40 replies to this topic

[sebberry]

In England, local phone calls were billed by the minute. Not sure if it's still that way.

Also there's a major difference between the way voice and data is distributed.

[Phil McAvity]

Also there's a major difference between the way voice and data is distributed.

Not always. DSL and dial-up both use phone lines.

[sebberry]

Voice over telephone line isn't IP and it isn't using internet bandwidth.

There are a limited number of phone lines too. Not everyone in Victoria can be on the phone at the same time. Ever made a call only to hear "We're sorry, all circuits are busy now, please try again later"?

[VicHockeyFan]

Well, in fairness, I'm not even sure what the internet is...

http://www.youtube.c...layer_embedded#

9nTPX4JW_Ts

[maniac78]

At the risk of sounding like a Killjoy, why would you expect ISPs to be "all-you-can-eat"? No other business works that way. What is wrong with paying for what you get?

But watching tv is all you can eat and so is local calling which on Shaw both use the cable lines. Why is the internet any different?

[VicHockeyFan]

But watching tv is all you can eat and so is local calling which on Shaw both use the cable lines. Why is the internet any different?

One person watching a TV program costs the same in equipment etc. as 10 million watching it, if you already have the equipment in place.

You can't say that is even remotely true about internet bandwidth. If everyone with an internet connection downloaded movies at once, the speed would be 10M times slower.

[Nparker]

Perhaps this concern will soon be moot:

http://www.timescolo...5219/story.html

[spanky123]

One person watching a TV program costs the same in equipment etc. as 10 million watching it, if you already have the equipment in place.

You can't say that is even remotely true about internet bandwidth. If everyone with an internet connection downloaded movies at once, the speed would be 10M times slower.

It is more than 1x but I don't think it is 10M. Most TV services use multi-casting or other streaming technologies which reduces network overhead by replicating information at endpoints rather than broadcasting the same data point to point.

[G-Man]

Wow a reversal by the feds on this could seal the deal on a majority for the Cons. This would have a lot of popularity with young people and the tech community an area where they are not normally going to get a lot of votes.

[manuel]

The original decision was lobbying by the integrated internet providers pure and simple. In an interesting way, the Conservatives have found a policy wedge to use to be seen to be acting in the public interest (and having a reasonable amount of internet bandwidth for the average person and small business is in the public interest, particularly if one considers the counter cost on reduced productivity). If they follow through, how it translates into votes will be interesting - particularly since most of the 'independent' bodies are political appointees.

[http]

One person watching a TV program costs the same in equipment etc. as 10 million watching it, if you already have the equipment in place.

You can't say that is even remotely true about internet bandwidth. If everyone with an internet connection downloaded movies at once, the speed would be 10M times slower.

You are mistaken. Your assertion applies only if the movie requires all available bandwidth AND multicast address transmission technologies are not used. Oh, and that's not even counting proxy servers, though those less useful for streaming content than they are for static content. Or bittorrent, which I first encountered as a way to rapidly distribute multi gigabyte updates to millions of users of an online video game that did not saturate the maker's internet connection (though now, it seems to be used more for copyright infringement than anything else). Bittorrent is a fabulous technology, allowing extremely high speed data transfers without monopolizing bandwidth at a central choke point.

I think a basic problem revealed by the debate is that it takes months of dedicated study to understand the technical issues, and how (in this case) it isn't an issue.

Sadly, the technical types who study it are rarely the kind to bother with public relations and media management. Currently, I'm wishing I'd taken at least one class in marketing. Or teaching.

[jklymak]

I think a basic problem revealed by the debate is that it takes months of dedicated study to understand the technical issues, and how (in this case) it isn't an issue.

Huh? Are you trying to say that the internet run into my building by Shaw could never be saturated? Doesn't sound likely. If not, then who should pay for bandwidth upgrades, all the users, or the high-traffic users?

[G-Man]

That seems correct to me. I don't think that the cable companies are currently charging cost so there should be plenty of room to pay for upgrades if needed. That said I don't think upgrades will be needed anytime soon.

[Sparky]

Shaw is talking about usage based billing again.

http://communities.c...other-name.aspx

[sebberry]

I've used more than twice my monthly bandwidth of any other month this year thanks to the puppy cam

Who knew watching fluffy puppies running and jumping around would be so addicting

[Sparky]

I've used more than twice my monthly bandwidth of any other month this year thanks to the puppy cam

Who knew watching fluffy puppies running and jumping around would be so addicting

Mrs Sparky has the eagle cam on 24/7 watching 3 chicklets grow up.

[sebberry]

Looks like Shaw is going to be fairly generous about their new data caps:

http://www.shaw.ca/I...New-Data-Usage/

They're more than doubling the included bandwidth in their monthly plans.

Example: Extreme is 25 Mbps and will include 250GB/Mo instead of the 100GB/Mo for the $49 bundle price.

What I was hoping for is a 25 MBps connection with a 100GB limit for $39, since it is the bandwidth that is supposedly costing them all the money.

[http]

Looks like Shaw is going to be fairly generous about their new data caps:

http://www.shaw.ca/I...New-Data-Usage/

They're more than doubling the included bandwidth in their monthly plans.

Example: Extreme is 25 Mbps and will include 250GB/Mo instead of the 100GB/Mo for the $49 bundle price.

What I was hoping for is a 25 MBps connection with a 100GB limit for $39, since it is the bandwidth that is supposedly costing them all the money.

I think this was covered earlier - the "supposedly" part is exactly that - cf. peering and transit arrangements between network providers. Shaw seems to be selling the public on a work of fiction, and trying to frame the debate the same way. Personally, I've been tempted to give up on occasion - the onslaught of assaults against the average netizen is relentless and multipronged, and the attackers are obsessed whereas the victims are not. They just might win.

[LJ]

I was on the phone with Shaw today, their website plans and my bill do not match.

What I show on my bill is not listed anywhere in their plans, and they had no explanation as to why they didn't, but assured me they came to the same price.

In looking at their future options what is legacy TV versus SPP TV?

[sebberry]

I don't know what those new TV options are. Perhaps grandfathered plans that people have had for a while and new "personalized" plans.