now) trying to punitively charge them and drive them out of business with even harsher rates. How this isn't seen as anticompetitive, I don't know, but good news is now the federal Liberals have sided with the NDP and are fighting to get all this crap pushed back and reconsidered.
If you haven't yet, please sign that petition - someone IS actually listening!
I'm actually attempting to get a meeting arranged with my local MP, to discuss the issue and put forth concerns. Hopefully enlighten a politician. Unfortunately, the local here is Conservative, but one would hope that they will open their eyes and realize that this is threatening to become an HST scale unwanted affair with the public.
: Selkit February 02, 2011, 11:59:41 -07:00
I'm actually attempting to get a meeting arranged with my local MP, to discuss the issue and put forth concerns. Hopefully enlighten a politician. Unfortunately, the local here is Conservative, but one would hope that they will open their eyes and realize that this is threatening to become an HST scale unwanted affair with the public.
I was listening to CBC Radio One yesterday and it looks like federal politicians are falling all over themselves now to proclaim themselves the defender of the people's interest here - apparently Stephen Harper has asked the CRTC to review the UBB decisions (http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/opensource/2011/02/01/openmedias-ubb-invades-parliament).
Of course, as ever, people have to get pissed off before they'll care.
I'd wager that any self respecting politician is paying attention to the state of public reaction to UBB, given how hot button a subject it's becoming.
But, teksavvy's cable offerings are unaffected right now, at least.
TekSavvy has already posted to their customers that they will be subject to capping as a result of UBB; They have no choice in the matter but to follow suit with the big ISPs that are deliberately aiming this kind of punishment at them. However, if UBB is killed at the federal level, it'll be a moot point; Shaw will look very foolish. And it's looking increasingly likely that UBB may either be watered down or binned entirely.
It looks like I spoke too soon:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/02/17131626.html#/news/canada/2011/02/02/pf-17131641.html (http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/02/17131626.html#/news/canada/2011/02/02/pf-17131641.html)
Common sense won out. The government has told the CRTC plainly that they are not going to permit UBB. In its current form. That doesn't mean the dragon is dead, unfortunately, but it does mean we've been given a stay of execution on this nonsense, and a chance at something more reasonable.
Now, I've not done research on this, but... I have a good feeling on why there's no true competition: Foreign ownership limits.
If a big multinational could come into the Canadian marketplace, and provide halfway competitive rates, we could see some amazing things happen... like "fair" pricing on broadband.
The government is not permitting UBB of wholesale internet, not retail. Shaw and etc will still charge you UBB as it stands right now, but this does mean TekSavvy no longer has to shrink caps to compensate for UBB on their incoming service that was purchased wholesale.
However, this will drive more people to switch to TekSavvy as common sense of "$60 for 100GB or $60 for unlimited" sinks into consumers. No doubt about it, the telcos will lose customers to unlimited choices.
The thing is, I personally don't believe that unlimited data is a solution - I'm in favour of billing the internet like a utility
Take your pick of link and speed + data per gb from 5-15 cents (basing this off the Amazon EC2 rates that I pay when I go over my transfer limit). Heavy users pay for the above average data they use, and light users pay less in the end. A "true" pay for what you need solution instead of the bullshit pay for what you need but not really cause you might want faster speeds or more data per month.
IE, household 1 is a casual user. Maybe 15GB a month used. They choose to pay $20 for a basic link rated for 5mbps/1mbps. And then they pays $2.25 for the 15GB (@ 15c/GB) a month he uses. $22.25.
househald 2 is a heavy user, does a lot of stuff. 400GB a month used. They choose to pay $40 for a high speed link rated 50mbps/15mbps. And then they pay $40 for the 400GB (@ 10c/GB - maybe they get a better rate because they use more /shrug). $80.00
I personally don't see any reason why one's internet connection shouldn't be billed like a utility. It practically is one now. With reasonable rates for the link and the data, the consumer really does get exactly what he wants, and there's "some" incentive to be responsible with your data.
