 Reviews:
·Comcast
| caps? So even fiber carriers have caps in canada? This is starting to get ridicilous... why don't we just put a universal fair 250GB cap on all services and get it over with? no less then that either and none of that save the grandma's arguments especially on fiber networks where congestion is very limited... | |
|
 |  mlernerPremium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON kudos:5 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
1 edit | Re: caps? It's more reflective on the market in the west. Telus typically sets the pricing higher and sets caps on wholesale. Novus is essentially matching the market which is what happens when there's a limited choice of competition. In the US, this of course would be considered illegal but the Government has turned a blind eye to the situation. | |
|
 |  HpowerRoflmao join:2000-06-08 Glendale, CA Reviews:
·Charter
| LOL 360GB cap on 50/10MBPS speed. What the hell is this world coming to. For 50mbps speed, I'd say at least give it 500GB cap u fools.
I'd assume that you're having the top tier from them paying the highest $ would get you some relief from the damn caps....guess not. Amazing deals though. That is incredible cheap for those speeds. Lame caps. LAME CAPS! DIE CAPS! I can't stand seeing these stupid caps. -- The Internet is about to go down....it is actually. | |
|
 |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 | Re: caps? Again, faster speeds doesn't always equal more consumption. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: caps? The vast majority of people purchase the lowest tier broadband speeds. So yes, when someone purchases the highest tier and pays premium prices for those speeds it almost always means higher consumption. Those people are purchasing those tiers so that they experience the benefits of faster and easier consumption of the vast quantities that they intend to consume. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 | Re: caps? Faster. You said it right there. I get faster speeds so I can get things done in less time. That doesn't mean I am always going to search out more and more. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: caps? You seem to be intent on ignoring the crux of what I'm pointing out. People who consume very little are focused on paying as little as possible, and therefore access the minimum tier of broadband available. Why do you think cable operators like Time Warner never, *ever* advertise their super lowest tier at $20/month? Getting them to admit they even have that tier requires that you request to speak to a manager at customer service.
When someone willingly and knowingly purchases a higher-priced tier for higher speeds, they are almost exclusively doing so for the sake of consuming more data. Thus in Sweden, when someone pays $50/month for their 100/100mbit line, instead of $10/month for their much slower line, they're doing so with the intent of using that connection frequently and consuming a huge quantity of bandwidth. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Choice One Commu..
| Re: caps? said by sonicmerlin:You seem to be intent on ignoring the crux of what I'm pointing out. People who consume very little are focused on paying as little as possible, and therefore access the minimum tier of broadband available. Why do you think cable operators like Time Warner never, *ever* advertise their super lowest tier at $20/month? Getting them to admit they even have that tier requires that you request to speak to a manager at customer service. When someone willingly and knowingly purchases a higher-priced tier for higher speeds, they are almost exclusively doing so for the sake of consuming more data. Thus in Sweden, when someone pays $50/month for their 100/100mbit line, instead of $10/month for their much slower line, they're doing so with the intent of using that connection frequently and consuming a huge quantity of bandwidth. As do you. Alot of people also purchase faster speeds simply for the fact that it won't take as long to get things done. I had AT&T DSL at 5 mbps. I ordered the 10 mbps line from my cable provider so it doesn't take a painfully long time to download a demo on Xbox Live, etc. I cut the time to do things in half. That doesn't mean I automatically go out in search of more things and my consumptions goes through the roof.
People want to do things faster, but that doesn't always means they want to do more of it.
We can agree to disagree. -- "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  mlernerPremium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON kudos:5 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
1 edit | Re: caps? At some point the faster speed for less becomes irrelevant. If you want speed 10-15 mbps is enough, anything above is a waste because you're typically not going to get any higher for surfing or email use. You can't justify low caps on a 50 mbps service otherwise what's the point. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  NOCManMacChatterPremium join:2004-09-30 Colorado Springs, CO | Re: caps? said by mlerner:At some point the faster speed for less becomes irrelevant. If you want speed 10-15 mbps is enough, anything above is a waste because you're typically not going to get any higher for surfing or email use. You can't justify low caps on a 50 mbps service otherwise what's the point. That's not necessiarily true..
I have game updaters that user torrent technology and it routinely saturates my 20Mbit/20Mbit service while it's running.
iTunes/Amazon/Netflix also get upwards of 10mbit when downloading movies etc.
Webservers can also get up there. Anything less than 5mbit can slow down page loads for content rich pages since most large companies can burst up to 5-10mbit for small files. Though Youtube seems to be having some major issues.
