Shaw tests ultra-fast internet speeds

Shaw tests ultra-fast internet speeds

No more "world-wide-wait", eh?

Cable provider Shaw Communications says it is testing ultra-fast broadband, with potential download speeds up to one gigabit per second. That speed is 10 times faster than the highest-end connections now available and more than 100 times faster than what many Canadians have. "This is game-changing technology," Shaw president Peter Bissonnette said in a statement. "We are on the leading edge of change with this trial — bringing blazing speeds and new network capabilities that will give us a springboard for future possibilities."

yeah... like that is going to happen any time soon.

Deank wrote:yeah... like that is going to happen any time soon.

Considering 10 years ago cable and DSL based Internet barely existed and now is past the 15 mbps rate. I would say it is certainly likely.

Running fibre optic cable is actually no more difficult that running a coax (cable) or twisted pair (phone) connection. Most communities throughout Winnipeg have already been upgraded to fully fibre based backbones and only a simple hardware change is required to move from cable/phone over to fibre.

There are even communities in Calgary and Vancouver where Telus is already running fibre right into brand new homes during construction.

I would be willing to bet that 1 gbps home internet service will be available within the next 5 years.

There networks can not handle the load they are getting and they wont be upgrading them any time soon. And I am not referring to the type of cable in a given house.

Deank wrote:There networks can not handle the load they are getting and they wont be upgrading them any time soon. And I am not referring to the type of cable in a given house.

You would be surprised. The cost of upgrading fibre backbones isn't as high as one might expect. More often than not it is just a matter of utilizing additional wavelengths on the same existing fibre and upgrading the interfaces/routers, and these days routers and interfaces are getting cheaper and cheaper.

I remember a couple of years ago when 10 Gbps Cisco interfaces were in the $10,000 each range. Now they are around the $2000 mark.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the majority of people will not have their home connection pinned at full capacity on a 24/7 basis. In fact people will be using their connection less because their connections will be faster. For the most part even now most users barely use 10% of their current cable modem capacity.

I recall a conversation I had with my brother 10 years ago about the OC -768 system he was developing when he worked for Nortel networks optics division.

That was 10 years ago. and Shaw considers it cutting edge technology today. LOL

in 1994 during a technology course I learned the bandwidth of telephone lines and coaxial cable. We still dont use it.

HELL many places that use the exact same technology as SHAW uses have a higer bandwidth then they allow.

Deank wrote:HELL many places that use the exact same technology as SHAW uses have a higer bandwidth then they allow.

Shaw offers 100 Mbps service using their COAX/DOCSIS3 network in some cities in Canada. It's not cheap. But it demonstrates the capabilities of the current technology.

Moving to a FIOS solution isn't really that much of a stretch.

This is exciting...but.....is this the beginning of a second, tiered internet approach....Net Neutrality?

Or is that only going to be a US phenomenon? (hahahahahaha! yeah, right!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_Canada

Net Neutrality is a conspiracy created by the 911-truther-Alex-Jones crowd.

Conspiracy theory?.....if it's happening in reality, I don't think it's still considered a theory!

They put it better then me:

"Telecommunications companies (mostly phone and cable providers) contend that:

• They are entitled to regulate how their networks are used,
  including imposing surcharges for premium services or charging
  "different prices for different levels of speed, reliability and
  security."
  
• Their networks are becoming increasingly congested due to the
  proliferation of high-bandwidth applications such as video and music
  downloads and video games, and implementing a fee structure is a fair
  way of balancing network usage.
  
• Network neutrality is "meant to ensure there is no impediment to
  anybody's ability to fully utilize the Net," but it does not mean that
  "your company and my company cannot reach commercial agreements to
  provide you with services that enhance your position."
  

Advocates of maintaining and protecting the current form of network neutrality assert that:

• Surcharges imposed on information providers will ultimately be passed along to end users.
  
• Charging fees for premium data delivery service will create a
  tiered system of have and have-not providers, making it difficult or
  impossible for new businesses, information providers, and other
  ventures to get a start on the Internet.
  
• The implementation of a fee system will effectively allow
  broadband companies, and not users, to determine which sites
  predominate on the Internet."
  

