* SPLIT* (A Very Pertinent Question)

spongebob

Ripwave wrote:

Defining FIA at 64K doesn't mean fixing pairgains, it means ripping out the existing telecoms infrastructure for the whole country and replacing it with some other technology.

What planet are you on Ripwave. The present copper is perfectly capable of supporting 64k in most instances with a bit of maintenance ....not replacement. 64k generally means ISDN which works up to 4 miles from the exchange or 6km+ .

A better class of pairgain such as my Pairgain from Hell thread would boost the signal beyond that range while delivering FIA . Pairgains can be DEPLOYED to deliver ADSL2+ if necessary. Where Eircom have used pairgains they have often used really crappy ones . If Eircom intend to use their Wireless licences and not copper in a given area they can simply state where they will use wireless and not copper to deliver the FIA spec connection. I have no issue with that. Furthermore the FIA requirement should be for one connection per premises.

There is no one solution as you know well Ripwave. BB for all will be delivered by a variety of technologies determined by topology , terrain, existing networks to leverage, new networks and Hot Air Balloons if necessary !!!!!:(

FIA for all is the logical first step Ripwave . BT progressed from an 'imposition' of 28.8k FIA in July 2003 to a standard Universal 512k (as near as ) by December 2005 .

M

SkepticOne

Muck wrote:

ADSL2+ will be deployed at the same price point and with the same packages as RADSL, maybe it will work out to 5.6km or so. Do tell me why I picked That Specific distance Ripwave like a good lad .

ADSL2+ will NOT result in a better offering in terms of Bandwidth and will NOT result in a lowering of prices, not before the second half of next year. It is the Cheapest way Eircom can knock more DSL lines out of the same copper and it also reduces certain fixed running costs such as power to the port when not in full use.

I agree. The core problem is not technology as such since Eircom can roll out a new technology and still limit services. Even the current Eircom ADSL service (a standard that is several years old) does not make full use of the technology (which should go up to 8Mbit/sec for those near the exchange) so why should we expect them to make full use of ADSL2+. Look at the price of 2Mbit ADSL from Eircom. Why should they reduce this price just because they are using a different technology? ADSL2+ is not going to make it much cheaper, and even if it did, why should they pass on this saving to the consumer?

This is why, if the Government wants to get into improving services in broadband in the already developed areas, more players need to be brought into the market and these players must be involved in real competition, not merely reselling Eircom's cut down DSL.

spongebob

SkepticOne wrote:

This is why, if the Government wants to get into improving services in broadband in the already developed areas, more players need to be brought into the market and these players must be involved in real competition, not merely reselling Eircom's cut down DSL.

ESAT could upgrade the LLU kit they already have in situ to offer 5Mbits (dunno how easily) ....even if only to business customers initially. The government can follow by introducing Capital Allowances for 5Mbit and above connections to business and a one Tax break to individual consumers at the higher marginal rate of 42% .....again for 5Mbit pipes and above.

Cable operators and wireless operators see that 5Mbit is where it is at and follow suit. Nothing smaller qualifies .

We might all catch up with Dungarvan Co. Waterford and the present century then...non?

M

SkepticOne

Muck wrote:

ESAT could upgrade the LLU kit they already have in situ to offer 5Mbits (dunno how easily) ....even if only to business customers initially. The government can follow by introducing Capital Allowances for 5Mbit and above connections to business and a one Tax break to individual consumers at the higher marginal rate of 42% .....again for 5Mbit pipes and above.

Cable operators and wireless operators see that 5Mbit is where it is at and follow suit. Nothing smaller qualifies .

Maybe this would work. Personally, I think that once you have multiple operators who are free to determine the specifications of their services (as in countries like Sweden, Japan, South Korea, etc) and a willingness to compete, then higher spec. services naturally eventually appear. I'm not sure about Esat. Too much of their business seems to be based around reselling Eircom (as is their privilage).

One of the key policies of Japan was that funding was to preferentially favour new companies to the market at the expense of the incumbent in their funding decisions. I would go for a sliding scale rather than a distinct cut off. Also things like contention ratio as well as the price point to consumers need to be taken into consideration.

bealtine

Muck wrote:

ADSL2+ will be deployed at the same price point and with the same packages as RADSL, maybe it will work out to 5.6km or so. Do tell me why I picked That Specific distance Ripwave like a good lad .

There is a mode in the ADSL2+ suite called Re-ADSL (reach extended).
Specifically "G.992.3 Annex L"

This is a firmware type "switch" thats allows:

• 500 kbps at 18,500’ (5.6 km)
• 384 kbps at 28,000’ (8.5 km)

It is up to the "carrier" to enable this mode.

SkepticOne

Muck wrote:

You will no doubt remember that jamie Smyth was fed an interesting titbit from his Press Release suppliers in Eircom. This titbit was that ADSL2+ would be deployed next year. The rationale behind such a deployment is simple. ADSL2+ allows more ADSL lines in a cable bundle with reduced crosstalk. The current RADSL program is heading for 20% penetration is some affluent areas . Once about 30% of lines on a given cable are enabled they all fall over together because of Crosstalk .

