| [BC] Broadband 100+ sucks; Shaw customer service sucks worse We have recently received calls from the Shaw bandwidth police. They suggested that we upgrade to a higher internet plan. As we were regularly exceeding our cap (Extreme, 200 GB cap, 25 Mbps DL), I agreed that it was time to upgrade to Broadband 100+ (750 GB cap; 100 Mbps DL).
Today I swapped our old modem for the new modem+router combo (I was told by the bandwidth police that the old modem could not handle broadband speeds), hooked it up, and immediately ran a speed test. Typical results were as follows:
Contacted Shaw.
Justin #7778 said the in-store representative forgot to reset my modem. He reset my modem and said I should be good to go. I was not.
Marshall #7965 reset the modem again. Speeds still sucked. He passed me on to Ken #7779 who also reset my modem. lol. He then had me do a speed test by having me connect my computer directly to the modem with an Ethernet cable. That did the trick--speed test showed that my speeds were at Broadband 100+ level. Kenny seemed proud of himself:
Ken #7779 (15:50:24):
Ok.
Ken #7779 (15:50:26):
Great.
Ken #7779 (15:50:33):
The true speed test must be done directly via cable.
Ken #7779 (15:50:51):
Through wireless, you're not going to get the 'actual' speed.
Ken #7779 (15:50:59):
Anything else for today?
Oh, no he didn't! He actually tried to DISMISS me like he had resolved my problem?!
Shaw Account (15:53:18):
lol... then what is the point of the modem+router that shaw now offers? Especially when these days most everyone connects wirelessly?
Shaw Account (15:53:26):
that is strange........
Shaw Account (15:54:02):
you mean to say that i will pay for broadband100+ speeds, but will only get extreme speeds which is what i have been getting all along?
Ken #7779 (15:54:45):
What you must also check is your wireless network card to ensure that it is capable of receiving speed of beyond 25mbps.
Shaw Account (15:54:55):
it is. this is a new computer.
Ken #7779 (15:54:57):
There are some network cards that max out at specific limit.
Ken #7779 (15:55:01):
You'll need to check the specs.
Ken #7779 (15:55:06):
(even though it's a new comp)
Shaw Account (15:55:13):
lol...
Ken #7779 (15:55:16):
It sounds like that might be case.
Shaw Account (15:55:34):
you said i can never get true broadband speeds unless i connect directly?
Shaw Account (15:55:39):
now you are blaming the network card.........
Anyway, Ken was useless and closed the chat on me. Another representative, Brayden #9852, tried to help me. He had these nuggets of wisdom:
Brayden #9852 (16:22:36):
It's like if you purchased a car that was sold to you as being able to go 200KM/h, which it certainly can do on the highway etc, but when you take it on an old dirt road you won't get the same speed.
Brayden #9852 (16:26:25):
We are providing you with what you are paying for, it's just that if you'd like to use that technology over wireless it won't go as fast. If you do a search online for this issue, you'll find tons of people in your same shoes. It's a limitation of the technology itself, wifi is not designed to be able to handle speeds like that without specialized equipment
Brayden #9852 (16:30:02):
I've set up networks for quite a few small businesses, and have worked with this equipment before, but it's not really consumer grade, it's more commercial grade and priced accordingly so.
Anyway, he tried to blame walls, cordless phone chargers, distance and on and on... and then said:
Brayden #9852 (17:46:29):
You're getting the correct speeds wired, so it's really up to you if you want to change your plan to the slower speed. You'll be exceeding the bandwidth limits even more if you go to the lower plan, and you won't get the Broadband 100 speeds wired in.
RIDICULOUS!!! |
|
| What do you expect them to do? Wifi will always be inferior to wired.
If you don't like their wifi, have them put your modem in bridge mode and you can use your own router/ap. |
|
2 edits | reply to typoprone
your isp was right. Having been a technical support specialist for over 10 years now Ive seen this over and over again. WiFi will never be as good as a wired connections. There are way to many factors that can change the speed of your connection. For instance if you have a cordless phone that works on the 2.4 ghz frequency it can jam up the signal of your router if your router is not dual band.
Your isp was right to get you to use the connection without a router. It would be good to get facts straight before blaming your isp for something they cannot control. |
|
Mayhem
join:2012-02-26
Salmon Arm, BC
1 edit | reply to typoprone
This was almost too painful to read lol
Shaw techs are right, if you're getting the advertised speeds (wired) the rest falls on you to have the right wifi equiptment to handle it. |
|
| reply to typoprone
I am on BB50 and my ethernetted connections to my router (my own) routinely achieve 90-95 percent of the 50 promised. My wi-fied clients are happy to get 30 to 40 percent, which, I understand from googling many sites, is to be expected.
