|
Quote:
|
^^ Sorry just piss off that SHAW would go ahead with this saying most of their customer is ok with UBB and they wouldn't care. |
|
Quote:
Posted via RS Mobile |
If all of them do it at the same time, there will be no alternative to jump ship for. Which is kind of their plan. |
Quote:
most of the time people just complain rather than do something about it. |
Quote:
|
FU shaw. I live with 2 roomates, it's impossible to keep it at 100gb/month. |
^^ Depends on their system say if they give you 3 months of warning before charinging you then what you can do is cancel your service with them and have one of your roomate sign and after 3 months switch to another roomate and after 3months switch back to you. They can't really stop you since you been off their network for 6 months already and is consider to be a new customer. |
that's a good idea, but wouldn't they catch on after a while and just refuse? what's telus' caps anyone know? I cant find it on google. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think the Canadian ISPs are too greedy. They argue that the cost of maintaining their backbones is too high for allowing heavy users. The fact is, we are in an era where Internet become not just part of our life but also a fundamental tool to increase competitiveness in the IT sector. If your bandwidth is reaching the limit, you should do an overhaul to your network to increase it. Look at countries like Japan or Korea. They have options to get gigE to home and their price is much different than our crappy 15mbps plan. Bandwidth cost is so low that they are ripping us the consumers off. It costs them around 3 cents per gigabyte of transfer or about 8 cents with their own cost included. The cost can be even lower if they go full fiber optic. The majority of big infrastructure providers are suggesting a price of less than $1/mbps before 2015 (every mbps=roughly 316GB/month) and it means that for ISPs, their long term cost is declining. Yet they are asking consumer to pay more money for the access. I won't support any party that doesn't include IT development in their agenda. And clearly, an affordable and fast access to Internet is at the very top of the list. |
Quote:
|
so if we have to pay for extra usage, shouldn't we get money back for unused bandwidth? and the CEO saying that customer are willing to pay for a better service... wtf? for $50 a month i can easily get 2x the download and n*x the upload rates in some of first/second world country out there... why don't they give us what we pay for before asking us to pay for a better service... |
Quote:
Quote:
Frankly, UBB *is* a more equitable system - as it is right now, you're paying the same amount whether you use 100GB or 100MB per month. Rather than fighting for a flat rate for everyone, OpenMedia should be fighting for a COMPLETELY UBB system... with FAIR rates, not the insane "$1-$2-per-GB" overage rate that's being talked about. Right now, a 100GB plan runs, what, $50/mo? So just change it to a straight 50c/GB rate. If you use 1GB, you pay 50c. Use 200GB, pay $100. Doesn't get any more fair than that, and the people who do nothing but check their Facebook a couple times a week and email their grandmother aren't subsidizing the gamers and Netflixers and torrent geeks. |
Quote:
To consumer perspective that would be perfect |
Quote:
What Shaw is trying to do is make more money and has nothing to do with there backbone of capacity. |
LOL NOVUS charges $5 per 10GB for overuesage. That's 50 cents a GB and SHAW is charging what $1 to $2 per GB? you do the math lol. |
Quote:
And the future fixed operation cost for them (whether they do network overhaul or not), costs of their connectivity to other major providers is declining. Current level is about $5~$7 per mbps (again 316GB a month roughly, so 1.5cents~2.2cents per GB) to less than $1 in 2015 or before ($0.3cents) and they argue they need more money expanding? come on... seriously? Companies that dedicate themselves on laying out major backbones like Level3 or Global Crossing don't stop building backbones, that means bandwidth only gets cheaper and not the other way around. This is why ISPs in countries where connectivity are easier to add (denser population) like Japan/Korea/HK keep offering higher and higher speed connections. We as a developed country should be following leads if we can't create the lead, not let greedy corporations do things to maximize their profit IMHO. Heck, even without the change (getting into usage based) they are already milking it like nth else. |
^ Do you know Bell only charges 12.5c per GB for their extra data plans? Using your math of 3c per GB to maintain and 8c per GB to upgrade we're at 11c per GB. Where is this huge profit margin if they're only charging 12.5c? I always LOL at the articles whining about over usage charges of $1 to $2 per GB and somehow implying that if usage based billing goes ahead that the providers are going to charge you that same $1-$2 per GB. Complete horseshit. Shaw has three data plans you can add on: $5 for 10GB (50c per GB). $20 for 60GB (33c per GB) and $50 for 250GB (20c per GB). The big plan is not bad charging only 20c per GB. You could buy one of Shaw's smaller high speed plans and add the big data plan and get 310-350GB for a price less than their Nitro plan (which only gives 175GB). Bell has three plans as well. $5 for 40GB, $10 for 80GB and $15 for 120GB (all three plans are 12.5c per GB). Bell also has a cap on over usage. Once you hit $60 in over usage fees, the charge gets capped. That means 30GB over costs $30. 60GB over costs $60. But 200GB over still costs $60. So essentially Bell offers unlimited for $60 extra per month. Another provider in ON (can't recall the name now and am too lazy to search) also has over usage charges of $1, but they cap at $30 instead of Bell's $60. So you get unlimited internet from them for only $30 extra per month. People whining about over usage and trying to imply you'll be getting huge bills of several hundred dollars for internet access are full of shit. I also find it convenient that the media always talks about the per GB charge, but fail to mention caps which limit your over usage fees to a fixed amount. |
Quote:
It's a tempest in a teapot, really, that will never affect anyone but a few. Where the danger lies, is in those caps being lowered. I'd be fine with overage charges being implemented... IF the existing limits aren't changed. But once they start down this path, there's nothing to stop them from starting the billing at a much lower level. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also if we have to call in to add the extra uesage or data pack that's another 40+min to wait on hold with SHAW. Like I said before SHAW is getting over 46% pure profit last year so why are they saying they NEED the extra money to maintain their network. What happen to that 46% pure profit?!?!?! |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net