|
A c E posted:I'm really disappointed that they actually went through with this. We ended up going with Bell with the Fibe-7 plan and an extra 40GB a month of bandwidth (flat $5). It comes up to about $35 a month for 100GB, which is better than the alternative (the most comparable plan in terms of speed from Videotron here is at $49 with 30GB of bandwidth  ). We don't have a contract, but we have ExpressVu and our home line with them so that's an extra $10 off our bill every month. I would really love to start using Netflix but with a family of four living here and sharing the connection, we just can't afford it.Sprawl posted:Wow even the bell fiber stuff has bandwidth a month, the telus stuff isn't even metered. Yes  It's not even that fast, either. Whenever I hit about 700-800kb/s I pretty much can't do anything else. At least torrents can hit those speeds so it doesn't seem like they're throttling us (Quebec side here for what it's worth).I also heard that Bell decided to cut their 60GB cap down to 25GB around the time Netflix came here, but we haven't been affected here in Quebec. Crumbletron fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Oct 31, 2010 |
#
¿
Oct 31, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
particle409 posted:I have Verizon Fios (US) and I don't think we have caps. I don't even know how to see how much bandwidth I've used. I watch a ton of stuff on Hulu (I've basically given up on my tv), read a bunch of picture threads on SA, and play a ton of multiplayer games online. Do multiplayer games usually eat up a ton of bandwidth? yeah man i don't pay poo poo for health care ever But really though, we don't even have access to legitimate websites like Hulu for TV streaming. Some networks are making their programming available online but a lot of it is still locked to US visitors so it's not even like everyone and their mom is using up hundreds of gigs a day streaming high-quality video. Frankly, I'm surprised it's not the other way around and that you guys would be capped, where in the US there are tons of legal options for digital streaming and the opportunity to download large amounts of data.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 05:01
|
|
|
Cryptic Edge posted:Your right, I do demand they upgrade the equipment to keep up with the subscriber base. Why? because thats what they do if they don't want people leaving by the hundreds. Around here, I can get FiOS, brighthouse docsis 3, Knology docsis 1 (for dirt cheap), adsl 2+ and even PDSL, or a true fiber circuit from a dozen backbone providers. Setting quotas here would be suicide, and would be pretty much them forcing themselves out of the market. Haha, christ. How you could string those two paragraphs together and not realize what you're actually saying? You have options because you have all the infrastructure set up. We lack the infrastructure and thus the options. Our telcos are perfectly fine with this and what are you going to do? You either pick one and get hosed or pick the other and get hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 08:24
|
|
|
bob arctor posted:Right now my pet peeve about Shaw, is that once a week like clockwork they mail me (physical mail) a letter saying since I have Internet and Phone I should get TV too. Bell sends us a letter every 4 weeks trying to get us to get satellite to go with our internet and home phone. We already have satellite with them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 08:41
|
|
|
Shumagorath posted:Unfortunately I doubt internet bill shock is as prevalent as cellphone bill shock. The best thing that can happen is more people using Netflix and Steam/PSN/Live, as that means more people bumping into their caps through normal use and thus creating an outcry over bills. Either that, or IP-based TV and movie services start getting bandwidth cap exemption from the carriers and someone cries antitrust. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that almost every major ISP in Canada also has a cable/satellite TV branch and their own form of PPV/movie streaming. Average price for a movie rental is around $5. I doubt they'd ever come around to giving exemptions to Netflix and the like without government interference. They can only stand to lose money. On the other hand, I don't think any of them let you stream TV shows at will (not that I've seen, although I haven't used PPV ever with Bell TV), and at $9 a month, there's definitely a market for that. It's more of a question of whether you're willing to pay overage fees every month for busting your cap. Crumbletron fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Nov 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 08:45
|
|
|
less than three posted:Bell's "$31.95" internet is actually $45.90 once you wade through the pricing bullshit and mandatory fees. I don't know how we worked it out with them, but unless you mean with tax, ours is $40.90 for Fibe 7 with 60GB + the extra 40GB. $46.17 with tax. It's leagues better than what I used to get for almost $50 with Videotron (30GB). The straw that broke the camel's back for Videotron was buying The Force Unleashed on Steam and watching 5/6 of my bandwidth go down in one night.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
less than three posted:Yeah, mentioned it over a week ago on the previous page. Nice to see others are noticing now. I like how he mentions that it would be disastrous if they gave everyone a 25% increase in bandwidth but then goes on to say that most people don't even hit their current caps  Tyrsell posted:Their monitoring seems to be really bad though. I track my own internet usage through habit now because of terribly low bandwidth caps back when I was living in dorm for university. I've taken to tracking my own usage with a widget called Network Meter as well but thankfully Bell has a pretty decent tool on their website. I've heard stories that Bell lowered their bandwidth caps in other provinces but so far Québec seems unaffected.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Not necessarily Canadian internet-related, but bandwidth/telco-related anyway: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/bill-shock-consumers-choose-it-says-big-wireless.ars On being asked why they don't send out texts to warn users about the fact that they may potentially bust their data caps, CTIA had this to say: quote:But CTIA claims that even sending out SMS alerts would impose huge burdens on its members, costing them tens or even "hundreds" of millions of dollars. Some older billing systems can't handle outgoing notices, it says, and the idea of "real-time" alerts and cut-offs could be difficult for an industry that collects huge amounts of data but doesn't actually crunch the numbers as they're generated. If they're anything like Canadian telcos though, I bet they don't mind spamming their users with worthless offers every now and then. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