Shaw screws up in lots of ways, but in this case, I think the techs were quite correct. |
|
| reply to typoprone
What were you using before for wireless? Your own router?
Bridge your modem, and go back to using it?
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel. |
|
ilianame
join:2002-06-05
Burnaby, BC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Shaw
| reply to typoprone
OP, YOU ARE THE REASON that:
- Shaw hold time is 15+
- Shaw reps are bitter
- Shaw service sucks
- The world is going to hell
There are many things that COULD be better with Shaw, like PRICE for example,
but as long as there are people like YOU to tie up their resources with utmost non-sense, harassment and trolling, their prices will keep growing. FFS use google, do research, and never do speed tests on wireless.
It is because of YOUR mind set and the misguided preconceptions that Shaw ACTUALLY offers these POS combo boxes. If everyone was enlightened and adept with technology, Shaw would be rightly responsible to provide an Ethernet jack to you, with 2 DHCP assigned IPs provisioned, and we wouldn't have to deal with all the useless extras that are put in for people like YOU.
Your post above is an embarrassment and a testament to shed some light on the kind of ignoramuses that exist in the world and how wrongly entitled people can get - THREE Shaw reps told you the same thing, even tried to come up with a half-baked crappy analogy to deliver the message to your liquor drenched brain.
Your argument is moot, your wireless devices should be shoved up your DMZ and all your MACs should be permanently blacklisted. |
|
| said by ilianame:OP, YOU ARE THE REASON that:
- Shaw hold time is 15+
- Shaw reps are bitter
- Shaw service sucks
- The world is going to hell
There are many things that COULD be better with Shaw, like PRICE for example,
but as long as there are people like YOU to tie up their resources with utmost non-sense, harassment and trolling, their prices will keep growing. FFS use google, do research, and never do speed tests on wireless.
It is because of YOUR mind set and the misguided preconceptions that Shaw ACTUALLY offers these POS combo boxes. If everyone was enlightened and adept with technology, Shaw would be rightly responsible to provide an Ethernet jack to you, with 2 DHCP assigned IPs provisioned, and we wouldn't have to deal with all the useless extras that are put in for people like YOU.
Your post above is an embarrassment and a testament to shed some light on the kind of ignoramuses that exist in the world and how wrongly entitled people can get - THREE Shaw reps told you the same thing, even tried to come up with a half-baked crappy analogy to deliver the message to your liquor drenched brain.
Your argument is moot, your wireless devices should be shoved up your DMZ and all your MACs should be permanently blacklisted.
Hear hear. And this is one of the reasons why Shaw needs to charge more than Teksavvy, cause the ignorant stick with Shaw and waste large customer service resources.
OP was probably too cheap in the first place to get a good network wireless N card, still using a wireless G card. |
|
| reply to typoprone
said by typoprone:Shaw Account (15:53:18):
lol... then what is the point of the modem+router that shaw now offers? Especially when these days most everyone connects wirelessly?
RIDICULOUS!!!
I'll be nicer than most.
What you were told is entirely correct. Wifi and the IEEE 802.11b/a/g/n equivalents are not always capable of up to 100 mbps of actual throughput. Remember that the advertised Wifi speeds on devices is from the PHY layer, which means how many bits are transmitted through the air, including overhead, FEC, and errors. Remember that interference from neighbouring Wifi, Cordless Phones, etc will all affect throughput. Different homes will have VASTLY different results, because the transmission medium is not a nice, neat, controlled wire. It is the air, and a lot of other signals on the same frequencies may be passing through your little bit of air. Air is really a terrible transmission medium, with metal and shielded metal being better, and fiber being a preferred medium for anything hardcore.
Now that we've talked about the PHY layer numbers, actual throughput is much lower. If we go to the small networking authority of the internet, Smallnetbuilder.com, and look at their test results for similar devices to the device that shaw provides, the results will tell you the story.
So the specs are 2.4 GHz downlink average, Wireless N300 (2 stream), 2.4 GHz spectrum only.
The TOP speed achieved in their test is 53.3 Mbps by the top of the line Amped R1000G 600mW wireless router.
The LOWEST speed was 12.1 Mbps by the Draytek Vigor 2910G.
So if your results on Shaw wireless are anywhere between 53.3 and 12.1 Mbps, then you're dead on what is common for the industry.
I'll cite my source: »www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/r···ghz-dn-c
Note that none of those products perform at 100 mbps. There are wireless products that will meet or exceed 100 Mbps on the market, these are generally 3 stream wireless N operating in the 5 GHz frequency spectrum.
