Friggin Shaw

[3G]

My connection is so slow..it downloads @ 14kb/sec how gay is that? :banghead: should i stay with them or go with Telus?:bullshit:

[/////AMG]

Same thing happened to me man, so I switched to shaw, got a great deal $24/month for the first year. Make sure you tell them you switched from shaw. If you do recommend me :) you will get a free month so will I. PM me:)

[3G]

Originally posted by Porsche_944
Same thing happened to me man, so I switched to shaw, got a great deal $24/month for the first year. Make sure you tell them you switched from shaw. If you do recommend me :) you will get a free month so will I. PM me:)

did u switch to or from shaw? :dunno:

[Shaolin]

back when I was a competitive online gamer (bout 3 years ago) I went from Shaw to Telus, because during primetime my ping was in the 3-400s.. Now that there's more companies offering services, there's really not that much of a problem with any provider.. then again, every provider will have their problems in the network so it'll go down every so often.

[/////AMG]

Originally posted by Mx6GtTurbo


did u switch to or from shaw? :dunno:


:nut: Sorry my bad, I switched to Telus FROM Shaw. I personally think Telus is faster for me. But you can always try right? If you think Telus is slower then go back to Shaw. That was my plan but Telus was better than Shaw so I stayed with Telus.

[googe]

Thats weird. Shaw must have a sub-par network in your neighborhood. I have always got insanely fast speeds from shaw. My worst day on shaw is always far better than my best day on Telus or Nucleus would be. Last time I benchmarked my connection I sustained 898KB/sec.

But, you should check out Nucleus before telus, see if they have anything that suits your needs. WAY better service.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mx6GtTurbo
My connection is so slow..it downloads @ 14kb/sec how gay is that? :banghead: should i stay with them or go with Telus?:bullshit:
Check to make sure your Kazaa isn't running. And if you're running full Kazaa, all that P2P Networking stuff is disabled or uninstalled. Any uploads in background seriously affects speeds on Shaw, because upstream bandwidth is fairly limited.

[gpomp]

Too bad Calgary doesn't have Sympatico. :D

[Sai]

internet has been slow.... but everything else has been quick strange

if ya paying the 19.99 monthly shaw cable then ur not getting the bandwith you need! My moms sister dosen't use the computer that much so they pay 20 bucks a month but its a slower cable connection

[link785]

Originally posted by googe
Last time I benchmarked my connection I sustained 898KB/sec.

:bullshit: You got nearly a MEG a second ? I don't think so. Shaw's cybersurfer modems cannot reach speeds over (around) 400 kiloBYTES a second. Not to mention Shaw doesn't even HAVE that much bandwidth available for one person. Hell their fiber-optic service doesn't even go that fast.

When I first joined broadband internet some 6 years ago, no one in my area had Shaw. I was averaging around 150 K/sec off topsites. After some 2 years, everyone was buying Shaw High Speed, and it went down to around 40 K/sec, then progressivly down until it got to around 25 K/sec.

898 K/sec ? Bullshit.

[gpomp]

Originally posted by link785


:bullshit: You got nearly a MEG a second ? I don't think so. Shaw's cybersurfer modems cannot reach speeds over (around) 400 kiloBYTES a second. Not to mention Shaw doesn't even HAVE that much bandwidth available for one person. Hell their fiber-optic service doesn't even go that fast.

When I first joined broadband internet some 6 years ago, no one in my area had Shaw. I was averaging around 150 K/sec off topsites. After some 2 years, everyone was buying Shaw High Speed, and it went down to around 40 K/sec, then progressivly down until it got to around 25 K/sec.

898 K/sec ? Bullshit.
Something is wrong with your cable... You should be getting way higher than 25-40 K/sec.

[link785]

Originally posted by gpomp
Something is wrong with your cable... You should be getting way higher than 25-40 K/sec.

I just lived in a HIGH traffic area by the time everyone was done jumping on the broadband band-wagon. Shaw also capped my area to 60 K/sec max speed.

Either way tho, there's no way he was getting nearly a meg a second, that's such bs.

[Akagi Redsuns]

From good servers, my Shaw connection can hit the 450Kb/s-500kB/s mark, more if it's a single file from FTP servers and such. Uploading is where Shaw really sucks at, can only hit about 30Kb/s there.

[AquamosH]

Originally posted by link785


:bullshit: You got nearly a MEG a second ? I don't think so. Shaw's cybersurfer modems cannot reach speeds over (around) 400 kiloBYTES a second. Not to mention Shaw doesn't even HAVE that much bandwidth available for one person. Hell their fiber-optic service doesn't even go that fast.

