24meg Broadband for £24 a Month

molinaalexis

Broadband company Be have just launched a new broadband package, and has become the UK’s fastest broadband service available to home users. The service boasts the bandwidth to be able to stream high two definition video channels at the same time whilst browsing the web or making internet phone calls.

The Be service is three times faster than its main competitors, and will be more than double the speed of the service that NTL plans to launch before the end of the year. The service also offers an upload speed of 1.3 megabits a second, which is five times faster than its competitors.

Be have been trialling the service since September in London and has now made it available to the most of London, with exchanges throughout the UK being upgraded over the next year. Paul Smith, spokesman for Be said that that national rollout of the service would first occur in the major UK cities and that customers can find out if the service is available on their website. A BT line is needed for the service.

Sponge Bob

We are seeing a number of high speed LLU operators coming to market in the UK nowadays, Bulldog is another .

Its quite similar to Ireland, the LLU operators all go for the same high capacity exchanges and ignore the small ones.

bealtine

Sponge Bob wrote:

Its quite similar to Ireland, the LLU operators all go for the same high capacity exchanges and ignore the small ones.

Well it could be similar here except for 2 very important differences:
1. LLU doesn't seem to work here
2. The copper in the ground is awful

eircomtribunal

bealtine wrote:

2. The copper in the ground is awful

The copper is mostly not in the ground but in the hedges.

But line quality apart. We still could have at least always on slow broadband or even always on half broadband for all if we had a regulator worth its name.
In 2005 we still have at least 40% of population at the mercy of per minute dial-up or prepaid hours packages.

P.

Sponge Bob

Very true, 40% (maybe 50%) of all Irish Households cannot get any kind of DSL as we write.

SkepticOne

eircomtribunal wrote:

But line quality apart. We still could have at least always on slow broadband or even always on half broadband for all if we had a regulator worth its name.
In 2005 we still have at least 40% of population at the mercy of per minute dial-up or prepaid hours packages.

But has anyone actually gone to the regulator and said exactly what needs to be done to achieve (half) broadband for all?

damien

Yup.

Yook

I may be mistaken, but isn't the main fibre between Europe and the USA running through Ireland? We should have a killer infastructure! Instead, we're left with ****e!

SkepticOne

damien.m wrote:

Yup.

What should ComReg do to achieve 100% broadband (or half broadband)? What was their response?

Sponge Bob

emmmm (guesstimated) ,

We Have No Power and No Vision and No Care Neither so NO!!!

SkepticOne

So what was it that was asked of them?

SkepticOne

My questions should not be viewed as criticisms of IOFFL or any other group. I get a bit annoyed when people publically blame the regulator without publically saying exactly what they should be doing.

dahamsta

Yeah, what was asked, come on, answer the question, yeah, answer it, answer it, answer the question you, come on, etc.

SkepticOne

Ken Shabby wrote:

Yeah, what was asked, come on, answer the question, yeah, answer it, answer it, answer the question you, come on, etc.

It's a serious question. I understand if, say, IOFFL don't want to answer it on the basis of confidentiality. However, I think that ComReg don't actually have the power to mandate broadband to the whole of the country. There are things they can do to help though but much of the work lies outside of comreg.

OfflerCrocGod

Sponge Bob wrote:

We Have No Power and No Vision and No Care Neither so NO!!!

OH JESUS!!! Sponge Bob has turned into Comwreck!!! Highly believable imitation Sponge Bob

damien

I get a bit annoyed when people publically blame the regulator without publically saying exactly what they should be doing.

I don't think IOFFL have criticised the Regulator for the sake of it. Generally when we point out what we think is a wrong decision we give our reasons and they are in press releases and in direct communications with the Regulator. Unlike some, we still have the belief that the Regulator can do good (Well, most of us anyway) and coming from this viewpoint we engage with them constructively.

Since we've gone down this path, our relationship with ComReg has gotten much healthier. While before they were totally formal with us and worked to rule (which was their entitlement) we now are being asked for our input and they are answering our requests for input. We no longer have to go through a complicated chain of command to get the the vaguest of answers. We can pick up the phone and talk to people or fire off an email and get constructive and helpful replies. [At this point I'm sure a certain dominant telecom is already writing up FOI requests. Enjoy the commercially sensitive rule biting you on the ass boys.]

Outside the tent and pissing in would get us nowhere. While some believe ComReg should just be wiped out and rebooted, it will never happen as they are used as a handy shield to protect the Minister anytime someone complains about broadband. Calling them tools, firing off personal insults or calling them useless wastes of space in press releases would not be constructive. It would be pointless and perhaps hypocritical to actually have any kind of communication with ComReg if we did that.

