Internet 'Usage Based Billing' on the way - TekSavvy as alternative?

Started by Kithop, January 14, 2011, 01:23:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kithop

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 - 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 (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, 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

Selkit

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.

Jeeper

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

Here a petition on to stop it http://openmedia.ca/meter

Kithop

Quote from: Selkit on January 14, 2011, 01:55:44 AM
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

Kithop

Quote from: WKoot on January 14, 2011, 05:17:26 AM
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

Here a petition on to stop it http://openmedia.ca/meter


Thanks - it was late last night and I didn't have any good links on the issue off-hand. :)

Silvermink

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.

Selkit

Quote from: Silvermink on January 14, 2011, 10:07:03 AM
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.

Selkit

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.

Silvermink

Quote from: Selkit on January 14, 2011, 03:09:09 PMWell-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. :)

Selkit

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. ;)

Kithop

Quote from: Selkit on January 14, 2011, 03:52:08 PM
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

Renwaldo

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.

Kithop

Quote from: Renwaldo on January 14, 2011, 06:16:05 PM
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.

Thaeus

*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.

Silvermink

Quote from: Selkit on January 14, 2011, 05:12:22 PMStart 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.

Quote from: Renwaldo on January 14, 2011, 06:16:05 PM
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...? ;)