I would argue that 50mbit is overkill for anyone.. Right now 20mbit to me is a sweet spot for price/vs performance. -- Play a Death Knight? www.theebonhold.com | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  mlernerPremium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON kudos:5 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| Re: caps? said by NOCMan:said by mlerner:At some point the faster speed for less becomes irrelevant. If you want speed 10-15 mbps is enough, anything above is a waste because you're typically not going to get any higher for surfing or email use. You can't justify low caps on a 50 mbps service otherwise what's the point. That's not necessiarily true.. I have game updaters that user torrent technology and it routinely saturates my 20Mbit/20Mbit service while it's running. iTunes/Amazon/Netflix also get upwards of 10mbit when downloading movies etc. Webservers can also get up there. Anything less than 5mbit can slow down page loads for content rich pages since most large companies can burst up to 5-10mbit for small files. Though Youtube seems to be having some major issues. I would argue that 50mbit is overkill for anyone.. Right now 20mbit to me is a sweet spot for price/vs performance. Right you may get more or less but 15 is all you're gonna need realistically for low usage and if you're that low usage chances are you're NOT using torrents. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: caps? said by mlerner:said by NOCMan:said by mlerner:At some point the faster speed for less becomes irrelevant. If you want speed 10-15 mbps is enough, anything above is a waste because you're typically not going to get any higher for surfing or email use. You can't justify low caps on a 50 mbps service otherwise what's the point. That's not necessiarily true.. I have game updaters that user torrent technology and it routinely saturates my 20Mbit/20Mbit service while it's running. iTunes/Amazon/Netflix also get upwards of 10mbit when downloading movies etc. Webservers can also get up there. Anything less than 5mbit can slow down page loads for content rich pages since most large companies can burst up to 5-10mbit for small files. Though Youtube seems to be having some major issues. I would argue that 50mbit is overkill for anyone.. Right now 20mbit to me is a sweet spot for price/vs performance. Right you may get more or less but 15 is all you're gonna need realistically for low usage and if you're that low usage chances are you're NOT using torrents. And that is still not true.
Sure, 15MBPS may have been all someone needed... if this was 2003. Try 150MBPS for today's applications. Video streaming, teleconferencing, VPN, digital distribution, porn (caught that didn't you? :P), heavy gaming; and I don't mean joke marathon sessions, I mean TRUE heavy gaming. Remind me to map my network for you to give you an idea of what I mean.
Then come little stuff like torrents. Though that's a matter of opinion depending on if you play games like World of Warcraft, or used things like Joost before it changed its application model. Such things are likely to burn GB at a time.
50MBIT is not overkill.
1GB is not overkill. It all depends on your application level and your needs. Frankly, my needs are more than most other persons.
I apologize. Sorry that I actually take advantage of the markets and mediums available to me. Ask around what I do with access to 100mbits. I've been known to do, at minimal, 300GB per day, and that's before accounting for torrent traffic (which doesn't raise the numbers by much).
Perhaps I should curtail my usage? (Ha ha, no). | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  NormanSPremium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: caps? said by PapaMidnight:I've been known to do, at minimal, 300GB per day, and that's before accounting for torrent traffic (which doesn't raise the numbers by much). What are you doing on a residential line? Get yourself an OC-48, or more!
It took me 2-3 years just to download 1 TB (that's 333 GB per year, not per month; and your doing that on a daily basis?) And being on a slow DSL connection had little to do with it. I torrent fansubbed anime, mostly. And that is all the shows that ever garnered my interest. If I had 30 Mb/s instead of 3 Mb/s, I would have downloaded that TB ten time faster. I would not have downloaded ten times more. I hit periods, now, where I will go for weeks without a torrent underway; just because not all anime grabs my interest. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  DaneJasperSonic.NetPremium,VIP join:2001-08-20 Santa Rosa, CA kudos:7 | I'll toss my 2c in the ring and tell you that based upon real statistics in our real network, customers who buy higher speeds also use more bandwidth.
ALL other things being equal, a person given two different speed connections might consume the same amount of actual data, but all things are not equal. The consumer who pays a higher price for a higher speed is also the same consumer who makes more use of that connection.
