Debate about caps

Hugh_C

Originally posted by Sar!
If theyd just realise they would get far more business if they came in line with the rest of Europe, do away with a connection fee, do away with capping and charge a reasonable monthly rate!!!

You're not serious about doing away with capping are you?

The infrastructure would completely disintegrate if there was no capping - just look at what's happening to heavy Netsource users right now, a cap has had to be imposed because of leeching and persistent peer-to-peer activities.

Cap-less services would be the death knell of broadband in Ireland if they were introduced. So it would be utterly counterproductive in the long term. Sure, people would sign up, but the downloading abuse committed by the few would be to the detriment of the many. The service would end up working at a snail's pace, word would spread and people would either not renew, or wouldn't sign up in the first place. It'd be a disaster.

hC

bk

Originally posted by hughchal
You're not serious about doing away with capping are you?

The infrastructure would completely disintegrate if there was no capping - just look at what's happening to heavy Netsource users right now, a cap has had to be imposed because of leeching and persistent peer-to-peer activities.

Cap-less services would be the death knell of broadband in Ireland if they were introduced. So it would be utterly counterproductive in the long term. Sure, people would sign up, but the downloading abuse committed by the few would be to the detriment of the many. The service would end up working at a snail's pace, word would spread and people would either not renew, or wouldn't sign up in the first place. It'd be a disaster.

hC

Sigh, capping is not necessary in the medium to long term, it it only needed when DSL is relatively new.

The general rule is: "The larger the backhaul you have, the less contention impacts on even a fully contented line".

Take the UK for instance, IPStream Home 500 is the primary residential DSL product available in the UK and it has a contention of 50:1 and no cap, yet despite there being almost 2 million customers on DSL in the UK and 90% of the country covered, there are no reports of anybody surfering from contention problems.

The reason?

Because of it's low price, it is now very mainstream, meaning that there are lots of light, average users on the service, balancing out the heavy downloaders.

Netsources problems seem to have been caused by contention problems on it's backhaul to the internet from Netsource internally, there where no contention problems at the exchange.

This problem was caused by the relatively high price of DSL (Therefore attracting only heavy net users and no light/medium users) and the fact that it was the only ISP with no cap (therefore attracting all the heavy downloaders.

Once the price of DSL hits e30 - e40, goes mainstream and if all the ISP's get rid of their cap, then there should be no problem with offering uncapped DSL like in the UK, as the heavy users will be distributed evenly across all the ISP's and balanced out by light/medium users.

Hugh_C

Originally posted by bk
Sigh, capping is not necessary in the medium to long term, it it only needed when DSL is relatively new.

The general rule is: "The larger the backhaul you have, the less contention impacts on even a fully contented line".

Sigh yourself...

A few points: DSL is relatyively new here, and who knows about backhaul? Do you? Claims elsewhere on these fora would indicate that people are experiencing serious contention issues, to the extent that they find analogue dial-up faster.

I would seriously doubt this model in an Irish environment; there isn't the economy of scale here as there is in the UK; there are cultural differences too between us, the Brits and pretty much everyone else on the planet, whereby there is a small but significant community here who would absolutely take advantage of a capless product and leech anything and everything just because they can.

A lowering of price would only enable more of these to take advantage of capless downloads so I would dispute your claim that the heavy users will be distributed evenly across all the ISP's and balanced out by light/medium users.

Perhaps in a few years...

Hc

bk

Originally posted by hughchal
Sigh yourself...

A few points: DSL is relatyively new here, and who knows about backhaul? Do you?

Given that I have spent a lot of time studying various reports etc. about this then yes, I am fairly well informed.

Just do a google, for instance, here is an interesting article I found on adslguide.org.uk

Claims elsewhere on these fora would indicate that people are experiencing serious contention issues, to the extent that they find analogue dial-up faster.

Only on Netsource and I gave a detailed account as to why that is happening, please go back and read what I posted, it makes sense, also read the above URL I posted for supporting info.

I would seriously doubt this model in an Irish environment; there isn't the economy of scale here as there is in the UK;

There are over 1,500 standard DSL ISP's, over 50 LLU DSL ISP's, 2 major cable companies covering most of the country with cable internet and also many wireless companies poping up.