I was wondering where you were coming from here. When I said range I meant range as in variety or choice, for example in the consumer price range, there should be a much greater variety of services (different speeds, contention ratios etc). e.g. I shouldn't be limited to 512k with 2Mbit/sec being an option only if I'm willing to pay a fortune. The reason for this is lack of competition. I have edited my original post to clarify this.

spongebob

I meant both RANGE (packages) and RANGE (distance) with an emphasis on the former.

ADSL2+ will be introduced to increase the number of subscribers in affluent areas , not because it supports downlinks of up to 24 Mbits where the current tech supports 8Mbits

I expect a concurrent small increase in distance limits of around 1km from the current 4.5km .

M

SkepticOne

Muck wrote:

I meant both RANGE (packages) and RANGE (distance) with an emphasis on the former.

ADSL2+ will be introduced to increase the number of subscribers in affluent areas , not because it supports downlinks of up to 24 Mbits where the current tech supports 8Mbits

Unfortunately, they have little incentive to bring out higher spec products due to lack of competition. Where I live, even with RADSL, technically I should be able to get 5Mbit/sec. They will sit on ADSL2+ just like they are sitting on RADSL.

Ripwave

SkepticOne wrote:

I agree. Most of the other ones simply follow from these two. I would say that #2 follows from #7. The devil is in the detail on how #7 (bridging the last/first mile) should be solved and which should be the subject of the plan.

In other words, the Oireachtas Report doesn't actually answer Martins question. It's a "plan for a plan". That's not a criticism of the report, by the way - it's supposed to provide an overview of what needs to be done, and it does a good job of that. It doesn't address specific details, which is what Martins question is about.

Looking at the first, although there is no broadband available, demand for broadband translates into dial-up and ISDN profits for Eircom. If broadband were to be provided, revenues from these inferior services vanish. From Eircom's monopoly point of view, revenue is what matters not benefit to consumers.

Whether you thing it's "real" FRIACO or not, the 150/180 packages have effectively capped eircoms income in this area. If there are significant numbers of people regularly paying more than €30/month in per minute charges rather than using one (or two) flatrate packages dialup, it's not obvious that eircom can be considered at fault.

The number of people who would benefit from "unlimited" dialup packages could probably fit in a meedium sized meeting room. And unlimited dialup at €10/month would actually drive down demand for broadband at €35/€40 month, because the price differential would be too big a leap for ordinary users.

Ripwave

Sleepy wrote:

Define Broadband to be a minimum of 128kbps and force Eircom to provide dial up internet access free of charge to anyone who fails the line test for broadband.

What mechanisms do you propose should be used to "force Eircom" to do this? Are there any that have a snowballs chance in hell of withstanding a legal challenge?

spongebob

The USO Directive itself permits Comreg to create a package ....in essence.

M

Ripwave

MarVeL wrote:

How about requiring the reasons behind line fails to be made available (preferably including whether or not there is a pairgain on the line) along with an estimated cost to correct any issues, other than distance obviously.

The almost pathalogical fear of providing real information to the public is certainly a very real part of the problem. Unfortunately the mushroom treatment* of customers and the public generally is such an ingrained fact of Irish business and political life that I can't see it being addresses any time soon. I was under the impression that Comreg has directed eircom to provide some information to people who request new lines, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that eircom isn't ignoring that "guidance" as well.

* Mushroom Treatment: keep 'em in the dark and feed them horse****

Ripwave

SkepticOne wrote:

Even the current Eircom ADSL service (a standard that is several years old) does not make full use of the technology (which should go up to 8Mbit/sec for those near the exchange) so why should we expect them to make full use of ADSL2+. Look at the price of 2Mbit ADSL from Eircom.

Given the amount of stick they take for the fact that they can only deliver their current service on 50% or so of the lines in the country, why would they want to create even more hassle for themselves by offering 8Mb services to a tiny proportion of their customers, unless they can offer it at a substantial price premium?

Politically, it's not worth the hassle. Eircom are effectively stuck with a "one size fits all" pricing plan, because any pricing plan that is seen to advantage certain parts of the country will be a PR disaster. As long as that's the case, they have a big disincentive to producing higher speed services, unless they price it well above the "basic" service.

Not to put too fine a point in it, what's in it for them? In already congested areas, it buys them more lines with less crosstalk, and throughout the country ADSL2+ could buy them higher distance limits. But higher specced services at the same price, as long as you're close to the exchange? They got away with "up to 512k" RADSL, but they wouldn't get away with 8MB in my exchange, and 512k in your exchange!

Paddy20

Have you never heard of the FOI [Freedom of information Acts]. Eircom are obliged Afaik to supply the information required as they supply a vital public range of public/utilities services.

IOFFL have only just received a massive tome of FOI material which hopefully will throw some light and truth on this national scandal.

It is high time our wonderful Government, learned how to Govern on behalf of all sectors of this community.

Moriarty

Ripwave wrote:

Given the amount of stick they take for the fact that they can only deliver their current service on 50% or so of the lines in the country, why would they want to create even more hassle for themselves by offering 8Mb services to a tiny proportion of their customers, unless they can offer it at a substantial price premium?

Politically, it's not worth the hassle. Eircom are effectively stuck with a "one size fits all" pricing plan, because any pricing plan that is seen to advantage certain parts of the country will be a PR disaster. As long as that's the case, they have a big disincentive to producing higher speed services, unless they price it well above the "basic" service.

