Vonage Slams Shaw $10 VoIP Fee - The QoS net-neutrality wars truly begin...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
amungus @ 7th Mar 02:12PM:
crooks
those crooks just don't want to admit that their network isn't all that...
a packet is a packet is a packet people, and having "quality" service is what you should have to begin with. so are they saying that 'quality' on anything else that requires decent latency also sucks without this mafia fee? If I were a gamer with this ISP, I'd be furious.
Idiots. Why did they buy fancy new routers/switches etc in the first place if they don't expect people to use them? I really don't get it. This is just stuck on stupid. As ISP's, they should be giving the BEST that they can no matter what people use it for.
What about Net2Phone? What about games like WOW, secondlife, Everquest, Counterstrike.................
What about video? What about MOVIE services? What about streaming music services? What the heck do they expect their users to use the internet for? email? Got news for you morons, this is 2006, and people don't just chat or send/recieve the occasional email.
Maybe they should've just never bough any new upgrades to any of their equipment and sold dialup cable.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 7th Mar 02:21PM:
Re: crooks
said by amungus :
a packet is a packet is a packet people,
No, it isn't. There are file download packets, and browsing packets, and then there are real-time packets that can't be delayed and need QOS guarantees to work - like voice conversations.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page
reply
ke4pym @ 7th Mar 02:24PM:
Too bad...
No one is willing to put up and shut up and vote with their wallets and shut their services off...
reply
NGOwner @ 7th Mar 02:25PM:
Recommended NOT Required
Read the release. It's a recommended (meaning optional) feature, not a required one. The customer still has the choice of whether to pay or not.
Shaw could do the exact same thing for gaming, or gambling, or videoconferencing, etc.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots.
reply
amungus @ 7th Mar 02:27PM:
Re: crooks
ok, you got me. sorry. so I guess my main point is more along the line that other things besides voice need it. that isp's should be able to handle it. and that one should not be having to pay extra money in order to use it.
granted, I also think in the back of my head, that phone through internet has a long way to go before being nearly as reliable as plain ol' telephone service.
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 02:27PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
jjoshua @ 7th Mar 02:28PM:
What does $10 get you?
Does $10 get you a guaranteed service level?
If you don't pay $10, are they actively discriminating against certain packets? This would be very bad.
reply
DaveNJ @ 7th Mar 02:29PM:
customers slams Vonage $39 termination fee
Before you consider vonage know these things
1. There is a $39 cancellation fee.
2. There is $10 charge to port your number if you didnt at signup.
3. Customer support is in india or canada.
4. You cant email them, they dont want to help you.
I disagree with shaws fee though....
reply
chesney09 @ 7th Mar 02:34PM:
Re: Too bad...
I'd have to agree with Doc on this...But...
The problem may be that there isn't any other choice?
I know if my Cable ISP decided to hit me with $10 charge, I'd have to pay it or switch to DSL..> Which of course I'd have to have a POTS line to get.. Unless I pay 60-8o a month for dry line from Covad. All of which kills any savings that I was enjoying by using cable and Vonage.
Where does the consumer win?
reply
G_Poobah @ 7th Mar 02:35PM:
Re: crooks
As usual, your corporate astroturfing attempts to divert the problem by stating incorrect facts and outright lies.
Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.
Lie #2 : QOS Solves the problem. Another OUTRIGHT LIE. QOS solves the problem ONLY if they traffic load is at 100%. In any working network, QOS does NOTHING to the traffic until there is too much traffic. If Shaw is running at 100% load, then they have bigger problems than QOS will ever solve.
Lie #3 : There are different kinds of packets. Another OUTRIGHT LIE. All packets are treated equally. As long as the NETWORK is working correctly, then the traffic will work correctly. I can be running at 95% load, and my VoIP should have NO MORE LATENCY than if I were running at 5% load. LATENCY is not related to TRAFFIC LOAD until the traffic load is at 100%. If there is Latency at sub 100% loads, then the network has problems (hardware/misconfiguration/not powerful enough routers/etc), but QOS isn't the solution.
Another pack of lies by people who want to rip you off. There is no techncial reason whatsoever you should have to pay more to get acceptable internet service. This is an outright greed tax, that solves nothing. Want proof? Just encyrpt your traffic, poof, no more problems.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.
reply
odreian615 @ 7th Mar 02:38PM:
vonage commercials
I am black but that black chic on the vonage commercials is very annoying she looks like she's talking out the side of her mouth
reply
chesney09 @ 7th Mar 02:38PM:
Re: customers slams Vonage $39 termination fee
Intersting note on the $39 cancellation fee, didn't know that.