When I first joined broadband internet some 6 years ago, no one in my area had Shaw. I was averaging around 150 K/sec off topsites. After some 2 years, everyone was buying Shaw High Speed, and it went down to around 40 K/sec, then progressivly down until it got to around 25 K/sec.

898 K/sec ? Bullshit.

The highest speed I've gotten from Shaw was about 700 k/sec, and it's regularly been about 500 k/s. So maybe googe's claim really isn't :bullshit:.

:dunno:

[link785]

Originally posted by AquamosH
The highest speed I've gotten from Shaw was about 700 k/sec, and it's regularly been about 500 k/s. So maybe googe's claim really isn't :bullshit:.

:dunno:

If you're judging from what Windows tells you about how fast you're downloading at, forget it.

Use a *nix box, such as a Linux box, and run an iRCd or something. Then you will be able to tell REALLY how fast Shaw is. On average, downloading and uploading, I was able to get 35 K/sec before I switched to Nucleus DSL.

[xDiMSuMx]

Originally posted by link785


:bullshit: You got nearly a MEG a second ? I don't think so. Shaw's cybersurfer modems cannot reach speeds over (around) 400 kiloBYTES a second. Not to mention Shaw doesn't even HAVE that much bandwidth available for one person. Hell their fiber-optic service doesn't even go that fast.

When I first joined broadband internet some 6 years ago, no one in my area had Shaw. I was averaging around 150 K/sec off topsites. After some 2 years, everyone was buying Shaw High Speed, and it went down to around 40 K/sec, then progressivly down until it got to around 25 K/sec.

898 K/sec ? Bullshit.


i remember when i was on shaw i've gotten over 500 k/sec

[3G]

Originally posted by rage2

Check to make sure your Kazaa isn't running. And if you're running full Kazaa, all that P2P Networking stuff is disabled or uninstalled. Any uploads in background seriously affects speeds on Shaw, because upstream bandwidth is fairly limited.

on Kazaa that's what it downloads at, id be lucky to hit 15kb/s and if im downloading from say download.com, same thing. but i use Kazaa Lite NOT Kazaa


Originally posted by Sai
internet has been slow.... but everything else has been quick strange

if ya paying the 19.99 monthly shaw cable then ur not getting the bandwith you need! My moms sister dosen't use the computer that much so they pay 20 bucks a month but its a slower cable connection


that's the one i got , i think :dunno:


but i e-mailed shaw, they sent me some links to test it so i did them and sent them back to them now im just waiting to see what they say. but hell they wanted me to download a 20mb file from them and i said hell no that would take forever

[Dope Dealer]

Which areas does Nucleus cover? My buddy got them when he got kicked off Shaw, but he had to move back to Shaw because his apartment burned down and he had to find a temp place to live which wasn't covered by Nucleus. Do they have a website?

[jdmakkord]

Originally posted by Mx6GtTurbo


on Kazaa that's what it downloads at, id be lucky to hit 15kb/s and if im downloading from say download.com, same thing. but i use Kazaa Lite NOT Kazaa




that's the one i got , i think :dunno:


but i e-mailed shaw, they sent me some links to test it so i did them and sent them back to them now im just waiting to see what they say. but hell they wanted me to download a 20mb file from them and i said hell no that would take forever


Sounds like you have shaw "litespeed" which sucks ass! Its a glamorized dialup, with shitty dl speeds.

[3G]

Originally posted by jdmakkord



Sounds like you have shaw "litespeed" which sucks ass! Its a glamorized dialup, with shitty dl speeds.

it's even slower than dialup :thumbsdow

[rage2]

Originally posted by link785
:bullshit: You got nearly a MEG a second ? I don't think so. Shaw's cybersurfer modems cannot reach speeds over (around) 400 kiloBYTES a second. Not to mention Shaw doesn't even HAVE that much bandwidth available for one person. Hell their fiber-optic service doesn't even go that fast.
I hit 750-900KB/sec at night on fast servers. During rush hour, I hit 400-600KB/sec. Fast servers being ones very close to the backbone, or on the backbone... shawcable.tucows.com for example. I just downloaded a file at 505KB/sec average right now off the tucows server.

Originally posted by link785
When I first joined broadband internet some 6 years ago, no one in my area had Shaw. I was averaging around 150 K/sec off topsites. After some 2 years, everyone was buying Shaw High Speed, and it went down to around 40 K/sec, then progressivly down until it got to around 25 K/sec.

