ADSL Enabled exchange costs?

wiredup

Does anyone know the exact procedure for ADSL enabling an Eircom exchange and what the costs might be?
Obviously I assume there is an equipment upgrade but what is this equipment and is it just a case of installing it or is it far more complicated.

I would guess it is an expensive process which is why so many of us rural dwellers are without ADSL, Eircom would not recoup its investment.

But out of interest, I'd love to know the costs. I'm sure at least a 100 people in my area would pay 35 Euro a month = 3500 Euro monthly income for EircoN not to mention 42000 Euro yearly income.

Praetorian

wiredup wrote:

Does anyone know the exact procedure for ADSL enabling an Eircom exchange and what the costs might be?
Obviously I assume there is an equipment upgrade but what is this equipment and is it just a case of installing it or is it far more complicated.

I would guess it is an expensive process which is why so many of us rural dwellers are without ADSL, Eircom would not recoup its investment.

But out of interest, I'd love to know the costs. I'm sure at least a 100 people in my area would pay 35 Euro a month = 3500 Euro monthly income for EircoN not to mention 42000 Euro yearly income.

50 k of equip possibly, but it varies depending on the equip needed and the work they have to do to install.

watty

Nah, DSLAMs much cheaper. About $50 once off per customer. Expected to fall to $20 per customer soon says BT.

NEC's vdsl is gaing ground as Telcos realise it gives near fibre capacity on existing copper. They won big contract in Turkey and doing well selling to Bells in USA.

Don't hold breath for 100Mbit or higher vDSL per customer like they have in many other countries here. Even works over copper configured with ISDN rather than POTS (analog).

watty

If Eircom pays $50,000 for small exchange DSLAM it explains why they are the most expensive Telco in Europe and not the richest.

watty

The real issue is Eircom doesn't want anyone to have adsl. Unless Comreg lets them double the line rental.

eircomtribunal

Eircom's calculation is very simple:

If enabling a small exchange would cost 50 000 euros:

with 200 adsl customers:
50 000 : by 12 months = 4,166.66 euros
4,166.66 euros : by 200 customers = 20.83 euros (per adsl customer per month)

i.e. with the normal adsl pricing the expenditure of enabling the exchange will be paid for in a single year

But:
Eircom makes an average of currently € 34 per month per dial-up Internet user.
As long as our regulator is not willing or in a position to follow the old DCMNR direction to bring about the introduction of end-user flat rate dial-up Internet access (*), Eircom has no financial reason to enable that exchange.
McRedmond rather goes about lying to the public about the necessity of demand stimulation and other nonsense.

* The existing false flat rate dial-up offers are a joke. Eircom is really sticking up the dirty finger to Irish Internet users, the DCMNR and ComReg with charging 30 euros per month for 180 hours of dial-up Internet access (with inbuilt penal overreach charges) while offering a real national talk flat rate package for 15 euros per month!

P.

watty

If you change to Tele2 and use a geographic number for Internet (021, 061, 01 etc) then for 8 euro a month gives any number of 59minutes between 6p 8am and weekends free.

eircomtribunal

Good for the few in the know. Those few make no difference to Eircom's calculation.
And how bitter: Only with a knack like this can we in 2005 achieve something similar to the "no limits" offer, buried in 2001 under the regulator's (ODTR) watch, which should have been the start to all-day (as opposed to only off-peak) flat-rate dial-up.
Instead the incumbent was allowed to price the ordinary punter out of using the Internet – and ever since we see the results of this in more and more damning league table placings; and ever since we have to endure the questions put to us by ignorant regulators, politicians: How come that Paddy of all Europeans does not want to connect to the Internet?

P.

watty

Ironically 4 weeks after figuring out the above I got Broadband (after trying for 6 years) from Digibweb two weeks ago. Last week nearly 4 months after cancelling order with IBB they rang me up to offer a survey. Originally they had offered one, but on basis of a site further away on other side of village with no LOS failing they then refused. I even sent them a phot from her showing OPTICAL LOS with their base.

Eircom has put back IT infrastructure by 10 years in this country and the service from Irish Troll Roads's Wireless company has given Wireless a bad name.