I don't see it unreasonable to charge a fee to port a number if you didn't port it at sign up.
Isn't ALL support in India/phillipines?
YOu can't email anyone.. No Telco,Cable, ISP, Service provider wants to help you.. It cuts their bottom line.
(This isn't 100% factual, but they do make it damn near impossible.)
reply
RadioDoc @ 7th Mar 02:41PM:
Re: Too bad...
That's a good point and would be a concern if Shaw was preventing the customer from using Vonage if the $10 isn't paid. But they aren't. The customer can continue doing what they are doing, ignoring the "preferred treatment" much like someone who buys a cheap-fare coach ticket ignores the people in first class as they walk on by.
In fact, this sounds more like Shaw has been taking marketing lessons from Monster Cable...if people are silly enough to pay it, why not sell it to them? :p
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 7th Mar 02:42PM:
Re: crooks
said by G_Poobah :
Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.
OUTRIGHT TRUTH:
Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page
reply
Mizzat @ 7th Mar 02:42PM:
Re: What does $10 get you?
Packet discrimination, hahaha! The new hate crime?
reply
kamm @ 7th Mar 02:47PM:
Let's go back to your original lie
said by TK Junk Mail :said by G_Poobah :
Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.
OUTRIGHT TRUTH:
Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world.
OUTRAGEOUS LIE: when you're implying Shaw will have to spend even a dime on handling VoIP packets.
What a BS.
reply
sieklucki1 @ 7th Mar 02:48PM:
Re: crooks
Well put--a user's packets should all be treated equally.
VOIP should not suffer degradation alone, if VOIP is working badly, all other internet traffic should be working equally badly. Of course, if the internet is slow a customer will move to a different provider.
However, a similar argument works for good quality. If everything but VOIP works well then the provider is artificially degrading VOIP and thus not really providing internet access as most companies advertise.
As for charging extra--if I pay for internet access all my packets should be delivered to me equally (well or badly). I should not be penalized for having "different types" of packets.
reply
amungus @ 7th Mar 02:54PM:
Re: crooks
ok, you got him. both of you must have a bit more knowledge than I... either way, agreed that it's greed.
didn't even consider internet2, yeah, they've been toying with that for quite some time...
...your first "Outright lie!" ...don't real time packets need low latency/fast access??? perhaps not qos, as we're arguing here in this thread, but do they not need the low latency? I always thought that was the point of having high speed internet, that it was also supposed to be low latency...
that's where my thought of them (shaw, or any isp) upgrading equipment comes in... for what purpose again??? oh yeah, so people could benefit from faster, lower latency network access...
let the neutrality wars begin.
I would bet on gamers to weigh in on this more and more as they begin to realize that these things could also affect them more... I play some online games, barely, but when I do, I expect them to work. Many isp's have touted their services as being fit for such things... suddenly they aren't??????? ooops.
reply
DaveNJ @ 7th Mar 02:54PM:
Re: customers slams Vonage $39 termination fee
said by chesney09 :
Intersting note on the $39 cancellation fee, didn't know that.
I don't see it unreasonable to charge a fee to port a number if you didn't port it at sign up.
Isn't ALL support in India/phillipines?
YOu can't email anyone.. No Telco,Cable, ISP, Service provider wants to help you.. It cuts their bottom line.
(This isn't 100% factual, but they do make it damn near impossible.)
Why should i have to paid to port my number if it was free when i signed up, put choose not to. But after i have to ? That doesnt make sense, every cellular provider will port a number free with new service.
No you CAN.
I have emailed and got responses to within hours with these companies.
Sprint, Cingular , ATT, Patmedia cable, etc
reply
DaveNJ @ 7th Mar 02:58PM:
Re: crooks
said by TK Junk Mail :said by G_Poobah :
Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.
OUTRIGHT TRUTH:
Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world.
If a network is running at 40% people will feel it, a network at 100% is likely the same a highway at 100% nothing is going to happen. 40% is usually the limit before upgrades are needed.
reply
G_Poobah @ 7th Mar 03:11PM:
Re: Let's go back to your original lie
*sigh*.. As usual, I'll have to post the background information about QOS. Background: Internet2 had a highly qualified real world working group with no profit motive study QOS in an unbiased, technical manner, to document problems and solutions for these so called 'traffic jams'. These studies are openly published for all to read, and reflect the real world results of a network hundreds of times faster than todays regular internet. Let me summarize for those too lazy to read it.