898 K/sec ? Bullshit.
hehe time to check what's up with your network :).

See attachment.

[Shaolin]

Originally posted by Dope Dealer
Which areas does Nucleus cover? My buddy got them when he got kicked off Shaw, but he had to move back to Shaw because his apartment burned down and he had to find a temp place to live which wasn't covered by Nucleus. Do they have a website?

www.nucleus.com those guys are pretty good, I used to work for them back when it was just a BBS. FYI, They run on the same backbone as Telus.

Edit: screwed up the link, sorry.

[Khyron]

Yep Nuke has coverage pretty much anywhere Telus does. And you don't have to deal with Telus.

When I moved, I was prepared to have at LEAST a few days downtime - I think I suffered with about 6 hours. They had the line working 2 days before possession. There was a mistake at the NAP and they got Telus out there asap to fix it.

http://www.nexus-point.net/house/garage-lan2.jpg

Needless to say, I'm impressed. And they have REAL static IPs.

Khyron

[link785]

Originally posted by rage2
hehe time to check what's up with your network :).

See attachment.


rage, those numbers aren't true. As I said, Windows can't measure bandwidth useage worth shit (thanks Bill Gates). I've seen the same kind of downloads from IE, but they're bullshit readings unfortunately.

My *nix box fixed my misperceptions :)

[googe]

Originally posted by link785


:bullshit: You got nearly a MEG a second ? I don't think so. Shaw's cybersurfer modems cannot reach speeds over (around) 400 kiloBYTES a second.[B]


Wrong. If you dont know what youre talking about, please avoid manufacturing nonsense misinformation. Shaw is currently (or has been) deploying 2 different modems. One of which is capable of 10Mbps (10 megabits is 1.25 megaBYTES), and the other is capable of 14Mbps. The limitation is NOT in the cable modems. Both of these limitations are far beyond what I get.


Originally posted by link785
[B]
Not to mention Shaw doesn't even HAVE that much bandwidth available for one person.

They dont allocate their bandwidth based on each person, that would be stupid. Shaw dumps them on their network segment, and the hardware they are using determines how much bandwidth the entire subnet gets. Shaw does not cap download speeds, but they DO cap upload speeds. The limitation in download speed is based on total available bandwidth. Its all up for grabs.

When areas become too congested, they give more resources to the network. Well, when its too congested in SHAWs opinion at least :) Some people get screwed, but most get very good deals.


Originally posted by link785

Hell their fiber-optic service doesn't even go that fast.


That comment is absurd, you obviously again dont know what youre talking about. ONE strand of fiber optic cable is good for about 50mbps.


For the record, my test wasnt off of a single site. I pulled fairly large files from multiple low-latency sites simultaneously, and logged into my router to check the total aggregate bandwidth incoming. I have never got that fast from a single download, however its not uncommon for me to get above 500KB/sec, providing the other end is capable of it.

How many times does Abom have to get banned before he realizes we dont like him? :dunno:

[Khyron]

I don't have Shaw, but yah - nowadays you can get 400+ as long as it's on their internal network. They are a mirror for tucows so those downloads are stupid fast.

Regarding Windows speeds - the only time they're REALLY wrong is if you are resuming a download, it's a really small file, or there is network lag (as it runs on an average).

But I bet if rage downloaded that file with IE, and used a timer/stopwatch, it would be about 20 seconds to download a 10 meg file.

http://www.nexus-point.net/forums/dl.jpg

:bigpimp:

EDIT: Argh - didn't realise that was Abom.

Khyron

[link785]

Originally posted by googe
Wrong. If you dont know what youre talking about, please avoid manufacturing nonsense misinformation. Shaw is currently (or has been) deploying 2 different modems. One of which is capable of 10Mbps (10 megabits is 1.25 megaBYTES), and the other is capable of 14Mbps. The limitation is NOT in the cable modems. Both of these limitations are far beyond what I get.


They dont allocate their bandwidth based on each person, that would be stupid. Shaw dumps them on their network segment, and the hardware they are using determines how much bandwidth the entire subnet gets. Shaw does not cap download speeds, but they DO cap upload speeds. The limitation in download speed is based on total available bandwidth. Its all up for grabs.

When areas become too congested, they give more resources to the network. Well, when its too congested in SHAWs opinion at least :) Some people get screwed, but most get very good deals.



That comment is absurd, you obviously again dont know what youre talking about. ONE strand of fiber optic cable is good for about 50mbps.