-Dane | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 | Re: caps? Right, there would be some as I have myself. But the typical arguement is wow, now we can hit our caps in 3 days so to speak. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  jp10558Premium join:2005-06-24 Willseyville, NY | Re: caps? Well, I don't know about typical use, but I have to figure: Dial-up - you're loading web pages and occasional pictures 1 Mbps - you're posting a lot more pics to facebook/flicker, you're watching low def youtube etc 3Mbps - you're likely to use youtube all the time, grab streaming video from comedy central etc... 10Mbps - now you might be enjoying high def youtube (which has to eat more bandwidth, but to the end user, they're not "doing more"...), you're probably interested in netflix streaming. I can imagine passing your own videos around...
Also, what about various new services taking off like Orb or Opera Unite or yes all the P2P.
But I just figure that as it becomes possible to do video, lots of normal users like to do so. As it becomes possible for them to use higher def video, they do so because it looks better. But this isn't doing more from a user perspective.
Also, with broadband, more and more ISPs are providing 4 port routers + wi-fi. How many people by now, who aren't techies, are getting more than one PC online and now potentially increasing use if just by updates and simultaneous use? Probably just through not ditching the old PC when they get a new one, or getting a laptop, iPhone, xBox etc... I just can't see how you would deny a continued growth of use by all segments of society in actual transfer. -- Opera 9.62(Build 10467); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  jat join:2008-04-28 Burlington, ON | Re: caps? said by jp10558:Dial-up - you're loading web pages and occasional pictures 1 Mbps - you're posting a lot more pics to facebook/flicker, you're watching low def youtube etc 3Mbps - you're likely to use youtube all the time, grab streaming video from comedy central etc... 10Mbps - now you might be enjoying high def youtube (which has to eat more bandwidth, but to the end user, they're not "doing more"...), you're probably interested in netflix streaming. I can imagine passing your own videos around... This tiered view of internet usage is exactly what the ISPs are counting on. As faster speeds become available, people find more services they can use, and their consumption goes up. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a linear correlation. Someone switching from 10mbit to 30mbit may use more bandwidth, but probably not three times as much. That's the concept that most ISPs (including Novus) base their scaling on.
Also, while it's probably true that users paying the premium for the highest tier are the ones with the most extreme bandwidth usage, that doesn't mean they're going to be given caps that break the scale used for lower tiers. As someone recently said in the TekSavvy forum: fast, cheap, unlimited; pick two. Unsurprisingly, Novus went with fast and cheap. Even with a 360GB cap, $179.95 for 50/10 is a steal. A truly unlimited (i.e. dedicated) line at that speed would easily cost 10 times as much in this market.
Personally, I think most ISPs have got the scaling of their caps right. What they've got wrong is the base cap, package pricing, and overage fees. Novus could do better in those regards too, but why would they when their current offerings already kick the pants off the competition? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  mlernerPremium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON kudos:5 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| Re: caps? In this case it's ultimately about the market but that doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. Telus' Fiber condo project actually provides enough bandwidth to each resident with no bandwidth caps. That isn't a offering that matches the market so it can be done but most residential ISPs would rather sell a shared service. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | you mean faster so you can hit them low caps faster LOL | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by ptrowski:Again, faster speeds doesn't always equal more consumption. most of the time it does though -- God Blesshttp://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com-- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" | |
|
 |  |  |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Choice One Commu..
| Re: caps? There was a study out of Japan someone had posted here that even though 100 mbps lines have been available for a while the average usage was around 35 gigs or so.
I never said it is a sweeping statement I made. But to say almost everyone who gets faster speeds will consume tons more is a bit off. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: caps? said by ptrowski:I never said it is a sweeping statement I made. But to say almost everyone who gets faster speeds will consume tons more is a bit off. I would never say the same either, but the available room to grow should always be available to those who wish to take advantage of it. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Choice One Commu..
| Re: caps? said by PapaMidnight:said by ptrowski:I never said it is a sweeping statement I made. But to say almost everyone who gets faster speeds will consume tons more is a bit off. I would never say the same either, but the available room to grow should always be available to those who wish to take advantage of it. Of course. Do I consume some more as things can be done faster, sure, it's enevitable. But the notion that almost everyone will download 4-5 HD movies per se instead of 1 is a stretch. -- "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  KoolMoeAw ManPremium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD | Re: caps? I completely agree. As my speeds have gone up, my consumption has too, but not because of the increased service speeds, but because of the availability of services themselves, like TV streaming from NBC and the like.
However, that a correlation, not a direct cause. I don't actively go out and hunt for ways to saturate my connection.
