Support NeoGAF

[squall23]

Ugh. Ontario sucks. In BC and AB you can get Internet + Phone + TV for $40 a month on Shaw and Telus as new customers (or informed old customers!)

Umm, do you by any chance have more info on this? I'm in AB and I'm on a student plan right now so I want to compare what I'm getting from each package.

 

[Firestorm]

Umm, do you by any chance have more info on this? I'm in AB and I'm on a student plan right now so I want to compare what I'm getting from each package.

Ack, I think the Shaw deal is BC Lower Mainland only. They're trying to compete with Novus. I also noticed the Telus deal is different now. It seems you can still get $15 per service for two services though. Considering Home Phone is probably useless to you, that works out.

$15 for OptikTV
$15 for Optik Internet (15 mb/s)
$5 - $10 for digital box rental

Phone them and tell them you'd like the $15 per service promo. If they don't know what you're talking about, try someone else.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/telus-15-15-15-promo-925005/9/

 

[Fugu]

The subsidy argument has a point though. Most metered users are not using anywhere near their bandwidth cap, and it is subsidizing the handful of heavy users in the system.

As a heavy user, I naturally do not want to be charged more. It is against my economic interests and I was pretty happy to hear the government was going to overturn it.

But that's just being greedy. There's several really good reasons why this is purely politics, makes no economic reason from a pricing perspective, and the process itself is now in doubt.

Allow me to join the dozens of posters telling you how this logic is faulty. This is not subsidizing anything because the savings aren't being passed on to the 80-something percent of users that aren't hitting their bandwidth cap. This isn't usage-based billing until you can save money by not using your bandwidth. Right now, this is just penalizing people who attempt to get anywhere approaching the full usage of their internet connection.

 

[Slavik81]

I know I'm super late on this, but you're way wrong on your arbitrary figures.

Think of highways. If they were built to handle rush hour they'd be as wide as the eye can see. And be a huge waste of space the rest of the day.

If you think networks are built to handle DAILY peaks you are in for disappointment. 3 days a year? It's much closer to 3 hours a day. (Peaks are daily events, not yearly).

Ok. I can certainly be convinced of some other number.
I don't have the information I'd need to properly make that sort of decision.

 

[DopeyFish]

I know I'm super late on this, but you're way wrong on your arbitrary figures.

Think of highways. If they were built to handle rush hour they'd be as wide as the eye can see. And be a huge waste of space the rest of the day.

If you think networks are built to handle DAILY peaks you are in for disappointment. 3 days a year? It's much closer to 3 hours a day. (Peaks are daily events, not yearly).

Networks should be built at least double capacity in mind

The most expensive part of the Internet is the last mile, which is also the least likely point of congestion

 

[Zzoram]

The reason UBB is unfair to minimal internet users is that there is a minimum fee of $25 even if you don't use your internet. If using less actually resulted in a lower bill, it would be much more fair.

 

[disappeared]

Looks like I'm in the clear, nicely done Sasktel:

http://twitter.com/SaskTel/status/31105060612079616

Yep, same here.

 

[Firestorm]

Ottawa Rally

 

[The_Inquisitor]

So any luck so far Canadian GAFers?

 

[EvilMario]

So any luck so far Canadian GAFers?

Given the 60 day delay, we won't know anything until April. Given a recent ruling regarding the government overstepping its bounds to over rule the CRTC on another issue, it appears they won't be able to save us on this one with a snap of the fingers. A couple more meetings next week, hopefully with TekSavvy at one.

tl;dr - We don't know yet, we're probably going to get boned.

 

[hauton]

Of course, just as somebody finally grows a pair and calls out the CRTC for what it is, a corrupt, outdated body whose concern for consumers is the last thing on their mind, in comes the courts to bail out their buddies.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...y-cabinets-globalive-decision/article1895099/

Telecom ruling puts a leash on Tory cabinet authority
STEVEN CHASE

A Federal Court ruling has thrown into question the future of Globalive’s Wind Mobile cellular service and established a check on the broad powers of cabinet in government.

Legal experts say the historic decision should give the Harper Conservatives pause as they act again to undo a ruling by Canada’s independent telecom regulator – this time on Internet billing.

In a rare move Friday, the Federal Court struck down a late 2009 Harper cabinet decision that overruled the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and allowed Globalive, a company with strong foreign ties, to operate in Canada.