For the record, my test wasnt off of a single site. I pulled fairly large files from multiple low-latency sites simultaneously, and logged into my router to check the total aggregate bandwidth incoming. I have never got that fast from a single download, however its not uncommon for me to get above 500KB/sec, providing the other end is capable of it.

How many times does Abom have to get banned before he realizes we dont like him? :dunno:

Older and newer Motorola Cybersurfer cable modems were factory capped at 500 K a second. Whether that has changed or not, could be, but if they're still using the same stuff, then it hasn't.

I didn't say they allocated bandwidth to one person. I'm saying, if NO ONE else was on your node, you STILL wouldn't go that fast.

I was speaking about Shaw's fiber optic services, not the technology itself, my bad if that wasn't clear.

Again, unless you're using a *nix OS, you can't trust what windows is telling you, regardless of who / where / what you're uploading. And yes, I agree, the other end has to be able to go just as fast, otherwise you're stuck going as fast as the other end.

I don't think this has much to do about me being banned, hell I call everyone and anyone on their BS, hence why people don't like me much, but rather you don't like to be questioned as to what you say, do you :)

[googe]

Originally posted by Khyron
I don't have Shaw, but yah - nowadays you can get 400+ as long as it's on their internal network. They are a mirror for tucows so those downloads are stupid fast.

Regarding Windows speeds - the only time they're REALLY wrong is if you are resuming a download, it's a really small file, or there is network lag (as it runs on an average).

But I bet if rage downloaded that file with IE, and used a timer/stopwatch, it would be about 20 seconds to download a 10 meg file.

http://www.nexus-point.net/forums/dl.jpg

:bigpimp:

EDIT: Argh - didn't realise that was Abom.

Khyron

Actually the reason IE doesnt display very accurate speeds is because when you are still in the "Save as" dialog box for the file, it is already downloading. For smaller files, this gives it quite a head start, and when it calculates the speed it doesnt take into account what was being downloaded earlier. The larger the file is, and the less time spent in the save dialog box, the more time it has to even itself out.

However, this is NOT going to tell you something is downloading at 500k/sec when its really only going like 60k. The reported speed isnt far off at all in most cases, Abom is just a stubborn bastard that likes to argue about dumb things :D

Khyron, remember last time we were evil liars for getting new vehicle prices more than $500 below msrp? :) Now we are downloading beyond the laws of physics!

The things make up so people on the internet think we are cool...


:rolleyes:

[link785]

Originally posted by googe
However, this is NOT going to tell you something is downloading at 500k/sec when its really only going like 60k. The reported speed isnt far off at all in most cases, Abom is just a stubborn bastard that likes to argue about dumb things :D

Khyron, remember last time we were evil liars for getting new vehicle prices more than $500 below msrp? :) Now we are downloading beyond the laws of physics!

lol, I am stubborn, yep :) I'm not going to argue this tho, I've had cable, DSL, ADSL, SDSL, dual 56K, dedicated ISDN, dialup ISDN, and I would have tried satellite had it been available in Calgary at the time. Right now I'm with Nucleus.

When I had Shaw (which I had on more than 1 occasion), the modems were factory capped to 500 K a sec. If that has changed (possible), then cool, but you're still never going to get that speed, regardless what IE tells you (who trusts a Micro$oft product anyways?)

And yeah, I don't remember who it was, but someone was talking about getting $15 000 of the sticker price? Yeah that's bullshit. $600 off, I'm sure that's do-able :thumbsup:

[Khyron]

Originally posted by googe


Actually the reason IE doesnt display very accurate speeds is because when you are still in the "Save as" dialog box for the file, it is already downloading. For smaller files, this gives it quite a head start, and when it calculates the speed it doesnt take into account what was being downloaded earlier. The larger the file is, and the less time spent in the save dialog box, the more time it has to even itself out.

Hrm - I've seen that behavior before, so I just moved another vid file to my web machine, then left the save-as window open (for like 30+ seconds). My guess is that it will be buffered - partly started, but it won't dl the whole file....Let's see.... Nope - with big files it doesn't seem to precache very much. I know what you're talking about tho because I've seen downloads start with half the bar already filled - but I think that's just a small 10-50K pre-cache thing.

http://www.nexus-point.net/forums/dl2.jpg

(That was left open for 30 seconds - still was about 8 second download)


However, this is NOT going to tell you something is downloading at 500k/sec when its really only going like 60k. The reported speed isnt far off at all in most cases, Abom is just a stubborn bastard that likes to argue about dumb things :D

:rofl:



Khyron, remember last time we were evil liars for getting new vehicle prices more than $500 below msrp? :) Now we are downloading beyond the laws of physics!