I don't buy that for a minute. People are annoyed with eircoms (lack of) provision of dsl because it's a policy decision on their part. What you're talking about are technical limitations of the equipment that all telcos have to deal with.

No reasonable person would blame eircom if they were offering these services but couldn't get access to them because they were too far from the exchange. Everyone knows that DSL is a distance sensitive technology. Eircom are in no way to blame for that. If you don't like it, you move closer to an exchange or look into other methods of delivery.

Ripwave

Moriarty wrote:

People are annoyed with eircoms (lack of) provision of dsl because it's a policy decision on their part

The decision not to make 8MB services available close to the exchange is a policy decison too, and it seems some people are starting to get annoyed about it!

Moriarty wrote:

No reasonable person would blame eircom if they were offering these services but couldn't get access to them because they were too far from the exchange. Everyone knows that DSL is a distance sensitive technology. Eircom are in no way to blame for that. If you don't like it, you move closer to an exchange or look into other methods of delivery.

I agree with you, Moriarty. Unfortunately, constant reading of this forum and the Broadband forum has left me with the distinct impression that there are lots of people complaining that they can't get DSL even though they are too far from the exchange, and blaming eircom for this state of affairs. They don't think that they're being unreasonable. And they won't particularly thank you for suggesting that they are being unreasonable

And obviously, that's aside from all the people who aren't too far from and exchange, and still can't get broadband.

SeaSide

Can I observe that "we" are always fighting for the bare minimum.

I remember that five years ago the fight was just to get an ISDN connection and that took a couple of years. Then the fight was just to get FRIACO and that took another couple of years. Then the fight was to get DSL and now the fight is to get a DSL connection.

As the fight has always been at the backside (among the sh1te) of the beast there has never been a way that the direction can be influenced.

Getting back to Donegal Mans original question the answer to what I at least want is fibre. Everything else will eventually top out and therefore fibre will eventually have to be dug.

jd

Paddy20 wrote:

Have you never heard of the FOI [Freedom of information Acts]. Eircom are obliged Afaik to supply the information required as they supply a vital public range of public/utilities services.

FOI only applies to government bodies.
look here

damien

Think Paddy20 meant info Eircom supply the Govt and ComReg. The answer is no too. They can stick a "confidential" tag on it and that's that really.

But I do have a nice fresh letter about my FOI request on line failures. I'll post it in the FOI thread and keep this on topic.

jwt

Ripwave wrote:

What mechanisms do you propose should be used to "force Eircom" to do this? Are there any that have a snowballs chance in hell of withstanding a legal challenge?

How did they do it in Holland? What makes them so different from us.

Apart from the willingness to do it

Ripwave wrote:

Unfortunately, constant reading of this forum and the Broadband forum has left me with the distinct impression that there are lots of people complaining that they can't get DSL even though they are too far from the exchange, and blaming eircom for this state of affairs. They don't think that they're being unreasonable. And they won't particularly thank you for suggesting that they are being unreasonable

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me when you look at the Uk or northern Ireland and see customers getting BB 10+ Km from an exchange.
And that is eircom's fault.
Poorly maintained copper coupled with an arbritary limit placed on ADSL combine to keep customers from receiving bb when if they were in the exact same position in the UK they would have few if any issues.

Fair enough if you are 20 miles from an exchange in the dark valley somewhere, but more than 3.5 km from a city centre exchange? And even inside the 3.5km its dubious if you can get bb.

Ripwave wrote:

The number of people who would benefit from "unlimited" dialup packages could probably fit in a meedium sized meeting room. And unlimited dialup at €10/month would actually drive down demand for broadband at €35/€40 month, because the price differential would be too big a leap for ordinary users.

Very true.

John

eircomtribunal

Ripwave wrote:

Whether you think it's "real" FRIACO or not, the 150/180 packages have effectively capped eircoms income in this area. If there are significant numbers of people regularly paying more than €30/month in per minute charges rather than using one (or two) flatrate packages dialup, it's not obvious that eircom can be considered at fault.

This is a very important issue and I would not want to see it put aside by this throw-away analyses.
It is not about whether Eircom is at fault etc. Dermot did not direct ComReg to make prepaid Internet hours available, but affordable always on Internet access. The current FRIACO prepaid hours packages cannot and do not attract newcomers to the Net. Our dismal 37% Internet penetration of households will, if not rectified by proper flat-rate, seriously hinder our bb development.

The number of people who would benefit from "unlimited" dialup packages could probably fit in a meedium sized meeting room. And unlimited dialup at €10/month would actually drive down demand for broadband at €35/€40 month, because the price differential would be too big a leap for ordinary users.

The contrary is the case in both cases:
1.The whole population needs a € 10 flat-rate dial up, the lack of it is the cause of our dismal Internet figures.
2. The US with their 10 dollar flat-rate have experienced a migration of over half of Net users to broadband.
Not having a lot of Internet users because of ridiculously overpriced dial-up or prepaid hours FRIACO is hindering bb uptake.

Why should somebody who cannot get bb have the pleasure to reward Eircom with 30 euros for 150 hours narrowband access that fecks up his phone line, when the luckier bb enabled user can have always on broadband, that does not feck up his line for the same amount?

P.

