dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed

ilianame

join:2002-06-05
Burnaby, BC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Shaw

1 edit
reply to Cartel

Re: [BC] Shaw is a rip-off

Both choices are comparably unattractive...

One day,

We'll be paying $20 for the municipal "hook up" to the fiber,
then we'll have a choice of transit provider (at ~$5 per 1mbit up/down sustained 95th percentile),
then we'll be paying $0.99 per HD channel from an IPTV provider,
and another $2.99 for unlimited local & long distance phone from a VOIP provider.

OFC before that's possible, the last mile needs to be taken back,
the content provider's geo-loction restrictions would have to be demolished, and on top of that - the most important thing:

CONSUMER'S HAVE TO BECOME AWARE OF THE REAL NEGLIGIBLE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE SERVICES.


ErikRP

join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB

^ I'll have some of what he's smoking!


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to ilianame

Those 'future' rates are a LOT higher than I am paying now.


ilianame

join:2002-06-05
Burnaby, BC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Shaw

said by ErikRP:

^ I'll have some of what he's smoking!

That stuff costs $160/half

But you should stop drinking

said by kevinds:

Those 'future' rates are a LOT higher than I am paying now.

Only for HD streams, those future capitalist pigs have no shame - but seriously if I were to pick, I'd gather up 10 channels and stay with them: CNN, Discovery, Space, TLC, HGTV, Speed, and 4 more I'll decide then.

I don't need home phone

And with my traffic, I'll won't be paying much for sustained burst - nothing I use requires more than 3mbps realtime


Baud1200

join:2003-02-10
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to ilianame

said by ilianame:

Both choices are comparably unattractive...

One day,

We'll be paying $20 for the municipal "hook up" to the fiber,
then we'll have a choice of transit provider (at ~$5 per 1mbit up/down sustained 95th percentile),
then we'll be paying $0.99 per HD channel from an IPTV provider,
and another $2.99 for unlimited local & long distance phone from a VOIP provider.

OFC before that's possible, the last mile needs to be taken back,
the content provider's geo-loction restrictions would have to be demolished, and on top of that - the most important thing:

CONSUMER'S HAVE TO BECOME AWARE OF THE REAL NEGLIGIBLE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE SERVICES.

You missed that somewhere along the line everything will be moved to Cloud based solution, allowing for both content monitoring/nannying/archiving and removal/censorship at the slightest hint of legal threat and or financial/political pressure to the host(ISP).


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2

No, you've missed the fact that I have a 1 TB drive (and, more coming) so I don't need that crap.
--
I'm not anti-social, I just don't like stupid people.



Baud1200

join:2003-02-10
Reviews:
·Shaw

said by Juggernaut:

No, you've missed the fact that I have a 1 TB drive (and, more coming) so I don't need that crap.

Thats the solution, stressing local storage. Nobody really needs cloud but they try and present it to the average user as the greatest thing to happen to modern computing, while completely ignoring any of the points mentioned above.

Average user is going to watch the propoganda on tv for it and think "oh this is easy" and be fooled, which will only add to the population base that they will point out every time enthusiast users have anything to say against the concept.
Personally I have 1TB of SSD RAID in my main machine along with a NAS that has 6TB mirrored, sad fact is most home users don't even know what NAS stands for let alone how to implement one and they will just add to the statistics that encourage more and more companies to implement cloud storage.

Likewise... even KIA found a niche in the car market, but you don't see any race or rally car drivers driving them They also cater to that bottom basic user, and that's a scary huge percentage.

ilianame

join:2002-06-05
Burnaby, BC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to Baud1200

said by Baud1200:

You missed that somewhere along the line everything will be moved to Cloud based solution, allowing for both content monitoring/nannying/archiving and removal/censorship at the slightest hint of legal threat and or financial/political pressure to the host(ISP).

'Tis true, the iPads are signaling the potential shift that way.
While they are still "local" devices, the form factor in my opinion will be the window to remote computing.
Terminal solution - it does have a lot of attractive points: unlimited processing, storage, portability...
And the negative's of zero user control, no community modding, and easy copyright enforcement will not be highlighted to the general public.

It is quite possible that we will not be able to save anything locally in a few dozen years.

But I'm hoping that the local-storage-industry will prevail with molecular USB sticks and ultrafast NAND


KBAUDRU

@telus.net

Seems like a bunch of hoops to go through just for a internet connection. You would have to be psychic to understand all these rules and regulations.



bbbc

join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica
kudos:2
Reviews:
·FreedomPop

said by KBAUDRU :

Seems like a bunch of hoops to go through just for a internet connection.

Just subscribe to a wholesaler like TekSavvy, who uses last mile Shaw infrastructure.

--
Consumerist.com | Consumers Union


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to Baud1200

said by Baud1200:

Thats the solution, stressing local storage.

If you don't have control over it, you don't own it. Strong security measures are required.

How could anyone entrust their life (pics, docs, music etc.) to something not under their control? Servers are seized, crash, or the company goes tits up.

There are plenty of recent examples of that. No thanks.
--
I'm not anti-social, I just don't like stupid people.

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to bbbc

Only in the Greater Vancouver Area (as far as I can tell)


TierX

join:2009-01-20
Canada
kudos:8
reply to ilianame

said by ilianame:

OFC before that's possible, the last mile needs to be taken back,
the content provider's geo-loction restrictions would have to be demolished, and on top of that - the most important thing:

CONSUMER'S HAVE TO BECOME AWARE OF THE REAL NEGLIGIBLE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE SERVICES.

ROFL

I find it funny how much people hugely underestimate FTTH deployment costs. It isn't in the hundreds of millions folks, it's literally f**king billions of dollars for Alberta and BC alone. Neither Shaw or TELUS is going to undertake such a thing; at least without significant cash infusion from the government.

ilianame

join:2002-06-05
Burnaby, BC
kudos:1

1 recommendation

$4k per household

Telus Forum: "http://www.dslreports.com/forum/telus"

They need your help, we actually have Shaw reps here


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to TierX

There was one research company in the US that said it would be around $140 billion to get every house in the US on fiber.

Probably about the same here because people are spread a little further apart and there is much more land to cover, but less homes.

I'll find the study when I get back from dinner, blah, for the people who care, they can Google it.

--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.


TierX

join:2009-01-20
Canada
kudos:8
reply to ilianame

said by ilianame:

$4k per household

It's actually about 1/2 that now, for each home past, and another $1k per home connected. Still silly expensive though.