Yah but now Rage is a lying bastard too - so we're in good company.

Khyron

[link785]

Originally posted by Khyron
Yah but now Rage is a lying bastard too - so we're in good company.

10.3 megs a second :rolleyes: Anyways, I'm not saying rage is a lair, I'm saying Windows and IE are both liars. I've seen these "800 K / sec" downloads too, doesn't mean I believe them tho :)

[gpomp]

Hrm, I just did a speedtest on dslreports.com and I guess they're liars too cuz they say I'm getting 310K/sec!

Your download speed : 2540348 bps, or 2540 kbps.
A 310.1 KB/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 433886 bps, or 433 kbps.
Seems like broadband .. above the 1mbit barrier!

[link785]

Originally posted by gpomp
above the 1mbit barrier!

megaBYTE and megaBIT are two different things of course. Tons of people get fooled when buying DSL packages, thinking "oh, it's 1.5 megs a second", then just to realize later on that it really means 0.1875 megabytes a second :(

[link785]

Also, just a friend speed test. He lives in Beddington, he's getting 61.3 KiloBYTES a sec on his Shaw cable, which is actually pretty good.

Anyways, everyone have fun replying :rolleyes:

[googe]

Abom, why dont you read the part where I said I logged into my router to see the current bandwidth utilization? Im not reading the IE window.

Im pretty sure everyone on the board will agree that you:

1) Are a moron
2) See previous
3) Like to argue when you have no idea what youre talking about
4) Dont have much worth saying on here

Now do us all a favor, next time you spot one of our "BS claims", call up one of your friends, invite them over, and tell them all about how horrible the liars are on the internet, using our threads as examples. Dont post to call us liars, we know that already obviously, because we made up the lie. ;)

I dont think there is a need for any of us to continue this :)

[rage2]

Originally posted by link785
rage, those numbers aren't true. As I said, Windows can't measure bandwidth useage worth shit (thanks Bill Gates). I've seen the same kind of downloads from IE, but they're bullshit readings unfortunately.

My *nix box fixed my misperceptions :)
Even if I divide size of file vs download time, I'll get the same results. I've uploaded from my *nix box on beyond to my home FTP server on shaw and it reports the same speed.

Blame Bill all you want, the numbers aren't gonna be 100x higher than what you claim. Hell, my bandwidth monitors even show that bandwidth usage on the beyond server.

[04blackMAX]

so what would u guys say is the best internet providor, in calgary??

[rage2]

Originally posted by link785
Older and newer Motorola Cybersurfer cable modems were factory capped at 500 K a second. Whether that has changed or not, could be, but if they're still using the same stuff, then it hasn't.
haha yep, you're making shit up :).

Originally posted by link785
I was speaking about Shaw's fiber optic services, not the technology itself, my bad if that wasn't clear.
I was on Shaw Fiberlink at the office (10/20mbit sustained full duplex) befpre Group Telecom bought them out. The backbone remained the same, which is why I can get insane speeds that can max out the cablemodem.

Originally posted by link785
Again, unless you're using a *nix OS, you can't trust what windows is telling you, regardless of who / where / what you're uploading. And yes, I agree, the other end has to be able to go just as fast, otherwise you're stuck going as fast as the other end.
Let's see how accurate Bill is.

Just download a file from tucows, Bill reports 480KB/sec.
File is 12.6MB in size. Which is 12902.4KB under Bill calculations (1mb=1024kb).
I downloaded the file in 27 seconds, timed using my Tag Heuer which is pretty darn accurate (hey they do F1 timing too!)
12902.4/27 == 477.9KB/sec.

Wow, pretty accurate to me!

[rage2]

Originally posted by 04blackMAX
so what would u guys say is the best internet providor, in calgary??
Not Telus LOL!

I've been using Shaw since they introduced the service in Varsity as a trial. It's worked great for me in both Varsity and Arbour Lake. In fact, I can upload at 130KB/sec here. That's like having T1 at the house (with 10mbit/sec downloads).

[Ben]

Originally posted by rage2

Not Telus LOL!

I've been using Shaw since they introduced the service in Varsity as a trial. It's worked great for me in both Varsity and Arbour Lake. In fact, I can upload at 130KB/sec here. That's like having T1 at the house (with 10mbit/sec downloads).


Must be nice. Though I get similar download speeds as you, I only get 30-40 kb sec upload.

I worked for TELUS, sold their internet for 18 months, and I have shaw. Telus has okay speed but shaw on average for me is twice to 3 times as fast, and for the many years I've had it (since wave) its only recently been on the fritz, oh well.