In Ireland we have only 4 standard ISP's and 1 LLU ISP, yet our population is only 10 times smaller. Therefore there is a lot less competition in the Irish market, therefore the economy of sale is potentially even better then in the UK.

BTW Eircom currently charges DSL prices equivalent to 2 years ago in the UK, yet they are paying a great deal less then for DSLAMs and other gear then BT where paying 2 years ago.

there are cultural differences too between us, the Brits and pretty much everyone else on the planet, whereby there is a small but significant community here who would absolutely take advantage of a capless product and leech anything and everything just because they can.

ROFLOL, and you don't think english download lots of stuff.

NTL in the UK where talking of putting a 30 GB cap (a lot higher then Eircom's 4 GB) a month on their cable service and there was murder, with tens of thousands threatening to leave the service. In the end NTL capitulated. People in the UK download about the same or more then us.

A lowering of price would only enable more of these to take advantage of capless downloads so I would dispute your claim that

Not really, this is not new stuff, it has been repeated around the world many times and there is plenty of evidence. Most heavy internet users are early adopters and join when DSL is first launched, as DSL prices reach more mainstream levels, the average download amount decreases as late adopters don't make as much use of DSL.

Hugh_C

Originally posted by bk


Only on Netsource and I gave a detailed account as to why that is happening, please go back and read what I posted, it makes sense, also read the above URL I posted for supporting info.

I did on both accounts, bk, but I'm not convinced. The adsl article you quoted makes the contention issue look germaine in our case, here in Ireland. It doesn't appear to take too many abusers to screw the whole system. Ergo a cap makes sense.

Also, a search here using (for instance) speed AND iolbb coughs up a few threads, with a certain amount of debate which would suggest that the problem isn't with netsource alone.

I remember using a cable system in the US about 8 or 9 years ago, which was uncapped and had a reasonably low number of accounts per loop AFAIR , and the service, although brilliant at 4 am, was completely unusable in the early evenings and mornings.

It is quite possible that without a cap, services would be similarly unusable here.

hC

bk

Originally posted by hughchal
I did on both accounts, bk, but I'm not convinced. The adsl article you quoted makes the contention issue look germaine in our case, here in Ireland. It doesn't appear to take too many abusers to screw the whole system. Ergo a cap makes sense.

Nope, I just spent the last two hours reading the Eircom Bitstream documentation and I'm more convinced then ever that the more users you have, the less need you have for a cap.

See the following docs:
- ADSL bitstream service
- Bitstream connection service
- ADSL bitstream service price list version 1.1

As far as I can decipher from these docs, the 48:1 contention does not actually occur at the exchange level, rather it occurs on the Access and Local Transport (ALT) from the Eircom Regional ADSL POP (of which there are 11, but you only need to connect to one for RADSL) to the Access Seekers (UTV/IOL HQ) handover point.

How it works for RADSL is as follows:
- You only need to buy ALT's from just one regional ADSL pop, all your virtual circuits (VC's, a VC is a connection to a DSLAM port, in other words a single DSL user) are routed by Eircom to this single regional ADSL pop.
- The ALT's you can buy come in 2m increments.
- One 2m ALT supports up to 192 VC's

But here is the cool thing, say you have just started offering RADSL and only have one 2m ALT, after awhile you might have 150 VC's on this ALT, so about now you might order another 2m ALT from Eircom. By the time Eircom provision you with the new ALT you might have 180 VC's on the old ALT, however when you get the new ALT it is combined with the old ALT to create a 4m Virtual Path (VP), so now your 180 users will be sharing a 4m ALT (which is a contention of just 22.5:1).

Of course over time more users will sign up and they will come close to filling the 4m ALT, so you order another 2m ALT and it all starts over again.

Of course there is nothing stoping you from order 10 2m ALT's in one go, it'll just cost you.

The point is as the number of users grow, so does the backhaul, but the most important thing is that all users share the same contented backhaul. Therefore all users will benefit from the presenece of more light/medium users as the backhaul increases.

See it is very simple really

Also, a search here using (for instance) speed AND iolbb coughs up a few threads, with a certain amount of debate which would suggest that the problem isn't with netsource alone.

Well IOL where having lots of problems at the start, they seem to be sorted now, the latest info from IOLBB users is that they are not having any contention problems. The initial problem was probably like I explained above, they probably only had a few 2m ALT's, as they got more customers they added more ALT's, thus balancing out the problem. In fact this may actually prove my point.