»qbone.internet2.edu/
"Moreover, within the Internet2 environment very few application performance problems can be traced to network congestion. Instead, end-to-end performance is often hampered by faults on or near end-systems including: broken TCP stacks (e.g. inadequate socket buffering), Ethernet duplex mismatch, and crummy cabling (e. g. CAT3, shared media, or physical damage)."
So, how is it that the cable companies/telephone companies 'magically know better' than the designers of internet 2? Are all their engineers smarter? Do they know more? Oh, wait, does the profit motive make them more technically savy? NO. The only reason the megacorps even bring up the concept of QOS is so they can RIP PEOPLE OFF. QOS isn't the solution, and it's been proven time after time again in real world studies.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.
reply
CableConvert @ 7th Mar 03:12PM:
Canadian Law
Don't know much about the laws in Canada...but this seems rather fraudulent
reply
qworster @ 7th Mar 03:13PM:
Here's what the $10.00 probably gets you..
1. Unblocking of port 5004.
2. Unblocking of port 5060
3. Unblocking of port 3478
4. Unblocking of port 5082
5. Unblocking of ports over 10,000
That's about it.
This is a ripoff of biblical proportions!
reply
grumpygeek @ 7th Mar 03:18PM:
Re: crooks
If a Shaw engineer wants to post the extract from their QoS config on here - or even confirm that they have QoS in the core and out to the CMTS's, I'll take back my assertion that it's anything more than a predatory marketing move.
Not that it's a bad one; I would be awfully nervous if I were with them right now.
reply
shashinka @ 7th Mar 03:19PM:
Re: crooks
Cisco themselves recommend 70%. I myself having worked for and managed a Network Operations Center for a phone company that provided internet access. Our network usually ran during the day between 30-40% capacity. Maybe even higher at points, during this time our response times were still in check for streaming voice and video. I agree with G_Poobah on this. QOS is only needed during the peak times to assign bandwidth priority to the stream. On some even basic network setups no QOS is setup for voice calls and customers are told that everything will be fine unless there is a broadcast storm or some kind of traffic that is affecting the ports associated with the VOIP traffic. Such as an ip multicast for ghosting.
reply
chemaupr @ 7th Mar 03:20PM:
Re: Canadian Law
agreed ...
this is anticompetitive. if allowed they can charge whatever the f* they need to kill competition.
this is like import duties worked. charge so much so they are forced to buy our...
reply
salan @ 7th Mar 03:21PM:
Canadian eh ?
Shaw > Please stop being fags. You are rotting Canada of its good name. That goes the same for you Rogers!
reply
bwalker25 @ 7th Mar 03:25PM:
hmm
I wish I could charge my customers a "preferred customer service fee" for 10$, hell I could make a better bottom line that way! Charge 10$ for preferred treatment and get absolutely nothing good in return! Its a flawless business practice! :)
reply
shashinka @ 7th Mar 03:25PM:
Re: crooks
Actually end to end delay can be higher than most expect. Can be up to As long as the stream is consistent then the call will sound fine. What is more detrimental to the conversation is jitter, when the response time fluctuates. Another factor is packet loss (dropped data packets). Depending on the codec used (g711, g729) some lost packets can be corrected in the stream via error detection/correction mechanisms.
This link provides all sorts of technical information regarding this: »www.voiptroubleshooter.com/indep···ces.html
reply
moonpuppy @ 7th Mar 03:26PM:
Re: Too bad...
said by chesney09 :
I'd have to agree with Doc on this...But...
The problem may be that there isn't any other choice?
I know if my Cable ISP decided to hit me with $10 charge, I'd have to pay it or switch to DSL..> Which of course I'd have to have a POTS line to get.. Unless I pay 60-8o a month for dry line from Covad. All of which kills any savings that I was enjoying by using cable and Vonage.
Where does the consumer win?
Exactly why Comcast is driving speeds up only in areas competing with FIOS. Otherwise, why bother if the consumer has no choice.
reply
dispatcher21 @ 7th Mar 03:29PM:
Is this right?
From the way I understand it, the extra charge is for QoS while on the ISP's network only? So for example, it would benefit me for the first 8 hops till it leaves Qwests, network, then it would be out of the hands of the ISP and onto the internet. Sorry, I cant see spending extra money for a very small improvement over the first 8 hops.
reply
en102 @ 7th Mar 03:32PM:
Re: Let's go back to your original lie
I agree - if customers have been using VoIP for quite a while now haven't had issues, why should this now be a concern?
I'm assuming that Shaw wants
a) $$$
b) to be able to pass the buck if someone points the finger for a dropped call
As all these companies are always pushing speeds 8 or 10 Mbps , and typically do not have the outbound capacity to handle it, they want to set standards (and make more $$$). If you look at shaw's network map, they have an OC-192 running cross country, so they should have ample bandwidth.