Friday’s decision leaves Wind Mobile, which has been operating for 14 months, hanging.

Mr. Justice Roger Hughes issued a 45-day stay to his decision, however, to give the company time to respond.

The ruling capped a turbulent week for telecommunications in Canada, one that saw the Conservative government publicly repudiate a different CRTC ruling on the cost of Internet service after it spawned a fierce consumer backlash. Industry Minister Tony Clement vowed this decision would not survive.

The Federal Court decision is surprising because courts are traditionally deferential to cabinet authority and have only very infrequently quashed decisions made by the prime minister and his ministers.

The decision is a victory for Public Mobile, a wireless competitor, which had appealed the cabinet decision, arguing the Harper cabinet exceeded its authority when it allowed Globalive to operate despite the fact the CRTC felt it exceeded restrictions on foreign ownership.

The ruling sets a potentially enduring curb on the breadth of authority at the federal cabinet’s disposal.

The last time cabinet power on telecom was examined by the courts, the decision effectively shaped the legal view of cabinet authority for a generation. In 1980, a Supreme Court ruling on the Inuit Tapirisat’s challenge of a cabinet decision on Bell Canada's rate structure effectively gave cabinet more blanket authority.

Hudson Janisch, a University of Victoria expert in regulatory law who helped revise the Telecommunications Act in 1993, said Friday’s ruling should inspire the Tories to be more prudent as they admonish and browbeat the CRTC over its January Internet decision.

Prof. Janisch, who once taught Mr. Clement at the University of Toronto, urged his former student to tread cautiously.

“I think what this decision should do is remind Mr. Clement, who was a student of mine in administrative law, that he should watch his legal Ps and Qs a little bit more carefully.”

Judge Hughes ruled Friday that the Harper cabinet made “errors of law” when it overrode the regulator and let Globalive launch its mobile service.

Essentially, the ruling means cabinet could not read things into the law that aren’t there.

The federal cabinet’s authority to undo or amend the federal regulator’s decisions stems from one piece of legislation: the Telecommunications Act.

The Conservatives had justified their Globalive move in part by saying they believed the telecommunications law should be interpreted as encouraging access to foreign capital.

But Judge Hughes said while the legislation has a mandate to promote Canadian control of telecom companies it does not empower cabinet to act to encourage foreign investment.

Its imperative, as currently written, is to foster Canadian ownership, he said.

“Where there is a concern that foreign investment and other factors may put Canadian control at risk, then it is the promotion of Canadian control that is to be the essential criterion,” he wrote.

“It is for Parliament, not the [cabinet] to rewrite the act.”

Ottawa will likely be forced to appeal Friday’s decision in defence of broad cabinet authority.

Mr. Clement, for his part, said the government was considering its options.

“Let me reiterate: Our government stands with consumers in wanting to see more choice and more competition in the wireless marketplace.”

Sickening, really.

 

[DopeyFish]

I just hope the conservatives can get legislation through to open up our telecom sector
I am thinking there wouldn't be opposition as it would be political suicide given the sad state of the sector

 

[EvilMario]

I just hope the conservatives can get legislation through to open up our telecom sector
I am thinking there wouldn't be opposition as it would be political suicide given the sad state of the sector

If Liberals/NDP opposed such a bill, I would cry. Of course, the Tories will try to attach something about allowing their FOX News counterpart to unleash their wrath up here. But I'd probably take that over letting CRTC/Big Telecoms control our fate.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Of course, just as somebody finally grows a pair and calls out the CRTC for what it is, a corrupt, outdated body whose concern for consumers is the last thing on their mind, in comes the courts to bail out their buddies.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...y-cabinets-globalive-decision/article1895099/

Sickening, really.

The job of courts isn't to make good rulings, it's to make legally correct rulings. I'm not a legal expert and I'm sure you're not either, but it's quite plausible that the Telecommunications Act does not give the Tories the authority they thought they had in this respect. The judge isn't ruling on whether or not the Tories acted in a way that was beneficial.

And I don't see the logic behind implying that the judge is a telco stool pidgeon. He was a Harper appointee with backgrounds in prestigious and major law firms and no prior background doing anything related to the telecommunications industry. In his pre-law days he was a professional engineer. Moreover, since judges in Canada aren't elected and Mr. Hughes has no prior partisan background there's no reason to assume he was ever in a position to be influenced by lobbyists or receive money.