I remember using a cable system in the US about 8 or 9 years ago, which was uncapped and had a reasonably low number of accounts per loop AFAIR , and the service, although brilliant at 4 am, was completely unusable in the early evenings and mornings.

Cable works in a completely different way. Anyway my old manager in the US has 2 cable connections (1.5mbps each) going into her house and she gets outstanding speeds at all hours of the day.

It is quite possible that without a cap, services would be similarly unusable here.

But where is your evidence, I have shown you quiet detailed, technical evidence in favour of my stance. Yet you have shown nothing but gut feeling and a few shaky examples of problems with Netsource and IOL, which is hardly indicitative and can easily and scientifically explained.

Capless services work very successfully in the US, UK and most of Europe including countries smaller then Ireland, so why shouldn't it work here?

Show me some compeling evidence.

Hugh_C

OK bk, you're convincing me. Sadly, I still have (possibly unfounded) reservations about people taking advantage of a capless sevice, and even sadlier (?) I would imagine that ISPs will share this reservation for some time to come.

Hopefully for all of us, time will prove me wrong.

hC

spongebob

The longest established BB in Ireland is 600/128 , 24:1 contention and No Cap for €40 month including VAT.

M

jd

Originally posted by hughchal
OK bk, you're convincing me. Sadly, I still have (possibly unfounded) reservations about people taking advantage of a capless sevice, and even sadlier (?) I would imagine that ISPs will share this reservation for some time to come.

Hopefully for all of us, time will prove me wrong.

hC

I'd hazard a guess, the caps will eventually go. However isps as indvidual business units are under pressure to perform financially. In otherwords if they need to increase the backhaul, they have to pay for it- though it may be the office next door they pay. Now it may be nonsensical, but it probably affects the gm's annual bonus..

bk

Originally posted by hughchal
OK bk, you're convincing me. Sadly, I still have (possibly unfounded) reservations about people taking advantage of a capless sevice, and even sadlier (?) I would imagine that ISPs will share this reservation for some time to come.

Hopefully for all of us, time will prove me wrong.

hC

I agree, I think some caps is necessary at the moment, due to the high price of DSL in Ireland, which leads to low uptake uptake amongst light/medium mainstream users.

But in 1 to 2 years from now we should have no caps or relatively high caps (30 - 40GB).

MDR

Move this thread to 'Market Policy Issues' please.

BoneCollector

Nope, I just spent the last two hours reading the Eircom Bitstream documentation and I'm more convinced then ever that the more users you have, the less need you have for a cap

Your logic would probably work if the majority of users where light users, then the load would be offset against cost.
But for now, people who what broadband in Ireland mostly, want it for heavy usage, and some have ideas of grandeur by trying to leech 24/7
this spoils it for every one else and because of this a cap has to be imposed.

I agree with a cap as long as it is sufficient for normal usage, however, the way bandwidth operates at the moment is you pay much more for any extra download than you do for your initial block of bandwidth. it would be nice if the package could be tailored to the needs of the individual when it comes to purchasing block bandwidth.

Bandwidth is a premium no matter where you go, and given that ireland has been starved of bandwidth until now, mean most people will be ravenous and want all they can eat without the bother of managing a cap.

if you know you have a cap you will probably be more responsible with how you use it and probably get more quality as appose to quantity of work done.
then theres the contact terms and conditions...
there seems to be always a cause that says the isp can take away your rights to access the service you have paid for in good faith. So though you thought it was a good deal at the time and you use it as it is provided the isp will come back to haunt you with a cease and surrender order to cancel your contract because your using it too much. (just look at No limits users??)

Hugh_C

Originally posted by bk


Capless services work very successfully in the US, UK and most of Europe including countries smaller then Ireland, so why shouldn't it work here?

Show me some compeling evidence.

http://news.com.com/2100-1034-5079624.html

hc

dahamsta

I actually don't have a problem with usage limits as long as they're reasonable (they're not here), but...

That's not "compelling evidence". Five gets you ten that Comcast will back down by the end of the week. The same thing happened last year, and the year before, and consumer feedback killed it dead within days both times.

adam

eth0_

People who drone on about the US having no capson their broadband products...listen up. I have several friends in Toronto, New York and North Carolina, and they are all on cable, and within the past year/2 years their cable services have been capped.
I had a look into dsl a few months ago and most of the residential services I looked at were ALL capped. Sure, the cap was much bigger than it is here, but they they have a much better infrastructure.