What I DO want faster speeds for are things like faster file transfers via VPN to/from the office, or faster up/download for client files and reviews. That amount of data has remained fairly static over the past couple years but the time it takes to up/download that data has lessened considerably....which is simply a matter of convenience. KM -- Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Um...that simply confirms what I said about people choosing the lowest tier. Only high bandwidth and bit consumption consumers will purchase those symmetrical 100mbit connections. They do so in order to *use* those speeds for significant periods of time. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | said by ptrowski:There was a study out of Japan someone had posted here that even though 100 mbps lines have been available for a while the average usage was around 35 gigs or so. I never said it is a sweeping statement I made. But to say almost everyone who gets faster speeds will consume tons more is a bit off. thats because the majority of internet users dont do anything useful on the internet, checking email and MSN and facebook and downloading your " ipod" mp3s shouldnt be more than 35GB so there you go | |
|
 |  |  |  | | said by ptrowski:Again, faster speeds doesn't always equal more consumption. of course it does. especially if your somebody that actually USES the internet for its for -- the consumption as much data as possible | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  | | Re: caps? said by Hpower:LOL 360GB cap on 50/10MBPS speed. What the hell is this world coming to. For 50mbps speed, I'd say at least give it 500GB cap u fools. Actually, it's more like 720GB when compared with other ISPs. Novus applies 320GB to upstream and another 320GB to the downstream.
Not that I don't disagree though. They should just get rid of the caps altogether. | |
|
 |  PhilRojo SolPremium join:2001-06-11 Camarillo, CA kudos:2 | Do all Canadian ISPs employ caps these days? | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: caps? Almost, if they offer illimited usage they are doing throttling. | |
|
 |  |  mlernerPremium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON kudos:5 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by Phil:Do all Canadian ISPs employ caps these days? All the major ISPs do with the exception of MTS (incumbent in Manitoba), Bell Aliant (Atlantic incumbent) Telus Cityplace fiber (only in Cityplace condos in Toronto) and some smaller ISPs currently battling Bell's plans to implement caps on all wholesale customers. | |
|
 |  |  |  StojkoPremium join:2007-10-20 St John's NL Reviews:
·voip.ms
·NBTel now Aliant
·FreePhoneLine
| Re: caps? said by mlerner:said by Phil:Do all Canadian ISPs employ caps these days? All the major ISPs do with the exception of MTS (incumbent in Manitoba), Bell Aliant (Atlantic incumbent) Telus Cityplace fiber (only in Cityplace condos in Toronto) and some smaller ISPs currently battling Bell's plans to implement caps on all wholesale customers. Eastlink doesn't have bandwidth caps either, at least not in Newfoundland (yet). | |
|
 |  | | said by neufuse:So even fiber carriers have caps in canada? This is starting to get ridicilous. A point-to-point link between two points costs practically the same to operate at 1Mbps, 10Mbps, 100Mbps or even 1Gbps. As long as subscribers do not use their internet, you can have a million subscribers at 10Gbps hooked to your 1Gbps aggregation network to your single 100Mbps Cogentco internet feed. When subscribers start stressing the network though, it has to be overbuilt to handle substantial usage spikes and this easily doubles operating costs. Fibers are not magically immune to network load and those traffic spikes get nastier as end-user speeds get faster.
Unlimited is only an illusion, the bandwidth between two points on a network is finite and ISPs over-subscribe their links to keep their costs under control. Any ISP claiming affordable unlimited internet access would crumble under infrastructure and transit expenditures if a large chunk (maybe 20%) of its subscriber base decided to put the claim under an extended (months) burn-in test. The premise of "Unlimited" is that the ISP is charging a large enough premium to easily cover the typical transit cost of its "Unlimited" subscribers and that those subscribers will still use the internet intermittently. In general, abnormally high usage accounts are effectively subsidized by lower-usage accounts.
Caps are also somewhat flawed in that they require subscribers to buy a speed+cap package even though the subscriber may only be interested in only one of the two components, forcing people who are only interested in getting what little they do done faster to also buy the larger cap or those who want to download more but don't care about the speed to buy into the faster speed to get the cap. IMO, speed and caps should be sold as two separate components of broadband access... or perhaps speed should be dropped altogether as a differentiator since the cost to provide access on fiber/ADSL2 is the per-port cost regardless of artificially imposed rate limits.
Personally, I like the idea of usage-based billing since it would mean people only pay a monthly fee to cover fixed operating costs (possibly including a small base cap) and then contribute a supplemental fee proportional to their contribution to the network's load. Under a metered scheme, an ISP could simply connect everyone to the maximum speed possible (say 100M symmetrical) for $35/month and charge $0.10/GB afterward.
