|
Vaguely Relevant, but it'll be interesting what (if any) affect this has on Shaw's plans for UBB, since it's a pretty big shakeup: http://business.financialpost.com/2011/03/23/shaw-cuts-500-jobs/ quote:Four months after Bradley Shaw assumed the corner office at Shaw Communications Inc., the firm is slashing nearly 4% of its nationwide workforce, a move seen as the first decisive mark made by the new chief executive.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
(Full Disclosure: I'm Shaw Staff and I'm not here in an official capacity. Posts are my own opinion, and not made on behalf of the company) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/shaw-changes-pricing-plans-in-response-to-public-outcry/article2035087/ Second phase of Shaw's UBB Consultations roll out starting tonight, so expect more detailed information making it's way out soon. Pretty sure this is all that's public right now, so I'm sorry to be cryptic; but I can confirm that the news is actually pretty good. Anyone who opposes UBB across the board as a rule is probably not going to be thrilled, but objectively speaking this looks to be Good News. Drakkus fucked around with this message at 02:44 on May 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:That's actually not.... terrible? I mean realistically I'd be pretty happy with their $59 400gb package compared to my 60gb package for roughly the same price with Cogeco. I think I'm probably safe clarifying: The prices on the left is the price to add the internet package to existing cable services, while the price on the right would be the cost bundled with the new TV packages (Which were launched a couple months ago.) No word at this point what the standalone prices will be, or if there will be standalone prices for the new packages. Until there is more information I'd be looking at the numbers on the right, unless you already have cable.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
(I work for Shaw, and this is my OPINION, and no more)less than three posted:I personally think they should have just done "add unlimited data for $15 to any plan" or something. Nobody's going to take that I agree that the unlimited options appear to only be on the extreme ends (Low speed, unlimited data, or top speed, unlimited data), and that there is certainly a need for something in the middle. However, I don't know if a flat +$ for unlimited would fly, since the data caps seem to be intended as a way to distribute costs in a way that *feels* fair, and a bigger pipe, if you're using it at peak, has a larger impact. Now, I said FEELS fair for a reason, and I think that the public reaction to changes of this sort of something that HAS to be measured, and passing costs straight onto those who use the network during peak would, almost by definition, affect the most amount of people. But, at the end of the day, if the caps are reasonable, most of the people going over them are in all likelyhood going to be contributing more than is average to peak usage, and I don't think it's unfair to charge heavy usage at peak more than the baseline. Drakkus fucked around with this message at 03:49 on May 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
drcru posted:A little off topic but, hey drakkus, are you @shawinfo? Nope. @shawinfo is actually handled by the (social) media team, of which I am not. I don't speak in any sort of official capacity.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
Backov posted:When we talk about UBB we're not talking about anything but last mile. Teksavvy has its own connections (that it pays for, that afaik are NOT related to Bell or Shaw) past the last mile. I wasn't talking about wholesale UBB, and I 100% agree with you that UBB of TPIA (wholesale) customers is shenanigans. I was talking about retail UBB in general, specifically that of the new Shaw plans. I feel that, especially in the case of bell, TPIA customers pay for a pipe, and what they do with that pipe is their own damned business. I feel that retail is different in that the expectation from customers of a 'dumb pipe' is simply not there, and if providers were required to maintain the capacity to support near-total utilization by their customers, we'd probably be paying even more than we do now. Even so, the backhaul upgrades, node splits, and tier reclamations to provide the level of capacity customers *do* expect are expensive, and UBB models are about passing on costs to People Who Use It More, even if said people do not necessarily contribute much to that cost. I'm not saying that more usage = higher cost. I'm saying that model makes sense to people, and because a perfect model would mean the costs get passed onto the 9-5ers who make up the majority of your userbase, it aint gonna happen. I'm also saying that you're pulling 250+ Gigs a month, you're not an innocent bystander, because if the caps are high enough, unless you're intentionally *only* using it off-peak, there is a certainly a higher than average contribution to the costs. At the end of the day, this whole argument over costs to provide the service is completely and totally moot. In a market like this one, price is NOT determined by ($Cost to Provide) + (%Expected Profit). It's determined by ($What the Other Guy is Charging) - ($How much less we need to charge to steal the Other Guy's Customers). Until/Unless the market changes, that's the model these companies are going to be working under, and I feel these plans are Pretty Good Overall, considering that fact.