schwa1 join:2002-07-17 Coquitlam, BC |
schwa1
Member
2014-Sep-18 12:59 am
Shaw's "Monthly Internet Usage" down?The last report i see is from March to July. It's September. |
|
58391701 (banned) join:2014-06-30 New Westminster, BC |
58391701 (banned)
Member
2014-Sep-18 1:26 am
when that happened to me they refunded me for all the months they couldnt prove i used the internet... |
|
|
to schwa1
Re: Shaw's "Monthly Internet Usage" down?I can see my on a monthly basis. I can also see my most current period in which it shows Sep. 5 to 16th. |
|
ErikRP join:2004-11-06 Winnipeg, MB |
to 58391701
Re: Shaw's "Monthly Internet Usage" down?That's hard to believe, unless there's more to the story. If you have a monthly subscription to their internet it's up to you to use it. If you don't, I don't see why you'd be allowed any refund. |
|
ErikRP |
to schwa1
Something similar happened to me earlier this year. I went from February or March until July showing as one period, so it was impossible to tell what I'd used each month. It finally started working around late July. But now if I look at my usage I see usage for February, then July, Aug, Sept (8-20). |
|
|
a9
Member
2014-Sep-24 12:47 am
Re: Shaw's "Monthly Internet Usage" down?have they started UBB yet? |
|
|
zod5000
Member
2014-Sep-24 12:24 pm
said by a9:have they started UBB yet? They sort of abandoned that a few years ago. Mostly because Telus at the time wasn't following suit. Shaw changed their minds an opted to make tiered speeds with varying bandwidth limits. They were supposed to make it so if you went over your cap you'd automatically bump up to the next expensive package. That never happened either. Not sure where i'm going with this but Shaw opted not to do UBB and we shouldn't be giving them any ideas. They currently seem to give me a fair amount of latitude on my consumption on bb50. |
|
|
The whole BB250 fiasco was interesting... Even doing 2.2TB still on BB250 have yet to be contacted. |
|
|
zod5000
Member
2014-Sep-30 12:08 pm
They're quite lenient on bb50 as well.
One has to wonder how much extra money they would of made over the last 3 years had thye instituted the "Bump Up" program. I know I've saved a lot by their lack of movement on it. |
|
58391701 (banned) join:2014-06-30 New Westminster, BC |
58391701 (banned)
Member
2014-Sep-30 12:14 pm
or how much money they would have lost from customers leaving....... |
|
|
said by 58391701:or how much money they would have lost from customers leaving....... Depends. ISPs generally would prefer to shed heavy users in exchange for people who buy service for just email and such - they can support those kind of users far more than one heavy user. Light users don't force upgrades of expensive infrastructure and you can stick more of 'em on a node before it even comes close to overloading. Sure light users probably only buy the 20Mbps package, but it only takes 2 of them to pay for a BB50 user, and their usage is probably way less than half of one BB50 user each so they come out ahead. As for BB250, I thought that was unlimited traffic so even doing 2.2TB would've been OK. Though cable is great for downloads so if it's all downloads, Shaw will likely look the other way. If you were doing 1TB in uploads (if you can even do it), I think Shaw would've disconnected you a long time ago. |
|
58391701 (banned) join:2014-06-30 New Westminster, BC Actiontec T1200H Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X Netgear R7000
|
58391701 (banned)
Member
2014-Oct-1 3:03 am
its actually not to easy for most shaw nodes to have there upload saturated, 56mbps is about the combined throughput of all 4 channels on a node, that would take 4 bb250 users, or 10 bb100 or 50 users all slamming there upstreams at once to saturate, not likely
shaw has no reason to care if u use 1TB up or 1TB down |
|
|
kevinds Premium Member join:2003-05-01 Calgary, AB |
kevinds
Premium Member
2014-Oct-2 12:06 am
It costs more at transit/peering points to upload, than download
Often only upload traffic is charged |
|
58391701 (banned) join:2014-06-30 New Westminster, BC |
58391701 (banned)
Member
2014-Oct-2 12:47 pm
im sure you are correct, i hadnt though of that, but im also sure that there are some agreements where its essentially unlimited, no? |
|