People are hypocrites: they want competition but do not want to pay for it. Not surprising that so few are willing to take the plunge and risk competing against the telco/cableco's regional monopolies. | |
|
 |  |  See 6 replies to this post |
 | | Could backfire on Shaw This could backfire on Shaw if it's customers outside of the Novus footprint call in and complain in large enough numbers.
Either more deep discounts will be offered or they'll see more defections to the incumbent telco (probably Telus). | |
|
 |
 |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: Shaw using same play book as airlines. Yep. This is why regulation is not only required, it's a necessity. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Shaw using same play book as airlines. if you can't compete don't offer anything.
you should compete on price and not bull shit add ons. | |
|
 | | Law? Didn't this used to be called predatory pricing? What's the law on this these days? ( In Canada ) | |
|
 |  mlernerPremium join:2000-11-25 Nepean, ON kudos:5 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| Re: Law? said by Enlightener:Didn't this used to be called predatory pricing? What's the law on this these days? ( In Canada ) Apparently the law is whatever the carriers want. The CRTC will not even take on price issues and instead refer to the competition bureau who will pass it back to the CRTC! | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Law? said by mlerner:said by Enlightener:Didn't this used to be called predatory pricing? What's the law on this these days? ( In Canada ) Apparently the law is whatever the carriers want. The CRTC will not even take on price issues and instead refer to the competition bureau who will pass it back to the CRTC! Guess not much is different between Canada, America, and Australia then. | |
|
 |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | said by Enlightener:Didn't this used to be called predatory pricing? What's the law on this these days? ( In Canada ) None. No anti-trust/competition law in Canada, if it does exist, it has some massive flaw that makes it not exist de jure. | |
|
 |  |  |
 | | they should be forced to give that deal across there coverag damn thats evil and TSI expect it to happen to you too when you go solo , I WONT switch even if bell offered me a gigabit for 4.95 | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 SLDPremium join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA | May the cap wars begin..... Perhaps some competition will lead to removing caps alltogether? | |
|
 winsyrstrifeRiver City BouncePremium join:2002-04-30 Brooklyn, NY | Incredible This is blatant and obvious. My God what are the Canadian regulators doing? | |
|
 |  See 7 replies to this post |
|
 | | It's become a bad joke! Our Canadian Gov't has really failed us here. While publicly stating they are encouraging competition they are in fact doing NOTHING. It is only getting WORSE.
Our one and only WiMAX (pre-WiMAX still actually) provider is actually a joint venture by 2 of the 3 national Telco's in Canada. Since taking over the venture they have systematically taken a minimalistic approach to the point the service is too oversubscribed to compete with wired services....run by these same telcos! It's a joke!
We have among the highest 3G data rates in the world and the Telcos are doing EVERYTHING they can to preserve that. Although the Gov't has auctioned off spectrum to 3rd parties to encourage competetion there is still nothing in sight and all that appears to be happening is they are outsourcing some of the backend stuff to...again, these same Telcos's. The one and only 3rd party cell provider (virgin mobile) simply piggybacked on one of the Telco's wireless service and now has been completely bought out by the Telco.
It's a joke! | |
|
 |  | | Re: It's become a bad joke! As a conservative would say, it's the free market working! | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: It's become a bad joke! Oh yea, works great.....for some things. For essential services like Healthcare and utilities like Power/Telco it definitely does not. | |
|
 bbbc join:2001-10-02 NorthAmerica kudos:2 | Novus = Concord Pacific = Terry Hui Sorry Novus, but I'm digging Shaw's move. The YouTube video from the Novus employee fails to mention that Novus is owned by a Chinese gentleman named Terry Hui who runs Concord Pacific. Concord Pacific builds the majority of condos in Vancouver and they also sign agreements with Mr. Hui's cable company, Novus.
Novus' fiber ain't all that. The NET 10 consumer package costs the same as most of their competitors, but you get 10Mb up and down. After their four month free Internet promotion and because of Novus' low 100GB cap, I'll be switching to the one provider worth a sh*t in Canada, TekSavvy. Another thing I love about Novus (sarcasm), is how some of their locals have ghosting in the broadcast, which a Novus tech stated was the norm.
Donna (Ms. Novus), this little guy viral marketing is BS. | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 |
 iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Novus SHould Encourage... ...people to get Shaw's internet package as a "backup line", and maybe even offer some equipment to bond together Novus' and Shaw's internet for truly insane speeds, sorta like TekSavvy does with MLPPP (except TekSavvy has control of both infrastructures) or ShareBand.