I remeber while working in R&D in a Telecom company in mid 80s An Eircom rep told us (when we tried to sell DTMF upgrade gear for old exchanges).
"But you can get push button pulse dial phones. Why do we need to waste money on DTMF?"

ISDN is over 20 years and Eircom NEVER sold the advantages of it to SoHo. Instead now ripping it out to install OLD adsl gear. Many ADSL systems can run on ISDN enabled lines, but not Ericom's

So I don't beleive it is JUST about hanging onto line rental and dialup charges. They could have made a huge amount from SoHo ISDN stuff. Many decisions and policies smell of rank incompetance.

Solair

Well to be fair, you could get pulse/tone switchable phones and there was little/no advantage to tone dialling on an old crossbar exchange, also some of the old equipment (the last generation of crossbars from ericsson) did support tone dialling. The other gear was ripped out in the 1980s, the remaining few ericsson ARF/ARM crossbar exchanges in local service were gone by the 1990s and the core network's been digital since the 80s.

and eircom were in the middle of a process of ripping out old-tech exchanges and replacing with AXE and E10 digital switches so it would have been a bit of a deadend investment!

Telecom Eireann's network was actually cutting edge by 1980s/early 90s standards. Unfortunately, eircom have let things sit at those levels and haven't really innovated very much when it comes to products pitched at residential / soho users.

But, yes I would agree they totally undersold ISDN to soho customers. It's not a great technology for internet access but it's fantastic for telephony services. e.g. small office phone systems / DECT cordless systems as you can have muliple phone numbers and direct inward dial etc. It's also ideal for services like bank owned point of sales credit card terminals etc as you can dial up almost instantly rather than waiting for a modem to clunk into action.

They obviously don't want to spend the money on the DSL over ISDN. There's also no reason why ISDN-like phone services couldn't be offered over a DSL line using VoIP instead of ISDN to provide the voice services.

I guess that's what you get when you have a commerical monopoly. At least in the 1980s/early 90s Telecom Eireann was a state owned monopoly that was working to provide a public service in the interest of the grater good. It's now just like any other company, working for the good of its shareholders.

In the 1980s the Government had the vision to see that we needed to pour money into telecommunications and billions was spent upgrading the irish network from one of the worst in Europe to being almost totally digital before anyone else was. They committed the necessary money to the project, selected the right technology, didn't mess about and just got on with it.

We need to be doing something like this again for the roll out of broadband. It's crazy to allow Ireland's telecommunications infrastructure to fall behind. As a small remote island we need 2 things.. 1) Excellent telecommunications infrastructure and 2) Excellent airports... Seems we have lost the plot and now have neither!!

Investing in broadband and making sure that it happens would be a tiny investment compared to the kind of money that was spent on the original telecommunications upgrade projects. We have the fiber in place, we're vastly wealthier, consumers might actually spend money on these services etc etc... It's a tiny investment in comparision!

Sponge Bob

Solair wrote:

Investing in broadband and making sure that it happens would be a tiny investment compared to the kind of money that was spent on the original telecommunications upgrade projects. We have the fiber in place, we're vastly wealthier, consumers might actually spend money on these services etc etc... It's a tiny investment in comparision!

Good Point Solair.

The 'original ' telecoms project ran from about 1979 to 1986 and cost at least €1.5 Billion (new poles/copper/exchanges/ducts/tower infrastructure for microwave network ) .

We know from places like Kilcar (paid for by the Udarás ) and Oughterard (paid for by the government thru some agency and GBS ) that Eircom will enable any exchange, no matter how small and no matter how remote , if they are given €80-100k for it.

There are some 800 exchanges including fibre cabs that are not on any upgrade program at present or have adsl already so if eircom got €80m they would upgrade the lot . I have argued before that as long as the "90's" rule is followed that I have no problem with that .

A 4km long bypass (less than three miles) around Kilkenny will cost €31m

clearz

Sponge Bob I think a better comparison in prices would be to the controversial PPARS computer system for managing the payrolls in the health sector with an estimated final cost of €195m by next year.

Also If the government where to pay the 80 million needed it would be only fair that other telecom companys like BT and UTV be given free or minimally priced access to them. Why should Eircom be handed something for free only to then charge their bitstream customers to use it?

eircomtribunal

Funding the incumbent for general exchange upgrade would certainly and understandably run into difficulties with EU regulations – but the relatively small figure for the upgrade shows that the problem is not a monetary one.

