Updating Eircom's Universal Service Obligation

NeilF

When ADSL is finally released as a commercial product (and all the hooked trialists have to pay for their broadband fix ) I can see a lot of disappointed people in here because their line failed the test or they are too far from the exchange. This inane lottery with people paying £100 to get a new line that might upgrade to ADSL shows how badly the existing legislation is preventing people from getting decent access to the Internet. The Universal Service Obligation (USO) has been mentioned in several threads recently, and most of us know how ancient it is. However, what should it be changed to?

Currently the USO is that the line must be able to make a voice call and support data at 2400bps. The actual ODTR document is here . That was cutting edge over ten years ago, although it is probably designed more for fax machines than the Internet. From Eircom.ie

The provision of universal service does not include Internet services

Ireland is not the only country with a few dodgy copper pairs in its telecommunications network or a few houses too far from the exchange. The solutions to these problems already exist. Eircom can install new wires, use black boxes to extend or enhance the signal or turn to a completely different technology. The ODTR has issued licenses for Wireless Local Loop (WLL) and has also suggested that optical wireless could work in Ireland.

Eircom has a WLL license and can use this technology to reach those customers who couldn’t get new services over their existing line. From bizplus.ie:

Eircom, Esat and Princes Holdings also have wireless broadband licences...... Esat and Eircom will probably deploy this wireless local loop (WLL) to meet specific customer demands rather than roll it out generally, and WLL will ultimately mean last-mile connectivity to remote areas, where fibre optic deployment to-date has been difficult or extremely expensive to provide.

Now, all these things cost more money. The USO is, I think, a lot like VHI or BUPA insurance. Everyone pays the same for the same level of service, no matter what their age. Some pay too much to subsidise those who pay too little but it all averages out, the companies stay in business and everyone got medical insurance for a decent price. I think it is as fair a system you can get.

Same argument now for ADSL – BTW, all the figures are imaginary : Someone in Dublin one kilometre from their exchange has a perfect line and it is a text-book installation of ADSL. Actual cost to install is say £75. Someone down the country is just outside the range but the engineer has done some extra testing and says he can give you ADSL but he’ll need to install a special box at your end to enhance the signal. Cost is £350. Finally say there is someone in the West miles from the exchange (so ADSL is out) but some wireless kit will do the job nicely only it costs £800.

With the current USO Eircom can advertise ADSL for the £75 install price because they can just ignore the rest of the population, which is great for those who can get it. However, if the USO was brought up to date the install price would probably jump to something like £400, because the cheaper installs would subsidise the trickier installs. Or do you change the USO so that Eircom are just compelled to offer the service, but at true cost to them, so man in Dublin gets it for £75 but man in West pays ten times as much. Should the government get involved and subsidise the more expensive installs?

The USO has to be updated but how would you do it:

1. What kind of Internet access speed should be made universally accessible to all? Good 56k modem speeds, dual-channel ISDN (128k) or some form of ADSL (256k and higher)? Bear in mind that it is the actual speed that is more important than the technology and that this may not change for another few years, but needs to be balanced against any cost increase.

2. Should people be ignored because it costs too much (ie leave things as they are), be allowed pay it if they wish (but Eircom must offer it) or should there be a universal install charge for everyone?

dahamsta

Hup!

I was hoping there would be more interest in this very well developed posting (excellent job Neil). It's very likely that IrelandOffline will be developing this topic as an important side-issue in the new year, and I would be interested in hearing people's opinions. I would ask that IrelandOffline members please contribute to this thread, as it will aid the development of a realistic proposal on USO's to be submitted to relevant bodies in the new year.

Thanks,
adam

neverhappen

Oftel conducted an extensive study of the uk uso here

---

In the extract quoted below regarding internet access speed, oftel concluded that, by law, its up to europe to set the speed, and that Article 4(2) due to be introduced in mid 2003 removes this min speed requirement and introduces a "more flexible" requirement. (Google found this when I asked for the eu document)

Oftel also said that they would keep an eye on the use of DACS boxes by BT.

---

Background

4.13 Speed and reliability are important elements of Internet access. Oftel considered whether further action was required to ensure that users experience data speeds that allow workable access to the Internet. The minimum data speed currently set by European legislation, and the subject of an obligation on BT and Kingston, is 2.4 kilobits per second (kbits/s).

4.14 Oftel concluded that the market and the regulatory regime are already making considerable progress towards delivering the Government’s objective for universal Internet access by 2005 based on high levels of penetration, as well as affordable tariff packages for Internet access from the home and public institutions. Oftel considered that more work would be needed to ensure that reliable data speeds providing workable Internet access are available to all customers. Oftel invited views on this conclusion and on the minimum data speed that would be required under USO to ensure workable Internet access for all.

