Comparing 30 vs 75 vs 300 vs 600+ Mbps

[Jlabute]

I was looking at my account at Can-com today. I see they have changed my internet speed from 30mbps to 75 Mbps for the price of the former. I also see that they offer 300 and 600+ Mbps plans for $75 and $80.

Is there really any advantage to getting either the 300 or 600+ plans compared to the 75 Mbps plan? Will I notice an appreciable improvement in my internet usage? Will my streaming of movies and TV shows any sign of an improvement if I go with 300 or 600+ Mbps? I suspect not, right?

The amount of time required to transmit a packet is shorter at higher speeds. This is good for gaming. Otherwise most other services on the internet like video chatting, movies, videos, or music are streamed and buffered so it doesn't matter so much. 150mbps should be fine for most people. If 75mbps doesn't seem like it is working well enough for you, go to 300mbps. More people and devices will mean more simultaneous bandwidth required. We have 300mbps, up from 150mbps. Regardless of what speed you have, sometimes it is the service you're accessing that is slow. Your home Ethernet wiring might support 1000mbps. Wireless not likely so fast. If you don't have 150mbps available, I'd personally do 300mbps. As netflix screens refresh, or youtube screens refresh, if can make a difference in how fast you browse video content.

[TylerM4]

The amount of time required to transmit a packet is shorter at higher speeds. This is good for gaming. Otherwise most other services on the internet like video chatting, movies, videos, or music are streamed and buffered so it doesn't matter so much. 150mbps should be fine for most people.

Your explanation is a little misleading, but I get where you're going. I believe you're talking about bandwidth vs latency.

A more accurate way of wording this would be to say "The amount of time between when data is requested/sent and when that data starts to be received is usually lower at higher speeds". A good analogy is "Bandwidth is like the size of the water pipe while latency is the amount of time it takes from when you open a valve until water starts coming out the end of the pipe"


But even then, it's not really accurate. Perhaps if you said latency is lower on networks capable of higher speeds. Latency is a function of the entire network and not just determined by the speed of the endpoint. For example: Shaw offers a 75Mbs and a 150Mbs service. It's the same network, it's the same equipment, latency between the 2 services will be very similar despite the bandwdith being doubled. BUT, if you're moving from Shaw's 150mbps service to Telus's fiber network capable of supporting 1Gbps, then even if you subscribe to the same bandwitch service (150Mbps) you'll likely see a reduction in latency.

[Jlabute]

Your explanation is a little misleading, but I get where you're going. I believe you're talking about bandwidth vs latency.

A more accurate way of wording this would be to say "The amount of time between when data is requested/sent and when that data starts to be received is usually lower at higher speeds". A good analogy is "Bandwidth is like the size of the water pipe while latency is the amount of time it takes from when you open a valve until water starts coming out the pipe"


But even then, it's not really accurate. Perhaps if you said latency is lower on networks capable of higher speeds. Latency is a function of the entire network and not just determined by the speed of the endpoint. For example: Shaw offers a 75Mbs and a 150Mbs service. It's the same network, it's the same equipment, latency between the 2 services will be very similar despite the bandwdith being doubled. BUT, if you're moving from Shaw's 150mbps service to Telus's fiber network capable of supporting 1Gbps, then even if you subscribe to the same bandwitch service (150Mbps) you'll likely see a reduction in latency.

"(Perhaps if you said latency is lower on networks capable of higher speeds)"

You're right, latency is the word. I was just considering the contribution of the medium end-points rather than over-all latency and unknown number of HOPs and distance etc. Of course, I don't know Shaw or their physical layer modulation type, and I quickly assumed that a single 1500 Byte packet at 150mbps requires half the time to transmit than at 75mbps, with coax giving a minute amount of signal delay over fiber. It likely comes down to how Shaw does twice the data-rate. Do they combine data channels? Change modulation type? I'm not sure.

I do believe though I have noticed slight gaming quality as I have migrated to higher speeds over the years.

[crookedmember]

I was looking at my account at Can-com today. I see they have changed my internet speed from 30mbps to 75 Mbps for the price of the former. I also see that they offer 300 and 600+ Mbps plans for $75 and $80.

Is there really any advantage to getting either the 300 or 600+ plans compared to the 75 Mbps plan? Will I notice an appreciable improvement in my internet usage? Will my streaming of movies and TV shows any sign of an improvement if I go with 300 or 600+ Mbps? I suspect not, right?

