wow I was wondering when it was going to happen as of feb 2011 you will pay for each gig you use if you go over your plan… I guess they can do what ever as they are the only internet provider…i have netflix like so many others, this realy does suck, bad on you citywest…
the are probably one of the last to intordude a cap and the cap they have instated is quite high compared to others also. double check on streaming netflix it may not be included in the limit .
Netflix is considered HTTP traffic so it won’t be capped, actually downloading the .avi file is a different story however.
So I don’t think you’ll be capped based on your use of Netflix.
As of feb 1 citywest has one less customers because of this. What good is high speed internet if I cant use it the way I want. If citywest isn’t charging enough for their service they should raise rates not set a cap and charge an exhorborent fee per gb on top of that. You can only download so much per month and they should charge accordingly possibly a bit lower and subsidize from low use clients fees.
Screw you citywest you fail in all aspects. Way to be a greedy pig of a company. You already take tax layers dollars and offer poor service maybe you should think of giving a bit back. Asshole decision
Is this another Prince Rumour? Who says?
Citywest is owned by the City. Time for a petition if this is true.
[quote=“sandimas”]Is this another Prince Rumour? Who says?
Citywest is owned by the City. Time for a petition if this is true.[/quote]
It’s true I got a letter today with my bill.
I also got the letter.
There are so many lies, it’s hard to know where to start… HTTP traffic is all counted in your usage, not sure why it wouldn’t be. Yes, every ISP has usage caps and Citywest was slow to implement this, and did a poor job as they have yet to inform you that your dedicated unlimited account changed to one with usage caps, instead they accuse you of abusing their acceptable usage policy.
I disagree that they are 'quite high compared to others': for the same price per month (100/mo) on either Shaw or Telus the cap is 250 gigs - posted directly on their sites. I currently have the 'premium' DSL account and I can download a gig in about 50 minutes. Thats 100 gigs in 5000 minutes or 3.5 days. Yup thats acceptable usage at Citywest - 3.5 days a month.
In the letter I got, they exaggerate the typical usage activities - Game demos haven't been 600 megs for about 3 years, they are typically a two CD size download or 1.3 gigs. Not even mentioned in the typical usage activities are the big players, and the real reason they are being pushed into implementing the caps - A typical full Steam game download (up to 6 gigs) or an HD movie from Netflix (2 gigs for an hour of video). As far as I can tell the only abusers of the 'acceptable usage policy' is Citywest themselves.
We need more options than 'fast or slow' - Telus and Shaw have 5 internet packages to choose from, Shaw even has a package called Nitro for 150/mo that has a 'cap' of 500GB. Shaw also offers bulk data packages. Citywest on the other hand is limiting themselves to $89/mo per client.[quote=“AndrewMorgan444”]Netflix is considered HTTP traffic so it won’t be capped, actually downloading the .avi file is a different story however.
So I don’t think you’ll be capped based on your use of Netflix.[/quote]
True!
[quote=“sandimas”]Is this another Prince Rumour? Who says?
Citywest is owned by the City. Time for a petition if this is true.[/quote]
And your plan is to present this petition to Jump down your throat Jack? Maybe it’s time just to sell this white elephant before it’s lost all value.
[quote=“jase”]
[quote=“AndrewMorgan444”]Netflix is considered HTTP traffic so it won’t be capped, actually downloading the .avi file is a different story however.
So I don’t think you’ll be capped based on your use of Netflix.[/quote]
True![/quote]
Not true. HTTP traffic is still internet traffic. I could just download all my movies over http if that were the case and if that were the case I’d constantly stream movies from my server 24x7x365 several at a time.
[quote=“jesus”]
True!
Not true. HTTP traffic is still internet traffic. I could just download all my movies over http if that were the case and if that were the case I’d constantly stream movies from my server 24x7x365 several at a time.[/quote]
Like he said, netflix will not be considered monitored traffic.
Wrong - your useless repost and comment WILL be charged to your account next month.
[quote=“jase”]
[quote=“jesus”]
Not true. HTTP traffic is still internet traffic. I could just download all my movies over http if that were the case and if that were the case I’d constantly stream movies from my server 24x7x365 several at a time.[/quote]
Like he said, netflix will not be considered monitored traffic.[/quote]
Oh really and how do they intend on implementing such an asinine traffic monitoring policy? by port? packet inspection? and why would netflix traffic cost them less than any other traffic? You’re wrong jason they wont do this and if they do they are stupid because I would abuse the shit out of it myself and show others how to do so as well.
I suspect they will “paper downgrade” my connection (Full DSL Currently) into the midrange and then tell me if I want 100GB per month I have to pay more. Meanwhile, the slow Kb per second will continue and they will continue to introduce more fees to top up the money they can’t steal in another way.
Maybe we (Prince Rupert) should sell this sheishter-haven. Their billing tactics, fee introductions, service level and condescending and rude customer service leads me to believe this is gone to the point of obnoxious.
[quote=“jesus”]
[quote=“jase”]
Like he said, netflix will not be considered monitored traffic.
Oh really and how do they intend on implementing such an asinine traffic monitoring policy? by port? packet inspection? and why would netflix traffic cost them less than any other traffic? You’re wrong jason they wont do this and if they do they are stupid because I would abuse the shit out of it myself and show others how to do so as well.[/quote]
I’m surprised that your so pig headed and don’t realize why they won’t monitor http from netflix. I’m more surprised that they haven’t goten a lawyer and gone after you and your LOUD obnoxious abuse towards their company. Maybe that’s the part that is coming next ?
Traffic is traffic. That statement is wrong. Unless Netflix pays internet service providers to exclude it’s traffic which, according to regulation, is illegal.
NAT could route any traffic over port 80 and circumvent the cap. They know that. HTTP is included.
But hell, if they DO exclude HTTP (Port 80) traffic I’ll personally sell NAT boxes that re-route internal and external traffic over port 80 just out of spite. Yes, I’m that irritated at the service level.
[quote=“MeepMeepZoom”]
Traffic is traffic. That statement is wrong. Unless Netflix pays internet service providers to exclude it’s traffic which, according to regulation, is illegal.
NAT could route any traffic over port 80 and circumvent the cap. They know that. HTTP is included.[/quote]
Well, i’m sure they would monitor where the traffic is coming from, Shaw doesn’t monitor netflix traffic so i guess i’m safe.
[quote=“jase”]
[quote=“jesus”]
Like he said, netflix will not be considered monitored traffic.[/quote]
Oh really and how do they intend on implementing such an asinine traffic monitoring policy? by port? packet inspection? and why would netflix traffic cost them less than any other traffic? You’re wrong jason they wont do this and if they do they are stupid because I would abuse the shit out of it myself and show others how to do so as well.[/quote]
I’m surprised that your so pig headed and don’t realize why they won’t monitor http from netflix. I’m more surprised that they haven’t goten a lawyer and gone after you and your LOUD obnoxious abuse towards their company. Maybe that’s the part that is coming next ?
I’m surprised you’re so pig headed/dumb you don’t realize how asinine such a traffic accounting and monitoring setup is. It’d be a huge pain in the ass to setup and maintain a database of netflix servers and ‘unmonitoried’ IP’s not to mention the technological and legal ramifications of such a decision. I have a lot of experience in the ISP arena and know what I am talking about. Ease of maintenance trumps almost all.
in regards to my ‘abuse’ I dont see how my opinion on how the company is run, the level of service (or lack their of), the anti competitive behavior they exhibit, the waste of taxpayer dollars, the inability to compete is abuse. It is merely my opinion.
Also you’re so unbelievably and arrogantly wrong its hilarious.