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:Considering all of the speeds are most likely "up to" to whatever they're rated at and will likely be much lower, you're essentially paying a high price for the bandwidth alone. Shaw's speeds are definitely 'Up To', however they are *usually quite good about what is and is not 'acceptable' speeds. I'm not saying they'll roll a truck if you're only getting 95 of your 100 megs down, but if you have actual legitimate concerns that you aint gettin the speeds you're payin fer, Shaw will do whatever they can to fix it. I work for Shaw, and I've only seen a few cases where speeds lower than 75% of advertised were declared "The Best We Can Do", and most of those were due to poo poo like owners of apartment buildings refusing to get the shoddy wiring fixed, or to allow access for us to do it. *The caveat here is that if the lower speeds are systematic across an area (and for reasons more complex than simple saturation, which is normally fixed fairly quickly), there are some cases where the 'acceptable' speeds for a particular package are, officially or not, lower than one would expect. These are pretty much all geographically remote, and given the scale of the network upgrades going on, I expect most or all of these areas will be fixed by the time these plans are out. I hope.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:The only thing is that 250GB isn't that much to begin with and easily reached when your household uses Netflix, Hulu, etc. Not to mention that 250GBs usually costs the ISP next to nothing as most of that content is provided by a local CDN. On top of that, most of the peering contracts between ISPs and the US tend to be cost neutral. I agree. IP transit is so cheap that we may as well call it free. I'm saying the cost comes in providing the throughput required for a customer base with 50+Mb pipes, and that those who are higher than average usage are, statistically speaking, probably contributing more to the maximum throughput required. (Unless your usage is mostly off peak, in which case you're pretty much getting screwed.) Also, regarding the 250 GB thing: All the existing plans will, at least for now, be handled as Shaw has always handled them. A specific team will contact the highest users, and have a conversation. (And I mean the *really* high users. You usually have to go pretty far over, systematically, to get the phonecall). This is going to eventually change, and the plans are to have a system where you are temporarily bumped up to a higher package, much like the new plans, but the details have not been announced, which means for the forseeable future, the caps on existing packages are *extremely* soft ones.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
less than three posted:That's fair. But that's not what Shaw is doing. I agree. It's not about controlling peak congestion, it's about 'passing on the costs' (Read: Offsetting increased cap ex, thereby boosting/maintaining profits) in a way that *looks* fair, at a glance, if you don't really understand what causes congestion. Without a healthy level of competition, there is no disincentive for a company not to do this, and with a natural duopoly, that is unlikely to change without government intervention. I was arguing that, statistically speaking, if the caps are high enough, people who go over them are almost certainly contributing higher than average to peak, which means it's not a complete screw-job. Still, it's admittedly a pretty moot point, since none of this is really about passing on costs anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be happy or content with $60 internet that has to be bundled with television. Well, to be fair, the $59 for 25/2.5 is standalone, though obviously that's still a fair bit more than you guys charge. You do also advertise that you charge for stuff that we advertise that we don't, but that's a tiny sidenote, at best. (Though, it is taken into account when people are comparing.) The real answer though is you guys are "new" in the areas you're competing with Shaw, and people like to have everything with one provider, so they're naturally hesitant to switch unless it's everything.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
quote:From DSLReports: Standalone options are almost certainly going to be introduced, but I don't have the details. It's a pretty safe bet that they will be between 10 and 20 bucks higher than the 'With Legacy TV' amounts. (Bundling discounts with Shaw have been, historically, 10 bucks per additional product, but the new packages work a little differently, so who knows.)
