Distribution of Internet signal Telus v Shaw

[rickatk]

From time to time I hear about how Shaw’s method of internet signal distribution is done in a way that neighbours share the signal, causing a slowing of speed in high use times. Telus uses a distributed system from their central hub resulting in more stable draws on the signal.

My experience, in a few neighbourhoods over the past twentyhas been pretty consistent internet service.

What is the truth about Shaw’s distribution of internet feeds?

[mdk]

> Telus uses a distributed system from their central hub, resulting in more stable draws on the signal.

My nephew uses TELUS, and recently TELUS replaced the copper-cables from the junction-box on the side of his house with a fiber-optic cable.  That new fiber-optic cable connected to a TELUS hanging on the telephone-pole across the street. The optic-cable from the neighbour's house, across the street, connects into the *SAME* box.  So, it's at that point where the two houses (and a third from across the street) are connected into the same "distribution" box. The fiber-optic cable on the "back" of that box goes down the street, around the corner, and connects into a large (3 feet wide by 4 feet high by 2 feet deep) ground-level box, which is another "distribution" box. So, all the houses on my nephew's street indirectly connect to this larger box.  I presume that this larger box connects to some "central hub", miles away.

So, it is both a "shared" and a "distributed" system that TELUS uses, leveraging the huge bandwidth of fibre-optic cables.

Into my house, Shaw's coaxial-cable feeds over 100 TV channels, 40 music channels, and 300 Mbit/second Internet service, again leveraging the high bandwidth of coaxial cable.

So, which technology is better?  I do not know.

[BijuKochatt]

Well fibre-optic can handle more data and lower latency, so the more of it there is the better; Telus uses FTTH as opposed to shaw where the final connection to the house is copper, which means their entire network is fiber optics so theoretically it can handle more data at lower latencies without any copper bottlenecks at all.

[mdk]

@BijuKochatt -- Telus uses FTTH as opposed to Shaw where the final connection to the house is copper,

In Calgary, Shaw is now doing fibre-to-the-home.

> so theoretically it can handle more data at lower latencies without any copper bottlenecks at all.

Theory is nice, but in reality, as long as your computer has a 10/100/1000 network adapter, your computer is the bottleneck, whether it is connected to the Shaw modem or the Telus modem. Currently, the fastest wireless-adapters (AX protocol) can exceed 1000 Mbps.

Of course, how much do you want to pay, monthly, to Shaw/Telus/Rogers for "highest-speed" services?

Finally, one must find servers on the Internet that can "send" data to you at over 1000 Mbps.  Currently, they are very rare. Also, note that such servers are serving multiple simultaneous clients, creating a bottleneck on their "outgoing" connection.

[rickatk]

@BijuKochatt 

There is more at play than just fibre v copper. Shaw has a national fibre optic network and in most case deploys copper on in ”the last mile.” That is essentially the bit running to the house from the street or neighbourhood. 

Shaw and Rogers uses Docsis 3.1 to enable their Fibre Gig service. The  Docsis 3.1 protocol will provide up to 10Gb speeds over copper.  

In time I expect Shaw or Rogers will bring fibre optics into the house. In the meantime I remain very happy with my Internet capacity on the Fibre Gig plan. 

[rstra]

@rickatk I agree, except I don’t think Shaw/Rogers will deploy much in the way of fiber to the home. They have dabbled in it in some new housing developments in BC and Alberta, but I don’t really think it will go much beyond that. My money is on 5G. 

[rickatk]

Even now Fibre and Docsis 3.1 lose their punch at the modem and router.

Depending on how your gear is setup ethernet, coaxial or wifi, the clients can only handle so much data and throughput.

Shaw reverts to coax cable through the house as does Telus actually. WiFi is now showing up as an option and is doing the job in the case of wireless tv technology. That is what I have running.

@rstra points out an interesting option in 5G.  The possibilities do appear endless.

[julesdeb]

Telus. I have been on Shaw 1Gb for over a year with top quality state of the art computers, Wifi 6 gaming router etc. I have never achieved more than 90Mbps download. Never! I look forward to my locked in service to finish so I can try Telus to compare. Meanwhle, I have learned to recognize Shaw tech support whose only advice is to reboot the modem and quickly disconnect when I see them online. Now that's funny! I remember the CRTC stating that it did not want monopolies when licensing started - back in the 70's. Look at where we are now. LOL

[mdk]

@julesdeb -- you made the same comment about getting "much-slower-than-Shaw-Gig" service in your other thread.

Your monthly payments to Shaw include "free" Shaw Support. Contact them, and see what they can do, e.g., "reprovision" your modem, and check your Shaw Account to ensure that it is configured for "Shaw Gig" Ethernet, and check the signal-strength reaching your modem.

[rickatk]

---

@julesdeb wrote:

Telus. I have been on Shaw 1Gb for over a year with top quality state of the art computers, Wifi 6 gaming router etc. I have never achieved more than 90Mbps download. Never! I look forward to my locked in service to finish so I can try Telus to compare. Meanwhle, I have learned to recognize Shaw tech support whose only advice is to reboot the modem and quickly disconnect when I see them online. Now that's funny! I remember the CRTC stating that it did not want monopolies when licensing started - back in the 70's. Look at where we are now. LOL

---

@julesdeb Something is seriously wrong with your setup. Follow @mdk suggestions. You can do better!