SkepticOne

Ripwave wrote:

SkepticOne wrote:

Even the current Eircom ADSL service (a standard that is several years old) does not make full use of the technology (which should go up to 8Mbit/sec for those near the exchange) so why should we expect them to make full use of ADSL2+. Look at the price of 2Mbit ADSL from Eircom.

In other words, the Oireachtas Report doesn't actually answer Martins question. It's a "plan for a plan". That's not a criticism of the report, by the way - it's supposed to provide an overview of what needs to be done, and it does a good job of that. It doesn't address specific details, which is what Martins question is about.

I assumed Martin's question was about the detail of what needs to be done as well as the broad overview.

SkepticOne wrote:

Looking at the first, although there is no broadband available, demand for broadband translates into dial-up and ISDN profits for Eircom. If broadband were to be provided, revenues from these inferior services vanish. From Eircom's monopoly point of view, revenue is what matters not benefit to consumers.

Whether you thing it's "real" FRIACO or not, the 150/180 packages have effectively capped eircoms income in this area. If there are significant numbers of people regularly paying more than €30/month in per minute charges rather than using one (or two) flatrate packages dialup, it's not obvious that eircom can be considered at fault.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real" FRIACO. I don't think I used the expression in my suggestions. With regard to Eircom being "at fault", Eircom simply operate their business to maximise revenue. Whether this revenue comes from broadband, dial-up, the tax-payer etc. makes no difference to them. It is not Eircom's "fault" that they still make money from dial-up or ISDN but from the consumers point of view it is a problem. It is to improve the situation from the consumers point of view that I made these suggestions. What I said was that demand for broadband translates into dial-up and ISDN revenues for Eircom in areas where broadband is not available. Do you have a problem with this?

The number of people who would benefit from "unlimited" dialup packages could probably fit in a meedium sized meeting room. And unlimited dialup at €10/month would actually drive down demand for broadband at €35/€40 month, because the price differential would be too big a leap for ordinary users.

I don't think I raised the issue of "unlimited" dialup vs other dial-up. Why are you arguing this point?

Personally, I don't think demand for broadband is the issue at hand. If very cheap dial-up was available as well as broadband and someone choose dial-up because it is cheaper, that is fine even if it lessens the demand for broaband.

It is possible that in the US, for example, where people generally don't pay metered rates for dial-up and most of the packages are unlimted, that this has lessened the demand for broadband. So what? The important thing is that people are getting the services they want.

Overall take-up figures for broadband are important for other reasons perhaps, but from the individual consumer's point of view it is not a concern.

SkepticOne

Ripwave wrote:

[quote=SkepticOne
Even the current Eircom ADSL service (a standard that is several years old) does not make full use of the technology (which should go up to 8Mbit/sec for those near the exchange) so why should we expect them to make full use of ADSL2+. Look at the price of 2Mbit ADSL from Eircom.

[...]Not to put too fine a point in it, what's in it for them? In already congested areas, it buys them more lines with less crosstalk, and throughout the country ADSL2+ could buy them higher distance limits. But higher specced services at the same price, as long as you're close to the exchange? They got away with "up to 512k" RADSL, but they wouldn't get away with 8MB in my exchange, and 512k in your exchange![/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you are responding to here (maybe someone elses post?). What I and others have been arguing is that in the absence of competition, there is little incentive for Eircom to change their behavior. Hence suggestions for LLU, etc. In countries where there is such competition, those political reasons ("Politically, it's not worth the hassle. Eircom are effectively stuck with a "one size fits all" pricing plan,") you mention would not be a consideration.

AndrewMc

eircomtribunal wrote:

The contrary is the case in both cases:
1.The whole population needs a € 10 flat-rate dial up, the lack of it is the cause of our dismal Internet figures.
2. The US with their 10 dollar flat-rate have experienced a migration of over half of Net users to broadband.

Not having a lot of Internet users because of ridiculously overpriced dial-up or prepaid hours FRIACO is hindering bb uptake.

Why should somebody who cannot get bb have the pleasure to reward Eircom with 30 euros for 150 hours narrowband access that fecks up his phone line, when the luckier bb enabled user can have always on broadband, that does not feck up his line for the same amount?

Would it be reasonable (i.e. realistic, really...) if it was suggested to Comreg that if somebody's line can't carry DSL yet, then they should get FRIACO at half the normal price, or even less. If Eircom make almost nothing from dial-up, it might provide some sort of incentive to improve DSL availability.

It's not 10 euro-for-all, but it's a compromise of some sort. Kinda like welfare for the communicationally-challenged.

Maybe not. Haven't had my morning coffee yet

eircomtribunal

SkepticOne wrote:

If very cheap dial-up was available as well as broadband and someone choose dial-up because it is cheaper, that is fine even if it lessens the demand for broaband.

It is possible that in the US, for example, where people generally don't pay metered rates for dial-up and most of the packages are unlimted, that this has lessened the demand for broadband. So what? The important thing is that people are getting the services they want.

I'd like to point this out again, as I think it is very important.

Cheap flat-rate access is essential to entice as many people as possible to use the Internet. The more Internet users we have the bigger the demand for and migration to broadband.
In the US (with long established sub 10 € monthly narrow-band flat-rate) now over 50% access the Net by broadband, in Ireland the figure is 7%, in many EU countries it still below the 50%.