»www.bigpipeinc.com/pdf/network_m···rnet.pdf
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 03:44PM:
Re: Too bad...
Or it could be there is LACK of competition..
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 03:43PM:
A problem.
If you can't get 128/128 symmetric bandwidth 24/7/365 with your internet provider: Houston, we have a problem.
Time to find a new ISP!!
Nuff said.
reply
shashinka @ 7th Mar 03:55PM:
Re: customers slams Vonage $39 termination fee
The cancelation fee is if you haven't been a customer for a year or more. Sunrocket always you to port your number at anytime without a charge.
reply
shashinka @ 7th Mar 03:58PM:
Re: Is this right?
Another reason why this is crazy is because it is $10 a month! I mean come on. Even if it did cost to upgrade/maintain network for good call quality, it wouldn't be $10 a month, we're talking about a very small stream of data when it is used. Maybe a couple of dollars if they could justify it.
reply
coop_dog @ 7th Mar 04:12PM:
Re: Canadian eh ?
Well I hope rogers does not I may have to go back to bell.... Boo Urns bell!!
reply
chemaupr @ 7th Mar 04:19PM:
How many bytes is the VoIP traffic?
as far as I understand the traffic for voip is less than 100/100 kbps.
So if I download a movie from cinemanow or movielink... at 400to 600 kbps for an hour I will be using more bandwidth than if I talk in that phn for 1-3 hours..
This charge is pure BS...
reply
kamm @ 7th Mar 04:30PM:
Re: Let's go back to your original lie
Umm I was talking to him, in case you haven't noticed... ;)
reply
coop_dog @ 7th Mar 04:32PM:
What can we do about this???
Is it really the internet when the isp censor the content. It seems to me that ips are not offering the internet any more they are offering a limited service to what they want you to see/use.... I know that the EULA states they can do what ever they want. Why are we saying ok to this? All over I read about this type of action, bit torrent, gnutella... being blocked now I may have to pay 10 bucks more to use Vonage wtf.
reply
monkeyman24 @ 7th Mar 04:37PM:
Well, I know one company that isn't complaining
TELUS :D
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 04:47PM:
WTF!?!?!?
I think some of you may not be catching what was really in the article... Shaw is not blocking Vonage, they are infact selling services to make the Vonage experiece better. They are not lowering the priority of the packets to the Vonage network without the QOS serice, but instead they are speeding up the travel of the VOIP packets (within the shaw network).
Vonage is blowing smoke up your ass. there just pissed that shaw is at over 100,000 subscribers now, willing to pay more for a better network.
read more about the QOS service...
»www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServic···ment.htm
reply
wilburyan @ 7th Mar 04:58PM:
Re: Too bad...
said by RadioDoc :
In fact, this sounds more like Shaw has been taking marketing lessons from Monster Cable...if people are silly enough to pay it, why not sell it to them? :p
Like when I bought a $90 DVD player and the salesman tried to sell my a $180 kevlar coated fibre optic audio cable to go with it.
reply
tdumaine @ 7th Mar 05:04PM:
Re: Is this right?
Just think, to make sure it gets "priority" after the first 8 hops, you probably get to pay $10 to that isp too. Think how fast that $10 can compound as your packet hops across the internet.......
reply
pcscdma @ 7th Mar 05:17PM:
Re: Too bad...
said by RadioDoc :
In fact, this sounds more like Shaw has been taking marketing lessons from Monster Cable...if people are silly enough to pay it, why not sell it to them? :p
Shaw cable should sue monster cable because they are using the words cable.
Then they would be monster cable.
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 05:34PM:
Re: What can we do about this???
The ISP isn't truly sensoring the content. If they wanted to sensor content they'd get rid of almost every kind of P2P traffic out there and save themselves money on all the upgrades. But then everyone would complain. You don't have to pay 10$ to use Vonage, you just won't get the optional QoS treatment that may help you.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 05:38PM:
Re: How many bytes is the VoIP traffic?
yeah, so why don't you try making a call and downloading a movie at the same time, that's the whole reason why QoS would be helpful. Without some kind of a priority on your call your call quality would suffer. A different anology...Call A is a 911 call, Call B is a regular call. If you were the operator and had the ultimate decision which call goes through, would you pick Call A or Call B.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 05:41PM:
Re: Is this right?
