Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Michael "TheZorch" Haney, 7 Mar 2006 @ 9:51am

  
  

  VoIP Legislation

  This is exactly why we need legislation protecting VoIP servies from this sort of thing happening. Call it anti-competitive activity, which is exactly what it is and should never be allowed.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Panaqqa, 7 Mar 2006 @ 10:52am

  
  

  Typical...

  In Canada, Rogers (a large ISP) is using traffic blocking on BitTorrent. Only end to end encryption gets around it. I think we're in for a bad time of it up here when this type of thing really takes hold.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    John Simpson, 7 Mar 2006 @ 11:05am

    
    

    Re: Typical...

    Yeah? Well you're teh ghey.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Deacon, 7 Mar 2006 @ 11:36am

  
  

  Correction

  "Shaw, of course, doesn't charge users of its own VoIP service the fee"
  
  This isn't really correct. Shaw's VOIP plan costs $55 a month. I have Primus with unlimited long distance in North America, and it costs $30. Vonage is slightly more expensive than Primus, but still less than Shaw. A no frills plan with either of them can cost less than $20.
  
  So, while Shaw doesn't offer the "VOIP upgrade" for their own service, it's pretty obviously factored into the price. It's not like they're undercutting the competition.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  BG, 7 Mar 2006 @ 11:52am

  
  

  Shaw vs. VoIP

  I have Shaw cable and broadband, and also Skype; I haven't seen any addtional charges from Shaw, though perhaps it's only for monthly-fee VoIP like Vonage?

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    DaMan, 7 Mar 2006 @ 11:57am

    
    

    Re: Shaw vs. VoIP

    I have Vonage and Shaw and I have not seen any charges .....yet, that could be because Shaw's VoIP isn't available in my area untill November.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Brent, 7 Mar 2006 @ 2:20pm

      
      

      Re: Shaw vs. VoIP

      It's actually an optional fee you can choose to pay if yuo want to make sure your VoIP traffic gets QoS.
      
      It's BS though, since QoS doesn't solve anything. It only assures your packets get QoS ON Shaw's network...once it leaves their network, it's anybodies game.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        George, 8 Mar 2006 @ 1:09pm

        
        

        Re: Shaw vs. VoIP

        Good point. But is this also implying that VoIP is deteriorated on Shaws networks? If so, by accident or on purpose?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Leonard Smith, 7 Mar 2006 @ 12:11pm

  
  

  Garbage

  Damn Canadians !!!!

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Bulent Akman, 7 Mar 2006 @ 1:34pm

    
    

    Re: Garbage

    Thank you for demonstrating your intelligence and tolerance. Yes, in fact I do have a sense of humour. Do you?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2006 @ 6:32pm

      
      

      Re: Garbage

      Wow, didn't come across as you having a sense of humor. Guess I missed it. But then again, I am so stupid I can't figure out how to get an account on this leftest pinko blog! lol Sense of humor anyone?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Anwar, 8 Mar 2006 @ 2:46am

        
        

        Re: Garbage

        ^^^^^ wanker

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Someone, 10 Mar 2006 @ 5:32pm

  
  

  Test

  Blah

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Stevey, 27 Mar 2006 @ 2:48pm

  
  

  Re: Shaw vs VoIP

  Shaw is a brazen company with its pricing. They charge an extra $10. per month over and above the high speed internet rate!! That, I was told, is because you "might' get a second or 3rd computer sometime in the future! VoIP would be a second $10. charge. 20 bucks for nothing.
  
  If you go for a job with them, you have to agree to not tell anyone else working there how much you make.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2006 @ 4:15pm

  
  

  Rogers is totally packet shaping to throttle VoIP traffic in a completely illegal and competitive stance, and I have a lot of material to prove it. If it keeps up our business is going to deliver a report/complaint to the CRTC.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Joey, 2 Aug 2006 @ 1:31pm

    
    

    Is Rogers really?

    What do you mean "if it keeps up"??? Do you think they will change several hundred manhours in setting their network up the way it is now? I've complained a tonne to Shaw about their tax, and I didn't like it, so I stopped paying them when they didn't listen. Are you still paying Rogers every month?
    
    If you have so much proof that you think they will actually do something, then do it instead of just making empty threats. Things won't fix themselves like you're hoping they will.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]