Eircom does not want to loose its unfair per minute Internet dial-up access profits (currently the average monthly cost to the Irish Internet user is € 34!), that's what keeps a whole country back..

A gov with enough brains to understand the issue and enough balls would call the Eircom big guys, including the CWU, for tea and let them know in no uncertain terms what gov expects the company to do, or else...

P.

Sponge Bob

I think that Eircomtribunal is correct.

if Eircom were offered the funding for small exchanges , thereby making ADSL universally available to all exchanges (not punters) , Eircom may very well refuse that funding in order to protect their dial up revenue.

If ADSL is available in all exchanges it will also be available to all Bitstream resellers by default Clearz.

The issue of margin squeeze / margin for Bitstream operators is separate and will probably be messed up completely by Comreg as it so far has been .

Duiske

eircomtribunal wrote:

Funding the incumbent for general exchange upgrade would certainly and understandably run into difficulties with EU regulations – but the relatively small figure for the upgrade shows that the problem is not a monetary one.

Eircom does not want to loose its unfair per minute Internet dial-up access profits (currently the average monthly cost to the Irish Internet user is € 34!), that's what keeps a whole country back..



P.

Totally agree. Eircoms stuttering progress in enabling exchanges has to be about dial-up profits. If Eircom had been as forward thinking as companys such as Digiweb or Blueface, we could have had almost total broadband coverage and top notch voip services. But they blew it ! Their fixation on the fixed line revenue stream will be the ruination of that company. Thankfully, we have others willing to pick up the pieces.

kaizersoze

Duiske_Lad wrote:

Thankfully, we have others willing to pick up the pieces.

Who?

cgarvey

Duiske_Lad, I think you're missing the point. Nobody here (other than you) doubts that eircom don't know exactly what's going to happen in the future, wrt the shift to BB & VoIP.

They're just intentionally delaying the inevitable, in the insterest of persuing profit.

Solair

Sponge Bob wrote:

Good Point Solair.

The 'original ' telecoms project ran from about 1979 to 1986 and cost at least €1.5 Billion (new poles/copper/exchanges/ducts/tower infrastructure for microwave network ) .

If you index link that price it was a lot more than 1.5 billion euros in today's terms too.
There were several further massive investment projects too. The 1979 - 1986 project however, probabally had the most substantial impact on the rural areas that are now suffering from lack of broadband. They went from having wind up telephones and operators to having digital lines in a few short years.

There have to be ways of using state funding to help the process along and it doesn't all have to go to eircom either. It's been done in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Rural France etc...

Companies could tender to be the DSL provider in a non enabled exchange provided that they agree to provide bitstream access to other ISPs.

The reality is that we do have a much larger % of small rural exchanges than most other countries. We also don't really have large urban areas that could cross fund things. eircom's shareholders arn't interested in spending money in areas where they won't recoup the investment in the shortterm, so they're sitting on their hands. A little state funding could go a long way in terms of getting things moving in rural areas.

I get the impression that eircom's just lacking in vision and can't see that DSL technology is the way forward. They've a very poor track record in terms of residential marketing... ISDN was over priced for many years and never pushed as a product. Many applications that should have been on ISDN were on dial up modems (Credit card terminals, etc etc) Even enhanced network services offered on digital exchanges since the early 80s (phoneplus... callwaiting etc) were at a price point that was simply too high for yonks and nobody knew that they existed.

It seems to me that eircom are too conservative and still, despite all of their fancy rebranding, and see boring residential voice telephony as their core business.

The one thing that definitely shouldn't happen though is state funding for DSL in urban areas. If eircom's got copper network in urban areas screwed up on their own head be it. They should be digging into their own pockets to fix that mess!

I do however think that the government simply isn't doing nearly enough to sort out any of this mess. It's as serious as it was in the 1970s, in fact, more serious in many ways as it doesn't make any sense at all. At least in the 1970s we were broke!

All the fundementals are right for high broadband penetration:

- young educated population.
- high employment
- loads of money
- available fiber optic back bones / microwave backbones.
- very healthy consumer society.
- and we're consuming every other type of communication product in huge amounts... very high mobile phone penitration, spend hours on phones, text messages in their billions...