Now before I go all hugging the commissioners and watching Muriel's wedding with them (or whatever best buds watch together) we can still be strict with them. We're well annoyed with the last Quarterly Report and we are going to bring it up with them at our next meeting, which happens to be in a few hours. For every report they bring out from now on we will have a briefing document sent to the press about it. It will contain all the facts that they left out if they continue to obfuscate facts.

We will continue to highlight that LLU is a disaster, we will continue to highlight that the line rental prices makes us sick to our stomach and we will still highlight that we are light-years behind most developed countries.

Now getting back to your question Mike. As for a solution to get broadband for all or half broadband, I don't think one thing can do that. Various things such as real FIA will do this, as per our submissions to ComReg which we posted on this forum. Another is our view that a proper automated LLU process is needed which we again submitted to ComReg. Another thing is lower wholesale prices to get people to use broadband. Genuine FRIACO to take away the dial-up minutes profits incentive from eircom. Better regulation is also needed to ensure alternative platforms will thrive.

Again we can't do all of this on our own, thus the recent reorg with everyone on the Committee working on certain areas, each of these people will then ask for help on this forum to work on their projects. Pointing out flaws in our logic is well and good and Devil's advocates are needed, but we also need solutions to this. While we'd like to think it, we're not gods, we're not fantastically clever. We need people here to go, "maybe it's better to do this, which would result in that and that."

Too many people here are still stuck in the mindset of taking potshots. At eircom, at ComReg, at BT and at IrelandOffline. If people have better solutions, post them. We do listen.

Now with that rant over, I'll go work on my rant for tomorrow.

eircomtribunal

SkepticOne wrote:

It's a serious question. I understand if, say, IOFFL don't want to answer it on the basis of confidentiality. However, I think that ComReg don't actually have the power to mandate broadband to the whole of the country. There are things they can do to help though but much of the work lies outside of comreg.

What they should and could have done:

1. When ordered to introduce flat rate dial-up by ministerial direction, they should have introduced it, but they did not. And they are misinforming (lying to you and me) the DCMNR and the Oireachtas Committee about that fact. We have to date not a single flat-rate dial-up product on the market.
I know that talking about flat-rate dial up at this day and age is pathetic, but it is a help to rise general Internet usage (where Ireland is still terribly low).
The incumbent is still in a position to charge Irish Internet users through the nose with metered dial-up – the death nail for Internet usage.
[Look at the price anomaly: Eircom offers real flat-rate national calls for a mere €15 per month, but charges €30 for fake flat-rate Internet access = prepaid 150 hours online time with punitive overreach built into (Eircom themselves call it "partial flat-rate" in their SEC filing)]

2. When ComReg failed to achieve the targets set in the March 2004 ministerial direction (reaching ø EU-15 bb levels), they should have informed the public and the DCMNR about that, instead ComReg chose to misinform (lying to...) the decision makers and the public.

3. ComReg should have made LLU a possibility and not another cash cow for Eircom (second highest price in the EC) and a trap for newcomers like SMART.

4. ComReg should have informed the decision makers and the public early on about Ireland falling badly behind with Internet usage, instead ComReg chose to misinform us, telling us we're doing fine when we were not. Look up any older ComReg Quarterly reports and marvel at the charts telling us that we had 50% home Internet penetration, when we have merely 37% now.

5. ComReg should not have allowed the 25% line rental rise, which was even higher on the lower quart of users, while ComReg pretended to have guarded this group with the Eircom designed joke of a "Vulnerable User Scheme".

6. When the DCMNR directed to introduce Whole Sale Line rental ComReg should not have introduced merely single billing instead.

P.

SkepticOne

eircomtribunal wrote:

What they should and could have done:

1. When ordered to introduce flat rate dial-up by ministerial direction, they should have introduced it, but they did not. And they are misinforming (lying to you and me) the DCMNR and the Oireachtas Committee about that fact. We have to date not a single flat-rate dial-up product on the market.
I know that talking about flat-rate dial up at this day and age is pathetic, but it is a help to rise general Internet usage (where Ireland is still terribly low).
The incumbent is still in a position to charge Irish Internet users through the nose with metered dial-up – the death nail for Internet usage.
[Look at the price anomaly: Eircom offers real flat-rate national calls for a mere €15 per month, but charges €30 for fake flat-rate Internet access = prepaid 150 hours online time with punitive overreach built into (Eircom themselves call it "partial flat-rate" in their SEC filing)]

Lets just deal with the first one. Do ComReg believe they have the power to mandate retail flat rate services? If not, then there's no point in asking for it from them.

watty

I think the Broadband access re Schools says it all...
23% on dsl
about 40% on Satellite which doesn't support peer-to-pear, live databases, VIOP or anything interesting schools might experiemnt with, really only web browsing and email

The rest on Wireless. Which seems to vary from not much better than dialup to better than adsl on phone line.

