Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > Networking

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old January 26, 2011, 04:17 PM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perineum View Post
I think a movie every second day for the average household is not going to be realistic. I'd say 2 movies per day for some households and at least one on average.
If you're paying for that much from Netflix, you may as well spend the money on something like a movie package on cable / satellite.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old January 26, 2011, 05:05 PM
FiXT's Avatar
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GVRD
Posts: 3,343

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
As I have said before, I am completely for UBB but within limits.

Someone here mentioned that with Netflix's supposed 2GB / HD movie, a family would likely burn through their cap within a month. I beg to differ. Even if a movie was rented every second day, they'd hit 30GB per month. Most sensible internet packages I have seen offer 60-80 GB for a relatively reasonable price (under $60) and many also offer optional overage protection (on Bell it is $5/month for 40GB) and EVERY one offers easy, accessible monitoring tools.

My family, for whom I set up with an AppleTV, and who are also very non techsavvy, went through 19GB of streaming Netflix/iTunes content in 6 days this month. There is only 3 of them in the household.

That represents 1/3rd of their monthly cap.


I do agree with you that Usage Based Billing makes sense IF it is being implemented to properly shape consumers usage habits to keep capacities in check and deliver equal and reliable service to all customers. I do NOT if it is simply being done to generate more revenues for the company and keep a stronghold on monopolies, such is the case with the current predicament.

The current design that the CRTC has allowed has had absolutely zero effort in designing a system whereby ISPs can alleviate congestion of the networks - which, to the best of my knowledge, is what they complain big downloaders are doing.

Big Providers don't pay or have an alloted amount of "GB" they can deliver. There is no magic data pool we are sucking from. The upgrades they are required to make to their lines are required to deal with increased user capacity. I don't argue that heavy downloaders cost extra because they necessitate upgrades, but they are only a problem when the ISPs network is at its maximum and forces an upgrade to deliver proper service to everyone else.

When regular traffic is NOT at its peak and stretching the throughput limits, heavy downloaders have no impact on the internet delivery environment and do not require "extra costs" to host.

This is why many European teleco's have a system whereby users are charged UBB fee's during peak times where they go over a "reasonable amount" that is set for everyone.


The best anaology I've heard is that the Internet and "bandwidth delivery" is just like a water pipe. If you have a pipe that can handle 100ga / min, and during (peak) 8AM shower time "heavy users" force the the water requirements to 110ga / m, because of their excessive showers or 20 faucets on at once, then yes, they should be the ones to pay extra and bear the brunt of the costs to support them.

But when no one is taking a shower at midnight, and there is only a flow of 50 ga /min going through, the extra 50 ga /min capacity that the pipe is able to deliver, isn't costing the company anything in upgrades to handle.

If this was the case, then "heavy users" would be far less likely to clog the pipes during peak times, and thus, the 100 ga/m pipes are perfectly suitable, not extra costs for the company outside of what is routine.

Last edited by FiXT; January 26, 2011 at 05:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old January 26, 2011, 07:36 PM
headsh0t's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,565

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiXT View Post
My family, for whom I set up with an AppleTV, and who are also very non techsavvy, went through 19GB of streaming Netflix/iTunes content in 6 days this month. There is only 3 of them in the household.

That represents 1/3rd of their monthly cap.


I do agree with you that Usage Based Billing makes sense IF it is being implemented to properly shape consumers usage habits to keep capacities in check and deliver equal and reliable service to all customers. I do NOT if it is simply being done to generate more revenues for the company and keep a stronghold on monopolies, such is the case with the current predicament.

The current design that the CRTC has allowed has had absolutely zero effort in designing a system whereby ISPs can alleviate congestion of the networks - which, to the best of my knowledge, is what they complain big downloaders are doing.

Big Providers don't pay or have an alloted amount of "GB" they can deliver. There is no magic data pool we are sucking from. The upgrades they are required to make to their lines are required to deal with increased user capacity. I don't argue that heavy downloaders cost extra because they necessitate upgrades, but they are only a problem when the ISPs network is at its maximum and forces an upgrade to deliver proper service to everyone else.