Something's seriously rotten in the state of Irish broadband communications!

viking

eircomtribunal wrote:

A gov with enough brains to understand the issue and enough balls would call the Eircom big guys, including the CWU, for tea and let them know in no uncertain terms what gov expects the company to do, or else...

... what?

What would be the stick? The government phone contract? Split eircom into wholesale/retail? Or something else?

Gareth

cgarvey

Solair wrote:

I get the impression that eircom's just lacking in vision and can't see that DSL technology is the way forward.

I think I'll disagree with you there .. they have vision. They were early adopters of MPLS, for example, when many other big telcos were still chewing on what it was. They have vision, and have moved where it meant they'd be hurt otherwise.

With BB, sure there's money in it (and they wouldn't have done anything there at all if there wasn't), but there's a lot more in dialup minutes. Especially in the absence of any FRIACO. They're just a typical telco. You can be conservative and slow moving, but I don't think they lack vision. They adopt very quickly to changing markets, but only when they have to .. which means that they've thought about this well beforehand. What commercial incentive is there for BB investment? Apart from future proofing (which they have the cash to do, if they wanted to/suddenly had to), I can't see any, now at least. When triple play becomes a reality, that could all change very quickly, but in the meantime just because they're keen to reel in the cash for now, doesn't mean they lack the vision.

Solair wrote:

Something's seriously rotten in the state of Irish broadband communications!

Now that, I'll agree with!

Sponge Bob

Solair wrote:

There have to be ways of using state funding to help the process along and it doesn't all have to go to eircom either. It's been done in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Rural France etc...

Companies could tender to be the DSL provider in a non enabled exchange provided that they agree to provide bitstream access to other ISPs.

Not much chance of that when you look at the LLU cost stack for siting gear and ongoing costs which would apply equally if there were a 'third partyBitstream operator' in the exchange. Also remember that many of the 800 unenabled exchanges are small sheds and some are metal boxes (cabinets or cabs) on a footpath .

The reality is that we do have a much larger % of small rural exchanges than most other countries. We also don't really have large urban areas that could cross fund things. eircom's shareholders arn't interested in spending money in areas where they won't recoup the investment in the shortterm, so they're sitting on their hands. A little state funding could go a long way in terms of getting things moving in rural areas.

I have posited the 2 90's Rule before .

1. Eircom enable exchanges to which 90% of lines are connected ....themselves out of own funds .

(This leaves hundreds of small rural exchanges to which the remaining 10% of lines are connected, about 170,000 lines.

The lines are tested to ensure that )

2. 90% of customers on exchange xxx can get BB on day one if within 4.5km .

(Then the funding can be made available and capped at €100k max for that exchange. )

If all those conditions are not met then the investment is a waste of public money IMO and should not be countenanced .

If exchanges do not qualify under the 2 90's rule they can become the operational focus for Functional Internet Access enforcement until they do qualify . Carrot and Stick .

The one thing that definitely shouldn't happen though is state funding for DSL in urban areas. If eircom's got copper network in urban areas screwed up on their own head be it. They should be digging into their own pockets to fix that mess!

NTL and Chorus and Digiweb should help focus their minds

I do however think that the government simply isn't doing nearly enough to sort out any of this mess. It's as serious as it was in the 1970s, in fact, more serious in many ways as it doesn't make any sense at all. At least in the 1970s we were broke!

I agree totally except that we we broke in the 1980s but merely poor and technologically backwards in the 1970s

Solair

cgarvey wrote:

I think I'll disagree with you there .. they have vision. They were early adopters of MPLS, for example, when many other big telcos were still chewing on what it was. They have vision, and have moved where it meant they'd be hurt otherwise.

I just think in general they're not very good at driving the market forwards. From a technical point of view, they've been very progressive always. Deciding to go with a fully digital TDM switched voice network in the late 70s when other telcos were still playing with step by step and crossbar electromechanical systems...

MPLS, mass roll out of public voicemail, adopting smart cards in the 1980s etc etc

I just sometimes think that they only think of their core network and large multinational / coroporate / state clients while their residential products are rather lacking in any sort of market leadership. They could play up their technological strengths and use it in some innovative consumer-oriented products for once!

