Ye poor funking barstewards....

cmkrnl

I thought I was being gouged here in the UK (when compared to the rest of the world) paying £119/month for 2Mb
with a registered /29 from Easynet.

Despite being over 10 years away from the mother country, somethings never change when it comes to state sponsored & endorsed monopolies inserting the rough end of a pineapple to the average consumers fundament.

Who in their in full control of their faculties is going to pay those prices. The Download are a disgrace, there is no excuse. If they mention peering charges give the speaker a swift kick in the slats.


greg

Dr99

Who in their in full control of their faculties is going to pay those prices. The Download are a disgrace, there is no excuse. If they mention peering charges give the speaker a swift kick in the slats.

Sure thing.......
...em what are peering charges??

cmkrnl

The usual excuse given by piss poor ISPs, is that the download cap is there because of the high price of inter connecting (peering) with the rest of the internet. This is a lie. Eircom already peer @ Linx

http://www.linx.net/members/teleire/index.thtml

Any smart ISP will be using seamless cache appliances from vendors such as Network Appliance to keep browser traffic overhead to a minimum, anything else is just bandwidth which is
when bought in bulk is CHEAP. Even with the 50 - 1 contention ratio on the consumer service here. feedback from the ISPs see the average bandwidth utilisation running @ < 50%.


The cap is there to stop the average clued up customer taking the lowest end cheapest service & hiding a whole network behind an address xlating firewall.


The download cap is complete anti competitive bollocks & will make the service unusable. e.g for comparison, yesterday I had > 600MB of downstream traffic through my firewall here & that was an average day.



greg

dahamsta

The usual excuse given by piss poor ISPs, is that the download cap is there because of the high price of inter connecting (peering) with the rest of the internet. This is a lie. Eircom already peer @ Linx

Uh, I have to play devil's advocate here:

And they don't pay for that?

adam

Paulw

The LINX was brought in to reduce internet traffic using international bandwidth.

Most of the ISPs (IOL, Indigo, Eircomnet, etc) have large services with plenty of information and links. These will help reduce international bandwidth usage.

So ... Eircom can easilly afford to remove the cap, or at a min make it much larger.

cmkrnl

Uh, I have to play devil's advocate here:

And they don't pay for that?


Linx membership IIRC is non profit & works on "how much shared bandwidth you can bring to the party basis" rather than outright cash. All the members benefit from being able to route traffic over other members networks. It also reduces the need to go further to peer. Transatlantic peering for obvious reasons is going to be a tad more expensive than Telehouse.

Eircom will already have the fibre in place to peer in Docklands. Anything else is just a case of turning the tap up. Assuming that the have spec'd growth in the design in the first place.




greg

Fergus2

I've added your argument to a new counter-arguments page on the IOWIKI. Please update/correct/amend

http://iewebs.com/~dahamsta/wiki/index.php?PricingCounterArguments

dahamsta

Thank you cmkrnl for teaching the devils' advocate a lesson, and Fergus2 for adding it to the Wiki.

adam

Gladiator

dahamsta these companies work on the laws of averages,
the average amounth of date per user downloaded and the average cost per user. that average is not goign to spike up.
eircom has set prices so that the rental alone cover serveral time more the likely average.

Basically there charging you twice and some muppets fail to see this, and talk about 20% useing 80% of the bandwidth, even though that 20% could very well be paying for 50%-60% of the bandwidth with the line rental alone, its just that the isp isnt making much money out of the 20% and so what to screw them as well.

we wont have a solid leg to stand on un
till we get real stats as to the cost of both internal and extrenal traffic for ireland

cmkrnl

A note on contention ratios.

Something that is not obvious at first hand is the the 'N - 1' contention ratio for the DSL service is not split over the line out to the customer from the exchange. i.e a 1 megabit customer does not have to share 1 megabit bandwidth with N others.

The contention ratio is for the MUCH bigger pipe connecting the DSLAM at the exchange back over an ATM PVC to the ISP. i.e the contention is going to be over an E3/DS3 (34/45 meg) circuit (usually, given a decent size exchange with a large amount of customers). So for the average user, it means MUCH better service. On my 2meg here I can sustain 220-230 KB/sec downloads from fast sites on the net.

There is no seperate equipment at the exchange for say the 50/80-1 end user ADSL versus the 20-1 business service. All the packet/rate shaping for each class of customer is handled by the 1 DSLAM automatically.


Any notion that bandwidth caps are there to reduce congestion are entirely bogus. Any commercial ISP operation should/will have started upgrading backbone circuits once average utilisation reaches 33%. This is essential in order to be able to handle peak loading.


greg