When regular traffic is NOT at its peak and stretching the throughput limits, heavy downloaders have no impact on the internet delivery environment and do not require "extra costs" to host.

This is why many European teleco's have a system whereby users are charged UBB fee's during peak times where they go over a "reasonable amount" that is set for everyone.


The best anaology I've heard is that the Internet and "bandwidth delivery" is just like a water pipe. If you have a pipe that can handle 100ga / min, and during (peak) 8AM shower time "heavy users" force the the water requirements to 110ga / m, because of their excessive showers or 20 faucets on at once, then yes, they should be the ones to pay extra and bear the brunt of the costs to support them.

But when no one is taking a shower at midnight, and there is only a flow of 50 ga /min going through, the extra 50 ga /min capacity that the pipe is able to deliver, isn't costing the company anything in upgrades to handle.

If this was the case, then "heavy users" would be far less likely to clog the pipes during peak times, and thus, the 100 ga/m pipes are perfectly suitable, not extra costs for the company outside of what is routine.
If your family is using internet for their TV service then obviously they will use more bandwidth and as such should upgrade their internet package for higher caps with the money you save not paying monthly for Cable/Satellite. I'm not really sure the CRTC is regulating Apple TV/Google TV either so Canadian programming gets the shaft that way as well. It seems like they might be regulating Netflix though, judging by their limited selection.

Other than that completely agree with everything else about peak hours, cause ya I was gonna mention that some ISPs in Europe will allow unlimited bandwidth from like 12am-6am and then have certain caps during the peak hours which would be great. Another point you mentioned was that, what happens in the future with our current caps when users need more bandwidth? You know every company is gonna milk it out until they absolutely have to raise caps. BTW you realize MONOpoly means a single enterprise/entity that has dominance in it's industry? :P

And LaughingCrow, I'd say the CRTC is more in bed with, well mostly just Bell, but i believe it also has some ex Telus employees as well as ex Bell employees. I don't think the same is true for ex Shaw or ex Rogers employees. Either way though, the CRTC seems to be doing things backwards by helping out the businesses rather than consumers.

Also, this thread has clearly turned into the same conversation as in the "Canadian Internet" thread
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old January 26, 2011, 08:17 PM
FiXT's Avatar
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GVRD
Posts: 3,343

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by headsh0t View Post
If your family is using internet for their TV service then obviously they will use more bandwidth and as such should upgrade their internet package for higher caps with the money you save not paying monthly for Cable/Satellite. I'm not really sure the CRTC is regulating Apple TV/Google TV either so Canadian programming gets the shaft that way as well. It seems like they might be regulating Netflix though, judging by their limited selection.
They subscribe to a $100/mo satellite service. Unfortunately it doesn't offer what they want, only 500 channels of a dozen repeats and garbage, nor does it allow them to watch what they want on demand, and renting from the local video store costs them $7/ea. + gas and time. Whereas Netflix is all you can eat, and iTunes is more convenient + cheaper.

But you can't get the news hour, or current shows via Netflix + iTunes so in essence these companies (TV + Web) are double dipping. They fail to provide a user with a satisfactory full experience in one medium, and penalize us for using another.

The funny thing is, Shaw Communications was a strong proponent for customer rights and the internet as the new media delivery source, UNTIL shareholders got involved and they became a broadcaster.


Quote:
Originally Posted by headsh0t View Post
Another point you mentioned was that, what happens in the future with our current caps when users need more bandwidth? You know every company is gonna milk it out until they absolutely have to raise caps. BTW you realize MONOpoly means a single enterprise/entity that has dominance in it's industry? :P
That's sort of what I was getting at with the story about my parents - A family of 3 individuals who are as untechsavvy as they come, have the ability to easily go through 20GB in a week.

A user like me who uses the internet as his primary and ONLY source of media delivery has much higher needs, and yet the bandwidth caps haven't changed in 5 YEARS! It's completely ridiculous.


Monopoly of the group as a whole over the control of the web. I lump the 4-5 majors under one ideology.