Out side of major city & towns I suspect the percent that can get BB is very low.
Irish Broadband in Limerick is pathetic for Wireless. They are sited at Clarion (sea level) in dead centre of Limerick. Will only serve 5km radius!

At least Digiweb claims to offer 10km radius.

Chorus Powernet has good range but apparently is closing down

Leap don't seem to want to come and survey anyone out side city, and very expensive.

It seems if you want reliable broadband, the client needs to survey the suppliers and move house. Approx cost €12,000 due to gov. anti mobility taxes and inflated auctioneers and legal fees.

eircomtribunal

SkepticOne wrote:

Lets just deal with the first one. Do ComReg believe they have the power to mandate retail flat rate services? If not, then there's no point in asking for it from them.

Of course the regulator cannot simply dictate any company to offer retail flat rate service for €x per month – but I assume that's not your point.

Certainly the DCMNR believed ComReg had the power and directed them to introduce flat rate Internet access.

ComReg not only believe they can facilitate flat rate dial-up Internet access, they also believe and claim to have facilitated it. And with it they mean flat rate Internet access for the consumer.

In a recent answer to the Oireachtas Committee ComReg wrote:
"ComReg was indeed given a clear direction which it discharged with immediate effect having been preparing for the introduction of such a product for some time previously....The successful outcome of this work stream allowed for the introduction of a wholesale product by eircom which facilitated the introduction of competitive flat rate Internet access products at a retail level...."

In their official definition (page 9 of ComReg's 2004 Numbering Application Procedures; http://www.ccreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0436.pdf)ComReg say about the 1893 numbers:
"Partial or Full Flat-Rate: based in principle on a
fixed charge covering the call traffic and the
Internet service. However, whereas the Full Flat-
Rate means no charge in respect of on-line time,
Partial Flat-Rate allows for a fixed rate per minute
to be applied after a certain period on-line."

While they give a correct definition for flat rate under the heading "Full Flat Rate", they slip in an idiotic "Partial Flat Rate" definition as well. There is no "partial flat rate" just as there is no partial pregnancy or partial stallion. There is no "partial flat-rate" to be found anywhere else.

But now take the bother and have a look at their consumer guide in the ask ComReg web site (http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/CG03R.pdf) where ComReg get idiotic about the flat rate definition.

By choosing a flat rate service you can control your costs – however long you stay on line and however often you redial, the cost remains the same.
So far so good but then the idiotic sentence is slipped in:
"As long as you stay within the number of hours provided
for in your package - you pay a flat monthly fee."
This contradicts the general "flat rate definition", it merely defines the strange ComReg invention of "partial flat rate".
The consumer guide goes on and explains:

The flat rate options (often referred to as unmetered options) available include;
• Partial Flat Rate options are where the call costs at defined times
and/or a predetermined amount of hours are included in your
subscription charge e.g. off peak call costs are included while
connections to the internet at peak times are still charged at a cent
per minute rate.
• Full Flat Rate options are where you pay a fixed amount every
month and this subscription charge includes all your call costs for
connecting to the Internet. You should be aware that a fair use or
acceptable use policy may apply – i.e. a limit of hours may apply.
This option will suit any residential or small business user who
plans to spend a large amount of time online, in particular, at peak
time.

In the end the Irish consumer ended up with not a single real, or "full" flat rate dial-up service available. All they got to choose from are pre-paid Internet hours with inbuilt punitive overreach charges. That may be called "Partial Flat Rate" by ComReg, but it ain't flat rate. And the failure of this fake flat-rate to do what it was meant to do is obvious: it could not lift up the Irish Internet home penetration from a dismal 37%. And it left most of Irish Internet users paying Eircom supra-prices for dial-up Internet access.

Pricing: ComReg did not revisit the port pricing although it had given itself the option in the process. Eircom are repeatedly astonished and glad in their SEC filing that the regulator has no interest in doing so, although the price anomalies are obvious: Eircom sells a flat rate national call product for €15 a month, but charges € 30 for 150 hours of prepaid Internet hours (so-called "partial flat rate" per ComReg and Eircom(in their SEC filing) definitions – but sold to the customer as "Flat Rate"; in obvious breach of the Consumer Act).
Clearly the regulator has powers and obligations to intervene about these price discrepancies.
P

SkepticOne

eircomtribunal wrote:

Pricing: ComReg did not revisit the port pricing although it had given itself the option in the process. Eircom are repeatedly astonished and glad in their SEC filing that the regulator has no interest in doing so, although the price anomalies are obvious: Eircom sells a flat rate national call product for €15 a month, but charges € 30 for 150 hours of prepaid Internet hours (so-called "partial flat rate" per ComReg and Eircom(in their SEC filing) definitions – but sold to the customer as "Flat Rate"; in obvious breach of the Consumer Act).
Clearly the regulator has powers and obligations to intervene about these price discrepancies.