Even in the UK, a growing number of res dsl is capped, you need to have a premium residential account to have no cap at all...

blorg

Originally posted by hughchal
http://news.com.com/2100-1034-5079624.html
hc

Yeah, that 60gb/month cap must be really hurting them...

Seriously, though, all the 'caps' that are being discussed in both UK and US are >30gb/month. Comcast are looking at a c.60gb cap so that they can increase performance of the service from 1.5 megabits per second to 3 megabits per second FFS!

These are reasonable caps. What we have in Ireland is quite a different situation, although it seems to be getting better (the UTV/IOL increases to 8gb caps already).

dahamsta

Conspiracy Theory #63: It's the RIAA, you insensitive clod!

blorg, Comcast hasn't set an actual number, which is part of the problem.

eth0_, Toronto's in Canada sweety.

adam

blorg

Originally posted by dahamsta
blorg, Comcast hasn't set an actual number, which is part of the problem.

I acknowledge that, but they gave as an example 'downloading the equivalent of 90 movies in a given month,' (70-90gb if they are DivX?) while maintaining that 'no subscriber would be affected without substantial warning'. And they argued that they didn't want to quote a number as they would only have to raise it tomorrow.

My point is that this is a far cry from the situation in Ireland. A 4-8gb cap is simply not comparable to a 60gb cap; referring to these articles in no way supports such tiny caps here.

I have no problem with a cap myself, or dealing with ridiculously large downloaders, as long as the cap is reasonably high and the procedure for high downloaders involves warning them first. Neither of these things are true in Ireland.

Hugh_C

Originally posted by dahamsta
Conspiracy Theory #63: Toronto's in Canada sweety.

adam

FFS... that really helps...

bk

Originally posted by blorg

My point is that this is a far cry from the situation in Ireland. A 4-8gb cap is simply not comparable to a 60gb cap; referring to these articles in no way supports such tiny caps here.

I have no problem with a cap myself, or dealing with ridiculously large downloaders, as long as the cap is reasonably high and the procedure for high downloaders involves warning them first. Neither of these things are true in Ireland.

I agree 100%, I also have no problem with caps as long as they are resonably high and a fair procedure is in place for dealing with them and it isn't just a means of making more $$$ (like in Eircom's case where it isn't really a cap as they charge you more if you go over it).

I believe over time we will see the caps gradually increase.

Anyway hughchal I thought I had charged your mind on the issue of caps

Hugh_C

Originally posted by bk

Anyway hughchal I thought I had charged your mind on the issue of caps

You have bk, it's just I thought the article was illuminating.

Would it be time to re-purpose IrelandOffline & have them campaign for fairer caps & a reasonable m.o. to deter capless download abusers?

faircap.org is available, as is faircap.ie...

hC

Urban Weigl

While I do not think caps make sense either from a consumer and commercial point of view, and I am against them, I do not believe they are the biggest issue stopping people from getting broadband in Ireland.

I am not trying to put this thread off topic, it is after all supposed to be a debate about caps, but I feel very strongly that the factors preventing the mass market from signing up to ADSL are:

1. High price. Forrester research, amonst others, shows that true mass market takup will not happen unless broadband is priced at below 30 euros a month. That is including VAT. Most European countries already have packages at below 30 euros at this time, and some have "starter" (lower-speed) packages at below 20 euros now.

2. Availability. Right now in Ireland broadband is virtually only available in the cities, and even then line failure rate is high. One post here put it at possibly as high as 80%, while it is agreed that it is probably close to 50%. Eircom themselves admit 30%. This compares to 6% in the UK.

dahamsta

Urban, FYI Comreg recently contacted me to say they investigated the claims of high-failure rates and found that the rate was actually lower that in the UK. How this fares against Eircom's apparent admission that the failure rate was 30% is anyones guess, but I said I'd mention it. The exact quote from Comreg is posted somewhere here under my handle, a search on 'failure' will probably turn it up.

adam

Da Man

Do we know if the likes of Eircom actually charges for usage about the cap? When I signed up it sounded a bit vague along the lines of "Eircom reserves the right to charge x cents per Mb above the cap".