dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3714
Doonz (banned)
join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

Doonz (banned)

Member

Stop the canadian ISP Gouging!

Here is the latest from shaw.

This was made by another poster on the community forum so all credits to him/her/it

***********************************************************************

Cool table, I like to make tables too, you might have seen one originally created by me in a few news stories 3 weeks ago

So, in the spirit of tables, I figured I would make some of my own!
Here are the new "better" prices vs. the prices one week ago:


Oh, now that doesn't look very improved at all

Well, maybe... maybe it's a better deal than Telus! Yeah!


Hey! It looks like you actually won that one... Unless you shift the right hand table up, then you realize you lost again

But wait, people aren't just paying for download speed, they pay for a package, download, upload, and bandwidth, right? Otherwise you'd give everyone symmetric lines with no bandwidth cap. I wonder how your current table plays out if you take all the parts into account...



This table is of course going to be far from accurate, as I lack the information to do anything but treat each segment as 1/3 of the plan cost. Hmm, yup, seems that overall customers are getting the short end of the stick here, There are very few instances where they're actually saving money (On upload speed, on two packages).

bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica

bbbc

Member

Knew Shaw and Telus would let the UBB dust settle before pulling something. All the Western duopoly defenders need to wake up. I guess Telus' advertising critters aren't so cuddly.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

got the Shaw tariff notice yesterday.

its fugly too.

costs to us:

Existing 25meg - $22.45 (approved by CRTC)
New 20 meg - $42.59 (not approved by CRTC)
Doonz (banned)
join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

Doonz (banned)

Member

said by TSI Marc:

got the Shaw tariff notice yesterday.

its fugly too.

costs to us:

Existing 25meg - $22.45 (approved by CRTC)
New 20 meg - $42.59 (not approved by CRTC)

Oh Wow this is turning into a night mare for canadians
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

1 edit

JMJimmy to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
$42.59 for 20mb? You've got to be freaking joking. Access costs are more than the $39.99 I pay now |(for 25mb) let alone CBB/profit/etc. They must be on crack.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

They're not on crack,they're trying to put TPIA out of business by pushing outrageous access rates to them.

HiVolt
Premium Member
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON

HiVolt to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

got the Shaw tariff notice yesterday.

its fugly too.

costs to us:

Existing 25meg - $22.45 (approved by CRTC)
New 20 meg - $42.59 (not approved by CRTC)

Jeez, what kinda crack are they smoking?

Surely the CRTC has to see this for what it is, just a massive gouge.
Expand your moderator at work
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to HiVolt

Premium Member

to HiVolt

Re: Stop the canadian ISP Gouging!

said by HiVolt:

Surely the CRTC has to see this for what it is, just a massive gouge.

CRTC doesn't have to see it any way at all.
If nobody files a complaint/process, then the CRTC will do nothing.

Here »Re: [Info] Another UBB Explanation for the common people I proposed a model some time ago (ignore the specific numbers for a moment) which basically gives an indumbent a fixed fee/month as 'rent' for the physical plant (poles/cables/switches/buildings/heat), a flat fixed rate for labour, and a number or two for speed/transfer.

I think the formula & reasoning I proposed is rational - let CNOC drop their own numbers into the formula and present it to the CRTC and see what happens
Laidback
join:2001-09-30
Cochrane, ON

Laidback to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

got the Shaw tariff notice yesterday.

its fugly too.

costs to us:

Existing 25meg - $22.45 (approved by CRTC)
New 20 meg - $42.59 (not approved by CRTC)

How can they implement a rate not approved? Are these being passed on to all 3rd party consumers or did I miss something? I guess starbucks and tim's along with the library are about to be real busy.

Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON

Teddy Boom

Premium Member

said by Laidback:

How can they implement a rate not approved?

They can't. However, it will probably get a rubber stamp as an interim tariff. They'll get to collect the stupid high price for 6-12 months, then the CRTC will set a formal/final price that will last for 3-6 months before the next speed changes come into effect, with new interim prices.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 recommendation

MaynardKrebs to Doonz

Premium Member

to Doonz
Here's what Shaw says about their latest rate hike:
»www.shaw.ca/Customer-Bul ··· ustment/

Effective January 1, 2015, Shaw is increasing regular monthly rates on all Internet plans to support continued investment in building and supporting the Internet experience you need now and in the future.
===========================================

What they really meant to say was this:

»Re: CRTC 2011-77 Public Hearings, Day 4, Blow-by-Blow

»If telco/cableco's spoke the truth

If telco/cableco's spoke the truth - Shaw's Globe & Mail ad 20090501 (link to .pdf at the link above)

The attached file is a copy of a full page ad, placed by shaw Communications Inc., which appeared in today's Globe & Mail, page A6. The ad is about an issue before the CRTC regarding broadcast television. In it, jim shaw, CEO of shaw, makes what appears to be an argument for what could be considered 'net neutrality' in another context.