Assuming G.711 codec @ 20ms a Cisco 7246VXR is capable of about 53-55 calls per upstream. A typical upstream should have about 250-300 subscribers. So it may be small for a single user but when all users making calls are added together it's more of an issue. But I agree with you, 10$ is waaay too much for this! I could see it for 2-3$ maybe 5$ max but 10$ is a rip-off.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work
reply
shashinka @ 7th Mar 05:45PM:
Re: Is this right?
Well I think a majority of the issues wuold happen at the ISP level and not the transport providers but anything can happen of course.
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 05:47PM:
Re: Canadian Law
No it's not anti-competitive. They are not preventing you from using Vonage, they're offering an optional improvement (I don't want to argue the merits of actually buying into the improvement).
reply
shashinka @ 7th Mar 05:47PM:
Re: Is this right?
I believe this is only the case if the router is acting as a VOIP gateway. When converted from analog to IP in your ATA then it would be data packets just like any other transfer and the router would be able to handle whatever its backplane/processor/connections can handle. This router could have mutliple gig connetions to various places.
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 05:48PM:
Re: Is this right?
Well, transport providers usually try to stay ahead of the game by providing huge bandwidth pipes. You're right, the issues would probably occur at the ISP first. And that's why Shaw may want to sell optional QoS service.
reply
nekkidtruth @ 7th Mar 06:04PM:
Re: Canadian eh ?
said by salan :
Shaw > Please stop being fags.
Because you're not tarnishing that name by using "fags" right? Way to look like an idiot.
--
Biting off more then we can chew...
reply
Emendo @ 7th Mar 06:09PM:
Re: crooks
Yes, all those are encapsulated in IP packet.
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 06:18PM:
they are anti-competitive
their own VOIP service can't match Vonage pricing so they resorted to this bullshit. not only do they degrade other VOIP packets, they also degrade gaming packets as well in certain areas. CRTC won't do a thing since they don't regulate internet-related services. Shaw pretty much can do this as long as they want. Vonage complaints won't get through.
reply
bmn @ 7th Mar 06:25PM:
Re: crooks
said by TK Junk Mail :said by amungus :
a packet is a packet is a packet people,
No, it isn't. There are file download packets, and browsing packets, and then there are
real-time packets that can't be delayed and need QOS guarantees to work - like voice conversations.
Yes, but unless Shaw is mismanaging their network or running at near capacity, there should be no need for them to have to implement QoS. The router shouldn't be buffering packets but instead should be passing them in near real-time anyway.
QoS is fix for the problems of the providers and they are trying to foist the cost in onto the backs of others.
--
New Rule: People who defend economic systems, like capitalism & communism, from ANY criticism, need a life.
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 06:33PM:
Re: Recommended NOT Required
said by NGOwner :
Shaw could do the exact same thing for gaming, or gambling, or videoconferencing, etc.
[NG]Owner
I'm sure it's in the works, look at all the cool things PacketCable Multimedia & DQoS are capable of.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 06:44PM:
Re: crooks
You pay for internet access and the only thing that really entitles you to is that your packet can go from point a (your cable modem) to point b (whatever you're accessing). I have never seen an ISP advertize or claim that they can get your packet from point A to point B in x amount of time. Just like they don't guarantee or claim you'll always get x megabits per second. They always claim UP TO...x
In reality the ISP is in the business to make money, they will provide better quality of service to a commercial client typically because they have a Service Level Agreement with them and that can potentially cost them more money. So commercial traffic is almost always higher priority than your traffic. Then there's voice traffic. Imagine if it's an emergency 911 call (something many MSOs still lack a good impementation of) vs someone's porn packets...Voice goes through because it's important.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work
reply
nozzer @ 7th Mar 06:44PM:
They might think they can get away with this
I smell that this company rather stupidly thinks they can get away with messing with the packets, and the customers or Vonage won't be able to prove a thing.
I think Vonage need to set up a softfone based "testkit" for its users that can collect quality data under a range of scenarios, including encryption of the connection. This would very quickly provide strong evidence that rather than just providing customers "paying the tax" with a QoS they are actually deliberately degrading the performance of those who aren't.
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 06:46PM:
Re: Let's go back to your original lie
but an upstream port on a CMTS is not an oc-192. They could solve that by buying more CMTS's but that costs $.
reply
MattBC @ 7th Mar 06:48PM:
Re: Well, I know one company that isn't complaining
What a bright idea!
Lets all call Telus to run a VoIP service over it, and then have to pay for dry line DSL.