[04blackMAX]

yeah ive got shaw, i hated telus, is there any other options???

[link785]

Originally posted by rage2
haha yep, you're making shit up :)

I have the old TOS from Shaw on CD, feel free to take a look at them. In their modem specs, it says that all Shaw Motorola Cybersurf Wave modems are capped to 500 K / sec, whether the service can attain that speed or not. Of course those TOS are a little dated, but it's in there none the less :dunno:

Ah well, either way, doesn't matter to me, I know exactly how fast each service is since I've had them all :) If you want to believe that Shaw gets you a meg a second on downloading, then you can believe that. Sounds like Shaw's got you wrapped around their finger quite well ;)

[Rav4Guy]

It really depends on your neighborhood. New areas tend to have faster access to the internet.. but it doesn't matter how fast your internet is unless the site your downloading off of has a good internet connection as well.

I've been with shaw for awhile now.. and I've wanted to try out Telus as it is cheaper.

I'm in the Westhills area.. anyone have problems with either Shaw or Telus in this area???

[googe]

Originally posted by link785

Ah well, either way, doesn't matter to me, I know exactly how fast each service is since I've had them all :) If you want to believe that Shaw gets you a meg a second on downloading, then you can believe that. Sounds like Shaw's got you wrapped around their finger quite well ;)

Sounds like your head has got your ass cheeks wrapped around it quite well ;)

[Khyron]

Originally posted by link785


10.3 megs a second :rolleyes: Anyways, I'm not saying rage is a lair, I'm saying Windows and IE are both liars. I've seen these "800 K / sec" downloads too, doesn't mean I believe them tho :)

You think it's a photo-chop or what? :bigpimp:

Be clear on what you're arguing about. It looks like A) You're arguing about IE's download speed dialog box being wrong which has been shown several times to be correct except in unusual conditions. And you're also B) Claiming no one with shaw will see 500+k/sec downloads. And we're saying from local shaw servers, when the network is not busy, you can get 500+ (which rage has already posted a 505k/sec on a moderate file size).

Khyron

[prosh]

Originally posted by link785


:bullshit: You got nearly a MEG a second ? I don't think so. Shaw's cybersurfer modems cannot reach speeds over (around) 400 kiloBYTES a second. Not to mention Shaw doesn't even HAVE that much bandwidth available for one person. Hell their fiber-optic service doesn't even go that fast.

When I first joined broadband internet some 6 years ago, no one in my area had Shaw. I was averaging around 150 K/sec off topsites. After some 2 years, everyone was buying Shaw High Speed, and it went down to around 40 K/sec, then progressivly down until it got to around 25 K/sec.

898 K/sec ? Bullshit.

First of all, Motorola Cybersurfer modems can do 10 mbits down and upsteam, therefore 898 KB/s is possible. Second, getting 150 KB/s sounds like you're on telus dsl seeing as their basic DSL package gives you 1.5 mbits down.

My personal fastest download speed in the past 6 months has been 589 KB/s off a bittorrent download. Also, when you say downloading around 40 KB/s after some 2 years, you must be downloading off some really sad sites to be getting those kind of speeds. If you're that concerned about your download speeds, go to http://shawcable.games.tucows.com/adnload/210734_112800.html
and download the 50 meg file to see what kind of speeds you're getting.

[Weapon_R]

What about Nucleus Lightspeed :) (change of topic)

They're rates are pretty sweet, and the speeds aren't too bad as claimed. Are they any good?

[Dj_Stylz]

When i had shaw all it would do is go down so i got switched to Adsl and i say much beter if you got adsl go and do a test at
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtests
Here is my test

-Stylz

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Weapon_R
What about Nucleus Lightspeed :) (change of topic)

They're rates are pretty sweet, and the speeds aren't too bad as claimed. Are they any good?

As was posted earlier, Nuke is the same "speed/equipment" as telus, with better service and better packages IMHO. I use the cheapest business with statics and have no issues.

A couple I know just tried getting Telus after they moved. After FOUR WEEKS, Telus had given them several weeks free because they kept losing the order, or sending the guy to the wrong address etc... was horrible.

