I became curious about whether or not the different plan tiers combined with data plans showed a relatively fair and sensible charge per Gb of usage.
Doing extraordinarily simple analysis, I can safely conclude that Shaw's pricing scheme is anything but sensible.
Here is the basic calculations:
Point 1: Bandwidth Cost is Not Uniform. Overage charges are double the cost / Gb in most plans.
Now....notice the most popular package, the "Extreme".
At its base price of $57 (unbundled price) you see a cost per Gb of $0.57. Since part of your pricing basis is your speed, lets call this the "base cost" per Gb for that plan.
Now notice....The more expensive plans are not uniform in pricing. Nitro should be cheaper per Gb than Extreme but it isn't (priced based on how popular it is perhaps?)
A fair pricing scheme for over-use of data would at least preserve the base $/Gb of your current monthly plan. In any plan, the overage charge of either $1 or $2 is a gouge even against the base price per Gb.
Customers are penalized heavily when they can't forecast use. Instead of $0.33 / Gb for a data pack (if you could predict usage), you'd get hammered at triple that rate.
Point 2: Isn't Speed more Reflective of Network Use/Congestion?
The last time I checked, network planning and management is a function of the number of devices (subscribers) and the speed cap (i.e., maximum load) that could theoretically be placed on a network.
Take a look at the plans with lower caps. Those low end users pay a hefty fee for their 1Mb/s pipe and don't get much for it.
So the pricing structure is inverted. "If you want slower speeds, you are going to pay proportionally more than those that create higher demands on the network."
Your thoughts on the pricing?
[source of data: www.shaw.ca, Data Pack pricing obtained by phone from Shaw Customer Service]
Doing extraordinarily simple analysis, I can safely conclude that Shaw's pricing scheme is anything but sensible.
Here is the basic calculations:

Point 1: Bandwidth Cost is Not Uniform. Overage charges are double the cost / Gb in most plans.
Now....notice the most popular package, the "Extreme".
At its base price of $57 (unbundled price) you see a cost per Gb of $0.57. Since part of your pricing basis is your speed, lets call this the "base cost" per Gb for that plan.
Now notice....The more expensive plans are not uniform in pricing. Nitro should be cheaper per Gb than Extreme but it isn't (priced based on how popular it is perhaps?)
A fair pricing scheme for over-use of data would at least preserve the base $/Gb of your current monthly plan. In any plan, the overage charge of either $1 or $2 is a gouge even against the base price per Gb.
Customers are penalized heavily when they can't forecast use. Instead of $0.33 / Gb for a data pack (if you could predict usage), you'd get hammered at triple that rate.
Point 2: Isn't Speed more Reflective of Network Use/Congestion?
The last time I checked, network planning and management is a function of the number of devices (subscribers) and the speed cap (i.e., maximum load) that could theoretically be placed on a network.
Take a look at the plans with lower caps. Those low end users pay a hefty fee for their 1Mb/s pipe and don't get much for it.
So the pricing structure is inverted. "If you want slower speeds, you are going to pay proportionally more than those that create higher demands on the network."
Your thoughts on the pricing?
[source of data: www.shaw.ca, Data Pack pricing obtained by phone from Shaw Customer Service]