Matt
reply
OS_X_Tiger @ 7th Mar 06:54PM:
pure marketing BS
Yeah, Vonage, like your service isn't "high-priced"
reply
G_Poobah @ 7th Mar 07:09PM:
Re: crooks
Internet access is a published standard on how traffic works. Internet access is BEST EFFORT throughout the network. Internet access is NOT what Verizon, or Comcast, or Shaw decides it is.
Your Lie : My porn traffic is FAR more important than your 911 call as far as I'M concerned. What gives YOU the right to say that your call goes through, and my porn gets slowed down? We both paid for 'internet access'. Period. You don't get to decide that your magic 911 call about your lost gerbil is more important than my porn.
Your Lie : "So commercial traffic is almost always higher priority than your traffic". Absolutely and totally untrue. There is no difference between a packet from a commercial person and a packet from a residential person. The only thing a 'commercial' account gets you is a BIGGER PIPE and BETTER UPTIME. Period. Uunet doesn't treat commercial traffic from verizon any different than it treats residential traffic from comcast. Because that's what the internet IS. It's not SHAWS call, It's not Verizons call to determine which packet is more important than the other. All packets are treated to best effort, and if the QUALITY of that best effort isn't good enough, then
a) Don't sell speeds you can't support
b) Upgrade your network.
See, they have 2 choices.. It's very easy. Spend money to deliver what you promise, or don't promise it. Most people learn that in Kindergarten, but apparently the executives have forgotten lifes important lessons. Guess all those greedy brain cells crowd out the reality of the world.
*Sorry Kamm..
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 07:26PM:
Re: crooks
You need to educate yourself a bit more before you rant. Your porn traffic is only as important as the ISPs executives decide it is. What gives them the right? Their money, their implementation and their rules. If it's possible to engineer what they want it's going to be done no matter how much you complain about it. There is DSL/Dial Up if you're not happy with what you signed up for. Nobody is twisting your arm to force you to subscribe.
In a DOCSIS implementation it's possible to provide different priority services. Change the SfSchedulingType to UGS and your non-UGS packets take a back seat.
That's how things are done in a cable company...If you don't like it/agree with it. Start your own Cable Company and make your own rules ;)
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work
reply
chemaupr @ 7th Mar 07:37PM:
Re: Canadian Law
are you kidding me???
This is an ISP mandatory fee if you use other provider VoIP vs them... They are clearly discouraging the use of third party VoIP providers. You are gaining ZERO benefits. It works before the $10 bucks and will work the same after the $10 this is just a toll...
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 07:42PM:
Re: Canadian Law
The article isn't very clear but most of the references say recommend NOT required. However, they say "tax" which, I believe, would be required. I don't have Shaw and I don't work for them so I can't say for sure if it's required or not. I'd also like to see how they implemented it and if they actually do.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work
reply
DonChino @ 7th Mar 07:47PM:
Re: Too bad...
I was wondering WHY others are getting 6MBps as STANDARD connections on Comcast while those of us in Kearny, NJ are only getting 4MBps. We have NO CHOICE here and we are in a METRO AREA but we happen to be in a COMCAST zone between Time Warner and Cablevision but just a few blocks away... SUCKS having NO CHOICE because everyone else is enjoying 6MBps while we "crawl" at 4MBps...
:huh:
reply
jap @ 7th Mar 08:17PM:
Re: What can we do about this???
said by coop_dog :
It seems to me that ips are not offering the internet any more [...]Why are we saying ok to this?
We said "OK" when we allowed infrastructure to be privately owned. Now the infrastructure owners are getting into the content biz and the bad planning is coming home to roost. Nations that have publicly owned pipes have a much healthier model: all content/services competitors exist on a level field and the infrastructure owner has no incentive to corrupt the carriage of one content player over another.
The US and other lightly-regulated private infrastructures have horrid geographical build-out realities with nobody getting economies of scale, resulting in messy consolidations, resulting in private monopolies that can - and will - prioritize their service packets over those of competitors. Built-in competition killer. Stupid.
reply
Roop @ 7th Mar 08:20PM:
antitrust
from the article:
"What evidence does Shaw have to prove its 'enhancement' service actually delivers on the promise of enhancing a customer's use of a non-Shaw phone service provider?"
i've been told they have nothing to increase the reponse time or bandwidth. they do however have the ability to block ports and lower the qos on certain data streams.
this is exactly what the bells tried to do to google when they got slapped. don't worry. this won't get far. canadians will stand up to shaw and they will back down with their collective tails between their legs.
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 08:21PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
G_Poobah @ 7th Mar 08:33PM:
Re: crooks
Please refer to : »Re: Just for giggles...
I want to thank you for responding correctly. I said "I paid for Internet Access", and you correctly responded with "Then Start your own Network!"
