Rogers VS TechSavvy

[Cadence]

Alright. I live in north scarborough, (brimley and mcnicoll). Stay with Rogers? (using the 60GB bandwidth cap plan) or switch to TechSavvy? spend a bit more initally but save more eventually?

[Jon_di2]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Alright. I live in north scarborough, (brimley and mcnicoll). Stay with Rogers? (using the 60GB bandwidth cap plan) or switch to TechSavvy? spend a bit more initally but save more eventually?

1) If you have a home phone line - get teksavvy
2) If you dont have a home phone line only get teksavvy if you are using more then 60GB bandwidth/month.
3) see this thread for more input:

TekSavvy for SKYMTL. Need Input

[sswilson]

Isn't there a submission from Bell to the CRTC that will effectively cap techsavvy's service if it's accepted?

I'd do some research on that first before I switched over to techsavvy.

[Chilly]

Originally Posted by sswilson

Isn't there a submission from Bell to the CRTC that will effectively cap techsavvy's service if it's accepted?

I'd do some research on that first before I switched over to techsavvy.

Link? I'm actually curious about this if true. Only reason I ask is as far as I know TekSavvy only uses Bell for the last mile, the rest of the network beyond the wire to the home is TekSavvys network. I'm almost sure of it as you can even choose which Level 1/2 provider you want to use (Cogent vs Peer1).

I couldn't find anything first glance about capping bandwidth, frankly I don't think that Bell has the ability to cap the bandwidth on the last mile, only the speed. Great resource about the Net Neutrality battle, a large part of it dealing with Bell vs TekSavvy at SaveOurNet.ca | Protecting your Internet's level playing field

[sswilson]

Originally Posted by Chilly

Link? I'm actually curious about this if true. Only reason I ask is as far as I know TekSavvy only uses Bell for the last mile, the rest of the network beyond the wire to the home is TekSavvys network. I'm almost sure of it as you can even choose which Level 1/2 provider you want to use (Cogent vs Peer1).

I couldn't find anything first glance about capping bandwidth, frankly I don't think that Bell has the ability to cap the bandwidth on the last mile, only the speed. Great resource about the Net Neutrality battle, a large part of it dealing with Bell vs TekSavvy at SaveOurNet.ca | Protecting your Internet's level playing field

Just what I've seen over on the NCIX forums.... NCIX FORUMS - Bell Imposes New Limits On Teksavvy Inte...

I don't have access to anything but either Rogers or Bell so it was only a passing interest for me.

If I'm reading it correctly, Bell is applying for the right to impose new limits on the resellers.

[Chilly]

Originally Posted by sswilson

Just what I've seen over on the NCIX forums.... NCIX FORUMS - Bell Imposes New Limits On Teksavvy Inte...

I don't have access to anything but either Rogers or Bell so it was only a passing interest for me.

If I'm reading it correctly, Bell is applying for the right to impose new limits on the resellers.

Wow, that's the first I've heard of it but... that looks horrible for us the users. Bell can burn for all I care.

[sswilson]

Unfortunately for users, my understanding is that the "intent" of the policy forcing bell to allow resellers access to any part of their network is geared towards preventing bell from putting the resellers at a competetive disadvantage.

Since bell isn't providing their own customers with a zero cap option, the resellers can't claim that bell is trying to be anti-competetive with this request.

[Chilly]

Originally Posted by sswilson

Unfortunately for users, my understanding is that the "intent" of the policy forcing bell to allow resellers access to any part of their network is geared towards preventing bell from putting the resellers at a competetive disadvantage.

Since bell isn't providing their own customers with a zero cap option, the resellers can't claim that bell is trying to be anti-competetive with this request.

It prevents resellers from providing a better service, all this does is provide a ceiling of the level of service a reseller can provide. So what happens? With this implemented(if it happens, hasn't yet but the CRTC has no backbone so...) a reseller such as TekSavvy can only be as good as Bell, never better.

If that's not considered anti competitive by the CRTC I don't know what will. Like I said before, Bell can burn.

[sswilson]

Originally Posted by Chilly

It prevents resellers from providing a better service, all this does is provide a ceiling of the level of service a reseller can provide. So what happens? With this implemented(if it happens, hasn't yet but the CRTC has no backbone so...) a reseller such as TekSavvy can only be as good as Bell, never better.

If that's not considered anti competitive by the CRTC I don't know what will. Like I said before, Bell can burn.

Not quite.... Anti-Competetive would be charging the resellers an access fee which would not allow them to turn profits similar to Bell with similar pricing packages... it wouldn't make sense for Bell to be forced to allow resellers to have a better package than they can offer themselves.

If the resellers want to be able to offer a "better" service than bell does, they'll have to build their own backbone.

What this all comes down to is that the days of unlimited caps are coming to a close, and you can mostly thank the explosion of 24/7 high bandwidth downloading that's been going on for the last year or so.

[death_hawk]

Care to explain the ridiculous cost of bandwidth in Canada vs the US or Japan then?

Sure it costs a lot more to lay fiber between cities but that shouldn't explain why bandwidth is 20x more up here than in the US....

Hell I can get a server with 40MBit Internap cheaper than paying the GST on 40MBit bandwidth in Canada.... I wish I was kidding, but it's DAMN close. If you pay PST, it's actually cheaper.