Narrowband access of anachronistic, but we are caught in the past and still need this crutch of flat-rate narrowband to catch up. Our 37% household Internet penetration is just way too low.
Even if, like in the US, 50% of our 476 000 online-households would (or could!) migrate to broadband, we could not even achieve the EU average of 20% broadband household penetration.
Our basis is too small.

And making sure the incumbent does not make a fortune out of dial-up revenue from the unfortunate he excludes from broadband access, is a powerful incentive for the incumbent to invest in broadband.

P.

spongebob

AndrewMc wrote:

Would it be reasonable (i.e. realistic, really...) if it was suggested to Comreg that if somebody's line can't carry DSL yet, then they should get FRIACO at half the normal price, or even less. If Eircom make almost nothing from dial-up, it might provide some sort of incentive to improve DSL availability.

This is a virtous linkage Andrew. In the event that a line cannot support functional internet access the person must spend far longer online for the same 'result' . Giving them a discounted rate encourages the owner of the line to fix same and give themselves a revenue increase on the spot. It is consistent with the legal obligation on Comreg to ensure that Functional Internet Accesss (FIA) is universally available. A special €10 rate for Unlimited FRIACO for an impaired line focuses the mind . Fixing that line can produce €20 revenue a month from day one (daytime package) .

Furthermore, if the internal wiring on the premises is at fault (as it often is) the owner of the wires can simply test just outside the premises , establish that it is working in a manner consistent with FIA and serve notice on the customer that they should deal with the wiring inside themselves......and probably charge €50 for the unneccesary visit as well. Therefore it is not a regulatory 'burden' as there is a mechanism to claw back costs where the line is not at fault.

Your suggestion is equitable to all the stakeholders and is easy to administer.

M

SkepticOne

eircomtribunal wrote:

And making sure the incumbent does not make a fortune out of dial-up revenue from the unfortunate he excludes from broadband access, is a powerful incentive for the incumbent to invest in broadband.

I certainly agree with this.

Where we might differ is on the the use of flat-rate as a demand stimulation tool for broadband or for the internet in general. I have very little interest in demand stimulation measures as I think it obscures the issue of supply and is often used by telcos and policy makers as a way of justifying poor supply. For me, the important thing is that broadband is available to those that want it. That was always my understanding of the goals of IOFFL although I stand to be corrected.

Overall figures for broadband are important, but I prefer to view them as symptoms of underlying supply problems rather than goals to be achieved in themselves.

As far as flat rate is concerned I certainly agree that the lower the price, the better. Same with broadband. I view these as good in themselves.

Ripwave

eircomtribunal wrote:

This is a very important issue and I would not want to see it put aside by this throw-away analyses.
....
The contrary is the case in both cases:
1.The whole population needs a € 10 flat-rate dial up, the lack of it is the cause of our dismal Internet figures.
2. The US with their 10 dollar flat-rate have experienced a migration of over half of Net users to broadband.

Not having a lot of Internet users because of ridiculously overpriced dial-up or prepaid hours FRIACO is hindering bb uptake.

For a man who claims to dislike "throw-away analyses", you seem to be very fond of tossing them off yourself.

The population doesn't "need" €10 flat-rate dialup. In a country where people happily pay 50c/minute to make a mobile call, it's really not credible to suggest that cost is a huge barrier to wider take-up of the internet.

And then there's your absurd view of the US market. Dialup accounts from the major ISPs in the US cost from $17 to $24/month, plus taxes, plus call charges (yes, Virginia there really are local call charges in many parts of the US!)

MSN.com - $21.95 plus tax ($14.95+tax for 20 hours)
AOL.com - $23.90 plus tax
AT&T Worldnet - $21.95 plus tax ($16.95 plus tax for 150 hours)

The mass migration of US dialup users do broadband has come about because the premium for going from dialup to broadband is relatively small - DSL special offers are available for as little as $30/month (plus tax). But then, we have some pretty attractive DSL starter offers here at the moment too. Someone currently spending €25/month for dialup probably doesn't take too much encouragement to spend €30-€40 on DSL, where it is an available option. Getting them to go from €10 to €40 would be a different story.

Why should somebody who cannot get bb have the pleasure to reward Eircom with 30 euros for 150 hours narrowband access that fecks up his phone line, when the luckier bb enabled user can have always on broadband, that does not feck up his line for the same amount?

Why should someone get 150 hours of dialup for only €30, when their neighbour is paying 1.2c/minute to call his friends and family?

Eurorunner

Dialup accounts from the major ISPs in the US cost from $17 to $24/month, plus taxes, plus call charges (yes, Virginia there really are local call charges in many parts of the US!)

Im sure it varies but on the other end of the scale, in Carson City, Nevada, a pal of mine is paying a big fat zero for dialup.

Ripwave

eircomtribunal wrote:

In the US (with long established sub 10 € monthly narrow-band flat-rate)

Where did you get this number from? Every major US dialup ISP costs over $20/month. The migration to DSL was helped by the fact that the incremental cost of switching to broadband was relatively low.

Ripwave

Eurorunner wrote:

Im sure it varies but on the other end of the scale, in Carson City, Nevada, a pal of mine is paying a big fat zero for dialup.

AOL has tens of millions of customers paying over $20/month. How many customers are availaing of your friends zero cost ISP?

Ripwave

SkepticOne wrote:

I'm not sure what you are responding to here (maybe someone elses post?).

