The whole point of Shaw lowering and enforcing caps is to dissuade customers from getting Netflix, since as Netflix expands, it stands to take customers away from Shaw's cable service.

We should all call Shaw the day before the Superbowl when people are getting there HD boxes activated and complain for as long as possible to jam up there lines. Basically an old school version of a DOS attack.

telus, charge this too???? or is it just shaw FOR NOW?

^^ Shaw will be charging for the foreseeable future, but Telus does not charge as of yet, but I think it's coming too....

I know and it's b.s.

Shaw called me 3 times offering me free cable tv. (I only have internet).

I said no thanks.

They called me a 4th time saying, we'll give you your shaw extreme and cable tv for 10 dollars a month for a year.

I say, can I just have the internet for 10 dollars a month?

They're like.. no sorry you have to take the tv.

I'm like OK!

Now I have shaw extreme and an unplugged digital box for 10 bucks a month!

After the year is up they can have the box back! :D

So anyone wanna do something more than complain on RS.

:alone: during holidays??????

Shaw is only doing this now because the CRTC changed the regulations to allow it. Bell is doing it as well, and I heard somewhere Rogers is moving that way too.

Anyone who thinks they're escaping pay-per-usage by going to Telus is deluding themselves; unless the massive protests get the CRTC to change things again, you're only delaying the inevitable.

just call retentions when your year is almost up and threaten to cancel unless they give you the same deal :fullofwin:

shaw also lowered their caps right when netflix was introduced in canada

Before -> Current

Lite 13GB -> 15GB ($2/GB overages)
High Speed 75GB -> 60GB ($2/GB overages)
Xtreme 125GB -> 100GB ($1/GB overages)
Warp 250GB -> 175GB ($1/GB overages)
Nitro 500GB -> 350GB ($1/GB overages)

Dec 20, 2010 -
Jan 19, 2011

488 GB

sigh

Hmmm, my experience with shaw has been very good.
My parents have been with them since we got broadband.
Aside from getting an overage warning once and being cut-off once (both like 8 years ago),
Our family's never had a single issue with them.

I moved out about 5 years ago and every single place I've been at has been with shaw.
Once again, no problems.



I think this is my first time that net has been under my name.
I got $10 promo price for 6 months. Free extreme for 3 months.
Then it'll be back up to $20 for extreme broadband.

I don't even have cable, I torrent tv, movies and games.
And I've gotten so lazy for physical installs that my steam games are downloaded too.


So my question is.
Are they being super nice to me just cause I'm new?
Or are you guys getting royally shafted?

^ I got that, as well as a couple friends I know too with ease.
About getting shafted, you probably will be (when implemented) if you are torrenting all your tv and movies.

Shaw has had a 60 GB limit for their standard broadband connection for years. They simply weren't charging for overages before. Higher bandwidth plans are also available.

How is a [substantial] bandwidth cap shady? It's not like they're charge $30,000 per GB like basic cell phone plans.

actually shaw has lowered the bandwidth cap for all plans in the recent months.

shaw lowered their caps
Before -> Current

Lite 13GB -> 15GB ($2/GB overages)
High Speed 75GB -> 60GB ($2/GB overages)
Xtreme 125GB -> 100GB ($1/GB overages)
Warp 250GB -> 175GB ($1/GB overages)
Nitro 500GB -> 350GB ($1/GB overages)

Sneaky bastards. I say we let the U.S. internet providers come into Canadian market and see how Shaw, Rogers, Bell, and Telus get into a price war. The government is way too protective of our telecommunication industry where it is hurting the consumers.

That's weird. When I signed up for Shaw Xtreme 3 years ago it was 100 GB and the High Speed connection was 60 GB. I looked into it again when I moved last year and the year before and it was the same. So for 3 years running I've been looking at the lower numbers.

They increased it for a bit then decreased it back down if I remember correctly. I think it was just a few months ago where they bumped the caps and just lowered it again.

The CRTC makes sure that there aren't any other competitors other than Canadians... atleast that's kind of changing in the mobile department though.

I don't care, since i'm paying $10 for my xtreme-i line running at 26/1 most days... :D

These look like the same caps to me as well.