I believe that this same ad, with only a very few words changed, could be a really good public service ad for the telco/cableco's in discussing UBB/AVP and other issues regarding internet access in Canada.

------------------------------

A warning to humourless individuals reading this - what follows constitutes parody and satire.

------------------------------

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO 10 MILLION CANADIAN HOUSEHOLDS.

Telco's/Cableco's Begging for Bailouts - Again.
After being variously being turned down and having some requests granted, Bell and some of the large internet access providers are back in Ottawa lobbying hard for a bailout of hundreds of millions of dollars. We call this bailout UBB or Usage-Based Billing. Without mincing words, this is a tax. It is a direct tax on you and 10 million Canadian families who are internet users.

We telco's & cableco's are threatening to cut your fair access to educational institutions, news, publicly and privately funded entertainment, government services, and business opportunities. We are holding you hostage demanding a tax on subscribers as the ransom. UBB will result in a slowdown of your access speed and/or and increase in your internet access fees. Large numbers of users will see their monthly internet bills double or more - especially those with students or internet gamers in their households. Those of you who now rent movies via the internet will pay $4 to rent the movie and $20+ to Bell or other telco/cableco's in bandwidth charges just to get a single movie onto your computer, taking a day or two to download it - You'd probably be financially better off going to the movie theatre instead, and you'd improve your odds of getting laid too.

Many users will be arbitrarily cut-off once they exceed a certain amount of usage each month. Those who are cutoff will be without access to government services like filing your income taxes, unable to correspond with your lawyer or doctor, or be able to do on-line banking or stock trading, those of you who use VoIP telephone service will be left without access to 911 emergency services - all because we telco/cableco's want to line our greedy pockets.

That Canadian consumers would get nothing in return and the telco/cableco's make no commitments regarding life safety issues, improvements to speed, or net neutrality of access or content, it is baffling why on earth the CRTC is even entertaining these idiotic applications from Bell and many other telco's and cableco's for such nonsense as UBB, throttling, and treating independent ISP's as marketing vassals in an age where Canada and Canadians need to be more competitive at home and in the world on all fronts.

But we want the money and the CRTC seems inclined to give us what we want, so what the hey.

Let's put another tax on Canadians.
Canadians are already facing tough times as the global recession deepens. You deserve better from the telco/cableco's - more innovation, faster speeds, more options, more competition and better service - but you aren't going to get that from us - you'll only get that from independent ISP's. Canadians don't need to pay another tax rewarding telco/cableco's poor performance, but we in the telco/cableco industry are going to see if we can get one anyway.

We hold Internet users hostage.
To emphasize telco/cableco points in front of the CRTC, we routinely mock the Commission's intelligence with the vacuous claims we file in our submissions. We believe the internet has a bright future - for the telco/cableco's. As to all you little people - well, we pity you, but not enough to do the right thing.

At some telco/cableco's we actively invade users privacy via the use of intrusive technologies such as DPI (deep packet inspection) where we read your mail and store it in vast databases so we can mock you in our spare time and to sell your deepest private thoughts to the highest bidder, insert artificial forced packet resets to slow your surfing down and drive your surfing bill up, and use ad and URL substitution so we can unjustly enrich ourselves and track your every movement on the net - all of which are blatantly illegal under various sections of Canada's Criminal Code. Our collective budgets for these illegal activities is large, and growing larger every year.

We do this 24 hours per day, 7 days per week - and we plan to do lots more of it. We have no morals or ethics, and neither do the weasel lawyers we hire to try to justify and rationalize our illegal activities to the mindless sock puppets at the CRTC.

Remember - all your datas are belong to us.

Telco/cableco's don't need to be held accountable.
Canadians should pay for fixing all our problems. We've spent billions of your tax dollars in sweetheart deals with governments at all levels for going on 100 years, and what do we have to show for it - insufficient network infrastructure and competition, that's what. Well it's high time we stamped out all vestiges of competition in this country and let the telco/cable duopoly financially rape you, just as all good oligarchies do. Those crybaby 'independent' ISP's are delusional, thinking that competition is the opiate of the masses. They should spend less time resisting and more time bending to our will - resistance is futile.