If the Telecommunications Act is bad policy, it ought to be amended or replaced on a legislative level.

 

[DopeyFish]

If Liberals/NDP opposed such a bill, I would cry. Of course, the Tories will try to attach something about allowing their FOX News counterpart to unleash their wrath up here. But I'd probably take that over letting CRTC/Big Telecoms control our fate.

Too late - CRTC already approved lying in the news as long as it doesn't endanger peoples lives - came down same day as UBB and its been overshadowed by UBB

 

[TheExodu5]

The job of courts isn't to make good rulings, it's to make legally correct rulings. I'm not a legal expert and I'm sure you're not either, but it's quite plausible that the Telecommunications Act does not give the Tories the authority they thought they had in this respect. The judge isn't ruling on whether or not the Tories acted in a way that was beneficial.

And I don't see the logic behind implying that the judge is a telco stool pidgeon. He was a Harper appointee with backgrounds in prestigious and major law firms and no prior background doing anything related to the telecommunications industry. In his pre-law days he was a professional engineer. Moreover, since judges in Canada aren't elected and Mr. Hughes has no prior partisan background there's no reason to assume he was ever in a position to be influenced by lobbyists or receive money.

While I agree, you have to admit that the timing is rather convenient.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Too late - CRTC already approved lying in the news as long as it doesn't endanger peoples lives - came down same day as UBB and its been overshadowed by UBB

Plus I give Canadian conservatives more credit than American republicans. Let them have their Fox News.

 

[Decado]

So...what's going on? Is it going through or not?

 

[Zombie James]

So...what's going on? Is it going through or not?

Not a chance. The CRTC Bell is still adamant about forcing UBB onto wholesalers, but every major party is against it.

 

[Orin GA]

Great news for our hat.

USA USA USA!!!!

 

[Dalthien]

The job of courts isn't to make good rulings, it's to make legally correct rulings. I'm not a legal expert and I'm sure you're not either, but it's quite plausible that the Telecommunications Act does not give the Tories the authority they thought they had in this respect. The judge isn't ruling on whether or not the Tories acted in a way that was beneficial.

This is pretty much what happened.

My understanding of it is that the Telecom Act forbids foreign control. The CRTC followed the law by refusing Globalive. The Tories tried to get around the law by twisting the meaning of the law around. They tried suggesting that even though Globalive has foreign ownership, the actual control of the company would be handled by Canadians. They tried a tap-dancing act where they tried to separate ownership from control.

The judge held to the traditional understanding of the law that ownership = control, and therefore ruled that the Tories could not just circumvent the law of the land.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with the UBB case, because the UBB case has absolutely nothing to do with foreign ownership.

I absolutely want Wind Mobile here in Canada, but the Tories need to sit down and change the Telecom Act through Parliament. They tried to take the easy way out and just start making up their own interpretations of the law, instead of actually amending it.

 

[Jinaar]

Shaw's website showing their new pricing/rates and downloads. Enjoy.

https://store.shaw.ca/pages/main.jsp?top_active=inet&c=Edmonton&p=Alberta

 

[Shambles]

Shaw's website showing their new pricing/rates and downloads. Enjoy.

https://store.shaw.ca/pages/main.jsp?top_active=inet&c=Edmonton&p=Alberta

What were the rates beforehand?

 

[Zombie James]

 

[krae_man]

Entire website is down.

Shaw went over it's bandwidth cap.

 

[DJ_Lae]

They didn't bump caps down, did they?

I don't really want to have to go back to Telus.

 

[Shambles]

Normal rate 57$/month for the 15/1 100GB cap plan and 47$/month for 7.5/0.5 60GB cap. Laughable but I'm still curious as to what their old rates were.

 

[Zzoram]

Plus I give Canadian conservatives more credit than American republicans. Let them have their Fox News.

Harper wants Canada to have it's own version of Fox News and is trying to strong-arm the CRTC to approve it despite not meeting credibility standards of a real news organization. The conservative news straddles the line between entertainment and actual news, giving people the misleading appearance of credibility even when they're blatantly spreading propaganda.

Canada doesn't need our own Glen Beck confusing and scaring people with lies.

 

[DJ_Lae]

Looks the same as it is now - that Extreme pack is the same price, same speed, and same cap as I have now.

Phew.

 

[Shambles]

For comparison right now Telus (Which I don't think have changed their plans) have 6/0.6 75GB cap for 37$ and 15/1 125GB cap for 50$ a month. Did Telus have the 2$/GB overage charge before?

