What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
137 Comments
- steubens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31Props to not copying the article to your blog first, then posting that, need more people like you on digg.
- chrisv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Shaw has recently rolled out their own digital phone service. It looks like this "fee" is an attempt to convince customers to use their phone service instead. Once again, this is a prime example of what happens when a cable TV/Internet provider has a near monopoly in many cities.
- Specter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Rogers, Shaw, Bell... they all suck and Rogers Definately is packet shaping. I've avoided the shaping so far by using non-standard ports... but it will catch me eventually... then i'll switch.
- spikes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Bell doesn't shape packets like the Rogers/Shaw nazi's.
You're lucky to get 5kb/s off bittorrent on Rogers. - Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16The problem is that what you propose violates network neutrality. On an ISP's network, nothing should get higher priority than anything else, EVER. Even if higher priority means being run on a seperate network segment.
ISPs are responsible for providing enough bandwidth for their customers' needs. If QoS is required on the ISP side due to oversaturated links, then the ISP is at fault and needs to upgrade their network. Oversaturated connections mean the ISP is failing at their most basic task; reliable data transit.
Think about it this way; if the ISP's network (Shaw in this case) did not have saturation issues, then QoS would not provide any benefit whatsoever. - stoops, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Thanks for letting me know. We have just cancelled with Rogers as of March 16 and will be going to Bell. I'll let you know if Bell is doing the same.
- phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Canada produces a lot of websites, software and electronics more than you know.
- achoi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Does this mean that if they don't get their 'quality of service enhanced,' they can sue?
- tehJR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11haha what a joke. If this comes to rogers, i am switching. There is no way I should have to pay extra over my $50 a month just so CERTAIN data works on their network.
Insane. I think the government should step in on stuff like this. - JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10A friend of mine in Sweden gets 30Mb access for what I pay for 3Mb in Canada... *sigh*
Stupid oligopoly....
At least Toronto's getting another WiFi competitor. - LeroyBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That's a good point -- I think if Shaw is competing in the VoIP arena, and charging more for the QoS enhancement, they should be forced to sell the VoIP enhancement at the same price for access to their own VoIP service.
If they include it free for Shaw VoIP, then they should include it free for all VoIP. - tehJR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If you put a good QoS router on your connection at home, you'll never have that issue. I have a cheap Dlink router with their version of QoS. I can be on a call (Vonage), playing WoW, BT, and the roommate surfing the net, playing CS:S online and my call is clear, our pings are low and BT is speeding along.
I don't rely on Rogers to provide a reliable QoS for me, I pay for a pipe to my house, and I manage it how I see fit. - SupaDawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10lol. Yet another anti-shaw digg. I posted a couple last year. This company is getting rediculous. Throttling traffic, mis-representing transfer speeds and now this?
Shaw, my patience is wearing thin... my $100 a month could very well go someplace else. - pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8They're using network shaping to degrade VoIP (unless it's their own). This is extortion!
- ctheory, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8AND TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK
- Mr_Lyle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The only ISP in Canada that's worth anything is Videotron. It's a damn shame they're a Quebec only company. Those guys have been upgrading the speed on their high speed service for years without charging more. They're up to 10mbit with no bandwidth caps. They're not blocking any p2p ports and not only do they not have a problem with VoIP, they're offering their own! Next week they're rolling out a new 16mbit service for 80$ a month. I think they're only 2nd to FIOS in North America...F Bell and Rogers and all the rest of those greedy bastards.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sorry, I can't agree with you that Rogers is not a greedy company. Since they took over Shaw's territory in my area a few years ago they raised the price $10/m and reduced the speed by 2/3. After many years of loyal patronage to their crappy service they called me threatening to cancel my access if I keep using to much bandwidth.
I argued that our contract specified unlimited internet, but the rep said unlimited meant I could be connected all day, not that I could download all I want. (sounds like a limitation to me) I was told that my internet use was reducing the quality of those in my area, but I argued that I'm not responsible for that. I said that I doubted 1.5Mb was the limitation of my cable modem and that Rogers was responsible for delivering service to its customers, not me.
I asked what line I had crossed and was told there was no line. I asked what was the monthly download limit and was told there was no limit.
I ditched Rogers immediately and will never pay them another cent. Since I left they started traffic shaping and cancelled usenet. They are the kings of the bait and switch. If a class action lawsuit is brought up against them you can be sure I'll get in on the payout. - tysonwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I have had a VoIP service at home from Primus Canada for a year now and so far Rogers has not indicated any changes to the standard monthly service fees... but they are insane when it comes to making profit anyway possible, so if Shaw will be allowed to do that - every other ISP will follow in no time... Rogers VoIP is very expensive BTW.