So what that many G20 countries offer faster internet access for far less money than we do in Canada. So what that the price performance/ratio in these G20 countries can be 100x better - we aren't going to spend our ill-gotten gains on providing better networks. We know what's good for you, so just sit back and take your chlorpromazine.

The sky is not falling - for us.
The Canadian internet access industry faces an exciting future - but not for users. The government has done a remarkable job kick starting our economics, graciously bending over when we come to Ottawa loaded up with lube, helping us eliminate competition & raise prices capriciously, and generally ensuring that your internet access experience ranks near the low end of price/value in the G20. Foregoing this new UBB tax would improve matters for users, but we don't care.

If the telco/cableco's get this bailout, you can be sure we'll will be back for more before the ink is dry on the CRTC ruling.

We think it is time to speak out, you should say yes to this tax. Now where the f!uck are those two new Ferrari's we ordered.

Sincerely,
Your friends in the telco/cableco duopoly.

Copyright (c) 2009, Maynard G. Krebs. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

===============================================

Of course in Shaw's case there is also this reason for hiking rates up dramatically
»And you wonder what UBB is really for

And you wonder what UBB is really for
»www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o···1913638/

.......... At the ripe age of 53, shaw will collect nearly $6 million a year for as long as he lives. The maximum yearly retirement benefit from the Canada Pension Plan is $11,520; shaw will earn that amount in just 17 hours. But at least there will be no family envy: New CEO Brad shaw, jim’s brother, already has a pension entitlement with a current lump-sum value of $38 million, and he’s only in his mid-40s.

For the two boys and father JR shaw, the company faces a future retirement bill of some $147 million, according to its own actuaries. The amount these three men have paid into this plan: zero. The amount the company has set aside for the liability: zero.

..................

Some people will tell you this is an example of a medieval attitude to corporate governance at shaw Communications, and it is. But more than that, it’s a manifestation of the lack of competition in Canada’s communications sector. In the end, the shaw family gets away with it only because the other shareholders don’t complain about it. Why don’t they complain? Because despite all the fat, the company remains ridiculously profitable, just like the rest of the major players in the Canadian cable and phone racket.

...............a decade ago, the cable companies were given the freedom to raise rates without CRTC approval in specified circumstances. Over the next six years, shaw and Rogers jacked up the cost of basic cable packages between 55% and 90% in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, according to one watchdog that tracks such data.

They keep raising them. It’s truly a gilded age for the cable guys. shaw gets about 48 cents in profit (excluding interest, taxes and depreciation) for every dollar it receives from its TV customers, say Dvai Ghose and Sanford Lee, communications analysts at Canaccord Genuity. Rogers gets about 45 cents. Of course, much of this money pays for equipment and other capital expenses, and goes toward debt and taxes. But basic margins are much higher than at big U.S. cablecos like Comcast and Time Warner (40 cents and 36 cents, respectively). The story in the old wireline phone business is the same: Bell and Telus enjoy lush profit margins compared to, say, AT&T and Verizon.

JTDavis
join:2014-12-28

JTDavis to Doonz

Member

to Doonz
I'm really confused about what possible rationale they are able to use on the CRTC.

- Equipment cost is constantly dropping in price.
- The majority of the fibre is already 100% depreciated (therefore paid for)
- Maintenance costs from what I can tell of Income Statements on Public filings are going down as a global trend, although these numbers seem somewhat cleverly distinguished on Income Statements for Canadian Carriers.

I truly feel as if we have a situation of Regulatory Capture. What's more concerning is that now that the telecom industry owns quite a bit of the video news media, it may be impossible for any Politician to move against them. You probably wouldn't want CTV news and others slanting against you.
LastDon
join:2002-08-13

LastDon to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

got the Shaw tariff notice yesterday.

its fugly too.

costs to us:

Existing 25meg - $22.45 (approved by CRTC)
New 20 meg - $42.59 (not approved by CRTC)

Marc,

You know how you guys are building new facilities in Chatam?

Do you think we can use some space there to start manufacturing

KY Lube - 2.0 made in Canada?

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

1 recommendation

TSI Marc

Premium Member

LOL. The floor is strong enough for it that I know for sure.
TSI Marc

TSI Marc

Premium Member

CNOC will be challenging the rates. Something seems wrong here for sure.

bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica

bbbc

Member

said by TSI Marc :

CNOC will be challenging the rates. Something seems wrong here for sure.