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:I think I'm gonna call BS unless the firmware in the modem is purposely set up that way. I guess stranger things have happened though. I'm almost positive I had my D3 SMC modem hooked up to a 100Mbps port and I still had channel bonding (blue light on the modem was lit up). It's bullshit. They are probably confused because blue lan light = GigE, and blue DS/US = channel bonded.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
Vehementi posted:So either it's an oversight and they're gonna get hosed by assholes like me who just buy a second connection and hook it up to an unused laptop and transfer 85TB of garbage data a month out of pure spite, or their new mystery infrastructure is 3x as efficient. (Shaw Staff. Not an official rep, nor an official statement) Someone already posted, but I can confirm, it actually is close to 3x. I've heard 2.5 and 3x more (I think the former may be more accurate) down and upstream channels available once the analogue channels are gone. Analogue channels use a whole boatload of spectrum. In addition to the reclaim, there is a lot of other work being done upgrading switches, backhaul, etc. etc. And, as an aside, it doesn't actually cost the provider all that much more per-gig to move traffic. The cost comes from maintaining a network that has the capacity to sustain peak usage. (And not become saturated, thus slowing everyone down.) The aggregate monthly caps are really just an easy to explain way of charging more for people who "use" the network more. (Even if they don't necessarily actually cost any more to provide the service to.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
Space Cadet posted:I have heard through various message boards while attempting to troubleshoot my issues today that soon Shaw will be moving to a Cisco router/gateway, is there any truth to that? Yeah, should be 'fairly?' soon. I can't give a timeframe because I don't have one, but it'll be soon. We're hugely short on SMCs and nobody likes those anyway, so I'd expect it to be in the wild pretty quickly. The model number isn't public, but, seriously, the list of docsis 3 cable modem + routers that cisco provides is a really short one. Really short. Also, the Motorola doscis 3 modems are, officially speaking, out. They may still end up in homes here and there due to swaps or returns, but as a rule, it'll be the SMC. (for now). As an aside, I would straight up recommend, without hesitation, that anyone here if you've got an SMC, get it bridged and use your own router. If you're cheap, grab a wrt54g and put dd-wrt on it or something. You won't get 100 megs, but it'd be worth it. If you're having trouble with reps getting it bridged, PM me and I'll do it. Edit: I'm Shaw Staff. Not an official Rep, not an official statement. Yadda yadda. Drakkus fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jul 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
kuddles posted:However, the second you have two cable internet lines running to your house at the same time, that means there are two technicians who must come to your place (one to connect you to the TekSavvy line, one to disconnect the Rogers one) and it results in a myriad of miscommunications that could lead to you being disconnected for a week while TekSavvy and Rogers play phone tag with each other and another appointment with a tech to solve the issue is made. If we're talking cable (Which I assume we are), it's all the same line. TekSavvy wouldn't be using separate lines, they would be using the existing lines (and in all likelyhood, the existing cmts / channels) that are being used by the incumbent's customers. Lone Rogue can probably confirm / deny this, but I know for a fact TPIA over cable is a lot different than TPIA over phone, and that the customers of the incumbent and the competitor are decidedly less segregated. (PS don't take this as a value judgement on the services that competitive TPIA providers provide over cable networks. Merely a technical discussion.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
Sprawl posted:Are the moto modems not good or something? is there a reason they are not using them anymore? The technical issues that I know of with the SB6120s were fairly minor, so it wasn't for technical reasons. I honestly can't say why they are no longer being used. Drakkus fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jul 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
rhag posted:So, is Shaw's offer better than Rogers? Definitely. For the record, Shaw does have unlimited plans, and even if you go past the cap on the non-unlimited plans, it just bumps you up to the unlimited plan for that month anyway. (Note: this is not yet active afaik (the automatic upgrading). Currently if you go over-cap pretty much nothing happens, unless you go way, way over cap, and then you will probably get a grumpy phonecall. However, once it is active, the unlimited plans are a fair bit more pricy than the teksavvy ones, so unless you absolutely need to be able to pull down a terabyte a month at over 25 Mbps, teksavvy will be cheaper.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
Powershift posted:The only problem is they still seem to throttle during peak hours on week days, but being on 100mbit and being throttled to 50 is a little easier to swallow than paying for 25mbit and being throttled to 6. Technically speaking if your speeds are going down during peak, it's not throttling, it's straight up saturation of either the node or the backhaul leading to the node. Practically speaking, it's the same to the end user, but the former is illegal (Unless we tell you we're doing it), the latter is not.  (Though the CRTC doesn't really seem to care about neutrality at the moment anyway) (Shaw Staff, by the way. My posts are not to be taken as official statements, but this can be: ) quote:As of: June 7, 2011