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Seems they have good archives: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/calendar/1999/
Doesn't seem the link will be going away anytime soon. - Xopl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The Government LETS these companies hold relative monopolies because of the high cost of being a utility, laying fiber, that kind of thing. The Government also gives them money, tax breaks, permission to dig holes, lay fiber...
Why don't they just effing roll out fiber to every home like they promised, upgrade their backbones, make it everybody has enough bandwidth for everything ... and then do tiered pricing based on bandwidth caps. NOT based on which services you use.
$10 ... 2Mbit
$20 ... 4Mbit
$50 ... 10Mbit
Charging based on what services you use or what websites you go to is just double or triple billing, it goes against the whole common carrier ideal, and it just plain pisses me off. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Um. You don't sue for failure to meet QoS. Typically, the QoS contract or the QoS clause in the contract would stipulate the means of redress for failure to adhere to QoS contract.
- SupaDawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6that it is. I have noticed that my quality using Skype has dropped in recent months... figured it was just my imagination.
- Export, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5whoa whoa.. as i remember it videotron was the *only* isp in canada that said they'd freely and happily cooperate with the cria to shutdown people sharing mp3's.. i'd google for some links but i'm way lazy
- dromeditor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'd like to know what kind of steps they're taking to increase the quality of service of VoIP-specific problems that justify a fee for that type of data.
- Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8There's a *huge* difference between wanting its customers to pay a little bit extra for enhanced QoS for services like voip, and charging websites like google above and beyond their standard fees for the right to use the internet. Not to say the practice of charging customers for the QoS is right, but it's a few rungs lower on the evil ladder that what AT&T is trying to do.
- primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5We should organize a mass event where we all call our greedy ISPS and tell them we are dropping their service becuase of their greed and over zealous attempts to throttle our connections and internet activities.
- holdemcharts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's not going to help since you still have to give a port and address to route your packets. All they need to know is where the packets are going, not the contents.
- holdemcharts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I have also heard of ISP's throttling back their bandwidth for VOIP connections from "unfriendly" VOIP providers. This allows them to upsell their own VOIP offerings.
- kkapoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This article was submitted before the one you linked to. Do your research next time.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4www.canadianisp.com - A huge list of Canadian cable, DSL, dialup, ISDN, etc ISPs. Each ISP is rated by users on topics like uptime, quality of overall and individual services, bandwidth caps, and overall satisfaction. I was amazed to learn that there are over 100 xDSL providers in my Toronto suburb alone!
Since Rogers threatened to cut off my service because I was somehow overusing their unlimited internet access I've been very happy with www.mycybernet.net which I found on canadianisp.com. They're the highest rated DSL provider in my area and rightfully so! A few weeks ago when Bell was doing router upgrades, Cybernet emailed all its subscribers asking them to please hold off on downloading movies until Friday. How cool is that?
Ditch your huge ISP today and sign up with a little one! They work their butts off to make their customers happy and most have zero limitations including running servers! - DirtyTaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pfffttt.. Eastlink in Atlantic Canada is about $35/month in a bundle for 10Mbit connection. ZZZzoooommmm. Awesome ISP!
- xocomil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The sad thing is that in the US, we the tax payers have paid for the exact thing you are proposing. We gave the major telcos HUGE (as in billions of dollars a year) tax breaks for the past 10 year to run fiber to every home in the US. What did we get for this? More expensive internet and even more breaks from congress. Some telcos are currently lobbying to only run fiber to the curb meaning you could be up to 250 feet from the nearest fiber connection and others are lobbying to run it to the neighborhood meaning you would be 500+ feet away from the nearest fiber connection.
Local groups in Salt Lake (where I live) have tried providing fiber to the premises through a project called "Utopia", but Comcast, Quest and Verizon have been lobbying hard to get that shut down and I think they have succeeded. Most counties in Utah will not join the Utopia project. I am VERY jealous of the ones that have. I have a co-worker with a 15Mbps connection to his home w/ VoIP and cable through his fiber and it only costs him $65 /month. Which is less than the "excellent" internet service that Comcast advertises in our area that only provides half the speed. - largobargo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Seems like a fair deal. Pay $10 and your call to 911 won't get "lost".
- Angryviking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The VOIP "enhancement" is not needed. I use Primus voip and regular shaw cable, no problems unless someone digs the neighborhood cable up.
- Barnum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You could also use a client that support protocol encryption, that has been working wonders for me...
- dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For those with rogers and trying to use Bittorrent..
