|
Sprawl posted:Yes it says that but it doesn't track it at all on their web page. No traffic what so ever so it nothing is there you can't be billed for it. Anyways it might be because i have the tv stuff too that they aren't monitoring it. That's because you're on a VDSL2 port which is not currently monitored as there's enough infrastructure in place to allow you go to hog wild. Regular DSL2 ports are monitored religiously. frumpsnake posted:Obviously Shaw is better in your area. Cable is always going to be variable and depend on your area, but Telus Optik is always 100% for me. Same with you. If you're on Optik fiber then you're not capped and probably never will be. It doesn't cost telus anything for you to run through multiple TB on fiber. I've gone past 1tb in the past and nothing happened. In fact I'm still getting free telus fiber because everytime i phone them to try and sign up they say my address doesn't exist. Oh well. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Nov 14, 2010 |
#
¿
Nov 13, 2010 22:04
|
|
)
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Actually it makes quite a large amount of difference if you're on VDSL2 or DSL2. You can read more about it at dslreports.com/forum/telus FTTH is quite prevalent in Vancouver. 2 of the previous condos I've rented had fiber directly to my suite. and the tb was just a bunch of stuff i lost from a hd crash. Typically my dl is not that high 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
Sorry, you're right it's ethernet to the suite (etts) but still fiber directly to the building. and afaik if they upgraded to vdsl2 then they upgraded the dslam with fiber as well. At least in BC. I mean what would be the point of uprading to vdsl2 if they don't install fiber? and yea the latency is crazy on fiber with telus. I assume telus has just allocated some new ip's and that's why it's misrepresenting my location but 6ms to seattle is not too bad (even though it should be 1 or 2 really) 
Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Nov 14, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
I think you're forgetting that a majority of Canadians live in areas where high speed internet isn't reliable or even that fast. People are lucky to get 4Mb/s on DSL in most areas. Satellite and cable will be around for a long while still.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
Managing a small Canadian wireless ISP (~500 customers) in a town of under 5000 people we have always enforced strict caps and high overage penalties. Just recently it was at 10GB per month with $5 per gb over. We've recently bumped it up to 25GB with the same $5 per gb over. I get emails daily from people bitching and moaning about their usage and how it's completely unfair that we are limiting their access to the internet and they want discounts on their bills, they want free months, they want 100's of GB's per month but I don't think people understand how much it actually costs to deliver internet to your front door. These types of videos and news articles don't really help our cause. Especially for a small ISP like ours it is increasingly frustrating trying to prove to our customers that we are just trying to deliver a good product to people who have no other options. We are not trying to screw anyone out of internet but unless people are willing to spend $150 per month there is no way we can reasonably upgrade our equipment to handle everyone streaming HD videos at 6pm @ 7Mb/s. Hell, our upstream costs alone are in the $14,000 range for a meager 40Mb which used to be capped at 10TB per month. Unfortunately the only other alternative is Telus since they own the fiber in the ground but surprise surprise they're not lighting up any dark fiber even though it was paid for by the Canadian government. I recently asked them for a quote on 40Mb and they laughed at me and said I could get a T1 for $1800 per month. Meanwhile they just brought in TelusTV (iptv) and 15Mb/s speeds with 60GB caps that I don't think are enforced. You can be sure they're delivering that kind of bandwidth via fiber that they're not sharing with anyone else. I would much rather the CBC focus on the actual issues by doing some research instead of talking to joe schmoe from the internet (no offense) and finding that 90% of the fiber in the ground today is owned by Telus and Bell paid for by the government and other than a few stipulations they are in complete control of all internet here. The CRTC needs to allow more access to that fiber but Telus and Bell will complain up and down that it's not possible and they would have to spend over a billion dollars to upgrade. I'm not trying to justify the caps by shaw and bell and other companies but the majority of their network was not built for the kind of usage that we are seeing today. The landscape of the Internet has changed quite a large amount even in the last couple of years and they're not prepared. The reason they could tout high caps is because nobody was using them, all of a sudden itunes, netflix, steam, pirating, blu ray, whatever comes in and even granny is using up 80gb per month and it's putting strain on the nodes. Sorry folks, unless the CRTC magically opens up the Canadian landscape for new providers to come in and lay fiber, internet in Canada is going to suck for quite a long time. If you want change, you need to deal with the government, not threatening to cancel Shaw or any other ISP and move to any other alternatives because they're all the same company in the end. PS just because I think it's interesting here's my usage over the last year. See if you can spot where I quit using torrents. This is only in an apartment with me and my gf but I do pretty much everything online, from games on steam to movies to tv series's. I don't even have cable anymore.  The only reason I am willing to do this is because I lucked out with an apartment serviced by ETTS (Ethernet to the suite) from Telus which is basically fiber to the building. I know that at any given moment I will have 30Mb sitting there waiting for me to use and I know it's not oversold or being shared. In fact in the 2 years I've been living here I've never seen it work at less than full capacity. This is what I would love all Canadians to have. I think it would open up a huge world of possibilities in a wide range of fields, but I can't see it happening for at least 5 - 10 years. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
Telus + the government just dumped a shitload of money into expanding their fiber for TelusTV so I suspect they'll hold off on the caps for a while since they don't need to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:Do you guys know if this would affect Novus? They own a lot of their own fibre, but mostly centred in various city centres. I wonder if whatever occurs charge wise means they'd incur upstream usage costs. I have novus in my building and wouldn't mind switching... It won't affect novus at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