While telephone/video services are either/or, internet service when done right can be combined between carriers for better performance/reliability. I'd LOVE to get 25/11 service (10 + 15 down, 10 + 1 up) for $43 or so per month ($9.95 + $32.50). Use load-balancing like CradlePoint does on their mobile broadband routers and you don't even have to shell out more monthly for the service to bond the lines. As an added bonus, you get a 210GB cap instead of a 100/110GB one.
Let's just hope Shaw's rates don't go up elsewhere while the Novus battle rages; the 15/1 package is $42/$52 elsewhere, depending on whether you bundle it. | |
|
 |  Mr FelFlynn LivesPremium join:2008-03-17 Louisville, KY | Re: Novus SHould Encourage... That's the smartest idea I've heard all day. | |
|
 | | Epic win I fail to see the problem. This is an epic win for customers. | |
|
 |  See 12 replies to this post |
|
 davidl join:2008-07-11 Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC 1 edit | Discusting ...let's get the CRTC involved, that'll fix it 
I would pay $100.00 / month just to screw Shaw, or Bell or whatever buggers were doing this | |
|
 Reviews:
·Shaw
·TELUS
| CAPS! All you have to do to compete with Shaw is remove the caps. Especially if you're using fibre. Bulk bandwidth doesn't cost very much, and fibre infrastructure can handle the traffic.
Remove the caps and turn up the advertising on how you're internet connection is unlimited with Novus, but at shaw they turn off the tap!
If its just capped connection vs capped connection, who really gives a crap? they both suck. | |
|
 |  | | Re: CAPS! Well, unfortunately the people who provide bulk bandwidth from the backbone are throttling and capping their wholesale customers' connections while charging insanely high markups. Novus can't avoid this, as it's up to the CRTC to regulate prices charged on the backbone by companies like Bell. Unfortunately, the CRTC is comprised of idiots. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: CAPS! I am on Novus and there is absolutely no throttling. I've maxed out my connection download/upload simultaneously on bittorrent, that's just over a megabyte/second each way.
Well actually there is throttling, if you go over the bandwidth caps(110GB down + 110GB up or in other words 220 GB in Shaw parlance). | |
|
 | | To bad TW hasn't figured this out.. See, half a dollar is better then none. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | Soon as competition is eliminated, we'll swap... Need to kill off that pesky competition, then we can carry out the real plan.... Swapping the cap and the $$$ figure. 
IE $250 a month for 9.95 GB of traffic. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
 | | Run a promotion for those leaving Shaw. I say for the small Fiber ISP, let them run a promotional discount for any customers willing to switch from Shaw. Mean while push aggressively to accumulate investors and footprint. Yes Shaw is significantly cheaper and most users will not see the benefit of Fiber service but this is where marketing and bundles come into play. Offer some incentives and features to make that price seem worth it and explain the future proof benefits Fiber access. | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 | | Concord Pacific (aka Novus) and Shaw at it for years. What the frack? Novus IS CONCORD PACIFIC. This is about a condo developer who sells telecom services to tenants and tries to keep all other providers out of the building. Been going on for years. Now Shaw is doing really cheap pricing in Concord Pacific/Novus's buildings? Boo hoo. | |
|
 | | Terry is a clown, but not the funny kind Terry Hui decided to try and yank Shaw`s chain a while ago and Shaw has decided to do something about it. People like Terry make people like me happy that Shaw is agressively going after new customers. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Terry is a clown, but not the funny kind The nerve of Terry to wire in Fibre and give people cutting edge high speed broadband choices. Yea, he definitely deserves to be punished for that. {/sarcasm off} | |
|
 | | outrageous mark-up So if Peter Bissonnette (Shaws president's)quote is TRUTHFUL(from business in Vancouver article) we should all feel ripped off. Peter is quoted as saying "that Shaws pricing is not below-cost". If this is the case then their mark up is astronomical. After doing the math on this offer, it works out to $24.87/month, after factoring in the 2 months free, for all 3 services from Shaw. Now after this promo is done and you pay their regular rates, you would now be paying around $240.00/month!!!!!! That works out to approximately a 1000% MARK-UP!!!!!!!! This is what I call GOUGING your customers. I am appalled at this. No company should be allowed to have these kind of mark-ups. This is why they want Novus gone. No competition = 1000% mark-up. | |
|
 |
|