Computers & Electronics

Shaw price increase

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 31st, 2015 9:38 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
11677 posts
3489 upvotes
Victoria
NEDVVNLRJTTPQOA wrote: It's a complete and utter ripoff. $90 on the old package gave you 100Mbps, on the new one you now get 60mbps? That is a huge speed decrease dressed up as 'new internet packages'.

I hope people take a look at the ISP's in there area and consider other options...
As I'm on 50mbps I didn't look at that way. For someone on 50mbps it looks more like a $3 increase for an extra 10mbps. I guess the big thing they did was drop the 100mbps speed but sort of increased the rest.

I wonder if the caps will increase. I'm wondering why shaw is doing this. Were a lot of people having issues with congested nodes?
Newbie
Oct 20, 2013
19 posts
Ontario
zod wrote: As I'm on 50mbps I didn't look at that way. For someone on 50mbps it looks more like a $3 increase for an extra 10mbps. I guess the big thing they did was drop the 100mbps speed but sort of increased the rest.

I wonder if the caps will increase. I'm wondering why shaw is doing this. Were a lot of people having issues with congested nodes?
The BB 50 was $80, so it is a $10 increase for 10 mbps when you factor in the recent price hike (which they probably did to try to trick people into thinking these new plans are a good deal).

What they did was increase the price for *every* plan and tried to use some price adjustments and 'new plans' to try to hide it.

You also seem kind of happy to pay $90 for the BB 60, in the case, why did you never upgrade to BB 100 at $90?
Temp. Banned
Aug 7, 2011
6623 posts
998 upvotes
Vaughan
Geez. Glad that Start.ca doesn't pull this stuff.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
11677 posts
3489 upvotes
Victoria
NEDVVNLRJTTPQOA wrote: The BB 50 was $80, so it is a $10 increase for 10 mbps when you factor in the recent price hike (which they probably did to try to trick people into thinking these new plans are a good deal).

What they did was increase the price for *every* plan and tried to use some price adjustments and 'new plans' to try to hide it.

You also seem kind of happy to pay $90 for the BB 60, in the case, why did you never upgrade to BB 100 at $90?
Not really. This should answer your question. My package with shaw is older. It was made when you could get a bundle discount for two services (you didn't have to do the triple play and get the phone line). I think I signed up for it in the fall of 2011. Shortly after this is when Shaw went completely insane and started jacking up the rates. I think the Personal TV+BB50 bundles was 89.90 when I first got it, and now it's up to 121.90. That's a 35% percent increase over 3 years and change. It's pretty crazy. Anyways shaw has kept that bundle at a grandfathered rate. They keep raising it but they never make it exactly the same price as a new customer signing up. The discount used to be larger. It used to be around $10 to $15 lower than new customer prices, now it's $5 lower. The problem is if I wanted bb100 I'd have to break the bundle. Which right now I think would end up costing me $15 more a month instead of $10.


I'm actually thinking of going the other direction. I bought 50mbps because of the bandwidth cap. I use netflix, rent movies/tv from itunes, watch the Red Wings play using Gamcenter Live etc... The thing is that none of that stuff actually needs 50mbps. I think HD streaming video is usually closer to 6.5mbps or 8mbps. If I download a 1.4 gig episode of a TV show from itunes it means it takes 5 or 6 minutes to download instead of 2 or 3. Right now I'm in the process of hunting for a house/townhouse. I know Shaw will charge me to move my services. What I'm thinking is that when I move I'll cancel shaw completely, and go internet only. Thus I break my need for Cable and I can go to a reseller (like taksavvy) and get a cheaper unlimited usage 25mbps account. Teksavvy only offers DSL in my area but I think it's 55/month for unlimited 25mbps (plus the dryloop fee). Cancelling cable and lowering my speed would save me about $65/month.