lol you guys are hosed
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
I collect all my porn in glorious 1080p in case the internet dies
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
Pweller posted:I don't even care how many hours worth of tv or games are represented by such and such giabytes. If I pay monthly for a 1MB connection, my cap should be 1MB*60s*60m*24h*30d = 2.6TB You can't be serious... Come on man get a loving clue. This is just ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Stop believing the lie that they HAVE bandwidth problems! Where's the proof they have any kind of need for upgrades? Where's the proof that they don't? That's the problem. There's no way to get reliable data like this without going directly to the source and we have no idea if they're lying or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 17:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The proof is that people in this thread were happily doing hundreds of gigabytes per month with no issue! If there were congestion problems, they would know about it, because poo poo would get slow. Yea! A bunch of random people on an internet forum spread around Canada is a great way to determine congestion issues!!!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
The problem is you have absolutely no oversight into these networks so for you to sit there and say "Well the solution is simple, just build the network up" isn't a solution since you don't have any idea what it takes or what upgrades are required to deliver 25Mb/s unmetered to everyone like some people in here are demanding they get. You can be sure if everyone started running through hundreds of GB per month (which with current internet trends is getting to be pretty easy) you will see your congestion issues pop up really quickly. This is a vicious cycle folks and it's not going to be broken that easily. fishmech posted:Anyone who's not experiencing congestion does not have congestion issues! This isn't realistic. You're not going to have everyone using the internet at the exact same time. Also yes the caps would solve congestion because little johnny who was downloading 1.5tb in a month is now limited to 100gb so he can't be using up the network 24/7 like he was before. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
I agree the networks need to be overhauled to meet current and future demands. There needs to be some sort of government oversight to determine if these problems exist or if they're all made up by the large companies to make more money. It's just unrealistic for some of you to sit here and say that you demand your 25Mb/s connection unmetered right now so you can run through 2tb a month and Bell has the capacity to do it and they're ripping us off and gently caress everything! Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
Because NZ is maybe 700,000 square km and Canada is 10 million square km.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Aqualung posted:That would be a valid point if the government wasn't paying for all the infrastructure to low-density areas in Canada. Really, the companies are only responsible for the network they have in densely populated areas. less than three posted:http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...asBoGqw&cad=rja It's not that much money that the government is throwing in. Especially through rural canada where it costs the most to deploy high speed internet. You guys are so blind with rage. Can you just relax and accept that maybe the huge companies aren't spewing complete bullshit? Maybe some of their points are valid?  This is one province. 500million for one province. If you are going to sit here and spout the same old bullshit over and over again without even acknowledging that there may be some validity in caps then I'm just going to quit posting. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
less than three posted:Go ahead, because you still don't seem to understand that transfer caps don't relieve congestion. Right, because then instead of someone downloading 20GB @ 20Mb/s in 2.2 hours they download at 10Mb/s in 4.5 hours. How don't caps relieve congestion? If you are limited to the amount of data you can pass then you are not on the network as often. The faster they get you on and off the more speed they have to give to someone else. I would like to see statistics from the last couple of years. Streaming video in Canada wasn't nearly as prevalent in Canada in 2007 then it is in 2010/11 Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
less than three posted:Because congestion comes from everybody using the network at the same time. The congestion won't be as bad though since you don't have the people who are downloading all day continually using up 20Mb/s running through 800gb a month.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
Viktor posted:There is some validity in caps, the problem is pushing the 25GB cap which is less then we had a decade ago. I agree. Way too low. But to try an abolish caps all together is not the answer. less than three posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20isp.html?_r=4&partner=rss&emc=rss Different companies, different countries, different network strategies. To simply assume that every isp is the exact same is a little naive, no? Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Maybe they're going to use that additional revenue to upgrade! :x
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
I didn't literally mean 24 hours a day...less than three posted:It's not that ISPs are the exact same, it's that to take the word of Bell as absolute truth when: the data doesn't match up, no other nations have such problems, and Bell's history of bullshit towards their consumers is naive. Yet you assume that everything Bell is saying is false. Hmm. if only there was some sort of government regulation on this sort of thing.... Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
So maybe the problem is with the government and not totally the isp's? gasp...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
 Nitr0 - a week ago posted:I would much rather the CBC focus on the actual issues by doing some research instead of talking to joe schmoe from the internet (no offense) and finding that 90% of the fiber in the ground today is owned by Telus and Bell paid for by the government and other than a few stipulations they are in complete control of all internet here. The CRTC needs to allow more access to that fiber but Telus and Bell will complain up and down that it's not possible and they would have to spend over a billion dollars to upgrade. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:Also, Nitr0, all you're doing is making the case for either tight regulation or nationalization. Saying "Bell and Telus own the backbones" just raises the question of why the gently caress we're allowing a pair of private corporations to exploit this monopoly, especially in light of the massive public funding they've enjoyed to BUILD these networks. Good question. Perhaps you should talk to your MP.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
