TekSavvy → Re: ATTN TSI, Please raise the cap to 400GB for higher speed tiers

Ok, youve entirely missed the point of my post. Thanks.

Look back a few years ago at why R0cky gave us 200GB to use on a crappy 5mbps connection.....

The mentality is gone.

The cap was 200GB BECAUSE the average user used far less, and a SMALL amount of users were up at this level of usage, R0cky called these people "the future".

Guess what? Were in that future, but the LIMIT NEVER ROSE.

And I'm not the least bit interested in slowing down my connection/ZTC/ AKA the disgusting act of throttling myself.

Not sure where that came from, but throttling was never OK with TSI users before.

I know what you are saying but you are insinuating that because today's usage has netflix and such, and that speeds are higher, that mostly everyone goes over 300 and that merits a change to 400. We base our packages based on average usage which allows us to keep our pricing lower.

You are essentially insinuating that because speeds are higher these days and/or that because there is more day-to-day things that require internet that this type of change requires changes in our offerings. At least this is what I read in your posts.

Also, when Rocky was at the helm of this company and today are two extremely different times for Canadians and ISPs so things don't always trend smoothly. Example: "throttling was never OK with TSI users before". Well, we have many users that enjoy this no-cost add-on as it provides free flexibility and peace of mind.

Anywho... Not trying to argue with you. Marc reads these forums all the time so I am sure he will see your suggestion to change the limits and all.

Cheers,

Andre

That mentality is what is different. R0cky always based his usage cap on the SMALL amount of users at the higher usage level which he referred to (and rightly so) as "the future".

The future keeps coming, higher bandwidth services are used more and more every day and now speeds are higher to get to that cap faster.

Its gotten to the point where you are announcing 150/15 with the same damn 300GB cap, and Rogers has outpaced you.
You look like rogers did now. They used to have that same damn 60GB cap on everything.
Its quite scary actually.

Rocky didn't have to deal with CBB.

For better or for worse, if we want more cap we have to pay for it, either with straight dollars or lowered speeds via ZTC.

Rogers is offerring 150/15 for $86 with a 350GB cap, TSI is offerring 150/15 for $89 with a 300GB cap.

something very wrong is going on here....

Removed my response.

The Mongoose is explaining things rather well

True. The CRTC is screwing TekSavvy with crazy CBB charges because Rogers is lying about their own costs.

Meanwhile that Rogers price will go up every year, and TekSavvy gives you far more than 300GB if you take advantage of the 2-8 AM window. TekSavvy is still the better deal, but not by nearly as much as it should be. Only the CRTC can address that.

All that being said, Start will do 400GB for $90/month, but without the unlimited window AFAIK. Better for some, not as good for others.

Good news: The future is now!

Bad news: Incumbents charge TSI an arm and a leg for peak time usage.

The really bad news: Caps are the most wide spread solution to this problem even if they are a blunt weapon in this regard.

I actually felt at the time that raising the cap was a bit of a middle finger to the incumbents, not necessarily a trend of future increases. 300 GB can be restrictive, especially those that have cut the chord in favour of streaming options.

ZTC isn't for everyone. I could see multi-user households with busy peak time usage finding ZTC unhelpful. I like ZTC only because it's mostly just me using the net after 8. I'm just sure to run my game updates at 7 if needed (if my computer has been off all day. Automated updates are restricted to outside the peak time so likely I've already nabbed them). I would not be OK with mandatory throttle. Disgusting was the throttling of connections by other providers who did so without permission nor clear explanation. ZTC is give and take. TSI takes our speeds and gives unlimited data. It seems fair to me.

Andre: If the average of average user's usage is just below 300 GB, what percentage of them are having to pay overages? How well has ZTC been embraced by this? I'd be curious to know the median vs average usuage. But if my assumptions are right (I could be wrong) about the average being just below 300, that shows a definite dampening effect by the current overages.

Interesting thing about my usage. Before ZTC I was about a 275 GB user. In May I was a whopping 400 GB peak + 133 GB off. April I was 350 GB peak + 180 GB off. Month to date 125 / 30 which if doubled as we are about half way through the month is somewhat less than the other two months which I attribute to wife not being at home during the day as much. I feel the biggest contributions to my increased usage on ZTC are:

1) No longer afraid to download games and patches I may not quite be ready to use. (One of those months involved a hard drive crash and restoring of games).

2) Not afraid of streaming too much video.

Alternatively, how about 100GB blocks? it may pay off for TSI if users purchase more than they need....

Seriously though, media is only getting bigger, and its quickly stopping being produced in physical form...
AAA Games are 6-60GBs, netflix keeps increasing its bitrate and quality, and youtube and its users keep upping the resolution as well....
nevermind vmedia/iptv thats trying to take off (TSI once wanted a part of that too....)
Then there's live streaming soccer/every major sporting event now as well from rogers/cbc/etc and wwe network and ufc fight pass. So many services just eating bandwidth nowadays.
When that 300GB cap was created, none of that existed!!
R0cky really was thinking of the future IMO...

In Rocky's day, Bell charged $1700/Gbps for interconnect and ~$300/Gbps for Ethernet transport services for ~$2000/Gbps. Today, TSI pays around $11 000/Gbps for their Bell interconnects and up to $26 000/Gbps for cableco interconnects.

So, TSI's incumbent interconnect capacity costs have become 5-10X as much what they used to be. They cannot afford to increase caps just for the heck of it; they have to carefully weigh their options.

Same goes for all other IISPs.

When Rogers can offer unlimited 250/20 for $125/month, you know something's screwed up on what they're charging TSI. As a moderately heavy user, I'd be tempted to get that just to spite Rogers!

Before saying that, you would need to know how much the average Rogers 250/20 unlimited subscriber actually uses. At $125/month, there might be many Rogers subscribers who get it just because they can and like to have their downloads done yesterday but do not necessarily need unlimited at all much like how the bulk of TSI's unlimited subscribers a few years ago were not even breaking 100GB/month when the cap on regular accounts was 200-300GB/month.

Edit: and you would also need to know how much of whatever those 250/20 accounts do actually happens at times that actually matter within Rogers' network.

Well, if someone didn't actually need unlimited, you'd figure they'd go for 500gb for $100 or 700gb for $115, before shelling out $125 for unlimited. Plus, as far as I know you'd get 200gb on top of those limited options (giving you 700gb and 900gb) in a 3-product bundle.

I'm paying about $124 between my redundant Bell DSL & TSI cable packages... unlimited prices like Rogers is offering, and that's without any discounts or retention deals, kinda makes me consider consolidating everything into one insane package... if only to up the average usage because I'd actually make use of it!

If they didn't have ZTC, I'd be interested in buying them. But with it, there's no point in my book since the time where it would effect me, I'm not using the internet anyway.

Incorrect. The unlimited window (2am-8am) applies to all Start.ca plans.

Ebox DSL has an unlimited window of 2am-2pm.

 
Rogers/Bell/Cogeco/etc do not have to 'pay themselves' any of this insanely greedy ridiculously unreasonable rated CBB which they each force TSI et al to pay.

So they have an unfair advantage when they choose to offer a low-ball deal.