Khyron

[sin]

i live in southwood in an area with 2 churches, an elementary school and an old folks home, therefore im literally one of the only people on this part of shaws network, and using mIRC to download a divx copy of american history x, i hit over 1.07 mb/sec on just that transfer

[rage2]

If you guys want an ACCURATE speed test on shaw, shaw hosts a 20MB file on their server. This reduces server inconsistencies and tests the true speed between your cablemodem to their router.

http://support.shaw.ca/troubleshooting/speedtest.htm

Just remember when the dialog to download comes up, click SAVE AS, then OK the directory as soon as possible. The longer you take to do this, the more the download caches, so it becomes slightly inaccurate (on the high side). As long as you're not retarded (take 30 seconds to click the 2 dialog boxes), download speed should be accurate within 5%.

As for the guys that are getting really slow shaw speeds, here's what I suggest checking :

On the cablemodem, there are transmit (TD) and receive (RD) lights. On your computer, stop doing everything and look on the modem. Does your TD light flicker, or even stay on? If so, something on your computer is uploading something somewhere, probably those hidden P2P network sharing crap that gets installed without your knowledge when you install Kaaza. Worse, maybe it's a virus sending out tons of emails. Once you get rid of the upload crap, then your speed will climb back up.

The reason why uploads affect downloads is simple. When you download something, the server sends chunks of data in packets. Once a packet is received, your computer sends an acknoledgement packet to the server before you receive the next packet chunk of data. If you have crap uploading during your download, the acknoledgement packets that your computer sends has to wait in line for your upload, so there's a wait before the server sees you've accepted the packet, and sends out the next one. This wait causes your download speeds to drop down to 20KB/sec easily.

Hope that helps for all you folks who have slow shaw connections :). I used to sell computers and install shaw on site for tons of folks, and I've never seen a speedtest that was lower than 300KB/sec off a shaw server.

[3G]

Originally posted by rage2
As for the guys that are getting really slow shaw speeds, here's what I suggest checking :

On the cablemodem, there are transmit (TD) and receive (RD) lights. On your computer, stop doing everything and look on the modem. Does your TD light flicker, or even stay on? If so, something on your computer is uploading something somewhere, probably those hidden P2P network sharing crap that gets installed without your knowledge when you install Kaaza. Worse, maybe it's a virus sending out tons of emails. Once you get rid of the upload crap, then your speed will climb back up.

The reason why uploads affect downloads is simple. When you download something, the server sends chunks of data in packets. Once a packet is received, your computer sends an acknoledgement packet to the server before you receive the next packet chunk of data. If you have crap uploading during your download, the acknoledgement packets that your computer sends has to wait in line for your upload, so there's a wait before the server sees you've accepted the packet, and sends out the next one. This wait causes your download speeds to drop down to 20KB/sec easily.

Hope that helps for all you folks who have slow shaw connections :). I used to sell computers and install shaw on site for tons of folks, and I've never seen a speedtest that was lower than 300KB/sec off a shaw server.

my TD flickers a bit but not alot it doesn't stay on but :banghead: im still getting the BS:bullshit: 17kb/sec, hell ill be lucky if i get 20

[3G]

i try that thing rage and it starts at 25.something and goes right down to 15.5 :banghead:

shaw is a bunch of ass-licking, cock-sucking motherfuckers:thumbsdow

[googe]

Do you have shaw "litespeed"? Thats the slow package.

[3G]

Originally posted by googe
Do you have shaw "litespeed"? Thats the slow package.

yah but is it supposed to be this slow?

[googe]

Haha, yes. Thats why it costs only slightly more than the price of dialup. They claim it is up to 4 times faster than dialup, which isnt very much.


All this time...

:banghead:

[3G]

Originally posted by googe
Haha, yes. Thats why it costs only slightly more than the price of dialup. They claim it is up to 4 times faster than dialup, which isnt very much.


All this time...

:banghead:

that's whack :thumbsdow

[googe]

To boot, they are probably cheating and meaning 28.8 when they say dialup :D

[/////AMG]

this is what happen when I did the ACCURATE speed test that rage showed, it starts HIGH, then it stays at 160

[3G]

Originally posted by googe
To boot, they are probably cheating and meaning 28.8 when they say dialup :D

or maybe 14.4

[Khyron]

5 times faster than dialup - 56K modem dls at about 3K/sec. So you get 15.

Pay the extra 10 bucks and go 100 times faster. :banghead: :banghead:

Khyron

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mx6GtTurbo
yah but is it supposed to be this slow?
Mystery solved lol!

Yes, shaw lite IS supposed to be this slow.

[jdmakkord]

To think, people actually left telus adsl for shaw litespeed to save the 9 bux a month, thinking it was almost as fast!!! lol
But the commission I made off of litespeed customers switching them to adsl was nice too.

[3G]

Originally posted by rage2

Mystery solved lol!