Except there are existing utilities that are NOT billed by usage and are managing just fine - water (I believe for Metro Van anyway) and local landline telephone service comes to mind. Would you have a landline if you had to pay for and watch your minutes usage on every local call like a cellphone?
Internet access is something that SHOULD be built out to the point where it doesn't matter any more - that's the key to a functioning high-tech society. And even 5-15c/GB is actually WAY overpriced; from my understanding it's actually less than a penny per GB in actual costs - that's Amazon's markup (albiet a much saner markup than Shaw/Telus/etc. are doing).
At 1c/GB, your 400GB/mo of usage works out to $4.00. It's so cheap it's not even worth monitoring, just the overhead of hiring someone at the ISP to write and maintain a tracking and billing system to try and recoup those minor costs just isn't worth it, and even at the $10/mo extra I pay to TekSavvy for the boost from 200GB/mo to 'unlimited' usage, I'd still have to completely saturate my line 24/7 for at least half the month to get close to burning through 1TB of data.
I'm of the mindset that we should all be able to get affordable unmetered links, just like we'd get an affordable local POTS landline, and forget worrying about tracking usage. The actual line rate should determine 'how much bandwidth' you can use in a month, provided you saturated it 24/7, and be priced accordingly.
Companies like TekSavvy only need incumbent telcos for their last-mile connections, because those telephone wires were put in with gov't assistance/funding/right-of-ways in the first place and thus should be equally accessible by all - they run their own backbone connections and pay for their own bandwidth to the 'net, and if they can get it for 1c/GB or less, why can't they offer what they want to consumers, especially if they still make a profit for themselves in the end? UBB on wholesale lines is being seen for what it is - a blatantly obvious anticompetitive attempt by big telcos to squash companies like TekSavvy so they can dictate rates across the board, and force people onto their own backbones where they can rate limit, packet shape, snoop, and filter to their hearts' content.
tl;dr: give me (and everyone) an unmetered line because usage is really too cheap to meter - this is BS in this day and age.
I'd actually be okay with à la carte data like Acco is suggesting, just not at a 10,000% markup like I can envision the telcos charging. I think the base rates would have to be somewhat in line with the genuine cost of providing service before you consider the data that's flowing through (including paying for the infrastructure, of course, not just the day-to-day cost).
The lack of competition in the telecommunications sector in this country, along with the government's willingness to let the telcos gouge the hell out of us for what is, at this point, an essential service, is fairly terrifying.
I think one of the main stumbling blocks here is that it's hard to see something intangible as a limited resource, and in a lot of ways it's not readily comparable to something like electricity or even water where there's a tangible environmental cost to using more than your fair share.
Always more trees bandwidth over the next hill link!
I'd be really curious as to the actual costs of building out infrastructure. Probably buried somewhere in the financials of TELUS, Bell, etc.
It wouldn't be the end of the world if it was that kind of reasonably metered data - but 'reasonable' to me sounds like:
Base infrastructure cost: $20-40/mo
Usage per GB: 2c/GB
So say you had a $40 'base', your bill would be between $40.50 (25GB) and $50 (500GB). Or at 1c/GB, $40.25-45. As an ISP, I'd ask myself - is it even worth it to track and adjust this every month, or do I figure out the average bill is $42.50 and just call it that for everyone, and save the electricity + manpower costs in accounting? :) That's what I mean by 'too cheap to meter', not the actual bandwidth costs, but the office overhead of having people worrying about it at all. There'll be some people that don't use the full cost, and some people that use a bit more than that cost, but the differences should be so small - on the order of no more than even $20/mo at the high-end - that it's just not worth caring about, because you can save the $40k/yr+ on the accountant. :P
: Kithop February 03, 2011, 12:29:35 -07:00So say you had a $40 'base', your bill would be between $40.50 (25GB) and $50 (500GB). Or at 1c/GB, $40.25-45. As an ISP, I'd ask myself - is it even worth it to track and adjust this every month, or do I figure out the average bill is $42.50 and just call it that for everyone, and save the electricity + manpower costs in accounting? :) That's what I mean by 'too cheap to meter', not the actual bandwidth costs, but the office overhead of having people worrying about it at all. There'll be some people that don't use the full cost, and some people that use a bit more than that cost, but the differences should be so small - on the order of no more than even $20/mo at the high-end - that it's just not worth caring about, because you can save the $40k/yr+ on the accountant. :P
Welllll... at the same time, there are limits to how much traffic a link can carry. With that in mind, you really do have to have some kind of reporting on how much is in use, and if the link is getting saturated (and I freely admit this is a big if, but high-bandwidth usage scenarios are getting more and more common), you'd want to know who's using a ton of bandwidth. Otherwise you can get to a point where you're getting service degradation and your customers are yelling at you for not paying attention to how much load is on the link.