The Insider

Solair wrote:

I just sometimes think that they only think of their core network and large multinational / coroporate / state clients while their residential products are rather lacking in any sort of market leadership.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

cgarvey

OK you're missing my point. I'll try it this way: What other company in the same market position would behave any differently?

I don't accept, for a second, that eircom are in any way slow or unresponsive. They're well on top of the game, know exactly what has to be done and when. They, like any good commercial entity, do the least amount of work for the maximum RoI. They have done NOTHING do threaten that commercial success, IMO, except maybe a bit too much spending on brand awareness on an already well established brand. I don't believe they are lacking in vision, and certainly employ some of the braniest engineers I know (I don't know many engineers, but I know enough to tell a brainy engineer apart from a lazy civil servant).

We need carrots, not to constantly point out eircom's success. Of all the complaints I remember being posted about eircom, I'd be impressed as a shareholder. The fact that it makes me, and others, sick because it's morally wrong, doesn't matter a blind bit of difference, and it never will. We don't have, but drastically need, a carrot to wave in front of eircom to get them to act more so in the consumer's interests.

Regulation should be that carrot, but ComReg have been a complete failure in protecting consumer interests. In fact they've done more to destroy the consumer interest than protect.

So, I think we should be spending less time on saying how 'mean and nasty' eircom are, and more time into looking at the bigger problem (eircom aren't the problem here), and how to solve it.

My 2c

.cg

Solair

Well the fundemental problem is a malfunctioning market caused by a botched transition from a state controlled monopoly to an open market coupled with on-going lack of meaningful regulation.

eircom's consumer product range is not exactly cutting edge though. That's not through incompetance. They're only in the business to make a buck and they make most of they're not in a bad position as they stand. They don't need to focus on residential customers.

I also think that there was a complete failure on behalf of government and politicans generally, until very recently, to realise and accept that eircom plc wasn't Bord Telecom Eireann and was a commercial company working on behalf of its shareholders and not a public service working in the public interest.

It's taken far too long for people (including many members of the public) to realise that eircom's just another commercial company.

Sponge Bob

Solair wrote:

Well the fundemental problem is a malfunctioning market caused by a botched transition from a state controlled monopoly to an open market coupled with on-going lack of meaningful regulation.

The only example we have given to the whole of the EU is how NOT to regulate a former monopoly.

I also think that there was a complete failure on behalf of government and politicans generally, until very recently, to realise and accept that eircom plc wasn't Bord Telecom Eireann and was a commercial company working on behalf of its shareholders and not a public service working in the public interest.

You would be surprised at the amount of 'information' that eircom feed to the cabinet on a regular basis as if they were still state owned.

thegills

No amount of regulation or increased powers for ComReg will speed up the LLU process. eircom have a team of skilled individuals whose primary role is to pick holes in any bit of regulation thrown their way.
thegills

paulm17781

thegills wrote:

No amount of regulation or increased powers for ComReg will speed up the LLU process.

Actually it will. All Comreg need is real power, Eircon shouldn't be able to pick holes as Comred desicions should not be challengeable.

damien

ComReg with the limted power they have do not use it. We asked them how many companies they have fined for acting the bollox. It doesn't matter if the fine is low, it will be at least on record that eircom were fined x times last year, BT Ireland Y times, Smart Z times. As far as I can see there have not been any fines levied against people.

There needs to be a change of attitude in ComReg like there needs to be in eircom. No additional powers will change a thing until someone is encouraged to make things happen. Ofcom didn't make things happen because they had power, they made things happen because they had the will to use their power.

damien

paulm17781 wrote:

Eircon shouldn't be able to pick holes as Comred desicions should not be challengeable.

They have the right to appeal, taking this from them is unconstitutional. They like everyone else have the right to appeal. If eircom win their appeals then comreg need to make better directions or the laws need to change. But look at the appeals. Twice now ComReg didn't lose appeals, they withdrew from them. The last pulling out before they were done or litigus interuptus by ComReg cost the taxpayer 5m. What does that say when they won't even go through with an appeal?

cgarvey

Solair wrote:

eircom's consumer product range is not exactly cutting edge though. That's not through incompetance. They're only in the business to make a buck and they make most of they're not in a bad position as they stand

OK so now we agree again then!