Shaw may go ahead with usage-based Internet billing

[willystyle]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

Exactly say a 2hour HD movie on Netflix is about 4 to 6GB. I tested PPS live at work and about 4hours of using it I have hit about 4GB of download and well over 20GB upload However at work my link s 100 up and 100mbs down). I say at home around 4hours of using PPS it should be around 4GB download and about 8 to 10GB upload. Now PPS runs in the background even if you have it close on your icon tray (you will have to go Crt + alt + del to end the process otherwise it will contiune to upload) Now most people don't know that so they have no idea, same with a lot of people who use P2P programs they have no idea how to change their program settings or if the programs have an option for them to even reduce the upload rate.

SHAW and other IPS have to get with the program with computers and HD space so cheap these days they have to realize that their little badwidth per month is garbage. 2TB HD is less than $50 lol and they give you 100GB to use? What about people who purchase their games/software online to save some money? Example STEAM have sales from time to time and even sometimes huge savings during holidays. So IPS are saying NOPE you can't save coz we have a limit on your Internet.

The future is web base business if we limit ourselves so much we are going to fall behind in technology(which is happening) and soon we will be so behind that no one wants to invest in this country.

CRTC needs to pull their heads out of their ASS and aware that they need to allow more competition into the IPS market. Cut that protect Canadian company crap. Look what WIND did to the celluar compnay? As soon as WIND launches ROGERS, TELUS, FIDO , BELL all drop their prices and even more now. If a company can't make money coz of too much competition then it have no business to stay in business.

EDIT and the main reason SHAW is so against this whole web TV, Streaming channel, Netflix thing is becasue they invested so much in other channel providers. Look it up they own a tons of channel stations (Movie centeerals and HBO for example and a few more big ones). They simply want to over charge you for their cable service and restrict your Internet so you have pay for their overprice shit.

Btw, it's ISP, not IPS (which is something totally different).

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ 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.

[JordanLee]

Sorry I had to.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

^^ 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.

Well, if they go ahead we'll find out based on how many customers Shaw loses.
Posted via RS Mobile

[TheNewGirl]

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.

[JesseBlue]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

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.

do you have shaw? if so..jump ship now and if millions of them do this, see what they will do...

most of the time people just complain rather than do something about it.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by JesseBlue

do you have shaw? if so..jump ship now and if millions of them do this, see what they will do...

most of the time people just complain rather than do something about it.

Jump ship to who? The only other option I have is Telus.

[J____]

FU shaw. I live with 2 roomates, it's impossible to keep it at 100gb/month.

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ 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.

[J____]

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.

[JesseBlue]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Jump ship to who? The only other option I have is Telus.

well that is an option is it not...tek is another one...

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by JesseBlue

well that is an option is it not...tek is another one...

Tek is only in the lower mainland and not on the island or the rest of BC.

[Hehe]

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.

[TheNewGirl]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Tek is only in the lower mainland and not on the island or the rest of BC.

Isn't Tek a bulk provider that piggy backs on another provider's network? If so they're going to be subject to even harsher UBB limits as the whole reason that Telus, Shaw and Bell brought this all to the table was they wanted to limit the usage purchased through these bulk providers and force them to stop giving out truly "unlimited" packages.

[pokchop]

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...

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Hehe

They argue that the cost of maintaining their backbones is too high for allowing heavy users.
...
If your bandwidth is reaching the limit, you should do an overhaul to your network to increase it.

These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.

Originally Posted by pokchop

so if we have to pay for extra usage, shouldn't we get money back for unused bandwidth?

Ahhh, and see, this is the problem with all the backlash: everyone's whipped into a frenzy over a pay-per-use model rather than a flat-rate model, but getting a rebate for UNUSED bandwidth is ALSO a pay-per-use model.

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.

[PornMaster]

Originally Posted by Soundy

These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.



Ahhh, and see, this is the problem with all the backlash: everyone's whipped into a frenzy over a pay-per-use model rather than a flat-rate model, but getting a rebate for UNUSED bandwidth is ALSO a pay-per-use model.

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.

They will never switch to that type of plan in a business perspective that is FAIL because you are losing on money that is easily gained.

To consumer perspective that would be perfect

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Soundy

These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.



Ahhh, and see, this is the problem with all the backlash: everyone's whipped into a frenzy over a pay-per-use model rather than a flat-rate model, but getting a rebate for UNUSED bandwidth is ALSO a pay-per-use model.

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.

Shaw claims majority of there users don't go over there cap. So all those users would be paying Shaw less making Shaw less money.

What Shaw is trying to do is make more money and has nothing to do with there backbone of capacity.

[Mr.HappySilp]

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.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Soundy

These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.

Read my post, the cost of bandwidth (maintaining it working with connectivity to other major backbones) is 3ct/gigabyte. Adding the "worst case scenario" layout by Bell (that's that the network is no longer economically feasible and basically adding deferred payment for future renovation) is 8cts/gigabyte.

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.

[dangonay]

^ 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.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by PornMaster

They will never switch to that type of plan in a business perspective that is FAIL because you are losing on money that is easily gained.

To consumer perspective that would be perfect

Exactly. To 99% of users, what they have now is actually a pretty sweet thing - they'll never, ever come close to hitting the caps already in place, and when you break it down, they're getting a lot of data for a pretty good flat price, with the added benefit of not having to wait until they get their bill to know what they'll have to pay.

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.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by dangonay

^ 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.

You going to guarantee those prices for the next 20 plus years?

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by dangonay

^ 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.

SHAW is still pricing thier bandwidth package but before they were going to charge you $1 to $2 per GB unless you purhcase the data package which they didn't mention how they would do it? Do you have to call in to add the data package when you reach the limit? or is it once you add it they will charge you every month? If it is the later case, then what if I didn't hit my limit for a month will SHAW not charge me the data package that month or no?

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?!?!?!

[mauricetan]

Originally Posted by J____

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.

optik high speed turbo and the high speed 25 of telus are both capped at 250gig per month... i've been with telus for 3-4months and using optik highspeed turbo and i believe that ive been going over the limit but no warning yet and im checking my online account with telus and the internet usage is still at 0% for the past 3-4months which is good! hopefully it will stay the same and they won't do the ubb!