-- A lot of other companies/servers throttle speeds. Gene...

[mdk]

@viper_crazy -- A lot of other companies/servers throttle speeds. General browsing rarely hits 10Mbps tops, even with ad/graphics heavy sites

Maybe, it's more by accident than by design. If their server has the capability to send at 100 Mbps, and they have 10 simultaneous clients, each client only see 10 Mbps.

> Microsoft, for example, I've never seen north of ~230 when downloading Xbox games and updates.

I saw 300+ Mbps when Windows Update was downloading their "2004" (April 2020) update to replace "Windows 1909" (September 2019) update.

> Zoom meetings use a max of 5Mbps that I've seen so far

Each Zoom-client might only be sending to Zoom's server at 1 to 5 Mbps, and Zoom is aggregating all the client's streams. So, the "capping" occurs on the output from each Zoom client's computer.

> YouTube seems to top out at 75Mbps streaming at 4K.

Given that you are watching in "real-time", and the recording was not designed for full-resolution on a 4K TV,  then 75 Mbps is what you measure.

> So, if all the other sites and servers I usually connect to rarely ever peak at the 300Mbps I'm paying for, then there's really no point in paying for anything higher

Yes, I've said the same thing on this discussion forum, many times, namely that 1000 Mbps to a client's computer depends on finding Internet servers that are "pushing-out" data at that speed.

About 15 years ago, I saw a demonstration of "high-speed" Internet -- sustained streams from one BC university to/from a San Francisco area university (via "Canarie" and "Internet 2") that were multi-gigabit-per-second.  It took multiple, borrowed Dell-servers, and (very expensive at the time) SSD disk-drives with (expensive) 10 Gbit/second network adapters, to generate enough data to "fill the pipe".  Of course, it was fiber-optic cable all the way.

[uwish]

Since the vast majority of Shaw network has a fibre backbone, they have full duplicity in up and down speeds (at least they are capable of it).  If you have show blue curve TV, all your recordings are in the cloud and Shaw blue curve hardware is connected at 10GB bi directional to the node.  So the capability is already there really.  They just do not want to turn up the upload bandwidth for reasons like...FTP hosting, website hosting etc etc which on a home account is a violation of the user end agreement.

Since most of us have cloud backups on our phones / machines, it would be nice to get something more respectable in the upward direction...100 would be nice for the fibre packages...backups can still take quite a bit of time if you are using a cloud based service.

[rstra]

There is more to the Shaw network than just the cable, and if they were just concerned about ftp and web servers, they would just block them. 

[jjjude]

I too would like to see faster Shaw upload speeds.  I did a survey of my work colleagues with faster ISPs and got the following results:

• Bell 426.10 Mbps 448.60 Mbps
  Shaw 117.19 Mbps 15.59 Mbps
  Shaw 641.37 Mbps 21.15 Mbps
  Shaw 83.92 Mbps 16.01 Mbps
  Telus 75.26 Mbps 80.60 Mbps
  Telus 89.09 Mbps 85.17 Mbps

This is a tiny sample, but it is clear that both Telus and Bell provide identical upload/download speeds for their customers, while Shaw falls sort on upload speeds.  My result is the third one in the list.

In all other ways, I find Shaw to be more than satisfactory as an ISP.  I also prefer Shaw's business services in my work server room, but those home upload speeds.....

[rstra]

I am hoping that fast upload speeds will be coming soon from Shaw. They are completing return band upgrades, to make this happen (I think).