Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > Networking

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2012, 08:08 AM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,772
Default

I love my Bell Fibe service and I am totally in favor of caps but I really have to wonder....

If Bell is so worried about network congestion, why the hell are they pushing their "Fibe TV" so hard? If anything, I'm positive that a single Fibe IPTV customer will eat through many times the bandwidth as a single internet user. So obviously, network congestion really isn't a factor for these guys in large population areas.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2012, 09:01 AM
Sagath's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Petawawa, ON
Posts: 2,555

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
I love my Bell Fibe service and I am totally in favor of caps but I really have to wonder....

If Bell is so worried about network congestion, why the hell are they pushing their "Fibe TV" so hard? If anything, I'm positive that a single Fibe IPTV customer will eat through many times the bandwidth as a single internet user. So obviously, network congestion really isn't a factor for these guys in large population areas.
I remember reading somewhere about the amount of dark fiber telco's have lying around. I dont have the hard facts but I'm quite sure that it was in excess of 100% of the currently available bandwidth. As a former Bell employees son, I can remember my dad taking me in to the local Bell network building to work on it. Small town of 18k. I remember rows and rows and ROWS of network communication devices/routers/switches/UPS's/etc/etc (I didnt know exactly what they all were at that age, just that they were really fancy versions of my 4 port router at home, bigger UPS's etc), and this was back in the early/mid 90's when the internet was just reaching its infancy for broadband. The point is, the infrastructure has been available in excess for years, and cost to light fiber is minimal, with telco' routers being way over the top and underused. But it costs them money when people use it, and would cut in to their profits.

TLDR: Essentially at the end of the day its easier to bitch to the CRTC saying "we cant handle the load!", raise rates, and make MORE profit, then light the dark fiber, meet demand, and LOSE profits.

Welcome to the world of the 2 party system...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lpfan4ever View Post
AKG shot the hamsters, and then Perineum drove his Mustang with summer tires into the server.
My Disclaimer to any advice or comment I make;
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroSsFiRe2009 View Post
I'm a self certified whizbang repair technician with 20 years of professional bullshit so I don't know what I'm talking about
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2012, 10:10 AM
Lamb's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 813

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
I love my Bell Fibe service and I am totally in favor of caps but I really have to wonder....
Oh cap all they want, but give people the choice for unlimited.

It's not like bandwidth is a finite resource and that network capacity doesn't keep getting bigger and bigger, and wouldn't grow much faster if they invested more in their network instead of, say, buying sport assets. No wonder people are pissed off at them for asking higher rates then when they don't get upgraded service, or heck, get a reduction in service with a price hike...

Functional separation would fix a lot of issues but one can dream I guess... power to the greedy monopolistic lords.

Last edited by Lamb; January 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2012, 11:19 AM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,418

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamb View Post
I think ebox's prices for cable arent that good, plus I get a lower cap, and no ''off-peak'' unlimited for cable. I don't need cable 30 really, I just want something a tad faster than DSL5 or 6, priced within reason with high to no cap at all (I'm not the one paying but I don't want my parents to pay too much for the internet I use, I pay for things such as activation fees, plus I paid for both modem and router and something like half the ethernet plugs and CAT5 cable used in the house...)

DSL16 with 300GB/month and unlimited off-peak usage for $45.99 seems fair to me, I know Teksavvy would have these rates dropped down if Bell wasnt asking so much for access to it's network. Plus I like Teksavvy...they use friggin Laraque for their publicity, I have his jersey (But seriously, I got awesome service everytime I had to call them )
The DSL service will also be a new modem, right? But the modem is rented and included in the price...I just can't remember if that applies to all speeds above 6mbps or 25/7mbps only.

In any case, the tariffs on 8mbps cable were really cheap. I imagine Teksavvy will have similar prices for DSL and Cable in Quebec because Videotron and Bell both had absurd prices for each 100mbps link ($2200 or so). At least in Ontario Rogers was somewhere around $1100-1200. I think staying on DSL is probably a better choice for you. If it's stable, you have no worries with keeping DSL. Switching tiers has less issues than switching as well.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2012, 01:38 PM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,048

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
I love my Bell Fibe service and I am totally in favor of caps but I really have to wonder....
I'm against caps completely. It's not net neutral. These are ways the incumbents can control services like netflix

If your arguement is that I should pay more for the excess bandwidth that I use over you then that's fine, but then we need regulated prices dictated by a enforcing group and I will pay REAL price per GB or that price with a small margin.... no matter what ISP you are with

IE: every megabit in speed costs, say, $1.00, then pay $0.05 per GB used.

25mbit line = $25month + 423gb's used for and additional: $21.15 Total of $46.15

$20 for 5gb over your cap is stupid, especially with no cap payout limit.
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2012, 02:18 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: laval Qc
Posts: 1,072
Default

i called teksavvy n

prices staying the same for quebec until they decide ...... teksavvy better decide fast before alot of people switch

electronicbox 8m 250gb is 36$
not gonna pay 20$ more for 125gb less
__________________
maximus IV extreme @ 5.1 1.41v

evga e760 +920 4.8 water5.0+ on phase linx stable
gtx285 tri-sli
dfi ut-p35 lt
e8600@4.6 1.38v
too much ram
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2012, 02:23 PM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,418

My System Specs

Default

Teksavvy hardly has any Quebec TPIA cable customers. It was hardly worth while under the old tariffs, they have a few thousand at best. Their Rogers market and Bell market has probably closer to 100k all together, hence why it gets the most attention.

EB seems like a really good company in any case, I wouldn't hesitate to switch to them. They also have routing out of Montreal which means better pings to East coast servers :)
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old August 11, 2012, 12:43 AM
Bloodystumps's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 230

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
I love my Bell Fibe service and I am totally in favor of caps but I really have to wonder....

If Bell is so worried about network congestion, why the hell are they pushing their "Fibe TV" so hard? If anything, I'm positive that a single Fibe IPTV customer will eat through many times the bandwidth as a single internet user. So obviously, network congestion really isn't a factor for these guys in large population areas.

its the same reason Bell made it illegal to have DirecTV here in Canada so they can control the market.

The CRTC told DirecTV they could not sell their service here so that in its self made it legal to receive the SAT signal on a modified receiver Bell went to the CRTC and the law makers whining / crying demanding they do something .

The CRTC really does need to go I find it offensive that I have to be regulated as to what I can and can not watch, do I need 50 - 60 % CanCon ?? NO !! Do I need to pay for junk programing just to give a bad actor a job ? NO! Hence why I do not own a TV .

I feel like I am being shaped into paying more for this service that should be growing not being capped and throttled but like I said Bell and Rogers want the market to them selves and that means services like Netflix , Itunes , Amazon is on their hate list .

So its not really about bandwidth its more about who Bell thinks is making money that should be rightfully theirs
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Step-by-step guide to setting up SSD caching on Z68 Eldonko CPU's and Motherboards 20 September 16, 2011 10:40 AM
Step-by-Step Windows 7 Upgrade Randyman Guides & How-to's 0 October 27, 2009 08:19 AM
EVGA InterView 1700 - A Step In the Right Direction FiXT Press Releases & Tech News 0 July 16, 2009 11:12 AM
DriverHeaven has a step-by-step guide to building a PC Supergrover Press Releases & Tech News 0 May 1, 2007 10:56 AM