Woooota! Predicted your response THREE (3) weeks ago! You didn't let me down.
Proof you again all the paid astroturfing corporate apologists share the same scripts! Maybe you should get a new script!
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.
reply
rradina @ 7th Mar 08:34PM:
Re: crooks
I just don't agree. I've had VOIP (Vonage) for over three years and it's been working fantastic without any QOS or traffic shaping. Even the nature of HTML is such that low latency without packet loss is what makes a pleasurable experience. Granted, it might be OK to delay getting the HTML to your browser for a second or two but in today's media-rich Internet, when is the last time you've received a "pure text" HTML document? Once that HTML is back in the browser, it gets parsed and then the browser starts requesting images and the multitude of flash and/or AJAX advertisements. Even a 200ms delay in retrieving these means the user watches the screen paint like a 300 baud BBS's welcome page.
I will agree that provided the TCP window size is large enough for the connection's speed and latency, an HTTP or FTP download won't be affected by high latency. However, I'm not sure packet loss is ever tolerable. It makes everything bad.
reply
rradina @ 7th Mar 08:44PM:
Re: Too bad...
They might if they had a choice. Here's my take on it:
»Why Do We Need Tiers?
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 08:47PM:
Re: crooks
Did you use Miss Cleo for your reading? Stereotyping is great fun and sometimes it's accurate but you obviously have your own idea of what reality is and sadly, it differs from the current state of the real world. Welcome to capitalism.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 08:55PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Psychephylax @ 7th Mar 09:07PM:
Re: crooks
I'm sorry, that's borderline idiotic. Just because you get similar arguments from various people and you don't agree with them it does not make everyone who opposes your view a trained monkey or a puppet.
reply
Michieru @ 7th Mar 10:00PM:
Re: crooks
Networks are made to handle load they are expanded to keep the network from ever actually reaching 100%. This only happens when the demand is greater than the actual supply you have.
QOS indeed only works once your line has reached full capacity and is considered more like a turbo same way a turbo works on a car basically. Only instead of having the packets delayed there put first and keeps the connection maxed out from both ends.
Back on topic though I see no reason why this ISP is charging customers to have other options. Last time I checked a tax is a contribution to state revenue and levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
While you might say this falls under the category of services locking out competition is wrong and a unfair business practice. There is no reason why this ISP should be doing this and if it does not reflect in there TOS that they charge for 3rd party VOIP and also traffic shape VOIP packets or block this service until you pay they can be sued for obstructing there agreement with current customers and not mentioning it to new customers as well. So if I where them I would stop this tax before they get sued for it and credit the money back from people who already paid.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 7th Mar 10:27PM:
Re: crooks
said by Michieru :
Networks are made to handle load they are expanded to keep the network from ever actually reaching 100%. This only happens when the demand is greater than the actual supply you have.
And I submit that with cable operators the upstream path is almost always oversold and that the path reaches 100% frequently. All it takes is for a couple dozen P2P users to slow the upload for the 200 to 1000 users that are typically on a single cable segment. And that is when prioritizing traffic can keep the voice product working.
You can argue that the cable company should keep splitting nodes until a single cable segment can handle every single user on the segment running 24x7 upload at maximum advertised capacity. But we all know that isn't how networks are run. That is the reality of cable systems even though many here are completely unable to accept that reality.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page
reply
Michieru @ 7th Mar 10:53PM:
Re: crooks
I won't argue about cable companies splitting nodes but most people are aware that as the demand is more than the supply those networks will have to be upgraded and the purpose of most networks is to never really reach that 100% capacity but at least 95% with spare for more customers. The percantage can be even lower. Which is why a network will never reach 100% unless it's upgraded regularly to meet that demand. Of course nobody will ever get the exact advertised speed but quality of service for every user is a must. If the company cannot provide that quality of service even during peak hours there lines basically just operate as best effort systems. Either way all customers have a limit which are now set up at the CO instead in the modem like it was before. So the CO must have the capacity to handle the load of every customer. If not then your going to have congestion, horrible ping times, and unreliable service that would fly up and down.
The customers pay for there connection but the companies want to traffic shape data so they won't have to upgrade there CO's more frequently so that in return is more money for them and simply locking out competition and sticking a tax for using your connection with another provider is probably even illegal. But correct me if I am wrong.