Last edited by FiXT; January 26, 2011 at 08:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 01:13 AM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,038

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
If you're paying for that much from Netflix, you may as well spend the money on something like a movie package on cable / satellite.
From the netflix website...

Quote:
For only $7.99 a month you get unlimited movies & TV episodes instantly over the Internet to your TV or computer. There are no ads, and you can pause, rewind, or fast forward as often as you like. It's really that easy!
On demand, no commercials at an excellent price. Why would I ever go with some craptastic TV / Satellite service?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiXT View Post
My family, for whom I set up with an AppleTV, and who are also very non techsavvy, went through 19GB of streaming Netflix/iTunes content in 6 days this month. There is only 3 of them in the household.

That represents 1/3rd of their monthly cap.
I think this kind of usage is going to be the norm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiXT View Post
I do agree with you that Usage Based Billing makes sense IF it is being implemented to properly shape consumers usage habits to keep capacities in check and deliver equal and reliable service to all customers. I do NOT if it is simply being done to generate more revenues for the company and keep a stronghold on monopolies, such is the case with the current predicament.
I agree with what you've said here.

Last edited by Perineum; January 27, 2011 at 01:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 06:28 AM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 46
Default

Anyone here with shaw and actually been billed?

I just moved 3 months ago so i started a new account with shaw. I was at 170gb down and 70gb up last month. This month i'm sitting at 107gb down and 70 up.

Isn't total traffic 100gb? They have yet to call me... granted i am still on the promo package though.

If they call me though and complain i will wait until my free period is up and then switch to telus or something else. I don't have any PVR's etc with shaw so it's pretty easy to ditch them.
__________________
Heat
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 07:10 AM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiXT View Post
That's sort of what I was getting at with the story about my parents - A family of 3 individuals who are as untechsavvy as they come, have the ability to easily go through 20GB in a week.

You just made my point for me. If they are using a video delivery service that is based on internet streaming, they should have an internet package with higher bandwidth limits. A 100-120GB package is still highly affordable for someone who can effectively cut down on their monthly satellite specialty channel needs through the use of alternate sources like AppleTV, etc.

Granted, some ISPs don't even offer packages with higher limits but that raises the whole question of shopping around for the service that suits your needs...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 07:58 AM
MVP
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
As I have said before, I am completely for UBB but within limits.

Someone here mentioned that with Netflix's supposed 2GB / HD movie, a family would likely burn through their cap within a month. I beg to differ. Even if a movie was rented every second day, they'd hit 30GB per month. Most sensible internet packages I have seen offer 60-80 GB for a relatively reasonable price (under $60) and many also offer optional overage protection (on Bell it is $5/month for 40GB) and EVERY one offers easy, accessible monitoring tools.

I would say I lead a fairly "connected" lifestyle. Actually, make that a VERY connected lifestyle. I use Steam on a regular basis, have access to Hulu and Netflix US (being a member of the press has benefits) which I use quite a bit, my girlfriend uses Skype video streaming with her family every second night, we use a WiFi connected iPad to do a massive number of things, watching Youtube scrapbooking videos is an addiction for the GF, FTP services from manufacturers eat up a fair amount of bandwidth as well, etc, etc.

Looking at my usage last month (the highest within the last six months), we broke the 75GB barrier with 76.44 GB used. How a "normal" or even well connected family would need more than the 100GB packages (on Bell 75GB + 40GB overage protection) is absolutely beyond me. If an individual needs more than 120GB, they should be more than willing to pay the money for one of the ISP's small business services which regularly come with massive (if any) caps and firehose-like speeds.

The way I see this is pretty simple: big companies want to make money off the consumers' backs. That's true. However, a large number of people out there have some sort of entitlement complex that dictates they should be paying less for more. Many of those same people deftly dodge questions about what they are USING massive amounts of bandwidth for as well. ;)
I agree with this, generally. My problem is mostly with pricing plans which don't reflect costs to the company, or usability to the average user, or really anything useful.