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
drcru posted:I just looked it up too Video on Demand stopped working for the 2000s a lil while back, so that's almost certainly the reason. (Those $0 movies probably wouldn't actually order, for the record)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
Argas posted:What's Telus' position on the UBB? I know your usage with Optik doesn't get tracked, yet, but I've heard conflicting reports on whether Telus will actually charge if you go over your cap. They don't charge, and will almost certainly not start charging anytime soon. (Or ever) Their official position on it has been all over the place (I suspect mostly due to Shaw's position flip-flopping), but the most recent statement officially acknowledged they aren't going to be charging. Drakkus fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Sprawl posted:The cisco devices that they will be using are very nice and won't have those kinds of issues. Also, the SMC units that are being used 'right now' (Read: Whenever your install is booked) can be put in bridged mode, making them effectively a modem and a four port switch. The cisco units should be pretty soon, but I can't say what initial stock levels will be like, so there is a chance the SMC units will still be used past the point of the cisco units going 'live'.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I still think Shaw does this. Obviously speeds will decrease during peak times of congestion, but the speeds I get at different times of the day can be charted like clockwork. The only two conclusions are that either Shaw is throttling, or there is the exact same amount of congestion every day at the same time in my area. The latter doesn't seem very likely. It's the latter, and it's really not that unlikely. Most people work or go to school during the week, so the usage is pretty damned predictable. Weekends are less predictable, admittedly, but Monday to Friday it's almost uncanny how predictable it is. Seriously though, Shaw throttles upstream P2P traffic during peak hours. All other peak-hour slowdown, assuming you rule out the odd edge cases, is congestion. (Edit: Though there is more than one type of congestion, mind you.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:Yeah Shaw had an outage last night in BC. Don't know what it was but their support line was prefaced with the message 'unplug your modem, let it sit for 10 seconds and then plug it back in', so it had to have been pretty far-reaching. We did indeed have some interruptions last night (Mostly Maintenance afaik), and this morning / early afternoon (Not Maintenance) specifically in the GVRD. (Though not exclusively) Barring any isolated cases, they should be resolved. I think pretty much all of our queues that take BC calls got absolutely killed, however. Our volume is higher during the summer months for sure, but yesterday and today were.. uh.. a little more than seasonal volume. (Shaw Employee. *Not* an official rep, nor an official statement.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:HD plus is what I have right now but that isn't an option on their newer offering as far as I know. Actually, the 'old' TV packages are still available, so you can get Basic Cable + HD Plus if you want. They're just not listed on the website.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:*Finally* found someone at Shaw who could provision my Cisco as just a modem. Tech support couldn't do it but some random Shaw employee on digitalhome.ca can. I'm sorry. I have no idea why most of the reps can't figure out the bridged / not bridged business. If anyone has a modem they need set to bridged, or not bridged (for whatever reason), PM me an account number or something, and I'll get it corrected. (Shaw Employee, but not here in an official capacity blah blah etc.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
 Just about as close to advertised as you get. Granted, I work for the ISP, and live in an area (on a node) with an enormous amount of capacity. Be interesting to see what the speedtests look like once 250 is rolled out. (Though the city I'm in is literally last on the list to get upgraded.  ) (Well, except for the areas that need a full overhaul)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Is it possible to "upgrade" my modem? I have had the same one with Shaw for about 4 or more years, it works fine and all. I get my top speeds but would a new one give me any benefits? For Docsis 2, the modems are, really, all the same. The only models that are used are the Motorola surfboard line (SB510* line), and an SMC unit whose model number escapes me, if you've got wireless. If you're getting as-advertised speeds with no intermittency, a new modem won't do squat, as other than the wireless, they're pretty much the same. Edit: I work for Shaw, but am not here in an official capacity. Posts may contain forward-looking statements and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties and are not to be taken as official statements on behalf of Shaw Communications Inc. blah blah etc etc dont get me fired. Drakkus fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Sep 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Brace posted:Well, I wouldn't say it's a problem with my computer really. I get pretty much the same slow browsing speeds on my laptop, and like I said Netflix also streams extremely slow. Cable or ADSL? Speaking as someone who has done tech support for years for one or the other, your steps for speed issues should pretty much be: (In all cases, testing with more than one device is ideal. If you are lazy and very very sure it's not your issue, skip to 3) 1) Speed test (Use multiple sites) with your entire network connected. (Ping Google if it's latency, but don't do both at once, please.) 