I don't got my head up my ass because in this day in age quality of service must be met even for standard end users. Also you pay for what they advertise and while there still many factors the quality you just mentioned cable provides seems rather poor at best. People now rely on VOIP and other critical services for there every day lives and when they come home or use these services they expect that bandwidth that they pay for to be there. Not for the neighbor next door finally decides to stop downloading porn so you can call your family in Europe. Or some ISP blocking or giving low priority to VOIP packets because they don't want to upgrade there CO's.
reply
Michieru @ 7th Mar 11:24PM:
Re: crooks
Reality is what you make of it. Albert Einstien had his own views of the world and upon reality, he was stereotyped for his works. The Wright brothers where told that humans can't fly and people told them to wake up to reality. Thanks to them we now have airplanes.
The real world is what you believe it is from your own eyes. Nobody has the same reality or view of this world and that's why we all have choices. So frankly I don't really think he got his thought from Miss Cleo and that right there was actually not necessary.
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 11:39PM:
Re: crooks
When I buy a plane ticket, I expect a seat on the plane. That's the service I'm paying for. If I don't board on time, I'm SOL - the plane leaves without me. It will travel to its destination with 5 passengers or 200.
If the airline sells my seat to someone else, I get a new ticket (with upgrades and apologies for their failure to provide the contracted service). I'm not about to pay a fee to guarantee they don't sell my seat.
The guy in first class is paying a premium for a bigger seat. I'm just fine in coach...we both arrive at the same time.
reply
viperpa33s @ 7th Mar 11:50PM:
Shaw don't care
Shaw and other ISP's like at&t don't care what you think. They know they can do what they want and there isn't a thing you can do about it except deal with it. Saying they are going to charge an extra $10 a month is like saying we already provide our customers with sub standard service. So lets swindle more money out of our customers and say you'll get better service when in fact your not.
I don't know about Canada but here in the states, in many areas, you really don't have many choices of ISP's.
reply
anon @ 7th Mar 11:54PM:
Re: Too bad...
boo hoo
reply
ptrowski @ 8th Mar 12:09PM:
Re: customers slams Vonage $39 termination fee
said by shashinka :
The cancelation fee is if you haven't been a customer for a year or more. Sunrocket always you to port your number at anytime without a charge.
Yet another SR pump.
Customer should also slam head against wall for not doing research prior to signing up.
--
Make a Difference-Join Team Helix!
reply
shashinka @ 8th Mar 12:14PM:
Re: customers slams Vonage $39 termination fee
I have been with Vonage for 1 year this time and was with them for 4-6 months several years ago (left because of Charter network issues). I have been using sunrocket to call Japan for several months now using there $10 a month for 200 min to anywhere in the U.S., Canada and their 41 sunspot destinations. I would rather use my cell phone which has 3500 extra minutes from cingular rollover but still think it causes cancer. So when at home I use the sunrocket for calls here and there. My continous home phone #, cell # has satyed the same for about 5 years too. And the kids.
reply
DaveNJ @ 8th Mar 12:40PM:
Re: customers slams Vonage $39 termination fee
said by ptrowski :said by shashinka :
The cancelation fee is if you haven't been a customer for a year or more. Sunrocket always you to port your number at anytime without a charge.
Yet another SR pump.
Customer should also slam head against wall for not doing research prior to signing up.
Maybe if they were stated clearly before signup, people wont have these issues. for example "NO CONTRACT", should read "12 month usage required "
reply
anon @ 9th Mar 11:00PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
arteekay @ 9th Mar 11:19PM:
Re: WTF!?!?!?
said by CiD_ :
I think some of you may not be catching what was really in the article... Shaw is not blocking Vonage, they are infact selling services to make the Vonage experiece better. They are not lowering the priority of the packets to the Vonage network without the QOS serice, but instead they are speeding up the travel of the VOIP packets (within the shaw network).
You're read too far between the lines, and your logic is a little flawed... by giving priority to your telephony packets over mine, aren't you by definition degrading my service? Take the example to the extreme and you'll see why. if the "line" can support 5 concurrent calls, and 5 people have "special" status on their packets, what happens to the "regular" packets?
Reverting to the airplane analogy, this would be like saying the people in coach are getting all the benefits of first class, but without the guarantee of a hand job from the sky waitress.
reply
prestonlewis @ 25th Jul 02:32PM:
Ripoff
There's discussion amont ISP's to charge Google. Outrageous. Now we have Shaw wanting to charge $10 for using a competing VOIP provider. Shaw customers already pay shaw for access to the internet. Are we all going to have to pay extra for: Internet Explorer, Firefox, Forte Agent, uTorrent, VOIP etc. on top of what we already pay?
Total, total ripoff by Shaw in my opinion. Competition will solve this. When cellular companies migrate to being ISP's, you won't have this kind of rip off occuring.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC