Light at end of regulation tunnel?

watty

Comreg says
ComReg is unable to approach eircom on behalf of a customer if the service provider has not yet had the opportunity to investigate and respond to you directly on the matter. When this has been done, our office will approach eircom on your behalf requesting their position on the matter and in line with our statutory powers determine what course of action may be taken.

Eircom is required to provide access to a telephone line which must be capable of supporting internet services. Discussions are ongoing between ComReg and eircom as to what constitutes an adequate dial up speed to the internet over an analogue telephone line.

watty

I told Comreg, not just the spped but error level and how often the connection is dropped is important.

At home I usually get 41K approx. But the connection drops frequently and rarely reconnects on first attempt. makes filling in order forms or compllaint forms nearly impossible.

BrianD

Interesting as I was told by an Eircom customer service rep that they no longer guarantee data transmission (internet or even fax) over a normal phone line. I assume that this is a new policy to curtail service call outs and to try and sell customers another product.

Good to see that ComReg are putting the foot down and saying that a basic phone line must support an Internet connection tio an agreed speed.

sceptre

Originally posted by BrianD
Interesting as I was told by an Eircom customer service rep that they no longer guarantee data transmission (internet or even fax) over a normal phone line. I assume that this is a new policy to curtail service call outs and to try and sell customers another product.

Indeed. The last USO called for functional Internet access while defining the requirement as 0k. Nice. Around the same time the UK USO raised the bar to a minimum 28.8k, which would at least be functional if not spectacular.

As for what "another product" might be, I suspect it'd be ISDN. Or this "new" thing on delboy's statellite dish.

Good to see that ComReg are putting the foot down and saying that a basic phone line must support an Internet connection tio an agreed speed.

I do hope they're actually putting the foot down. I've been cynical about Comreg in the past, partly because it's usually funny and mostly because it's usually deserved. What's needed is a definition of functional internet access (preferably at least 28.8k but at the very least larger than 0k). Muck's completely unrelated post here on the Broadband forum may be temporarily worrying if his source knows something we don't.

Ripwave

Originally posted by BrianD
Good to see that ComReg are putting the foot down and saying that a basic phone line must support an Internet connection tio an agreed speed.

I still have an old 1200 baud modem up in the attic somewhere. I'm sure comreg could probably get eircom to agree to provide access to a telephone line which can support internet services, as long as comreg agree that 1200 baud represents an adequate dial up speed. It shouldn't take them more than a year or two to iron out the details between them.

Ripwave

Originally posted by sceptre
Indeed. The last USO called for functional Internet access while defining the requirement as 0k. Nice.

Well, it's a nice bit of fiction, maybe.

Functional Internet access is not defined as 0k.

Urban Weigl

Originally posted by Ripwave
Well, it's a nice bit of fiction, maybe.

Functional Internet access is not defined as 0k.

Technically, you are correct. However, for people who have lines that can not properly support Internet access (constant disconnects, many attempts to connect, etc), unfortunately 0k has been real. And judging by Comreg's response (Eircom are no longer obliged to provide any minimum speed, or even a line that will support a modem), Comreg seem to think it is 0k as well. Even if it's hidden.

spongebob

Comreg also removed the Duplexing differential in 2003.

The 1999 USO mandated 9600 (Half Duplex for group 1 fax) and 2400 (Full Duplex for CTS/RTS data) . All Internet connection require full duplex .

The current position with analogue lines is 0k half duplex and 0k full duplex.

As to what Watty was told "Discussions are ongoing between ComReg and eircom "

Eircom were required to report on the state of the copper by END OCTOBER 2003, this is at the tail of the July 2003 USO. Comreg have had the necessary information from which they may formulate a Universal Requirement for OVER 6 MONTHS ALREADY

The information that Comreg have received on the state of the copper is so shocking and is such a threat to the sustainable maintenance of normal economic activity over large swathes fo the country that Comreg have sat on it rather than interpret it . It is now a state secret like the infamous 'list of exchanges' Almost half of all lines in Connacht/Ulster cannot reliably support 28,800 at present (the UK minimum standard) . 28,800 is a 10 year old standard called V34. Nor can these reliably support the Eircom phonewatch systems from which Eircom make a lot of money . That is a particular headache I hear. If 40% of Phonewatch customers thought they were paying for a system that will not work reliably then they would ditch it . At present they are not entitled to know whether they are in the 40% who pay for a turkey or the 60% who pay for a system that will probably work as advertised that is an interesting side effect of the USO negotiations.

Then again, Comreg are in serious material breach of an EU directive by not defining "Functional Internet Access" as they are required to do by law so their ongoing ineptitude since they were founded has caught up with them.

Expect much more fudge and flummery from Comreg as the infrastructure continues to crumble around their ears.

M

Ripwave

Originally posted by Muck
Then again, Comreg are in serious material breach of an EU directive by not defining "Functional Internet Access" as they are required to do by law so their ongoing ineptitude since they were founded has caught up with them.

I'm glad to see that you've finally decided to admit that Funtional Internet Access is not defined as 0K after all.

Comreg wouldn't be in breach of any EU directives if they did define it as 0K.

watty

OK = functional Internet access is like the man that says
"I always lie"

It is nonsensical, non-resolvable statement.

Even 28K is NOT functional access, if the connection takes ages and is continually dropped.

I had 41K this morning but line dropped when I tried to post here.

My connect time *HAS* dropped from average 8minutes to 1minute with line repair, but the connection has so many errors and drops so often no-one would call it functional.

spongebob

Originally posted by Ripwave
I'm glad to see that you've finally decided to admit that Funtional Internet Access is not defined as 0K after all.

Even you Ripwave, In full Reductio Ad Absurdum mode , cannot possibly explain to a sentient being how Nothing is Greater than 2,400 and how the absence of Anything can be notationally (or otherwise) represented by an Integer greater than 0 , especially as the 2,400 was explicitly removed from the USO by Comreg because they thought it "would not be helpful at this time" ..see the consultation response.

Comreg wouldn't be in breach of any EU directives if they did define it as 0K.

Ironically that is probably legally correct Ripwave. They may regulate for the specific circumstances in their own country ( pretty dire as it happens) .

Its just that every other regulator on the Entire Planet would burst their ****s laughing at them at their next international regulators shindig . Like any early teenager, the possibility of being embarassed in front of the peers is always foremost in their addled little minds.

Their next act will be to define solid snow on the TV as an acceptable signal. I can't wait .

M

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ripwave
I'm glad to see that you've finally decided to admit that Funtional Internet Access is not defined as 0K after all.

It may not have been explicitly defined as such by the regulator, but the net effect to the consumer is the same as if they had. There was a time when a line had to be capable of sending a fax, whereas now I know of at least one person whose fax machine is useless and who was told by Eircom that they only had to provide a line that could support voice calls.

spongebob

It must support Fax but at the now traditional 0K of course. Here is the definition from the USO of what EVERY ANALOGUE LINE MUST BE ABLE TO DO AT ALL TIMES

"The connection provided shall be capable of allowing
end-users to make and receive local, national and international
telephone calls, facsimile communications and data
communications, at data rates that are sufficient to permit
functional Internet access, taking into account prevailing
technologies used by the majority of subscribers and
technological feasibility."

Ripwave

Originally posted by Muck
Even you Ripwave, In full Reductio Ad Absurdum mode , cannot possibly explain to a sentient being how Nothing is Greater than 2,400 and how the absence of Anything

Typical Muck bull****.

Even you, Muck, in any mode you like, can't explain how Comreg can be in breach of an EU directive for not defining something, while you are claiming that they have defined it. (as 0K).

If there's no difference between a definition of 0K and no definition at all (as you imply), then why is it so important for you to push the lie that it's been defined as 0K, rather than telling people the truth - that Functional Internet Access is no longer defined by Comreg?

There's no point in trying to criticise other people as decietful and dishonest when you keep making deceitful and dishonest statements yourself. First it was the "pairgains are illegal" (no, they're not). Then it was the population density crap you were peddling. Now it's "Functional Internet Access defined as 0k".