unknown posted:You're incorrect in that - a significant portion of users on average use less than 5 gigs per month combined up+down. Maybe, but why is the lowest-priced Bell plan a 2 gig affair? When my family first got a computer in late 2000 we signed up with Videotron and had a 2 gig plan for $40. Eleven years ago. Bell is seriously bringing out a plan reminiscent of what we had literally a decade ago. I'm with Bell right now and have the Fibe 7 60GB for $35 plan (comes up to $40 for the extra 40GB of insurance ).If I want to keep paying the same price for internet as I am currently, I have to accept a 58GB reduction in cap allowance and 5Mbps/~200Kbps reductions in down/up speeds. If I want to keep my current "plan", I learn that not only have they reduced Fibe 7 to 6 permanently, but I have to accept a 35GB reduction in cap allowance and pay $10 more per month. If you want to put these terms in words your grandma or neighbour can understand, it means you can download half as many crazy cat videos per month as before, at slower speeds, and pay Bell more for it. And if you do download as many as usual, you'll end up paying bills double or triple your average.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
Viktor posted:Business accounts are exempt, its targeted at residential service/access only. Does anyone know if there are any restrictions for business accounts? Can I get one for my home? Currently with the plan I mentioned earlier there's a family of four using the connection + a small-time sports association to whom we rent out our basement. We've managed not to bust our cap so far (coming close at ~90GB usually). If I'm going to have to end up paying $10 more for less bandwidth I'd just rather get a business account, which seems to have a much more reasonable 300GB cap. Could I do this?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:Back in 2004 I had a business account with Rogers. I didn't have to show them any official papers or anything. The account was a little more expensive but was faster then residential offerings. I figure at worse, the fact that we have tenants (who are a business) would work to our advantage. It's just kind of amazing that for the same price as their lovely 6/1 25GB offering I could get a legit business connection with a 300GB cap. Hell, I'm sure I could get my tenant to pay the difference between the current price and the business account.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
unknown posted:Nope - I've got access to raw usage data, and I'm just letting people know that not everyone uses 50+gigs of data. You'd be surprised how many people don't use anywhere near their cap max. There are lots of people that just get emails and surf a little bit. It's not 50%, but it's not 1% either - and no, I can't release the data. Once again, if not everyone uses their data, why bother lowering the caps in the first place?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm having a lot of trouble articulating what I'm trying to say so hopefully someone can follow where I'm trying to take this. I totally get what you're saying and it's what annoys me. I wouldn't mind UBB (even though ideally I'd abolish both it and caps) if caps were reasonable, but they're taking advantage of UBB to lower their caps so that even if UBB is overturned we still have to deal with the other shitstorm that is unreasonable data caps. I really think both issues have to be condensed into one by the public/government/legit media so that we deal with both of them now rather than UBB now, maybe lovely caps later.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
When are Bell planning on telling their customers about the new data caps and changes to their plans? If this is going live in less than a month it'd be cool to be notified more than a week before they do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 07:27
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:This shouldn't change things for Bell/Rogers customers at all. We've had caps for years. Yes but as far as I know they're lowering their caps and increasing their prices. Someone even posted tentative numbers a couple pages back.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 08:00
|
|
|
That's awesome news. I guess word of mouth really spread. I was at a hockey game earlier and some teen sitting behind us was telling his friends about the demons of UBB 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
Suniikaa posted:This was really refreshing to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYizoh_r6D0&t=304s  I love that that shareholder was just cut off at the end. He sounded like a tremendous rear end in a top hat and it was obvious the only thing he cared about was his wallet and that he gave no gently caress about anyone. It's easy to say you're for this and that when you're so rich you can probably download any amount of anything you want every month and it still wouldn't make a dent on your bank account.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Sorry can you clarify the CTV part? And you are right about the bandwidth hog thing, it detracts from the issue every time. Bell owns or is slated to own CTVglobemedia and would rather push you to watch its own content rather than Netflix or buying TV episodes from iTunes or something. efb
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
So basically he's saying in 60 days they'll make the same decision again? edit: oh my god it's clear that no one there has any loving idea what they're talking about
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Finally someone bringing up the fact that congestion may not be a legit issue. Finkenstein saying people who stream movies aren't heavy users. What. This Peter Braid seems pretty well-informed, at least, I just hope he can see through the bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Finkenstein: obviously if you pay Bell and Rogers MORE they'll increase capacity more
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
"Per gigahertz cap" - dude from the CRTC
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Nice point there on global competition.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Hahaha basically if you just use skype you won't use too much bandwidth, only if you watch lots of video and play three-dimensional games. This guy is loving senile