At that point, some kind of UBB isn't a big step. They'll just hire the accountant and roll his/her salary into what they're charging their customers (which, spread over a large number of customers, will be a pretty small cost). And then they'll work in some kind of additional profit, of course, just because they can. :)
There's nothing wrong in letting the carriers make some money.
As far as your backbone is concerned, oh, of course you should have monitoring and filtering available at your disposal in case of emergencies and stuff - any halfway decent router will let you do that. ;) I meant more for the customer facing side. I really don't like how ISPs oversell their bandwidth - if you're getting to the point where people are using what they're paying for (last-mile) and having contention issues on the backbone, you should probably be upgrading your backbone's capacity, not looking to just squash people's connections down. ;)
There should be reasonable markup for ISPs to make a profit, but as Rogers, Bell, Shaw, Telus, etc. have demonstrated - they want to be anything but reasonable. I actually like TekSavvy's rate structure - here's a base package with a reasonably high usage limit that will serve 90% of our customers' needs, but if you give us an extra $10/mo. to cover the bandwidth costs, you can go nuts. And I don't mind paying a bit more to them in terms of those base rates and stuff because I know they're looking out for me (well, themselves - and by extension, me :p), they have good customer service, and are actively doing things like trialling IPv6, letting you run home servers, running a newsgroup mirror, etc. etc. Versus someone like Shaw who turns around and says 'oh, hi customer of 6+ years, we're reducing what we're giving you for the same money and going to charge you extra for what you were using before, all because we're scared of Netflix eating into our cable profits. OH AND YOU SHOULD TOTALLY GET OUR DIGITAL PHONE PLZ PLZ PLZ *spam*'. x.x;
I just don't think that "unlimited" by the sense of the word is a workable solution for the future. UBB is a solution, if reasonable rates are put into place. And 5-15c is a fairly reasonable mark up in today's world. When we start consuming data by the 10's or 100's of GBs, we can look into a new system then. Until then, it's a reasonable system that I could live with.
You have to remember that these corporations employ people too - there has to be some markup along the way for support/maintenance costs... and profits for the shareholders (as they are public entities), but decreasing the markup from ridiculous to pennies more is a good step.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one - internet access is becoming so important in our society, I see 'unlimited' as being the ONLY long-term solution - just like how we used to pay for usage on landline telephone in the past, until it got so cheap that for local calls it just doesn't matter anymore. I'd rather have a slower line I can pay a flat fee for unlimited usage on and not worry about than a crazy fast line that can burst to some insane speed, but you can only use at that speed for 15 minutes before you start getting charged even more. :p
I have no problem with those profits being rolled into the base flat rate - if it costs them $30/mo +/- $5 depending on usage to provide it, and they charge $50/mo +/- $10, so be it - I'm not arguing that they're not allowed to make a profit, but this whole issue was never about the 'cost of bandwidth' or usage, and that's what we're getting hung up on... it's strictly a punitive measure aimed squarely at people like me who cancelled their TV and landline phone services to go entirely internet-based. Why would they kick up a huge stink about it now when they've dealt with high usage patterns, etc. in the past? Netflix isn't the only high-bandwidth service out there - it's just because it enroaches on their TV crap that they went through all this hassle.