2) Speed test with ONE device connected to your router, and nothing else on the network. Physically disconnect everything else and actually turn off the wireless. 3) Speed test directly to the modem. 4) Call your ISP, while the issue is happening. If you're curious, the steps for the tech support rep here should ideally speaking be (don't be a dick and walk them through this, but no harm in asking 'can you see my signal levels? do you know if there are any issues in the area?') 1) Customer reports speed issues. If he's not already on Step 3 from above, get him to Step 3. 2) Check for known issues on the outage board. 3) Check the signal level on the customer's modem. If it's lousy, check neighbours. If they're lousy, report the outage, tell the customer, and note the account. (If operations says it's localized, book a service call and call the customer back) 4) Check for saturation, or call tier 2 and ask them to check for saturation. If there's saturation, report it, tell the customer, note the account, and call the customer back after it's been confirmed by operations and discuss options. (Fixing saturation takes time, so speaking from experience, we'll often downgrade customers, or credit the difference, until the issue is fixed. We can rarely give real timeframes right away, however, so don't expect to get one on the first call.) 5) If the customer is getting confirmed slow speeds directly to the modem, the signal levels are fine, and there is no saturation we can see from the office, book a service call to 'prove it out'. These calls basically consist of sending a tech out with a known-good laptop, plugging it into the modem, and running a speed test. If it's slow, he calls it in, and we start trying to isolate where the hell the issue is on our side. If it's fine, and it's slow *at the same time* for the customer, pretty much not our problem, best of luck. (Though most techs will give recommendations)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
Brace posted:Cable, I've done 1/2 and there was no real conclusive information. Just kind of all over the place, when you guys say plug directly into the modem, do you mean unplug the router jack from it and plug in my cable? Because my modem only has one jack in the back for that kind of cable. Yep. Take the ethernet cable that is running from the modem to the router, remove it from the modem, and replace it with the cable that is running from your computer. (That had been, prior, running to the router). Literally every single device between the cable outlet and your computer is a possible factor. Removing them one at a time until the problem stops is usually the quickest and easiest way to find the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
less than three posted:gently caress dealing with Shaw. Yeah, I can't even begin to give an excuse for the hold times in residential. TBQH if you have a twitter account, @ShawHelp is gonna be your best bet. They usually pick up tweets very quickly, and they will do their best to make sure a competent rep gets the callback request. Alternatively if you want to PM me details I can arrange for a callback, but twitter may be most elegant solution since they are usually quite good at getting callbacks *right now*. (This is not an official statement by Shaw, just a friendly recommendation. Please don't kill me for sending you more work, social media team.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 08:01
|
|
|
random nickname posted:The problem was actually getting a CSR on the phone, minimum 1 hour wait every time I called. It should be improving steadily over the next little while. There's been a bunch of hiring, as well as the general decline in call volume coming out of the summer. It got really really bad at peak, but it should only get better over time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:How bad was early September for you guys? We got 10,000+ calls a couple times for sales/customer service alone. Now it's back to a steady 1,000+. Honestly not sure. I'm not in a position where I'd see the daily or monthly call stats regularly. (And for residential: Virtually ever.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:What the hell Shaw; I've been trying to call the business account CS support line for two days now (604-629-8885) and I consistently get 'we're sorry, all circuits are busy'. It's um... been a rough week for business in Vancouver. (Which is what I assume you're trying to reach from the number). The enormous fiber cut that Sprawl referenced week was the primer, but there were other issues afterwards that absolutely killed us. Check your PMs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Sprawl posted:I dunno if shaw has rolled their new IP TV stuff out in your area yet but if they have its worth checking out i just got the flyer for that the other day and you get faster internet + a pvr that can record more channels at a time. It's not actually IPTV. Well, it does support it. But it's not used. It's still digital cable from Shaw to the gateway, but it's IP out to the individual units. It will also support streaming content from computers out to the gateway (and then to the units), eventually, but not yet. No ETA. :/ Also, afaik, while the gateways support 1080p, none of the channels are broadcast in 1080p yet. There is some VOD stuff that is, but none of the regular channels.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 05:57
|
|