Yes, shaw lite IS supposed to be this slow.

oh well..we'll see about switching ISP's.. this computer is mainly used for word processing, chat, e-mail that kinda shit

[googe]

I believe you can get a trial period of shaw high speed for the price that you are paying for lightspeed. Try it out, Im sure you wont be disappointed with that one.

[link785]

Originally posted by Dj_Stylz
When i had shaw all it would do is go down so i got switched to Adsl and i say much beter if you got adsl go and do a test at
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtests
Here is my test

-Stylz

That picture is in kbps, NOT kBps. Divide the number by 8 to get the kB equivilant. That would be 164 KB a sec. More like what I would expect from Shaw. KiloBITs and KiloBYTEs per second are 2 completely different measurements. Kilobits are smaller than Kilobytes, but are often confused with the similar name they share. So the ISP companies (Shaw, Telus, etc) have capitalized on this, and have fooled probably 80% of the population with their "1.5 megabit DSL" and such.



Originally posted by Porsche_944
this is what happen when I did the ACCURATE speed test that rage showed, it starts HIGH, then it stays at 160

Also more like what I would expect to see from Shaw :)

[3G]

so i e-mailed shaw and here's what they have to say:

Hello Moe,

Thank you for your email.

Lite speed internet service should be capable of up to 128Kb/s download and 64Kb/s upload.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mx6GtTurbo
so i e-mailed shaw and here's what they have to say:

Hello Moe,

Thank you for your email.

Lite speed internet service should be capable of up to 128Kb/s download and 64Kb/s upload.
Which translates to 16KB/sec download and 8KB/s uploads.

Spend the extra $10 for full speed... trust me, well worth it :).

[3G]

Originally posted by rage2

Which translates to 16KB/sec download and 8KB/s uploads.

Spend the extra $10 for full speed... trust me, well worth it :).

alrighty ill talk to the billpayers tonight;)

[Roadrage]

Originally posted by rage2
I used to sell computers and install shaw on site for tons of folks, and I've never seen a speedtest that was lower than 300KB/sec off a shaw server.

I've done the test where mine is just hovering around 200KB/sec. I've also done the test with CSR's from Shaw on the phone. They always say it's my computer but then they do the modem test from their end and find out that it's the line (or the modem itself). They've had to send out a tech 5 times this past summer and each time...something will happen about a week or so later causing my connection to fux up. Doesn't help when I have to work from home.

[Ben]

Shaw servers give me between 500 and 800 kb/sec

[KoukiS14]

Mine started at 330 then dropped to 260 and remained steady. I guess this is ok considering its close to peak time now

[rage2]

Originally posted by NismoS14
Mine started at 330 then dropped to 260 and remained steady. I guess this is ok considering its close to peak time now
hehe I must be lucky :). Just did a test right now, during peak. Maybe everyone's busy watching TV :).

Took all of 29 seconds to download the file.

[szw]

Just for kicks, i downloaded that file at school. took less than 5 seconds. Maybe add a couple seconds before I clicked the buttons.

[Ben]

Your download speed : 3064120 bps, or 3064 kbps.
A 374 KB/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 396667 bps, or 396 kbps.
Seems like broadband .. above the 1mbit barrier!

[alloroc]

geez 700 is nutz even for cable.

I was interested so i dl'd a file and did a speed test on broadband.

Note Cable's slow upload speed. I don't share files so who cares about upload, if I was big into filesharing I think adsl maybe a better pick because it's upload is generally faster.

Go shaw highspeed.

[alloroc]

here is the download speed as per windows

Note that windows shows 5xx and broadband reports show 4xx, not much difference and could be node/server speed or location.

The file downloaded was also a lot bigger ie) better average, than the size of file downloaded for testing in the broadband reports test script.

[rage2]

Originally posted by alloroc
here is the download speed as per windows

Note that windows shows 5xx and broadband reports show 4xx, not much difference and could be node/server speed or location.

The file downloaded was also a lot bigger ie) better average, than the size of file downloaded for testing in the broadband reports test script.
It's actually faster because your connection to a shaw server is faster than your connection to the connection to the speedtest server.

[alloroc]

I didn't d/l the file of shaw I got it from a server in the US.

This is the games forum heh, its the latest beta (meaning yesteray's, he updates fast) of aces high 2 and I don't like to use shaw's proxy so I got it straight from the other server.

http://downloads.hitechcreations.com/AH19901.EXE

[Gondi Stylez]

hey rage how do u delete all those p2p bs from kazza and all that

im not a computer wize, so if u put it into laymans terms ill understand!! hahaha thanx!!