Does a consumer from the West need to chime in too with a CRTC submission, like JF did? I know there were hard feelings, but he was a supposed neutral party in the eyes of the CRTC.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

From what Blais said in a speech late last year is that he sees everybody's input as informative. From there the commissioners have to try to make the best decisions possible.
tired
join:2010-12-12

tired to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
What's the new proposed rate for 25meg?
fmradio68
join:2013-07-05
Montreal, QC

fmradio68 to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
Are you doing something in Quebec too. Seems like Videotron does the same thing here.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to tired

Premium Member

to tired
Non I think.. It's getting pulled.

Looks like they want to make these changes in 30 days too.

This is actually a similar thing as we are seeing with Vidéotron. They pulled something similar, although not with such hubris cost wise; they submitted their tariff, CNOC and possibly others challenged, the CRTC has not yet approved the removal of the other speeds. So now we can still technically order the old speeds that Vidéotron doesn't even have on their site anymore as well as the new speeds. It's a bit of a mess in truth.

Shaw by contrast seems to think that they have the final say in this stuff... Old is old, new is new. Deal with it. But as far as I know they can't pull the old speeds and associated costs without the nod from the CRTC first.

So we'll have to see what happens. Looks like existing customers would be grandfathered if I got it right.
TSI Marc

TSI Marc to fmradio68

Premium Member

to fmradio68
Looks like we posted at nearly the same time.
TSI Marc

1 edit

TSI Marc to fmradio68

Premium Member

to fmradio68
Are you asking if we're changing rates in QC? I'll likely post about it soon.
fmradio68
join:2013-07-05
Montreal, QC

fmradio68

Member

quote:
Are you asking if we're changing rates in QC? I'll likely post about it soon.
No, I was not asking about that but will check your udated rates if you post them.

I was referring to this
quote:
2031$ Vidéotron
1673$ Cogeco
1400$ Rogers
1036$ Bell
The rates that incumbents charge TPIAs. Videotron is a very frugal company so I find that $2031 very hard to believe. Looks like a very inflated price to stifle competition.

And the removal of those speeds by Videotron is another way for them to crush competition.

That is what I meant to say. If TSI and the CNOC are doing something about this or is it even possible. Or the CRTC doesn't analyze these numbers and just rubber stamps what Videotron proposes.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

I posted a bit about it here:

»Looking To Move From Ebox - Tell Me What Tek Savy Is Like

In essence, it's a two part problem. The rules around how they set these rates need to be adjusted somewhat - This is what the wireline proceeding was about. The CRTC called it the "essential services" hearing I think. CNOC participated in a big way at the hearing and highlighted these and other issues.

Secondly, the rates need to be corrected. They're incorrectly set. For many reasons. In my opinion, they were never set right in the first place but going forward they just need to be corrected asap.

Both of those things take time and unless there is a way to fast track the wireline decision, the second part may need to be done twice.

If you assume that the wireline decision will take longer then you have to also assume that they will initiate a rate setting exercise soon. We have indications that they may be doing that. Cogeco for example was asked to answer more questions, mid-way into their CBB rate change (going from 1673 to something like 1450) - effectively halting what would otherwise have been a rate reduction. Without getting into the specifics, it appears that the CRTC is already looking into it more closely.

There may be a need to do more past that. I certainly feel as though there is no such thing as too much in this instance. It needs to be addressed in a big way and right away.
GeorgeBurger
join:2011-12-30

GeorgeBurger to Doonz

Member

to Doonz
For quite some time now we have been warning that as TV revenues erode for cablecos over time, they will substitute them with increasing internet revenues, which they can only achieve by raising prices since the market is saturated. This is the first blatant move in that direction. What will be interesting to see is how this tariff process will unfold. It seems to me that the CRTC should punt this application pending the outcome of the recently completed wholesale service hearings. There may be policy changes that will come out of it that would have a substantial impact on how such a tariff application should be processed. I would expect CNOC might submit a procedural request that the CRTC do just that. VMedia is considering doing so. The fact is that this move, coupled with Shaw's retail price increases, should serve to as clearly highlight the impact on Canadian consumers' pocketbooks as did the UBB scam of 2011 - hopefully government and media will treat it that way.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

All the cable speed changes from Rogers, Videotron, Cogeco and Shaw - have usage sensitive portions to the flat rate access part of the pricing. We're waiting for decisions on each of those from the CRTC.

I don't think it's realistic to punt Cable rates, not without them knowingly setting rates incorrectly. Nor do we want them to IMHO.
TSI Marc

TSI Marc

Premium Member

or... not approve any new speed changes I guess.
GeorgeBurger
join:2011-12-30

GeorgeBurger to Doonz

Member

to Doonz
If I wasn't clear, I was only referring to this new application. The others already in the pipeline should run their course.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Gotcha. That might make sense... and delay this Shaw thing.