I will pay more up front to ISPs like TekSavvy so that the profits go to a company that will actually provide better service at reasonable costs, rather than get suckered into a deal that looks cheap on the surface but will actually cost me more in the long run with incumbent telcos. That should mean that TekSavvy gets rewarded with more income, the ability to build out their infrastructure more, provide better service, etc. Instead, Bell/Rogers/Telus/Shaw/et al decided they want to crush them out of business with punitive rates. Purely anti-competitive, unfair, and should be downright illegal. Thankfully it sounds like even the Conservative government has sided with the NDP and Libs on this to say enough is enough.
: Accophox February 03, 2011, 01:40:30 -07:00
I just don't think that "unlimited" by the sense of the word is a workable solution for the future. UBB is a solution, if reasonable rates are put into place. And 5-15c is a fairly reasonable mark up in today's world. When we start consuming data by the 10's or 100's of GBs, we can look into a new system then. Until then, it's a reasonable system that I could live with.
You have to remember that these corporations employ people too - there has to be some markup along the way for support/maintenance costs... and profits for the shareholders (as they are public entities), but decreasing the markup from ridiculous to pennies more is a good step.
(Sorry, wall-o-text incoming!)
While I admire capitalism, it has its flaws, and the current oligopolies like Shaw or Telus have some serious cracks in their ethics. The amount they charge is ludicrous for what they actually provide, and "Data by the 10s or 100s of gb" is not an exorbitant figure, it's actually well within normal, legitimate use, not "LOL I DOWNLOAD HOLLEEWOOD WHOLE". For a bit of a reality anchoring, I personally use ~60-80 gb per month. For my job alone. Why? Because I work in graphics, and the version control repository has images that I need to upload, download and otherwise alter (sometimes several times) that are individually several dozen or even hundred megabytes. If you watch YouTube, there's 96 kbits of FLV audio coming your way per second, and the video stream itself to account for (They've recently begun offering 4k resolution instead of just 1080; That runs a few gigabytes per hour of content). Netflix; 1-4 gigabytes per piece watched. VOIP service at anywhere from 40 to 96 kbit/sec. Video conferencing (I do this daily with my workmates), and so on. My monthly usage runs in the 150-200 gb range. The actual cost of my usage to the ISP is about $45-60, at 30 cents per gigabyte (A fair rate which assumes that infrastructure, personnel, electricity and other costs are taken into account). 30 cents is actually a very, very high estimate of cost-per-gigabyte. The actual raw cost of bandwidth is a fraction of that. This means that on my previous connection with Shaw, I am not getting things at cost, they still have a profit margin. We were (key word 'were') doling out ~$100 per month to them. I'd say a profit margin of 80% over cost in the worst case scenario, is pretty damn good. The margin in my own industry is at best ~15% (And no, piracy does not make the margin so low, but that's another story).
With UBB as it stood, Shaw would have made $50-100 per month on overage charges on me, on $15-30 worth of cost incurred to them (Which is already essentially covered in what I paid for basic service with them). So their profit margin opens up by 120% in the worst case, netting them a 200% profit on the same service. Make no mistake, the telecom companies are -not- starving and wanting; They are attempting to subsidize failing cable and phone offerings, while quashing the competition that is making their outmoded services increasingly less profitable. Rather than attempting to compete fairly, Bell with UBB, attempted to simply stake their competition in the heart. This is anticompetitive, it's anti-capitalist, and permitting them to do so practically begs for a monopoly. My two cents (or 1 gigabyte equivalent bandwidth exchange, at-raw-cost)? Declare bandwidth an essential utility with regulated rates outside of corporate hands (Anyone over 20 remembers what happened when cable was deregulated... cable rates doubled overnight), mandate reinvestment in infrastructure, and gradually wean Bell away from being a primary service provider AND an infrastructure provider. When one entity controls both infrastructure and service, they -will- attempt to fiercely deny any other attempts to compete on the service level. So. Down to brass tacks:
My own hypothetical proposal-points:
Cap bandwidth charges at a maximum charge of 30 cents per gigabyte. This is literally 1,500% higher than the bulk cost of bandwidth. Even the most bloated corporation can keep its overhead below that; If they can't, their competitors will, and capitalist Darwinism has its chance to operate as it should.