If I wanted to have a private conversation with you, I'd use the PM system.

SkepticOne

Ripwave, and your suggestions to the problem of poor availability of broadband are...? What should the government do?

Ripwave

SkepticOne wrote:

Ripwave, and your suggestions to the problem of poor availability of broadband are...? What should the government do?

Why don't you read what I posted, Skeptic? You can start with the very first response in the whole thread!

eircomtribunal

Ripwave wrote:

Where did you get this number from? Every major US dialup ISP costs over $20/month. The migration to DSL was helped by the fact that the incremental cost of switching to broadband was relatively low.

Your argumentation about the reasons for migration to dsl in the US is interesting...


In the Msn link here

http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=features/compare&HL=Compare_Plans&ST=1&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-us

where do I go wrong to assume that I don't get real narrowband flat rate for 9.95 Dollars a month (+ three month free with sign-up)?

Or in the offers in this link? http://www.thelist.com/misc/usa/

P.

Eurorunner

Ripwave wrote:

AOL has tens of millions of customers paying over $20/month. How many customers are availaing of your friends zero cost ISP?

"Im sure it varies" remember?
Just illustrating that there are free dialup deals over there too.

Ripwave

eircomtribunal wrote:

Your argumentation about the reasons for migration to dsl in the US is interesting...

In the Msn link here

http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=features/compare&HL=Compare_Plans&ST=1&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-us

where do I go wrong to assume that I don't get real narrowband flat rate for 9.95 Dollars a month (+ three month free with sign-up)?

The title right there at the top of the first column would be the first place - MSN® Premium Internet Software does NOT include Internet access.. The second hint would be the line that says Unlimited Internet Access
(7000+ Local Access Numbers) Not Included

The $9.95 package gives you access to MSN.com premium content over your existing internet connection, it doesn't give you a dialup account.

Or in the offers in this link? http://www.thelist.com/misc/usa/

I didn't say that you couldn't get dialup access for less than $20 - I said that every major US ISP charges over $20 for unlimited dialup - and that means that the vast majority of US dialup users are paying far more than your $10/month. So your whole arguement that this $10 rate is vital to takeup is baseless, because $10/month is far from typcial of US dalup users.

eircomtribunal

Ripwave wrote:

AOL has tens of millions of customers paying over $20/month. How many customers are availaing of your friends zero cost ISP?

AOL is not a normal dial-up service as you know! It is disingenuous to use the AOL pricing in this discussion, to say the least.
P.

Ripwave

eircomtribunal wrote:

AOL is not a normal dial-up service as you know! It is disingenuous to use the AOL pricing in this discussion, to say the least.
P.

You're the one being disengenuous, Peter - you know very well that AOL is the only way that 10's of millions of US users experience the internet.

Very few of the 10's of millions of US housholds that are paying $23.90 to AOL to get access to the Internet bother paying someone else another $10/month to dial into the "plain" internet.

The US market is very, very different from the Irish internet market. "Content Services" like AOL and MSN go some way to explain the higher internet penetration in those markets. If you want to draw parallels with the US market, you can't just pick and choose the bits that happen to suit your argument, and ignore the bits that don't.

eircomtribunal

Ripwave wrote:

The title right there at the top of the first column would be the first place - MSN® Premium Internet Software does NOT include Internet access.. The second hint would be the line that says Unlimited Internet Access
(7000+ Local Access Numbers) Not Included

The $9.95 package gives you access to MSN.com premium content over your existing internet connection, it doesn't give you a dialup account.

Ok, I overlooked this one.
But both AOL and MSN are Premium ISP's and offer a lot more than flat-rate for 20 dollars. Their service is not comparable to our 150 hours prepaid for 29.95 Euros (=37 dollars).
The normal flat-rate Internet access in the US is 10 dollars and less. That was the recipe for rapid Internet take-up in the US.
P.

Slutmonkey57b

Interesting question. The problem is not lack of thoughts on what the solution is, but there are so many problems, which one do you tackle first? Soo.. I'd plump for a number of answers:

1: Remove the current pricing regime for LLU and replace it with one in which NOT ONLY the "obvious" €14 charge is reduced, but in which the majority of the superfluous "survey" charges eircom hands out to competitors is reduced or removed. We hear a lot about the €14 but not a lot about the thousands it costs for a company to even find out if they CAN supply a customer. Personally I'd be prepared to spend as much on line rental as I currently do if it was going to a different company - that's how much I hate the incumbant.

2: Fuctional Internet defined at 64k+ on ALL lines, with last mile provision of service to be flexible. Ergo no, the incumbant doesn't have to rip up the roads if it doesn't want to and can deploy wireless instead. BT's move to IP-based systems indicates that a forward thinking company sees capex as not a burden but a competitive advantage.

3: Muck for the vacant Commissioner's post in Comreg. Free kick up the arse for all the lackeys and PR recyclers in there. Not to mention a big scare for eircom.

I was going to suggest a general review of eircom's pricing "basket" but the stick-v-carrott approach here is if the financial and political press really start to take on board the implications of what O'Reilly and co have scammed out of the country, and the taxpayer, with their acquisition of eircom and the rape of its balance sheet. Assuming they ever get wind of it, it will provide more than ample pressure for the establishemnt to put the boot in, if only to save its political neck.