Previously when you were really over, you would get a warning letter. If you didn't cut back or upgrade, they could cut your service. I'd received a couple of them before on the regular hi-speed service.

I think the massive lashback I see is unjustified. They're giving abusers fair warning, then charging a premium on overusage. Sounds reasonable to me.

I download all my movies and TV shows, and I work online, so I have the Extreme package. I haven't had any problems, and I might upgrade further since I'll be travelling and need a fast upstream for when I'm using my home box through a VPN.

http://openmedia.ca/meter link to sign the petition to stop the meter

I agree with the mentality that if I am getting charged for overage, I should be getting discounts for underage.

Usage-based Internet billing: A concept whose time has come
Limited bandwidth makes unlimited service unsustainable

By Harvey Enchin, Vancouver Sun January 28, 2011 2:51 PM Be the first to post a comment

It costs more to send a heavy package across the country than a letter across town. People who use more electricity than their neighbours have to pay for their additional energy consumption. Drivers who travel long distances spend more on fuel than those who don't. Transit riders crossing zones pay more than those going one or two stops. The principle is simple: The more you use, the more you pay.

But Internet service subscribers seem to believe everyone should pay the same flat rate for unlimited capacity and their outrage at the end to the free ride has social media all a twitter.

This tempest in a teapot stems from a decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission last October to allow Internet service providers to charge additional fees to customers, both retail and wholesale, who exceed a certain threshold of usage. The backlash is being orchestrated by rivals to the incumbents, who fear that they'll now be unable to compete. Many had been offering unlimited downloading while the majors -- Telus, Rogers, Shaw and Bell -- charged different rates according to the cap on their plans. For example, Telus is offering plans ranging from 13 gigabytes per month for a bundled price of $20 to 250 GB per month for $50.

The average Internet subscriber uses between 15 to 20 GB and a "very small" proportion ever exceeds their cap, according to Telus. In order to surpass 250 GB, a consumer would have to download more than 50 high-definition movies in a month. Or, to put it another way, if every hour of HD represents 2.6 GB, you could stream 96 hours a month, or more than three hours a day, every day. Anyone watching that much video needs to get a life.

In its wisdom, the CRTC has thrown the competitors a bone -- it has ordered the major players to give them a 15-per-cent discount to the price they charge retail customers. But they argue the discount will not be enough to enable them to continue offering unlimited usage.

That's because competition in Canada doesn't mean the same thing as it does elsewhere. The CRTC determined that it had to artificially create competition by forcing legacy providers to grant access to their networks to new entrants.

However, the infrastructure that delivers high-speed Internet isn't a public utility like sewage pipes and electric wires. It was built with billions of dollars of private capital raised by the major players, which continue to spend heavily to expand and improve their systems and introduce new technologies. In 2009, Telus -- to use our local example -- spent $653 million on research and development. And last year it invested $1.7 billion in infrastructure. It plans to spend a similar amount this year.

The competitors don't have to take those risks, or incur that debt, and have been free to skim their hosts' customers without having to worry about recovering embedded costs. They just need adequate cash flow to pay the rent, while enjoying all the improvements the incumbents were paying for. In the CRTC's view, favouring new players over old ones is fair competition.

In any event, the party is over. One of the biggest competitors, Primus, announced earlier this month it would end its unlimited Internet service. Others are sure to do the same. This isn't a uniquely Canadian phenomenon. In the United States, both AT&T and Verizon said they are moving to a usage-based billing model.

Unlimited Internet service is unsustainable because bandwidth is not infinite. According to one report, in the U. S, a tiny minority of users streaming TV programs accounted for 20 per cent of all prime time Internet traffic. If consumption puts too much pressure on capacity, the quality of service for all users will be degraded.

There will always be a small cadre of users who demand more, bigger, better and faster. High-speed Internet will soon be worthy of the name, with speeds of 42 Mbps ready to be rolled out. Higher caps can be expected to follow. However, these enhanced services will come with a higher price tag. A Ferrari costs more than a Volkswagen.

That's as it should be. Most users won't need the increased speed or extra capacity and will be satisfied with a modest reliable service at reasonable cost. Much like they have now.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Usage+ba...718/story.html