Help Canada not get screwed by our ISPs
- Started
- Last post
- 67 Responses
- abettertomorrow0
Hmmm
We don't have limits here and the system works pretty well
- *checks status of 20GB of concurrent torrent downloadsabettertomorrow
- with one ISP, I just rebooted the cable model when uTorrent got slow, works mostly...vaxorcist
- tOki0
To give you an idea of what Australia is like:
I have a 160gb plan per month. 80gb is peak (8am-12am) and 80gb is offpeak (12am-8am). This costs AU$80 a month for a 24mbps line (actual is downstream more around 17mbps, and upstream around 6mbps). Uploads count to this data also. If we go over either of our quotas, we get shaped to 64kbps up & down...so they sell the plans as unlimited, because they are - you just get your connection slowed to dialup speed when you go over.
Some of the more nasty telcos will actually charge you for every mb you go over..I remember about 3 years ago a friend of mine got a $3000 bill from Telstra
- A $3,000 bill. lol. I had a $1,500 bill for my cell phone as a teen. My father almost murdered me.shellie
- ETM0
I am not sure what perception there is of Internet in Canada currently, but Netflix just rated our two major Cable providers (Shaw and Rogers) as the top delivery networks for their streaming service in North America.
Right now at the house I pay Shaw $47month CDN for 15mb/1mb and 170gb limit per month. Which is a soft limit that they only enforce when you frequently break it. As far as I know, uploads don't count against that limit. If I wanted to pay more, I can get a 50mb/3mb or a 100mb/5mb plan. The only complaint is that the upload speeds could be better.
But regards to this ruling, I can't imagine a company like Shaw implementing it. Now Telus on the other hand (Telco/DSL service) I could see jumping on it.
- Shaw did implement it. Shaw on Demand is their concern
http://saveournet.ca…Naygon - Shaw charges you as much as Netflix does for 1 movie. They have a stake in this just like Bell and Rogers
=Naygon
- Shaw did implement it. Shaw on Demand is their concern
- horton0
i was fully in support of this until it was brought to my attention that Netflix uses up to 20% of total US bandwidth during peak hours... and somehow that doesn't seem right for a company charging $8/month.
- That's Netflix's problem to sort with backbones etc.. not our problem as consumers.ETM
- Julesvm0
got this from my ISP yesterday.
:(
Usage Based Billing-UBB
As some of you know, the CRTC recently rendered a decision forcing all independent DSL and Cable Internet providers to substantially match incumbent (like Bell) usage rate caps. This will influence all of our internet service packages eventually, but DSL residential customers in Ontario and Quebec first, as of March 1. Along with you, we are not pleased with this, and our view is more fully expressed in our press release which you can find here: http://www.teksavvynews.com/
From March 1 on, users of the up to 5 Mbps packages in Ontario can expect a usage cap of 25GB (60GB in Quebec), substantially down from the 200GB or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC's decision to impose usage based billing. Users who were on unlimited package rates will be returned to $31.95 capped rates although larger blocks of bandwidth can be purchased.*
In order to facilitate this transition we have constructed a new easy-to-navigate portal at https://myworld.teksavvy.com where our customers can choose from the amended and new packages.
The details of our new rate plans and charges can be found there. You will be able to register using the account information found at the end of this email. More on the portal below. In addition, in order to accommodate these changes, we have amended our Terms of Service, primarily regarding implementation. The amended Terms form part of your Agreement with TekSavvy and can be viewed at https://secure.teksavvy.com/en/t….Please note if you do not choose a new service before March 1, 2011, your existing package will be transitioned into an amended package. Existing packages and the ones they will be replaced with in each case can be found at http://teksavvy.com/en/faq-ubb_o… for Ontario and http://teksavvy.com/en/faq-ubb_q… for Quebec.
Content and data like Netflix, YouTube, IPTV, large file downloads or other streaming services can consume large amounts of bandwidth and place your cap limits in jeopardy very quickly. We encourage you to monitor your usage carefully, as the CRTC has imposed a very high overage rate, above your new monthly limit, of $1.90 per gigabyte ($2.35 per gigabyte in Quebec).
The CRTC did however provide an option for insurance usage blocks at $4.75 per 40GB block per month, which can be purchased if you want to reduce your cost for use above 25GB (60GB in Quebec).
Ontario and Quebec up to 5 Mbps users with a monthly limit of 25GB and 60GB respectively:
- Peter0
I haven't got that much interest in recent changes in Canadian laws, or Canada, but I do like to know if this is some knee-jerk reaction to piracy?
You can't stop people sharing gbs of movies, but we can restrict internet access....that sort of thing?
Because really...who youtubes 25gb a month?
- People will youtube 25GB in the near future.nb
- per day. how badass will that bereinitialize
- Julesvm0
yeah... it's real
- monNom0
I went in to shaw yesterday to find out just how much bandwidth I was using. I've got two users on my account, both of us spend too much time online, watch youtube, listen to streaming audio, play games, etc. All that, and we've never exceeded 15gig a month (shaw's LITE package limit --which I switched too, saving me about $15/mo).
Now, we don't do peer to peer sharing, and we don't download HD movies. But I bet there's a good chunk of people out there that use the internet just like me and are probably overpaying for service they don't even need. Looking at my usage, 200GB seems crazy.
If you don't already know, look into how much bandwidth you actually use. It was an eye opener for me.
- as it turns out LITE = 56k on average... so that sucksmonNom
- tOki0
From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the cost to an ISP per gb is only a few cents if that...data is not a physical object, the only cost involved is the initial setup and maintenance of the system. Often it's the national telco that's to blame for these costs, since they charge the other operators fees in order to use their networks of fibre/phone lines. Put simply they own the infrastructure, and ISP's have to pass the costs on..
- Julesvm0
@ monNom: I watch basically all my TV / movies on netflix and between me and my girlfriend we average about 120 gigs / month. My ISP is offering overage 'insurance up to 200 / month, but it's going to cost me... so basically my plan just went up about $15/month for shittier service.... thanks canada.
- Dodecahedron0
first world problem?
- Won't be first world for long, with shitty 90s style interwebzmikotondria3
- i_monk0
Because of this my bandwidth cap will be dropping from 200GB/month to 25GB/month.
- abettertomorrow0
No free lunch kids...
- Just think about Egyptabettertomorrow
- thanks for the 2 cents!
betelgeuse
- ETM0
Those of you using smaller, independent ISPs may not enjoy the benefits of lower prices anymore. The CRTC ruling also means that small ISPs that buy bandwidth from large ones for resale, also have to pay additional bandwidth fees back at only a 15% discount, leaving slim margins.
- Naygon0
@ ETM Shaw has more to gain from this then you might think. This leverages their "Shaw on Demand" model which can charge you the same if not higher price for a movie on demand then what Netflix charges for a month of service.
- ETM0
^
Telus saying they don't plan to implement the overage fees is against my first thoughts on them, but their DSL is so slow, nobody would exceed any reasonable limit anyway. I don't think it would draw many new customers from cable, if that is what they hope.
- ETM0
The more I hear, the more am confused. No final decision will be made on this until March 1, but some ISPs are already implementing policy like its done. Also, this seems more as a ruling for secondary ISPs to pay back their "fair share" to the primary networks that they resell. In theory, the big ISPs should not even be passing this on to their own direct customers. They're just using it as a smokescreen to to impose tighter limits on customers while making the CRTC the bad guy.
Also, for those who find this amusing, countries and ISPs world wide, including the U.S. are watching to see how this plays out to see if they can implement similar policy.