The debate of flatrate dialup's effect on broadband penetration is an interesting one, but as an obvious piece of anecdotal evidence, don't you find it's true that once introduced to the internet, a new user always finds more use for it than they first thought? My experience is that even the most technophobe of people when they get a handle on things like a mobile phone or a computer, embrace far more of what they can do with it than you might expect. Dialup is still usually the first step and if this is cheap enough, let's face it it only takes a couple of months of frustrating modem use, followed by a 5-minute display of broadband, for most people to take the plunge to the newer technology because they'll see what they get for their extra €€.

Ripwave

eircomtribunal wrote:

Ok, I overlooked this one.
But both AOL and MSN are Premium ISP's and offer a lot more than flat-rate for 20 dollars. Their service is not comparable to our 150 hours prepaid for 29.95 Euros (=37 dollars).

Peter, you keep going on about internet penetration rates. The simple fact of the matter is that the US's high internet penetration rate was achieved because of these Premium ISPs - if you want to discount them, then fine, but you'd need to cut the US's internet penetration rate in half.

eircomtribunal wrote:

The normal flat-rate Internet access in the US is 10 dollars and less. That was the recipe for rapid Internet take-up in the US.
P.

That's just utter nonsense. There isn't a single "low price" ISP in the US that's even a household name - I doubt that more than 10% of US dialup users are using <$10 dialup ISP, and they're far less likely to "upgrade" to $35/month for broadband than someone who's used to paying $25/month for dialup.

Eurorunner

Was chatting with my m8 in Nevada and ran it past him:
Hes actually using a relatives yahoo dialup account - yahoo give their broadband customers a free dialup account as backup - which is a novel idea. Otherwise, he says he would be paying $15/month for dialup.

Other than that, hes paying €23/month line rental with free local calls.

spongebob

Ripwave wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is that the US's high internet penetration rate was achieved because of these Premium ISPs - if you want to discount them, then fine, but you'd need to cut the US's internet penetration rate in half.

Normally I would avoid pedantry but MSN / AOL / Compuserve are not and never were ISP's . They are Online Services .

You would be correct were you to say that the US (and UK and Germany) have a high Online Service penetration as well as High Internet penetration. In Ireland they are invisible outside of Dublin.

There isn't a single "low price" ISP in the US that's even a household name - I doubt that more than 10% of US dialup users are using <$10 dialup ISP, and they're far less likely to "upgrade" to $35/month for broadband than someone who's used to paying $25/month for dialup.

Nationally no, you are right about the branding . but locally yes . Earthlink is quite large and is a 'pure' ISP but there are others .

Ultimately the US model is that you pay your telco a sort of FRIACO and and then pay your service provider for access to an Internet port . This dual contract mechanism applies to BB too.

M

damien

This has turned into a debate on whether flat rate dialup will promote broadband use. This needs its own thread. Can someone split this and can we get back to the Martin's question ?

Ripwave

Muck wrote:

Normally I would avoid pedantry but MSN / AOL / Compuserve are not and never were ISP's . They are Online Services

Muck, they're how the vast majority of US dial-ip users access the Internet - they are Internet Service Providers in any sane, rational sense.

Nationally no, you are right about the branding . but locally yes . Earthlink is quite large and is a 'pure' ISP but there are others .

Muck, you have about as much experience of the US dialup market as Peter does. Earthlink is a national ISP, and the only reason I didn't list their $21.95/month standard price in the list I posted yesterday is because their site was too slow to load.

The bottom line, though, is that US dialup users are more likely to be paying $20/month than $10/month for their "internet access". So the argument that we "need" €10/month all you can eat dialup access to encourage internet penetration is simply not grounded in reality.

Urban Weigl

Ripwave wrote:

So the argument that we "need" €10/month all you can eat dialup access to encourage internet penetration is simply not grounded in reality.

I can speak for the people that I have talked to in my area when I say that many just do not bother with the internet, because dialup is too uncertain in terms of cost, but €30 is too expensive for what it is.

Beyond that, there are plenty of ISP's in the US that come in around that price point. I think someone mentioned Yahoo! not being far off, and in Texas, Everyones Internet is a big brand (ev1.net). They have always offered "just 10 bucks" all you can eat dialup. I asked a mate of mine who is still on dialup, and he says he pays $12 a month to his local ISP, plus $18 line rental, which includes free local calls.

I also remember AOL losing market share fast at one stage, because they were being squeezed by the "$10 vanilla ISP" on one side, and broadband on the other.

I'm not saying that $10 "all you can eat" access is the holy grail, but here are two facts: it will help, and it will motivate to roll out broadband, because right now Eircom still sees dialup as a cash cow. And quite frankly, with the state of internet penetration and broadband availability in Ireland, we need all the help we can get!

Ripwave

Urban Weigl wrote:

I can speak for the people that I have talked to in my area when I say that many just do not bother with the internet, because dialup is too uncertain in terms of cost, but €30 is too expensive for what it is.

eircom offers a €10/month, and €20/month and a €30/month plan. IOL/Esat offers €10, €15, €20 and €27 packages. UTV has a €10 package, and a €25 package.