So what we need is:

1. ComReg state on record that they failed in the task of achieving true Flat Rate and not hide the fact in fancy language.
2. ComReg brings down the FRIACO port price to such a level that ISPs can provide true flat rate should they so wish.

We need to find out what this port price needs to be.

lucernarian

originally posted by eircomtribunal
By choosing a flat rate service you can control your costs – however long you stay on line and however often you redial, the cost remains the same.
So far so good but then the idiotic sentence is slipped in:
"As long as you stay within the number of hours provided
for in your package - you pay a flat monthly fee."
This contradicts the general "flat rate definition", it merely defines the strange ComReg invention of "partial flat rate".

Using that definition it is possible for me to create a "flat-rate" product using pay as you go dialup except with advantages!

Suppose there's a company called "Confirmed Connection". It decides to sell "13 hours of prepaid access for €10 per month". And if you don't use it all in the month, you pay less! This could be done simply using eircon's dialup rates. 1.26 cent per minute, evenings and weekends will get you 13 hours without exceeding €10.

I know the above example is somewhat flawed but it is very true in principle: this half-assed FRIACO is not flat rate. All you have to do is take less than half the time off the basic eircom FRIACO product and you have a marketing scam. This is sheer madness on Comreg's part and clever on eircom's.

eircomtribunal

SkepticOne wrote:

So what we need is:

1. ComReg state on record that they failed in the task of achieving true Flat Rate and not hide the fact in fancy language.
2. ComReg brings down the FRIACO port price to such a level that ISPs can provide true flat rate should they so wish.

We need to find out what this port price needs to be.

Yes.

Just another example showing what ****e we get sold as flat-rate:

Our local mobile shop still has leaflets of Esat's NetSmart ancient offer in its shelfs:
Those offers predate the FRIACO introduction which was hailed to have brought flat-rate to the Irish Consumer:

NetSmart 40 sold 40 hours of off-peak Internet hours for € 15

It was a prepaid hours package with no overreach charges. So not real flat rate, but "flatter" than the new Irish (partial) "flat rate" offers based on FRIACO with their punitive overreach charges.
And compare the price: Eircom sells its smallest fake "flat rate 25" offer for €10, which makes the old Esat NetSmart a slightly cheaper product.
And may I mention the only real (off-peak) flat rate dial-up Internet access offer by Esat under the name of "no limits", which offered real off-peak flat-rate for I forget what I paid.?

We are not moving forward. We have a regulator who successfully is able and allowed to pull the wool over our decision makers eyes.
Producing propaganda to save their own asses, that's what they are good at.
P.

Blaster99

eircomtribunal wrote:

What they should and could have done:
[Look at the price anomaly: Eircom offers real flat-rate national calls for a mere €15 per month, but charges €30 for fake flat-rate Internet access = prepaid 150 hours online time with punitive overreach built into (Eircom themselves call it "partial flat-rate" in their SEC filing)]

While it is an excellent point, the voice calls are not quite flat in that you're limited to one hour tops. I suppose UTV is even better by offering them for free in the evenings. But clearly if it's possible to offer these kinds of voice rates, then FRIACO should be possible and should be a lot cheaper.

SkepticOne

eircomtribunal wrote:

We are not moving forward. We have a regulator who successfully is able and allowed to pull the wool over our decision makers eyes.
Producing propaganda to save their own asses, that's what they are good at.

But I fear merely complaining will do no good. I can well see that in a years time we will all be making the same complaints and will not have got anywhere.

The core action that the regulator needs to take is to lower port and associated charges to an appropriate level. We have established that they can't mandate retail products so action on the wholesale is what is required.

As far as I can see, what needs to be done now is to approach the ISPs that might be interested in full flat rate and find out what these levels need to be. They need to make quotable statements stating the levels at which they would be willing to provide full true flat rate.

jwt

SkepticOne wrote:

As far as I can see, what needs to be done now is to approach the ISPs that might be interested in full flat rate and find out what these levels need to be. They need to make quotable statements stating the levels at which they would be willing to provide full true flat rate.

And if none of the ISPs are interested in full flat rate?


John

SkepticOne

jwt wrote:

And if none of the ISPs are interested in full flat rate?

Well if ComReg can't mandate it at the retail level (as is my understanding) then it must be voluntarily done by ISPs.