Shaw Throttling Bit Torrent? > Law suit time

reply to imrf

Re: Law suit time

OK so if SHAW is in such financial turmoil, why is it that telus doesn't need to enforce caps? You seem to think Shaw is all high and mighty and if you use bandwidth you're harming other users. Did it ever occur to you that this is all just a tactic to increase profits at shaw?

You didn't understand my argument at all. My argument was that more and more internet users are using higher amounts of bandwidth. When shaw calls you up and says you've used to much and threatens to suspend you or boot you for excessive use, they basically chase you to another ISP.

So then they call up the next guy and go hey, you are in the top 1 percent of bandwidth users. He's in the top 1 percent because they don't allow more bandwidth to be used. They kick you off or chase you away.

So they artificially create these low average bandwidth numbers. Just because you don't use alot of bandwidth doesn't mean other people do.

So basically SHAW makes a killing by going after people like yourself that use low amounts of bandwidth. If they chase all the highend users away they can be replaced with alot more lowerend users. Instead of upgrading their system to deal with bandwidth, they chase away people who use it. Then they overcrowd their system with lowerend users.

This is the division we have in BC. We have telus that caters to the higherend users and Shaw that caters to the lowerend users. So why don't telus users have problems? Why isn't telus going bankrupt?

Shaw is poor service! I can't believe you stand up for those bastards. They could upgrade their systems and stop overcrowding them, but blind ass people like you fall for their crap.

It should be noted I would be content if in Shaw's advertising they had the balls to tell you how much you could download in a month. When I used to be on shaw they'd tell me something different all the time. If they're only going to allow you to download 30gb's a month, it should be in the advertising. I think people have right to know before they signup. The AUP is vague and doesn't list specific numbers for residential customers. They used to compare it to the bottom business package of 6 down/1 up. This is the 21st century.

We first got cable modems here around 1998. Back then there were no caps and it was faster. So for the last 6 years the service got worse while files got bigger. I just don't like the fact that shaw tries to brainwash people into thinking that using your connection is a bad thing.

Hmm, good idea, but one problem: What happens when you have a user [like me] who uses services that fall under all the tiers? I have two VOIP lines, I do some gaming, use a lot of "normal" traffic, and occasional P2P downloading (when I need something). Would I be forced to choose one group and deal with either traffic restrictions or inability to connect due to other traffic? Would I get billed per application I use?

In theory, it's a great idea, and probably the most intelligent one in this thread. But in reality, I think it would be far too difficult to implement.

i don't think tier packages would work for shaw, as they already have shaw-lite, normal, xtreme and then all the business packages.

problem is shaw is trying to cram as many people onto their nodes as possible. placeslike vancouver are really getting the short end of the stick. I don't think charging more for more bandwidth is gonna solve the problem. They gotta take some of the money they're makin and do some upgrades.

reply to lupinia

Ahh, that clarifies it quite a bit, and it sounds like an even better idea, but I still doubt any ISP would seriously implement it. Still a great idea, though, if only ISPs thought like their customers