Declare network access a vital utility. It's about damn time it was seen as a vital service. I would almost wager that in Canada, computer access in a household now outstrips landline telephone service, and the gap is widening.
Permit network traffic shaping by providers, but only on a content-agnostic level; Nevermind penalizing bittorrent users or any specific P2P action (This actually will impact my version control activities, which are to a degree peer to peer and decentralized, along with other legitimate traffic). Allow network providers to level off problematic over-usage with reduced speed, not bandwidth caps. Bandwidth use is not the problem; Network activity spikes are.
Levy a bandwidth tax against overall usage, to pay for reinvestment into physical infrastructure. Exempt no provider, Bell and top level infrastructure holders included. A small rate adjustment irrespective of all other concerns, as a top tier tax, to ensure that technological trends can be kept up with regardless of profit margins. Divorce infrastructure advancement from corporate profit, and progress should be a more steady, ongoing thing as opposed to a periodical product release. Canadian infrastructure right now is -very- poor for a developed nation. As an essential resource, it should fairly be taxed like one, alongside fuel, heating gas, and other infrastructure dependent resources. Fund grants to expand and upgrade obsolete sections of the network, under strict review.
Simply leaving something this important up to companies to decide "on competition" is going to lead only to one conclusion: They will make a decision that damages their competitor as much as humanly possible, in the interests of maintaining their near-monopoly in their respective fields. More radical changes about how bandwidth and net access are legislated, will be necessary going forward. That said, sorry for the Wall 'o Text; I agree, something must be done regardless (Unlimited usage is a nice notion, but it needs some safety fencing to work). But that something needs to be examined in a new way, not jammed into the obsolete framework old telecom legislation is built on; Something as amorphous and multipurpose as the internet cannot be legislated in the same fashion as single purpose services like telephony.
Selkit, I love you. :P
Seriously, I can live with the 'full speed for first X GB and then reduced speed beyond that', as long as I don't get *charged* extra for it. That's the real kicker; in a house with multiple people I can't be going around being usage police, and I can't afford to have random unexpected increases in my monthly bills because of it. If I can pay a little more to not worry about usage, damn right I'm going for it - and that should be a legitimate marketable option for an ISP if they choose to provide it, right? Especially if that $10 option covers their upstream costs and such.
I'm a nigh-communist bastard, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd be more willing to have the gov't or crown corp own and operate the raw last-mile connections to your house the same way they could do water, electricity, etc. (this is what you mean by vital utility, in part?), and then hand that off to your ISP and plan of choice on the backend for a reasonable fee, with whatever taxes they want to impose to call for that continued infrastructure improvement. Gov't builds the roads, we buy the cars to drive on them and pay taxes to have said roads maintained/improved. Car makers can still make a profit by differentiating models/specs, but the roads themselves are completely agnostic.
Okay maybe that's a bad analogy, but still. ;)
: Kithop February 03, 2011, 02:26:27 -07:00
Okay maybe that's a bad analogy, but still. ;)
Actually, the analogy is surprisingly apt. In this case, the infrastructure can be likened to the roadway, and Bell to the contractor that maintains the road. The ideal scenario, is that the government pays Bell out of taxation, to upgrade the "roads" where necessary. Bell permits the car makers on their roads with transponder-equipped "vehicles" (service plans). The consumer buys a "vehicle" that fits how they like to "drive" (speed and slowdown cap). Unfortunately, that's not how it is with UBB. With UBB, it's as follows: The contractor Bell, upgrades the "road" only when absolutely necessary and only when they decide it's appropriate to do so. The vehicle makers (Your provider), are forced to equip cars with devices that charge you based on how far you drive, not how fast you drive. And you get dinged whether you drive slow and careful but for long distances, or in a mad dash to get somewhere.