The people who "do not bother with the internet" don't need, or want, to pay for 6 hours a day services. If they don't want to go online, they don't want to go online - big stinking deal! If they think €10/month is too expensive, it's because they don't think they'll spend an hour a day online, not because 35c/hour is too expensive. Cheaper broadband won't convince them that they need to spend more than an hour a day online. (And this is where the constant comparisons to the US really run themselves into the ground - content really did play a big part in the growth of internet penetration in the US. That particular enticement is missing for many potential Irish users - online shopping isn't all that enticing, increasingly cheap international and national calls makes e-mail less attractive, relatively pain-free access to local news, sport and entertainment through traditional media.

Beyond that, there are plenty of ISP's in the US that come in around that price point.

How often do I have to repeat myself on this - the issue isn't whether there are cheap dialup services available in the US - the issue is whether "under $10/month" is "normal" for US dial-up users. It isn't, plain and simple.

I'm not saying that $10 "all you can eat" access is the holy grail, but here are two facts: it will help, and it will motivate to roll out broadband, because right now Eircom still sees dialup as a cash cow.

You know, I'm becoming convinced that some of you think that the phrase "critical thinking" desribes the process of thiking up new ways to criticise eircom, or the government, or whoever else is supposed to be responsible for your woes.

Cheap dialup access will discourage people from upgrading to broadband. And dialup is not a "cash cow" for eircom anymore. (At least, it isn't any more of a cash cow than DSL is). If you just want to wave your magic want and decree that eircom should provide unlimited dialup access for €10/month, whether it's economically feasible or not, why don't you just go the whole hog and use your magic wand to deliver DSL for €10 instead?

eircomtribunal

Ripwave wrote:

Cheap dialup access will discourage people from upgrading to broadband. And dialup is not a "cash cow" for eircom anymore. (At least, it isn't any more of a cash cow than DSL is). If you just want to wave your magic want and decree that eircom should provide unlimited dialup access for €10/month, whether it's economically feasible or not, why don't you just go the whole hog and use your magic wand to deliver DSL for €10 instead?

I think we've fecked up Martin's thread bad enough by now - sorry for that.

Let's agree to disagree and just let it stand at those opposing statements?

Your statement above and mine here:

Cheap real flate-rate dial-up is necessary to encourage more Irish people to discover the Internet. This will result in a wider base for people to migrate to broadband.
Dial-up is still the cash cow for Eircom (more dial-up minutes than call minutes, according to Comreg), with Broadband they cannibalise their profits from leased lines and dial-up ("free", subscription and prepaid hours)
Our current "30 euros for 150 prepaid hours FRIACO" is lunacy.

P

Ripwave

eircomtribunal wrote:

Let's agree to disagree and just let it stand at those opposing statements?

Okay, you can pull random numbers out of thin air and convince yourself that they mean something, and I'll stick with rational assumptions, based on the real world.

Cheap real flate-rate dial-up is necessary to encourage more Irish people to discover the Internet.

NEWSFLASH! We have cheap dialup access for people who want to "discover the Internet". Pay as you go is far cheaper for people who want to "try out" the internet than prepaid, lump sum, minimum contact packages (you know, like the ones they have in America?). You can "try out" the internet for a euro an hour, without any commitment, and no worry about "wasting" the lump sum.

The only argument that you've provided to support your argument has already been demonstrated to be nonsense, as you obviously don't have any useful knowledge of the US dialup market.

This will result in a wider base for people to migrate to broadband.

Here we go again. Why would an ordinary web user step up from €10/month flat rate to €35/month broadband? Sure, the P2Pers will, and the gamers might. But they're a tiny minority. The people booking an aerlingus.com flight 3 times a year? The people who send a couple of e-mails a week? I don't think so.

You've decided what you want the world to look like, and you're redefining the data to give you the answer that you want.

Dial-up is still the cash cow for Eircom (more dial-up minutes than call minutes, according to Comreg),

Hello??? Anyone there? A business that makes 120 hours of local calls in a month will be charged over €200. If they make 120 hours of calls to the internet, they'll pay €30.

Some cash cow. It WAS a cash cow, before they were forced to introduce flat-rate packages. While it's unlikely that eircom are losing money on those packages, they're still making far, far less than they used to, and online minutes have probably gone up as a result.

spongebob

Ripwave.

40% of homes use the internet to some degree. As 100,000 homes (max) have BB we can assume that the rest use the Tooth Fairy or Dial Up ....or else they sit in circles chanting ummmmmmmmmmmmmmUUUUUUMmmmmmmmmm and crank a few packets out that way. ME! , I think they use dial up . 500,000 of them out c.600,000 home internet users.

Eircom in their SEC filing indicated that some 50,000 were on FRIACO , I would bet thats wholesale FRIACO or all of the FRIACO user base .

The other 450,000 of them are on PAYG 1892 or Discounted Daytime PAYG 1891. I make that 90% of Dial Up users and over 4 times the number of BB customers in the country. who are not on any form of useful home package.

This clump of 450,000 users are the ones who should be encouraged to move to FRIACO where their usage justifies it or may justify it if they were not counting the minutes.

Yes we can forget Anty Mary and her 2 Ryanair flights a year but an education campaign is required for FRIACO as there are maybe 100,000 potential beneficiaries out there who do not need BB but who have reasonable online usage.

Why don't you set out your stall on what the issues are (as you see them) and what can be done to sort them (as you see it) instead of constantly knocking others with your relentless pointless pedantry and negativity .

M