It's your reputation that's at stake here - if it doesn't bother you that you're getting a name for yourself as someone that prefers propaganda to facts, that's fine by me.

Ripwave

Originally posted by oscarBravo
It may not have been explicitly defined as such by the regulator,

There's no "may not" about it. That's precisely why Muck is now trying to play the other side of the street and says that Comreg are not implementing an EU directive, precisely because they haven't defined it.

FFS, you'd swear I was defending Comreg or something, instead of pointing out how you're eating up Mucks bull****.

Ripwave

Originally posted by watty
OK = functional Internet access is like the man that says
"I always lie"

It is nonsensical, non-resolvable statement.

You can always rely on Muck to come up with nonsensical, non-resolvable statements!

(He has to make them up himself, because even Comreg isn't dumb enough to define Functional Internet Access as 0K).

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ripwave
TFFS, you'd swear I was defending Comreg or something, instead of pointing out how you're eating up Mucks bull****.

I'm not eating up anything - I'm telling you that a de facto definition of 0k exists in the absence of a de jure one, in that Eircom are telling people they don't have to enable fax transmission. That's a step backwards, whether ComReg explicitly authorised it or not.

Ripwave

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That's a step backwards, whether ComReg explicitly authorised it or not.

Exactly. But you've been accusing them of explicitly authorising it. If you want to get them to do something about it, whether by negotiation, political pressure, or because their in breach of EU regulations, you're more likely to make progress if you don't make untre statements about what they've been doing.

Not defining what they mean by "Functional Internet Access" is not good enough. Neither is telling lies to the effect that they did define it, as 0K.

spongebob

OK Then, time to broker a compromise on this and to get the Mods to do some modding

I shall not essentially digress from the following equation

Nothing = 0 and 0 = Nothing

I believe that certain presentational aspects could be reviewed, Mods please input here.

In the wesht where we have low expectations I shall call it 0.0Kbit

In suburban Dublin ye have higher expectations, it would be 0.00Mbit , out of deference to the higher technology in Tallaght and Coolock and places like that and the fact that ye need to impress the oul foreigners who think that Dublin is happening n stuff.

Over in Fibre Enabled Citywest, Megabits and Kilobits mean nothing. They shall be entitled to a whopping 0.000Gbit .

I simply Must send an email to Comreg about all the exciting and different ways that Buttsy could present Nothing , or the same Nothingness . The next time we have this discussion you can rattle along with yer Megabits while I plod along with my Kilobits and we won't fall out over it .....will we now :ninja: ? Ripwave :ninja: ?

Lets make it a Mechanism ....... wherein the essential Nothingness acquires acquires significant digits (as long as the digits are 0's) and letters to the right of the Decimal point as one moves around the Universality that falls within the ambit of the Service Obligation. .

Call it 'Mucks Dynamic Law of Service Level Obligation Expectation Regulatory Matrix Presentation and Stuff

Yo! Butttttttsy ? '

M

sceptre

Ah, now I remember the vigorous discussion we had about this the last time it came up. I'm truly sorry for actually starting it this time, for not putting the word "effectively" in there somewhere or just for not keeping my gob sewn. Still, as long as you're all enjoying yourselves...


We're all agreed that there should be an actual definition by Comreg of what "functional internet access" is though, yeah?

Moriarty

Holy figrolls, batman!

Do the words teacup and storm mean anything to any of you? Seriously lads, you're getting all hot under the collar about semantics. Can't we just agree to disagree over this incy little thing and get on with more productive things?

spongebob

Originally posted by sceptre
Ah, now I remember the vigorous discussion we had about this the last time it came up. I'm truly sorry for actually starting it this time,

No you didn't, Its in the first line of the Book of Genesis actually .

"In The Beginning there was nothing, which was functional"

We're all agreed that there should be an actual definition by Comreg of what "functional internet access" is though, yeah?

Damn sure. No less than 28.8 k , seeing as the 10 year old V34 technology which runs at 28.8 is now a Prevailing Technology .

Its exactly what Oftel did, faced with the same wording.

M