Source: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/neutrality.asp

It is a conspiracy because the theorists are making the jump from "network shaping" to "Internet censorship" and "two-tiered commercial networks" without any proof of that happening.

All the ISPs want to do is be able to optimize the flow of traffic so that a small minority of heavy torrent downloaders aren't saturating the bandwidth and slowing normal users down. So by charging more for heavy users and putting them on a separate network it gives the rest of us a much faster Internet experience overall.

The conspiracy theorists are the ones that derived the whole idea of censoring the Internet.

"The conspiracy theorists are the ones that derived the whole idea of censoring the Internet."

except of course that there are countries who are already limiting what can or can not be accessed in their country.

Deank wrote:"The conspiracy theorists are the ones that derived the whole idea of censoring the Internet."

except of course that there are countries who are already limiting what can or can not be accessed in their country.

Granted. However I think it is pretty common knowledge that Canada does not look to China or North Korea for advice on such a topic.

So, I suppose Telus "censoring" or "blocking" internet sites that don't have a favorable position towards Telus....that would be....what exactly?

"In July 2005, while its union workers were striking, Telus blocked its
subscribers access to 'Voices for Change' - a community website run by
and for Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU) members.
Telus claimed that the site suggested striking workers to jam Telus
phone lines, and posted pictures of employees crossing the union picket
lines. A Telus spokesperson said advocating jamming lines hurts the
company [and its customers], and access to those kinds of pictures
threatened the privacy and safety of employees.
Telus said in news release that it would unblock access to the website
only when all postings, including photographs, posted with the intent
of intimidating or threatening Telus employees had been removed as
ordered in an Alberta court injunction"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_Canada)


Don't get me wrong, I have no issue offloading heavy users off to a dedicated network which would then "free up" bandwidth.

I'm just saying, we have a confirmed case (even if it's a single case, and I may want to agree with Telus...slightly....but not totally)

I completely side with Telus on this one. I had a number of friends working for Telus at the time and it was an ugly ordeal.

The forum in question was posting pictures and of people crossing the picket lines along with their names, addresses, phone numbers and other information about them and their families.

It was a pretty dirty tactic of a striking core that had less than 50% of its membership on the picket lines.

Had the forum not turned into a "scab hitlist" of sorts Telus probably wouldn't have cared. Telus also had the upper hand in that most Telus employees that were striking were using Telus discounted cell phones and DSL connections for their Internet access.

The point I'm trying to make is, that's not Telus' decision to make. That particular offending website, despite it's vulgarity, was ordered by an Alberta court to remove the offending material....unless Telus was ordered by, or had gotten permission from the court to take such actions, then I would support that.

However, taking unilateral action (despite how honorable it was in this case, attempting to protect Telus' employee's and their families) sets a bad precedent IMO, one that's easy to abuse or exploit in the future by other Telco's.

Like it or no Telus has no business blocking a legal website. If the crown ordered it shutdown with a legal restraining order then fine. Otherwise, no-fricking-way...

grumpy old man wrote:Like it or no Telus has no business blocking a legal website. If the crown ordered it shutdown with a legal restraining order then fine. Otherwise, no-fricking-way...

Sure they can.

When you get Telus internet service you agree to their Terms and Conditions. You are using their service and if they want to blackhole access to a website, they can. It is their network that you are using.

If you don't like it. Get a Shaw connection.

IMHO as long as nothing illegal is being done it should be hands off.

If you don't like it. Change my opinion.

DONE!

hehehehee

....okey....uh...calm down....

Back on topic?

So that Shaw Superspeedway.....who's gonna be the first to demo it? Any early adopters?
Anyone running anything faster then Shaw's "High Speed" @ home currently?

I'm currently running Highspeed @ home, only had one nasty phone call from a Shaw tech....apparently I went over my monthly limit....couldn't have anything to do with just picking up a PS3 that month and needing to download updates for that, downloading updates for my PC's, and watching streaming content, maybe a few random downloads.

Other than that, I wouldn't classify myself as a "demanding" internet user, but it would be neat to see websites limited by the throughput speed of the web servers instead of the big pipe! lol

Looks like the initial trials will be in Edmonton this summer and the service should be available in most cities by 2011.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Edmonton+three+sites+Shaw+test+ultrafast/2585306/story.html