I would personally be behind any plan that rather than charging exorbitant overages, started to ride a speed gradient instead; Do it in three ways. Use per month, sustained use, and spike use. We are not stuck in the days of analog switching, people; Hardware and software can react in realtime to these figures. Huge usage spike? Back gradually off on speed, especially if the network is congested. Sustained high use? Back off further and level out the connection at a percentile. Over the monthly use cap? Throttle it down to another percentile figure. Then combine as necessary. Unless this behavior is aimed at specific kinds of traffic (I'm looking at you, Shaw, dicking with my working connection for its P2P nature...), it's a fine way to smooth out network traffic, and the fellow consistently running up 25 megabits of traffic torrenting whole seasons of TV will no longer be so much of a nuisance when the use-calculation algorithms push them back to 5 megabits. They will still be a nuisance on UBB at 25 megabits, only in that instance, the problem is not solved (Do fuel costs stop a lawyer from driving an SUV, blocking traffic, polluting at a higher rate and otherwise being a problem? They only dissuade poorer individuals from it), and Shaw's pockets simply get fuller than they already are. Cost based deterrents only deter those who can't pay them (Or are unwilling to steal a non-tech-savvy user's wireless service; This has already happened in Quebec where a waitress got slammed for a $1800 bill).
: Kithop February 03, 2011, 01:10:15 -07:00I really don't like how ISPs oversell their bandwidth
This is kind of the key right here, isn't it? We wouldn't be where we are if ISPs had been up-front about expected usage and caps instead of yelling "UNLIMITED UNLIMITED UNLIMITED"!
I also agree with the implication of what Selkit said about his data use, which is that "high" use is becoming the new normal, and our ISPs need to be prepared to deal with the ramp-up in a constructive way that doesn't choke off the benefit for Canadian citizens.
First impression of TekSavvy is that they dramatically *undersold* their service. I did speed tests just out of curiosity, and at 6 PM on Saturday, I would expect the network to be relatively flooded. It isn't. I could scarcely believe that the average of 3 tests was 31 mb/sec down and 0.95 up. The advertised speeds were 15 and 1 respectively. So TekSavvy gets major, major points in my books for this one. Even if UBB does go ahead in some fashion, I will be staying with them based on my evaluation of both their service itself and their support. Intelligent agents, a no-nonsense phone system, prompt hook-up, and more than twice the advertised average speed. Win. Oh, and at half the price Shaw gouges.
That's actually part of Shaw's 'PowerBoost' service where your modem is uncapped for the first few seconds of a download; part of the Xtreme-I package I was on before... if you did a longer sustained test with like, a 1GB+ file, it'd probably settle down to the 15/1 they offer.
That said, it's still nice. :P
I still would like to give an example of stinky bandwidth vs insane bandwidth:
Shaw and Teksavvy with powerboost give you 30ish megabits down, 1 up.
BCIT's network on a hard line in their library gets me 70 megabits down, 50 megabits up. It's uncapped the whole time...
Choice is what's needed in Canada. The big telcos are still the ones ruling the pack and no real competition has sprung up. We need affordable FTTH in this country.
Comparing the bandwidth capabilities of a government funded tech institution with that which a mid/high level ISP can provide is completely pointless. The disparity will always be huge, and is nothing Shaw or Telus or whoever can control, nor offer to customers. Nor will it be in the foreseeable future.
Possibly when we get a fully implemented fiber to the home infrastructure. That's a good ways off though.
Eh, the University of Alberta has commercial agreements with Telus and Bell for traffic. Granted, they're probably a) very expensive and b) require a ton of infrastructure that's not in place in every home.
Point is, these ISPs can provide it. But the amount of money required on both sides makes it a moot point.
I thought it was worth reviving this topic in light of Shaw's increased caps on their plans... at the top tier, a 100Mb/10Mb pipe uncapped for 140 a month, being upgraded to 250/15 in the fall.
But 85 seems like a nice sweet spot for 100/10 with 500GB cap, with a sliding scale for overage - they just bump you up to the next usage tier.
At least it certainly beats roger's amnemic 50/2 175GB cap for 100 a month.
Necro aside, it is relevant. However, after having spent several months on TekSavvy cable, the initial teething troubles have disappeared. I am now getting 25/2.5 with them for $36 a month with a 300 gb cap. More than adequate for my needs. I suspect they will follow suit on offering even higher speed service soon, as they have tit-for-tatted Shaw lately quite handily.