Conclusion. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Shaw raised their rates for existing users. Then announced these new speeds which cost a few dollar more than the prices they raised everyone to. Over a short span they raised bb50 by 10mbps but are charging $10/more a month for it. I think this is the trend going forward. Cableco's are starting to deal with cord cutting. Most of them don't own the majority of content the air, so they have little control over expense (ie carriage fees). Thus they'll keep bleeding cable customers when the pass on increased carriage fee's to the customers. Thus they'll need to recoup the $'s on the internet portion of their business. Ugh.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 3, 2014
6089 posts
4352 upvotes
zod wrote: I'm actually thinking of going the other direction. I bought 50mbps because of the bandwidth cap. I use netflix, rent movies/tv from itunes, watch the Red Wings play using Gamcenter Live etc... The thing is that none of that stuff actually needs 50mbps. I think HD streaming video is usually closer to 6.5mbps or 8mbps. If I download a 1.4 gig episode of a TV show from itunes it means it takes 5 or 6 minutes to download instead of 2 or 3. Right now I'm in the process of hunting for a house/townhouse. I know Shaw will charge me to move my services. What I'm thinking is that when I move I'll cancel shaw completely, and go internet only. Thus I break my need for Cable and I can go to a reseller (like taksavvy) and get a cheaper unlimited usage 25mbps account. Teksavvy only offers DSL in my area but I think it's 55/month for unlimited 25mbps (plus the dryloop fee). Cancelling cable and lowering my speed would save me about $65/month.
Shaw does not really care when you go over your usage limit. TELUS charges for extra usage only if you're in Prince George & Surrounding Areas for now.
You should keep alternating between TELUS and Shaw's 50% off for 6 month promos or sign up as a student at TELUS. All they asked me was the school name and my student ID but they don't actually verify the info.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
11677 posts
3489 upvotes
Victoria
hvwozq wrote: Shaw does not really care when you go over your usage limit. TELUS charges for extra usage only if you're in Prince George & Surrounding Areas for now.
You should keep alternating between TELUS and Shaw's 50% off for 6 month promos or sign up as a student at TELUS. All they asked me was the school name and my student ID but they don't actually verify the info.
That's true, allthough I'm not big on dealing with a switch every 6 months. I used Telus for about 10 years during that era when Shaw enforced their caps. Any time I moved (and needed a fresh install) or requested a speed upgrade they totally botched it. So many hours wasted on getting it sorted. I'd much rather get something affordable and that I can use in the long run. Shaw's signup discount's aren't as good as telus and don't seem to apply to all packages.

It is crazy how expensive Internet is getting. It's too bad no one predicted the rise of the internet. Our phone company here in BC used to be a crown corp. Then they privatized and sold to Telus. Internet seems to be a pretty essential service these days which leaves it pretty ripe for price exploitation. Had we known the internet was going to become an integral part of most peoples lives maybe the government would of held onto it, and it would be like a public utility (sort of like how Saskatchewan has Sasktel).
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
19892 posts
4109 upvotes
9347934 downvotes
zod wrote: That's true, allthough I'm not big on dealing with a switch every 6 months. I used Telus for about 10 years during that era when Shaw enforced their caps. Any time I moved (and needed a fresh install) or requested a speed upgrade they totally botched it. So many hours wasted on getting it sorted. I'd much rather get something affordable and that I can use in the long run. Shaw's signup discount's aren't as good as telus and don't seem to apply to all packages.

It is crazy how expensive Internet is getting. It's too bad no one predicted the rise of the internet. Our phone company here in BC used to be a crown corp. Then they privatized and sold to Telus. Internet seems to be a pretty essential service these days which leaves it pretty ripe for price exploitation. Had we known the internet was going to become an integral part of most peoples lives maybe the government would of held onto it, and it would be like a public utility (sort of like how Saskatchewan has Sasktel).
BC Tel was never a crown corp. So your theory is nonsense.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 18, 2007
4114 posts
299 upvotes
New Westminster
i6s1 wrote: BC Tel was never a crown corp. So your theory is nonsense.
you sure? i have a vague memory of it once being a crown property too. just asking to verify and not commenting.
Poor Grammar and being long winded don't fit well together, Oh well.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
19892 posts
4109 upvotes
9347934 downvotes
Keas wrote: you sure? i have a vague memory of it once being a crown property too. just asking to verify and not commenting.
Positive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Tel

AGT (Alberta Government Telephone) was owned, unsurprisingly, by the Alberta Government. EdTel was owned by the City of Edmonton. They were the original two pieces of Telus and they were privatized. But BCTel was never owned by the government.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
11677 posts
3489 upvotes
Victoria
Keas wrote: you sure? i have a vague memory of it once being a crown property too. just asking to verify and not commenting.
I think I wrong and i6si was right. Turn's out it was a publicly regulated private company. I always thought it was a Crown Corp. I guess I was wrong.