 

[Neki]

For comparison right now Telus (Which I don't think have changed their plans) have 6/0.6 75GB cap for 37$ and 15/1 125GB cap for 50$ a month. Did Telus have the 2$/GB overage charge before?

Telus doesn't care if you go over the GB limit though in most cases, so their GB cap is unlimited in that regard.

 

[krae_man]

Those rates seem normal and by normal I mean insanely overpriced but not inconsistant with what the other companies overcharge for internet access.

 

[Jinaar]

The prices are still terrible, I am on Extreme and that only gets me 100GB. That could last me a good two weeks at best. I think I am going to switch to Telus. I rather Shaw gets the message they will lose customers then gain because of this.

Rage.

 

[enzo_gt]

15 MBPS with 100GB of bandwidth at $29.95 absolutely shits on anything in Ontario. So I'm sitting here like, what the fuck why don't we have prices like that?

Fucking rage. Definitely jelly of y'all who even have access to that stuff :/

 

[Neki]

15 MBPS with 100GB of bandwidth at $29.95 absolutely shits on anything in Ontario. So I'm sitting here like, what the fuck why don't we have prices like that?

Fucking rage. Definitely jelly of y'all who even have access to that stuff :/

Looks like that plan is only the intro plan though, once 6 months expire I think you need a new plan?

 

[Zombie James]

15 MBPS with 100GB of bandwidth at $29.95 absolutely shits on anything in Ontario. So I'm sitting here like, what the fuck why don't we have prices like that?

Fucking rage. Definitely jelly of y'all who even have access to that stuff :/

"Intro Offer."

 

[Riptwo]

15 MBPS with 100GB of bandwidth at $29.95 absolutely shits on anything in Ontario. So I'm sitting here like, what the fuck why don't we have prices like that?

Fucking rage. Definitely jelly of y'all who even have access to that stuff :/

To be fair, that's the introductory price. After six months it's $57/mo unbundled, plus they lowered the caps from the 125 gigs that they were set at a few months ago.

In other news, Shaw have now compared internet access to a limited resource like water directly in their FAQ (http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/FAQ/). Until we can come up with an internet treatment plant to help recycle our used data streams, I'd appreciate if you could share #internetconservation tips on twitter. For example, did you know that placing a soda bottle in your toilet tank can save up to 3000 gallons of internet per year?

 

[Shambles]

15 MBPS with 100GB of bandwidth at $29.95 absolutely shits on anything in Ontario. So I'm sitting here like, what the fuck why don't we have prices like that?

Fucking rage. Definitely jelly of y'all who even have access to that stuff :/

It's surprising how much they can get away with by adding some small writing underneath.

Anyways for 25$ you can get an uncapped 6/0.5 type connection from wind. While they do have traffic shaping most people are saying that even with excessive downloads they aren't being throttled so I assume it only kicks in if the bandwidth of the tower you're connected to is maxxed out. Unless a landline ISP out west gets their act together I'll probably end up switching over either with the 25$ internet stick plan, or go with a 45$ everything included mobile plan and just tether into my LAN.

 

[enzo_gt]

To be fair, that's the introductory price. After six months it's $57/mo unbundled, plus they lowered the caps from the 125 gigs that they were set at a few months ago.

In other news, Shaw have now compared internet access to a limited resource like water directly in their FAQ (http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/FAQ/). Until we can come up with an internet treatment plant to help recycle our used data streams, I'd appreciate if you could share #internetconservation tips on twitter. For example, did you know that placing a soda bottle in your toilet tank can save up to 3000 gallons of internet per year?

Didn't know this, my bad.

Still I'm angry that bandwidth caps still exist in fucking 2011, and the fact that any of this shouldn't even be an issue.

 

[DJ_Lae]

Just switched to Telus.

Right now my Shaw bundle is $160 a month for everything.

With Telus, after the half price 6 month promotion it's $160 for similar offerings. But, I get 250GB instead of 100GB/month, 25mbps instead of 15mbps, and a free 250GB Xbox.

And in two years I'll probably switch back again when Shaw has enticing offers.

 

[RS4-]

Didn't know this, my bad.

Still I'm angry that bandwidth caps still exist in fucking 2011, and the fact that any of this shouldn't even be an issue.