The new uTorrent/Azerous Encryption works wonders at the moment for getting around it. My speeds are back up to the old levels (300+ Kb/s), highly recommend using one of these clients with the encryption turned on. - sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You can't think anything yet, the article didn't tell us anything. The way the article made it SOUND however, is as if Shaw is saying you aren't ALLOWED to use VoIP unless you pay to up your QoS, saying that VoIP is an extra that you have to pay for the right to use on their network. Kind of like most of thsee assjacks already do, trying to tell you that you can't use your overpriced bandwidth to host a server out of your house unless you pay literally twice as much (or MORE!) for a commercial account that doesn't even offer an appreciable amount of additional bandwidth to you.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Rogers and Shaw are managed separately. Shaw does not throttle my throughput, see my comment below: http://digg.com/links/Canada_ISPs_just_as_greedy_as_USA_ISPs....SURPRISE_#c1179488
I've lived in both Ontario and BC and experienced both providers' service first-hand. They are quite different in some ways. - stoops, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Holy crap man, thats awesome. Tell Videotron to get its butt over into Ontario pronto.
- durnekell2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you forgot to mention lousy tech support. I should know I used to work for them. the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in that business
- scramasax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But on the other end they charge you more if you pass the download/upload limit, they block port 80 if you put a web server and they lobby against p2p because they are also a music company.
- Ghazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's also a *huge* difference between what attorney power a multi-billion dollar corporation can utilize to fight AT&T and such, and what a few complaints from poor helpless consumers can (NOT) do.
- LeroyBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3phill- not entirely an apples to apples comparison. Most of the $600 for that T1 is paying for the leased line itself, and not the 1.536mbit/s you're getting over it.
These providers are also guaranteeably paying less than $30/mbit, leased lines, hardware, and other costs aside.
But yes, these threads usually reveal a general ignorance, or perhaps disinterest, to the facts and figures of the ISP business, and rather drift off into an illogical and emotional tangent, where the ISP is denounced as being EVIL for not giving in to their will.
It's an "I deserve something for nothing" attitude. It's not surprising either that most of the ones, that I've met at least, that are complaining about their right to free bandwidth being hindered or infringed upon, are using it in turn to get more something for nothing -- copyrighted works such as video games, software applications, music, movies, books, porn, etc.
How many times has bittorrent been mentioned in just this one thread? And what's the likely ratio of the niche legitimate users downloading linux distros, etc. to the ones using it to lift pirated software and movies? Not that I feel disdain towards anyone watching movies on bittorrent -- just that they shouldn't be at all surprised when they're sent to the back of the line, so to speak. - Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ouch seumas...
I pay $23.95 for 3mbit down (which I acually get) and 512k up (get about 475k)
but I haven't run into any packet shaping yet...with bittorrent that is, but now with SBC and AT&T joining...and now trying to buy up other companies...I'm sure I'll see it soon - phill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's just amazing how many people don't understand how ISPs work. Bandwidth isn't free for ISPs. They have to pay for it. When you have 80% of your customers using all the bandwidth the ISP has and then complaining about it being slow, what can an ISP do? Add more bandwidth, but who's going to pay for it? 1.5MB per person is a lot of money. I'm paying $600 a month for my T1. Just think of paying for 200 T1's so that each customer can get 1.5mb speed for $25 a month.
The concept was that a T1 can be shared to about 100 customers. But when 50% or more of those customers are making 1000's of connections to P2P systems downloading gigabytes of data every day, that just blows that out of the water.
My, I just dumped my ISP because it's too much of a pain in the ass. People want everything for free. Someone has to pay for it. I foresee more and more ISPs going belly up because demand for bandwidth costs more then they can charge for service. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6$50 for 10mbit? $20 for 4mbit? You're insane. :)
Fees where I live for Comcast:
+ About $65 for 4mbit or 6mbit with 256k up.
+ About $75 for 8mbit with 768k up.
Of course, you don't actually get those speeds since plenty of people use the service, but that's the limit they sell you. - Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@CorpT: Uh huh, you're accusing me of not knowing anything about networking, but are worried about a "huge ftp packet". Packet sizes are determined at layer 2, not layer 7. Applications have no control over the data link layer's packet sizes. There is no such thing as a "huge ftp packet". If you are going to call somebody an idiot, please make sure you do not fall into the same category first.
- jabelar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually Shaw Digital Phone is VoIP. It may not use standard VoIP protocols but it is "voice over Internet". It is explicitly stated that the phone service is delivered over their broadband network. I realize this is semantic, but from a functional and competitive point of view it is VoIP (i.e. Internet service providing voice).
- josh_, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's the media that is spinning this the wrong way. Here is the press release right from Shaw. http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A19222AC-750B-42CC-AC99-136A5C2EA420/0/VonageMar8.pdf
- icefitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Aliant and Sasktel don't shape either and they don't have a limit on throughput to my knowledge like Rogers and Shaw have.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is