I'll quote myself from a different forum on what I think would be a reasonable pricing plan:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelig View Post
Well, I'm not a big fan of caps, I think a setup would be nice where you pay a base cost, depending on the speed of your connection, with faster connections getting a better speed/$ cost, maybe as follows:

1mbit = $5
10mbit = $10
100mbit = $20


And then you pay for every gb you download, with each additional gb costing less. Something like Y = 0.75*(X^0.75) where X is the number of GB you download and Y is the dollar amount you pay in addition to the base cost, looks reasonable.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 08:06 AM
geokilla's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,622

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
As I have said before, I am completely for UBB but within limits.

Someone here mentioned that with Netflix's supposed 2GB / HD movie, a family would likely burn through their cap within a month. I beg to differ. Even if a movie was rented every second day, they'd hit 30GB per month. Most sensible internet packages I have seen offer 60-80 GB for a relatively reasonable price (under $60) and many also offer optional overage protection (on Bell it is $5/month for 40GB) and EVERY one offers easy, accessible monitoring tools.

I would say I lead a fairly "connected" lifestyle. Actually, make that a VERY connected lifestyle. I use Steam on a regular basis, have access to Hulu and Netflix US (being a member of the press has benefits) which I use quite a bit, my girlfriend uses Skype video streaming with her family every second night, we use a WiFi connected iPad to do a massive number of things, watching Youtube scrapbooking videos is an addiction for the GF, FTP services from manufacturers eat up a fair amount of bandwidth as well, etc, etc.

Looking at my usage last month (the highest within the last six months), we broke the 75GB barrier with 76.44 GB used. How a "normal" or even well connected family would need more than the 100GB packages (on Bell 75GB + 40GB overage protection) is absolutely beyond me. If an individual needs more than 120GB, they should be more than willing to pay the money for one of the ISP's small business services which regularly come with massive (if any) caps and firehose-like speeds.

The way I see this is pretty simple: big companies want to make money off the consumers' backs. That's true. However, a large number of people out there have some sort of entitlement complex that dictates they should be paying less for more. Many of those same people deftly dodge questions about what they are USING massive amounts of bandwidth for as well. ;)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 10:27 AM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,038

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
You just made my point for me. If they are using a video delivery service that is based on internet streaming, they should have an internet package with higher bandwidth limits. A 100-120GB package is still highly affordable for someone who can effectively cut down on their monthly satellite specialty channel needs through the use of alternate sources like AppleTV, etc.

Granted, some ISPs don't even offer packages with higher limits but that raises the whole question of shopping around for the service that suits your needs...

And what about the people that don't get a choice on their internet provider because of where they live?

People who live in rural areas already pay twice the amount for their shitastic internet connection, at least here in BC. Then allowing these companies that have a monopoly in areas to enforce a UBB as well?

No thanks.

I haven't had cable for years. I've never had Satellite. The level of marketing and commercials on TV is downright insulting. People now go out of their way to pay extra for movie channels and radio that does not have commercials anymore because they are THAT annoying.

Shaw came here trying to sell me a cable package. At the end of that visit the door to door salesman knew he'd have my business if Shaw paid me per month, plus free cable.

Why are we applying some retarded monolithic business practice like that to the internet now? I'll tell you why. Aging grey haired fatcats KNOW it's good for the bottom line. That's the only reason.

How come POTS phone service never switched to UBB after VOIP came out? It's the exact same thing. The difference is that the average consumer doesn't know the difference between 60GB and 100GB, except that one is higher than the other. They don't recognize usage amounts. However with POTS service they certainly would. Any company trying to charge per minute for regular phone service probably would have been burnt to the ground.

Markets for products change. The role of TV and radio has changed very much since their introduction. Now, with the internet involved they are trying to protect their investment in an overly costly bloated system that they've created.

Too bad.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shaw or Telus in AB? Silvgearx Off Topic 14 February 26, 2010 08:36 AM
Telus vs. Shaw Polygon Off Topic 18 October 18, 2009 04:56 PM
Shaw HD Unknownm Off Topic 20 September 25, 2009 05:20 PM
Good News and Bad News. need some advice. arekieh Troubleshooting 7 November 23, 2008 09:24 AM
AMD: Want the good news or the bad news first? Cheator CPU's and Motherboards 7 July 20, 2008 08:03 PM