Don't have Acanac or TS cable in your area yet? I think the former has unlimited on their caps but I don't know anyone that actually uses their service. I know TS cable has unlimited but I believe it's $55. I'm waiting for Rogers to swing by and set up my TS cable service, hopefully this damn modem I picked up can consistently handle the speed.

 

[enzo_gt]

Don't have Acanac or TS cable in your area yet? I think the former has unlimited on their caps but I don't know anyone that actually uses their service. I know TS cable has unlimited but I believe it's $55. I'm waiting for Rogers to swing by and set up my TS cable service, hopefully this damn modem I picked up can consistently handle the speed.

They have it in a few areas, but not mine. They've been saying it's coming for half a year now, but I've heard thats just how it is with Teksavvy.

 

[Fuzzy]

Is the next meeting tomorrow at 4pm?

 

[RS4-]

They have it in a few areas, but not mine. They've been saying it's coming for half a year now, but I've heard thats just how it is with Teksavvy.

Ah, was this through their site or by calling in? iirc the reps have better info in regards to your area.

 

[enzo_gt]

Ah, was this through their site or by calling in? iirc the reps have better info in regards to your area.

Through the site. Hmm, maybe I should call in and see if there's any update in their service area in case their site doesn't update that often. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Firestorm]

"Intro Offer."

Shaw doesn't do contracts though so you can jump ship once you're done.

It's surprising how much they can get away with by adding some small writing underneath.

Anyways for 25$ you can get an uncapped 6/0.5 type connection from wind. While they do have traffic shaping most people are saying that even with excessive downloads they aren't being throttled so I assume it only kicks in if the bandwidth of the tower you're connected to is maxxed out. Unless a landline ISP out west gets their act together I'll probably end up switching over either with the 25$ internet stick plan, or go with a 45$ everything included mobile plan and just tether into my LAN.

Telus already has their act toggether.

Just switched to Telus.

Right now my Shaw bundle is $160 a month for everything.

With Telus, after the half price 6 month promotion it's $160 for similar offerings. But, I get 250GB instead of 100GB/month, 25mbps instead of 15mbps, and a free 250GB Xbox.

And in two years I'll probably switch back again when Shaw has enticing offers.

Said this a couple of times, but Telus doesn't monitor your bandwidth on the line you just subscribed to so you're on an unlimited plan - not 250gb/month.

 

[DJ_Lae]

Said this a couple of times, but Telus doesn't monitor your bandwidth on the line you just subscribed to so you're on an unlimited plan - not 250gb/month.

The Optik ones too?

I had High Speed Turbo with them before (a couple of years back now, I guess) and they bitched and moaned at me a couple of times although never really did anything. When I had regular High Speed with them prior to that, they cut off my access once, which was annoying.

Having said that, I doubt I'll be breaking 250GB very often - the highest I ever went before was 230GB on my 60GB cap with them, and other than moan they didn't charge me anything.

 

[Firestorm]

The Optik ones too?

I had High Speed Turbo with them before (a couple of years back now, I guess) and they bitched and moaned at me a couple of times although never really did anything. When I had regular High Speed with them prior to that, they cut off my access once, which was annoying.

Having said that, I doubt I'll be breaking 250GB very often - the highest I ever went before was 230GB on my 60GB cap with them, and other than moan they didn't charge me anything.

With Optik your usage will always be 0. Not monitored.

 

[Sinatar]

The Optik ones too?

I had High Speed Turbo with them before (a couple of years back now, I guess) and they bitched and moaned at me a couple of times although never really did anything. When I had regular High Speed with them prior to that, they cut off my access once, which was annoying.

Having said that, I doubt I'll be breaking 250GB very often - the highest I ever went before was 230GB on my 60GB cap with them, and other than moan they didn't charge me anything.

They can't monitor Optik (yet) since the same internet line that feeds your computer feeds the TV, they have no way to currently differentiate between the two.

 

[a176]

I urge everyone to spread the tidbit of news about Bell's insurance plan. Its a piece of information no one seems to give attention to but is the clutch factor in how bullshit everything is.

http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpI...tem_sku=VasIntInsurance&region=ON&language=en

Bell offers 40gb for $5, instead of paying the normal $2/gb overage charge. Do you guys realize how much this is? 12.5 cents per gigabyte. $25 for 200gb. Bell has this available to all customers. Even if 90% of their customers do not go over their cap limits, all this bandwidth is available regardless. Instead, we get UBB.