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
This whole thing just made me so angry. This old guy who barely knows what the gently caress is going on around him is spouting all sorts of bullshit to people who may or may not have advanced knowledge on the subject. What's a list of dumb poo poo he said? - Skype doesn't use too much bandwidth - Playing video games online uses tons - Frequently mistaking gigabytes for gigahertz - Figuring Bell/Rogers would do the responsible thing and overhaul their networks rather than filling their pockets (maybe if they got a mandate, but otherwise? gently caress no) On the flipside, I did like the point brought up that basically a university student taking courses online is penalized for doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm not really worried about the gigahertz thing. I think it's very plausible that everyone involved is nervous and trying to speak at length and just messing up the terms. I know I've botched technical terms in an interview before because I was nervous. I mean I caught myself a second later and corrected, but that's just me. Yeah, admittedly nerve might have to do with it but it's just mostly a combination of all the lovely points they had to make. Unfortunately I only caught the last half hour or so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:I can't believe he's getting poo poo for tweeting decisions. How much more efficient can government get? New generations will not even bat an eye at this, but it's clear who's outdated when they act all offended by tweets. There was some huge issue a while ago about people tweeting during meetings, I haven't watched this new interview but people here don't like that or something v v
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 08:02
|
|
|
asmallrabbit posted:It is the concurrent downloading at those speeds that would cause the congestion and lowering of bandwidth is it not? How then, do statistics like that above get released and not immediately torn apart? Because most people don't know any better (at least most people in places where it matters).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
priznat posted:Now that I think about it, I wonder if the amazon fulfillment centre is running now. Perhaps that is why they switched from canada post to UPS for shipping packages? I've always gotten all my stuff from Canada Post (last thing I ordered was a couple days before Christmas) and from the Mississauga centre. Granted, I mostly just order books/comics/DVDs. Anyway after watching that interview with Clement I'm pretty glad he seems to understand what the big problem is. I'm also glad he plans on sticking to his guns and striking down the CRTC's decision if they just come back with the same answer in 60 days. However, I'm not sure if the interviewer was just trying to play devil's advocate but the CBC's boner for the CRTC is pretty amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
Just tuned in. For those who aren't listening, someone (a moderator?) asked everyone what their questions would be that they'd want to ask Bell. Stuff that's come up: * Why Bell is the only one doing this (UBB) worldwide * Why, if smaller ISPs are paying Bell and co. millions of dollars for access to their pipes, they're still considered "parasites" * If telcos should be split into separate entities for each product they offer (TV, internet, phone) * If government should regulate even more as opposed to I guess leaving it up to the CRTC? * Why Bell's IPTV is exempt but anyone who wants to provide something similar (small ISPs) can't * Legit proof of congestion there's more but I couldn't type it all down. Crumbletron fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
less than three posted:It wasn't "split based on retail divisions." Oh, my bad. I was writing down the other stuff and didn't really catch that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Scylla posted:Is that actually true? Because if it is... holy gently caress. Probably not but I have no idea. edit: hahahaha "online time bundled with our plans"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
I like how they say heavy users are affecting anyone when I've never once had to deal with congestion. Ever. I don't know anyone who has, either. Anecdotal, but you'd think it would show.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
This Shaw dude is saying speeds are competitive, and maybe they are, but what he omits is that we're hosed by tiny caps where most everyone else isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Whoever is talking right now is amazing, he's totally destroying everything Bibic is saying.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Bibic: there is too much regulation "The only way to keep up with internet usage and our investments is UBB and unlimited usage plans are no longer feasible" Just in Canada, though. Someone needs to ask them why without bundling that question with others because Bibic keeps addressing the others while ignoring that one. Crumbletron fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Also hope someone asks why, if they traffic-shape, UBB is necessary as a means to combat congestion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Funny how every other ISP in the US can do fine without taxing its users huge amounts for pipe investments and and still give them unlimited usage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
^^ Yeah but they're saying the reason they want to charge more (and why they have a baseline price even for those who don't pop their caps) is because they keep having to pour money into infrastructure. "What if smaller ISPs started using plans promoting non-peak hours to download?" "Yeah but then regular users would have to pay for the peak hour bandwidth!!!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Dudebro posted:That's the whole crux of this specific UBB issue. Congestion is time-dependent, not usage dependent. It has nothing to do with heavier users when torrents are already traffic-shaped anyway. That's the thing. When asked why they couldn't work out something for off-peak hours, Bell/Shaw's answer was the equivalent of, "But but but mumble mumble mumble." The biggest thing that would reduce their (non-existent, in my opinion) congestion is off the table because it doesn't bring them more money. If congestion was really an issue, shaping (which they admitted to already doing anyway) is the second-best option.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2011 04:35
|
|