Does can-com piggyback on Shaw, Telus or both?
Are you happy with the service?
I'm thinking about dumping Telus due to the constant rate hikes.

[kelownman]

Does can-com piggyback on Shaw, Telus or both?
Are you happy with the service?
I'm thinking about dumping Telus due to the constant rate hikes.

yes, they use the shaw infrastructure.
yes, very happy, their "regular" plan rates are lower than shaw.


https://can-com.com/Bundles/Internet-TV-Phone-Bundles
if you decide to use can-com, use my refer a friend number ;)

[GordonH]

TekSavvy is another one to look at they go either cable or dsl
https://www.teksavvy.com/

[TylerM4]

It likely comes down to how Shaw does twice the data-rate. Do they combine data channels? Change modulation type? I'm not sure.

That's the point I'm trying to make tho. The latency introduced at the home is only a small component of the total latency. Doesn't matter if shaw moves your modem to multiple channels, etc. If your connection from your home to the branch office represents 4 milliseconds out of a total of 20 milliseconds then even if doubling your speed reduces your latency by 50% (it won't) you're still looking at a total of 18 milliseconds of latency vs the 20ms you had prior.

When looking at latency we need to look at the entire network. The latency introduced in the home is often just a small part of the overall latency. Reducing the latency in the home will help a small amount, but if you want to see large changes in latency you need to look at redesigning the entire network.

I do believe though I have noticed slight gaming quality as I have migrated to higher speeds over the years.

Don't get me wrong, a bandwidth increase (assuming same network/technology) will in most cases result in an application being "faster" assuming that the bottleneck is the network itself and not server speed, etc. But it's more a result of the bandwidth that causes the increase in performance, not a reduction in latency. One way to look at it is that the total throughput is a combination of both the latency and the time it takes to transmit the data (bandwidth). If you increase the bandwidth, you'll get more throughput. The problem is that in many cases (especially online gaming), the latency ends up representing 90% of the bottleneck. At that point, doubling the bandwidth will only net you a 5% increase in observed speed.

[mexi cali]

My number was 27 which surprised me. We have five TVS (2 4K), two desk tops (hardly ever use the laptops) A voip line, smartphones and Alexa with god knows how many auxillary pieces attached. I subscribe to the 75 plan and most of the time, that's fine. We live in a condo so peak times can have an impact occasionally.

I had a service call a while back and the guy tells me that regardless of the plan you have, they will only guarantee a delivery of 75% of the number.

[Bsuds]

I had a service call a while back and the guy tells me that regardless of the plan you have, they will only guarantee a delivery of 75% of the number.

Then we should only pay 75% of the bill.

[TylerM4]

Then we should only pay 75% of the bill.

Totally agree and this is one place where I'd actually like to see some regulation and fines/enforcement.

Had an experience with Telus about a decade ago. Moved into a new place and was unimpressed to find that my internet service of 15mbps capped out at 1.5mbps. 1/10th of what they advertised and they simply told me "sorry, there's nothing we can do". To which I said "How about you charge me at the 1.5mbps rate then?" Nope.

It's what triggered me to move to lightspeed internet (3rd party using Shaw's infrastructure) and I haven't looked back since.

[Urban Cowboy]

Then we should only pay 75% of the bill.

Totally agree and this is one place where I'd actually like to see some regulation and fines/enforcement.

Had an experience with Telus about a decade ago. Moved into a new place and was unimpressed to find that my internet service of 15mbps capped out at 1.5mbps. 1/10th of what they advertised and they simply told me "sorry, there's nothing we can do". To which I said "How about you charge me at the 1.5mbps rate then?" Nope.

It's what triggered me to move to lightspeed internet (3rd party using Shaw's infrastructure) and I haven't looked back since.

Well on the flip side of that, I have Telus Optic and a 150mbps plan yet any time I test the speed the result is over 170mbps and often times as high as 180mbps.

[Jonrox]

I have Shaw 600 and it's extreme overkill.

[Bsuds]

Well on the flip side of that, I have Telus Optic and a 150mbps plan yet any time I test the speed the result is over 170mbps and often times as high as 180mbps.

I have Telus 300 and it is usually 8-10% over that. Much better than the days we were paying for 25 and lucky to get half.