A nice link from Cisco that I grabbed from another ISP forum I frequent. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/Cisco_VNI_Usage_WP.html 31% increase in traffic over the last year... drat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
Years.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:You just posted a quote saying that Telus is dumping $500,000,000 into some useless wireless services. If their backend needed upgrades it would get priority. The fact that they're spending infrastructure money on wireless services suggests that they have tons of excess capacity on the wired end. Their wireless and wireline are tied hand in hand. How do you think those towers are being fed? Nomenklatura posted:Wait, weren't you just talking about how "Canada is different?" It is, but internet traffic will become fairly consistent now that more streaming video content is being allowed on Netflix, iTunes, etc and more and more people switch their cable and dsl services for online streaming video. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jan 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
8ender posted:Also GorillaNet is another good example of a local alternative that owns it infrastructure. They also have a neat idea where you get a 200gb cap and completely free "moonlighting" hours between 12-6am. I believe this is a pretty great idea to relieve congestion by encouraging customers to get their downloading done on off peak hours. I quote from the owner of GorillaNet "We really haven't seen any shift to nighttime use. Most people so far don't seem to care. We have fairly tight caps on the mainstream rural Wireless service. A normal resi customer has 15GB per month. We haven't charged an overage in probably 2 years or so. We have a NetEqualizer that does a superb job of limiting P2P and so forth, and we play whack-a-mole with the odd few customers that don't play well with others. »https://www.cottagecountry.net/support/peer-to-peer (This needs updating badly, but we refer customers to it to explain what the issues are.)"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
priznat posted:Has Telus announced any of their overage costs and if they're lowering their caps? http://bettween.com/telussupport/stefanz 
Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jan 31, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
no
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:I've got Fibe 7 and I have a similar problem. Whenever my download speeds hit around 800kb/s, whatever's sucking down the bandwidth will keep on trucking but I can't do anything else. Trying to load even Google or Facebook isn't an option, I'll get time-outs. With torrents it's not too bad since I can throttle them, but anything I can't throttle is a huge pain, like Steam. Steam loves to suck up every bit of bandwidth I can give so I'm stuck either letting stuff download while I'm away or at night. So get a router and do QOS?? How is this a problem? You're maxing out your bandwidth and the rest of your apps are suffering for it. Not rocket science.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 20:43
|
|
). I actually had to call them this weekend because of some billing issue and they "upgraded" my internet service to actually use the full 7Mbps constantly because apparently it was some dumb "heh maybe it's 3Mbps, maybe it's 7, who knows!!!" plan 
|
Parachute Underwear posted:I'm saying it was never an issue with cable and the same speeds (7Mbps). It may not be rocket science but I don't know what QoS is. I will look it up. Sorry for my ignorance!! Your cable probably had a burst bucket that would allow you to go higher than 7Mbps for a limited amount of time and then drop you back down.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
priznat posted:Anyone know what's going on with Shaw's home phone service? I don't have it but several people I know are saying they can't call their parents who have it etc. Their PRI service is also down in BC. No idea on an ETA according to our business contact...
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Pweller posted:Looks like they're looking for a couple senior network engineers right now, I assume this is out in toronto? If it was Vancouver I would apply right this second.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Kreez posted:Shaw doesn't seem to answer this anywhere on their website, does anyone know if I can get the non-SPP bundle price of $59 for Broadband 50 (as opposed to $75) if I'm a Shaw Direct subscriber? Why in the gently caress do you have Shaw Direct if you're in an area with cable?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
Sprawl posted:Teksavvy has so many issues outside of being incompetent and not having tech thats it not even worth bothering. I love how you have one bad experience and you write off the whole company. Cool!!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Twiin posted:My PC is a crazy heavy full-tower server hooked up to all kinds of temperamental music gear and it would take more work than I'm willing to put in to bring it up and down flights of stairs and have it still working the way it was when I started. Ethernet cable is cheap. You sound like you don't want to follow the steps of the techs just because you think it's bullshit or how it's somehow unrelated. It's called troubleshooting. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Aug 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
I've never even had Teksavvy, I have Telus. I'm just saying what it sounds like without even taking the company into consideration. You're being a dink about things. You must have been a pretty fun tech support agent to be on the phone with.
Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Aug 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:You are an rear end in a top hat and deserve to be treated like poo poo by everyone you talk to on the phone. Do the world a favour and cancel all your telephone service. Holy poo poo this right here. Twiin posted:Like I said, my PC is hooked up to all kinds of tempermental music gear that I'm not willing to disturb. It's easier for me to borrow a laptop. It's not like I'm refusing to hook a computer directly up to the modem. I just wish he had even bothered to look up my account. The amount of times I have seen a home router do stupid things is through the roof so it doesn't surprise me they won't go forward trying to diagnose issues if you can't or refuse to do the most basic step. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Aug 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Armor-Piercing posted:Probably doesn't have a sixty foot cable. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2011 02:05
|
|