Would of been awesome to have a crown corp run the phone company. Telco's have gotten so greedy that the profits are strageringly large. Even if a crown corp couldn't run nearly as efficient I would imagine the end user would still pay less. Sasktel seems to be a glaring example of how people are probably better off with a public phone/internet company these days. Sort of an essential service (and an oligopoloy) and fully vulnerable to price gouging when run privately.
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2014
161 posts
31 upvotes
Scarborough, ON
The CRTC has good intentions, but their meddling always pushes prices way up and drives choice way down.

Their cell phone meddling was an absolute disaster. From what I've noticed, prices have gone straight through the roof, especially on the low end. And data caps got a lot more restrictive. The 3 year contracts were perfectly fine. It was needless meddling that forced the providers to jack up their rates to cover any loses due to shorter contracts.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
19892 posts
4109 upvotes
9347934 downvotes
zod wrote: I think I wrong and i6si was right. Turn's out it was a publicly regulated private company. I always thought it was a Crown Corp. I guess I was wrong.

Would of been awesome to have a crown corp run the phone company. Telco's have gotten so greedy that the profits are strageringly large. Even if a crown corp couldn't run nearly as efficient I would imagine the end user would still pay less. Sasktel seems to be a glaring example of how people are probably better off with a public phone/internet company these days. Sort of an essential service (and an oligopoloy) and fully vulnerable to price gouging when run privately.
Telus sends about 7-8% of it's revenue to shareholders. (looking forward to my 35c/share on Jan 2.) The rest of the revenue stays within the company, goes to charity, or goes to pay taxes. Profits are not staggering by any stretch. If the government took it over, and gave that 7-8% to customers as a discount, your bill wouldn't change by much. And like you allude to, that's assuming that the government doesn't increase inefficiency. Given that our government would have to borrow money to fund this acquisition, and reasonably assuming that they passed this cost onto customers, you're not looking at a significant savings with privatization. A $60 internet service, at 5% discount, becomes $57. And I'd bet that would be quickly lost to political mismanagement, pork barreling, single source contracts to friends, patronage appointments, etc.

What might actually work, would be if the government took over both the cablecos and telcos. (They're almost all publicly traded, and deals could be worked out with Sask/Man governments for Sasktel and MTS.) They could extract and combine the infrastructure, and spin off what was left over to recover some of the cost. Over the long term, both cable and tel networks would be replaced with a single FTTH network, operated by the government at a similar profit. This doubles network utilization, so it should result in tangible savings to the customer.

But one should always be careful what you wish for. The law of unintended consequences comes always comes into play, and it could leave you wishing for good old days of 2 choices for internet.
Jr. Member
Feb 18, 2010
178 posts
69 upvotes
Coquitlam
hvwozq wrote: Looks like upgrading to Broadband 100 last week was a wise choice.

Without VPN:
[IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/3992433179.png[/IMG]

With VPN (how is this possible?):
[IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/3992425003.png[/IMG]
I have also wondered about this! I'm on 25Mbps so I should get 25 down and 2.5 up.
Without VPN:
[IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/3993264228.png[/IMG]

With VPN:
[IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/3993258483.png[/IMG]

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE???!!
Other times I've noticed much better upload speed through VPN but not today. Why do I get twice as fast through a VPN in california?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 20, 2009
8862 posts
2693 upvotes
Vancouver
Part of the explanation for Shaw's price increases: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... e22131074/

"In a recent securities filing, Shaw says that its total obligations under its supplemental executive retirement plan were $487-million at the end of the company’s fiscal year in August. That’s up 20 per cent from the year before and up 46 per cent from the end of fiscal 2011, the last full year before Shaw amended the plan."

Don't you wish you had a supplemental executive retirement plan?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
11677 posts
3489 upvotes
Victoria
i6s1 wrote: Telus sends about 7-8% of it's revenue to shareholders. (looking forward to my 35c/share on Jan 2.) The rest of the revenue stays within the company, goes to charity, or goes to pay taxes. Profits are not staggering by any stretch. If the government took it over, and gave that 7-8% to customers as a discount, your bill wouldn't change by much. And like you allude to, that's assuming that the government doesn't increase inefficiency. Given that our government would have to borrow money to fund this acquisition, and reasonably assuming that they passed this cost onto customers, you're not looking at a significant savings with privatization. A $60 internet service, at 5% discount, becomes $57. And I'd bet that would be quickly lost to political mismanagement, pork barreling, single source contracts to friends, patronage appointments, etc.

