[Newsbot]

Title: Netflix speed rankings place Bell 1st, Rogers last
Category: Business
Posted By: Regina
Date: 2014-05-12 10:31:21
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

With Telus and Shaw duking it out for first and second loser.

[saturn_656]

Bell's only first if you're in an area served by fibre.

I'm not, and I'm happy with Shaw.

[herbie]

Kind of an ass-holic test.
Look who's shittier at delivering our product they don't earn a nickel off of while we tie up their network...

[commanderkai]

I just started working for a call center that deals with AT&T Uverse, and I mention the horror stories of high speed Internet in Canada to shut them the hell up sometimes.

"Oh my Internet is slow! WHINEEEEE" "Imagine paying for bandwidth limits of 80 or so gigs a month and paying $2 more per gig up to $30."

[Jabberwalker]

Ours is near the top: Cogeco, along with a cluster of cable TV providers (Shaw, Videotron) so video co-ax has good carrying capacity, it appears. I'm not surprised that Rogers is at the bottom. Pirates.

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

Look who's shittier at delivering our product they don't earn a nickel off of while we tie up their network...

Why should they? ISPs earn money by providing bandwidth. What gives them the right to charge one company more than another to transport that data?

[herbie]

Do you not get the concept of a business model that relies on someone else's infrastructure? Of course not - that's what Netflix has convinced everyone of.

Chevron has these new cars, you can rent them for $10 a month gas included. But they're 12 feet wide with 2" ground clearance and the steering wheel only turns 10 degrees.
Why it works just FINE on the Autobahn! It's those shitty roads in British Columbia... THEY should fix their road so our cars work better!

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

Do you not get the concept of a business model that relies on someone else's infrastructure? Of course not - that's what Netflix has convinced everyone of.

I get that the internet was created so all data is equal. An ISP doesn't charge a user extra because they use Youtube all day, or because they want faster access to Facebook. Data is data.

I also know from experience that once network infrastructure is set up, it costs the same whether the network is at 0% capacity, or 90% capacity.

I get that Netflix is providing a service that people consume, one that their cable provider turned ISP (or vice versa) is obviously not providing. I also know that Netflix will provide ISPs with mirror hardware that can be placed in the ISP datacenter at no cost to the ISP so they don't have to incur the additional data costs if their datacenters are set up that way.

So if the ISP is whining that Netflix data is taking up too much bandwidth, there are options they can use before using a packet fliter to slow down Netflix streams and violate the 'data is data' neutrality that the internet has always relied on.

When the business models of the ISP rely on the 'Net becoming non-neutral, that's when ISPs will see users leaving for ISPs that give them what they want. Just like Cable companies are seeing users abandoning their expensive packages with no content, or like phone companies are seeing with landline sales.

herbie herbie:

Chevron has these new cars, you can rent them for $10 a month gas included. But they're 12 feet wide with 2" ground clearance and the steering wheel only turns 10 degrees.
Why it works just FINE on the Autobahn! It's those shitty roads in British Columbia... THEY should fix their road so our cars work better!

[herbie]

I live in a little shithole over 100 miles from the nearest major town (which ain't as big as Burnaby was in 1960) and was an ISP until I sold out just weeks ago.
Excuse me if I don't toe everyon else's line, but I've listened for almost two decades to people who live in a group of six or ten houses fifty miles further up the asshole of the universe bitch about their Internet connections.
Which they all think should be 50 Mb download and uncapped for $15 a month and a free laptop included. Just like it is everywhere else....
and now I can listen, look them in the eye and say "So move to anywhere else.."

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

I live in a little shithole over 100 miles from the nearest major town (which ain't as big as Burnaby was in 1960) and was an ISP until I sold out just weeks ago.
Excuse me if I don't toe everyon else's line, but I've listened for almost two decades to people who live in a group of six or ten houses fifty miles further up the asshole of the universe bitch about their Internet connections.
Which they all think should be 50 Mb download and uncapped for $15 a month and a free laptop included. Just like it is everywhere else....
and now I can listen, look them in the eye and say "So move to anywhere else.."

I agree with you totally. But you were a special case, giving the 'last mile' service to customers the big ISPs couldn't be bothered to service.

Whereas, I pay my ISP for a certain speed and a certain level of service and I take great offence that they have the audacity to decide what my internet experience will look like based on what they feel like transporting across their network; knowing most of their infrastructure was originally paid for by the taxpayer and that they resist every attempt to upgrade it in order to meet their bandwidth requirements to their customers.

[QBall]

I switched from Rogers to Bell last September (live in Mississauga). I did some tests on Speedtest.net before and after the switch and my download speeds after the switch were about 40% faster and upload was 110% faster. Not the most scientific test obviously but at least it does support the article's claims that Rogers is slow, at least in an urban area.