I recommend you go out and purchase a wireless network card and router that use Wireless N or Draft AC and operate with wide channels at 5 GHz. Then you'll get your access. Otherwise you are just tormenting the nerds here.
If you are wondering about my ability to speak as an authority on this topic, I have 10 years of Server Provider networking under my belt. This is what I do. |
|
| Thanks for the responses. I will now shrink back into a dark corner and eat crow  |
|
fender
join:2007-07-23
Vancouver, BC | reply to typoprone
I understand getting annoyed with OP for clogging the support lines for something that is obvious to most of us.
The reality is that the cap limits for a 25mbps connection are silly. If they didn't push an upgrade on him that he clearly didn't need anyway.
Can someone remind me again why we have caps anyway? transit costs aren't going up yet my cable bills seems to regularly.
It feels like those of us who live in dense urban areas are forced to subsidize the higher cost to provide services to rural areas. |
|
|
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by fender:Can someone remind me again why we have caps anyway? transit costs aren't going up yet my cable bills seems to regularly.
There is no justification. The use of caps are a lie. |
|
| reply to ilianame
Ilianame:
"- Shaw hold time is 15+
- Shaw reps are bitter
- Shaw service sucks
- The world is going to hell"
Love your slippery slope. Two things, though.
1. I'm a shaw tripler, so I get to use the concierge service. It's a great deal faster than telcom, indeed sometimes virtually instantaneous. Responding techs are generally friendly and helpful, too. (Your post may explain why  )
2. What in double hockey sticks is "FFS"??????? |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by waldstein:2. What in double hockey sticks is an "FF"???????
FFS = for fuck's sake. |
|
| said by brad:said by waldstein:2. What in double hockey sticks is an "FF"???????
FFS = for fuck's sake. Duh! Much thanks....mind now at idle. |
|
| reply to fender
said by fender:Can someone remind me again why we have caps anyway? transit costs aren't going up yet my cable bills seems to regularly.
Sure, I can hop on this topic as well. It bears reminding that transit costs are not the big costs for an ISP. It's the last mile that is the concern, and on the last mile, while the technologies to transmit one channel of data have dropped in price over the years, the amount of channels being used have significantly increased.
Also, unlike TV, there are finite amount of users that can share one channel for Data, as it is unicast and not broadcast, so the costs for data are inherently higher than for TV.
The last point is that these companies are public, and we as investors (I hope you all invest some money for your future) want to see ever increasing gains and dividends. You'll always hear Microsoft getting railed on for a fairly static stock price. As cord-cutting increases and the industry evolves, companies will continue to play with the business model to try and satisfy their investors needs for capital gains.
We can point our fingers at big companies and yell, but it goes further than that, to the markets and investors (including us regular joes) that drive those, and demand more more more.
I hope that is a fairly neutral explanation, I like to keep my own feelings out of explanations, now feel free to jump in with _more_ biased opinions. |
|
fender
join:2007-07-23
Vancouver, BC | The cost of the last mile is trivial for those of us who live in large buildings where customer density is high.
Again back to my point of urban customers subsidizing rural last miles. |
|
| said by fender:The cost of the last mile is trivial for those of us who live in large buildings where customer density is high.
Again back to my point of urban customers subsidizing rural last miles.
That is a misconception on your part. You still require X amount of ports on a CMTS, supply X amount of channels. The cabling requirement is less, but the device that powers the services still has the exact same requirements. |
|
| reply to fender
said by fender:The cost of the last mile is trivial for those of us who live in large buildings where customer density is high.
Again back to my point of urban customers subsidizing rural last miles.
Given that cable's RF capacity is consumed, and as a result the capital needed to provide service is increased, by numbers of active subscribers and not location or distance of active subscribers, that statement doesn't really hold. Rural areas do need to have longer cable runs, but you need far less headend hardware to provide service to a given area. In high density areas you aren't running the massive cables everywhere, but you need a LOT more hardware to provide the last mile to higher population of users.
Due in part to the need to carry television on the same wire, and the need to keep analogue television available (can you imagine how many upset retirees there'd be if they couldn't get local stations on their non-digital equipment) at CATV 3+ (~60Mhz+) the capacity available to internet isn't as expandable as a fiber or pure IPTV deployment; you have to segment to expand, which means more expensive gear. That gear needs a home, and the rent for that home doesn't come cheap when you're dealing with urban centers. If you have no more room available you can't segment or offer fast(er) speeds because physics is a nasty old witch. |
|
| I think the last mile is a lot more more expensive in the urban area where customer density is high, because there is less space, more nodes are needed and the like.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel. |
|