What might actually work, would be if the government took over both the cablecos and telcos. (They're almost all publicly traded, and deals could be worked out with Sask/Man governments for Sasktel and MTS.) They could extract and combine the infrastructure, and spin off what was left over to recover some of the cost. Over the long term, both cable and tel networks would be replaced with a single FTTH network, operated by the government at a similar profit. This doubles network utilization, so it should result in tangible savings to the customer.

But one should always be careful what you wish for. The law of unintended consequences comes always comes into play, and it could leave you wishing for good old days of 2 choices for internet.

I was about to berate you on the first paragraph because obviously Telus keeps a lot of it profits so it's payout percentage isn't really indicitave of what there services would cost of no profit needed to be made (I have to believe that even with government incompetance they could charge rates well below 8% cheaper. Sasktel seems to be a rather shining example of that).

Your second paragraph does make sense. Under the private sector Internet prices will continue to skyrocket because people need internet access. The internet is now a full engrained part of society and many services are migrating to the internet. That causes insane demand for the service which results in high prices. Something like that which serves a public good might be better off as a public corporation. It's wide open for abuse in the private sector (Which is what have seen over the past few years)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 1, 2001
6830 posts
1257 upvotes
JamesA1 wrote: Part of the explanation for Shaw's price increases: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... e22131074/

"In a recent securities filing, Shaw says that its total obligations under its supplemental executive retirement plan were $487-million at the end of the company’s fiscal year in August. That’s up 20 per cent from the year before and up 46 per cent from the end of fiscal 2011, the last full year before Shaw amended the plan."

Good to know. Of course, they pitch it as needing additional funds to fund the Shaw Go Wifi hotspots.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
19892 posts
4109 upvotes
9347934 downvotes
zod wrote: I was about to berate you on the first paragraph because obviously Telus keeps a lot of it profits so it's payout percentage isn't really indicitave of what there services would cost of no profit needed to be made (I have to believe that even with government incompetance they could charge rates well below 8% cheaper. Sasktel seems to be a rather shining example of that).
Sure, but ultimately that money has to go somewhere. If it's used to reduce debt, or finance future capital projects, then it's related to the cost of the service. Government ownership wouldn't change that. 3rd quarter net income is 355m, on revenues of 3028m. So if the government ran it with zero net income, bills would be 11.7% lower. I don't know what it would cost the govn't to borrow the money to buy it, but that would knock a few percentage points off. Point is, it's not an unreasonable amount of profit, and government ownership wouldn't change much.
zod wrote: Your second paragraph does make sense. Under the private sector Internet prices will continue to skyrocket because people need internet access. The internet is now a full engrained part of society and many services are migrating to the internet. That causes insane demand for the service which results in high prices. Something like that which serves a public good might be better off as a public corporation. It's wide open for abuse in the private sector (Which is what have seen over the past few years)
No, we haven't seen abuse. Nothing wrong with making 12% net income and sending 7-8% to shareholders.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 1, 2001
6830 posts
1257 upvotes
So... I knew about the Shaw price increase for 2015 (much to my disappointment).

HOWEVER, what I learned today was this!

Internet 10 and 25 are no longer available. If I remember correctly, HS10 was $55/month and HS25 was $60/month.

The new internet speeds are HS5, HS15, and HS30.

HS5 is $50/month, HS15 is $60/month, and HS30 is $70/month.

So in essence, if you were previously on HS10, and now wanted to change your internet speed, $60/month gets you ONLY HS15, not HS25 as it would have last year.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 18, 2007
4114 posts
299 upvotes
New Westminster
Arrow wrote: So... I knew about the Shaw price increase for 2015 (much to my disappointment).

HOWEVER, what I learned today was this!

Internet 10 and 25 are no longer available. If I remember correctly, HS10 was $55/month and HS25 was $60/month.

The new internet speeds are HS5, HS15, and HS30.

HS5 is $50/month, HS15 is $60/month, and HS30 is $70/month.

So in essence, if you were previously on HS10, and now wanted to change your internet speed, $60/month gets you ONLY HS15, not HS25 as it would have last year.
i had to double check the prices with Shaw and sadly they are true : ( $70 is too much for 30! hell 15 for $60 is too much. i think a basic 10 or 15 plan should be $50 at most and more like $40-$45.
Poor Grammar and being long winded don't fit well together, Oh well.

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 2 users viewing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)