Responses

4.15 In its response, BT explained that the Internet speed experienced by customers was affected by factors other than line speed, such as data network bottlenecks, the performance of modems and of the far-end servers. BT argued that the vast majority of its customers experienced workable Internet speeds: in a test over seven days in July 2000, 96 per cent of the sample of users experienced speeds in excess of 24kbit/s; 90 per cent speeds in excess of 30 kbit/s. BT argued that to guarantee a speed of 34kbit/s or above for all its customers a significant network upgrade would be required, costing an estimated £2billion.

4.16 Responses from consumers argued strongly that the current minimum data speed (set at 2.4kbits/s) should be increased. New levels of 28.8kbit/s or above were suggested. There was particular concern about BT’s use of DACS equipment (Digital Access Carrier System – essentially a way of splitting lines). DACS reduces maximum line speed to around 28kbits/s.

Conclusions

4.17 The extent to which Oftel can change the requirements on the minimum data speed continues to be governed by European law. Article 4(2) of the draft directive on Universal Service and Users’ Rights removes the minimum data speed of 2.4kbit/s and introduces a more flexible requirement. It requires that the connection provided should be capable of allowing end users to make and receive data communications, at data rates that are sufficient to permit functional Internet access, taking into account technical feasibility and the technologies used by the majority of customers.

4.18 Until the Directive is implemented – expected by mid-2003 – the minimum data speed will remain at 2.4kbit/s. Oftel does not propose to take a view at this stage on the appropriate level that should apply from that time, given the rapid changes in customer demand and technical feasibility. Following adoption of the Directive, Oftel will review how its final provisions should be implemented and consult as appropriate.

4.19 Oftel has been examining BT’s practice on the installation of DACS. BT argues that in most cases DACS results in line speed of between 26-28kbits/s, which in BT’s view is acceptable for Internet use. BT has indicated that it is trialling a new product to succeed DACS which does not reduce line speed. In the meantime BT is reviewing customer complaints that may result from the installation of DACS and is proposing to establish a Centre of Excellence to help BT to advise its customers with Internet problems. Oftel welcomes these moves but will continue to monitor the use of DACS and customer complaints actively and will consider whether further action is needed to ensure that BT’s approach to the deployment of DACS and the handling of customer complaints is consistent with its qualified obligation to meet reasonable demands for data services under Condition 43 of its licence

Fergus

Yup, good post Neil.

I think what we are talking about is a USO specifically for internet. The current USO is EU legislation.. if the govt here were serious, they would possibly need to supercede this.

How about a system of penalties / compensation for inadequate service, similar to what BT have to pay customers in the UK.

I mean, if you can't have DSL, you should be entitled to seriously discounted 128K ISDN, and if you can't have that, you should have very seriously discounted dial-up.

The idea being to create an incentive on the telco to improve their profits by upgrading their techology.

I would be a bit concerned that forcing too high-tech a USO would lead to a silly standard price.

m1ke

I think that to be fair :

You should be able to ring the telephone operator, and request a line for internet/data transfer use, that is

1. gaurenteed to run at 33.6kbps. (this means no dacs box)

2. That this line can be upgraded to ADSL or RADSL (the 5km radius flavor) if the service is available in the users area.

This would also mean that any lines with existing DACS boxes are legitimate unless you ring eircom and ask for a proper line because you need it. Because there's a lot of auld wans, and anyone who doesn't use that internet that isn't going to give a squat about connection speed or line sharing.

spongebob

I have previously made the point on these boards that a revision of the USO, now 3 years old, is overdue. I think the matter has been taken on board by IoffL in their representations to the regulator and thank the committee for their work (as do all of us here I should think).

I also pointed out that it should be widened to include other operators with significant market power, namely

Chorus
NTL
ESAT

M

dahamsta

Thanks Muck,

I also pointed out that it should be widened to include other operators with significant market power

I agree with this, although I have absolutely no "decision" with regard to implementation at this time. I would be interested in hearing members opinions and suggestions, again for inclusion in a consultancy/proposal brief in the new year. This may be bundled with the Eircom USO brief, or submitted separately. The more detail the merrier.

adam

spongebob

The widening of the USO should be standards rather than market based.

1. If the Eircom USO is widened to allow 28.8 or 33.6 ...a fair level I would contend and one which forces them to withdraw DACS boxes on demand from their customers then.

2. As Chorus/NTL and ESAT all use newer and higher grade cable on average.

3. And as they have this higher grade copper on at least 10% of all premises in Ireland already.

Then they should be forced to offer the same connection standard where they have the same technical capability.

A further USO for Chorus/NTL is that where they have a franchise area, there should be an Obligation to pass a % of ALL premises with high quality, shielded, bidirectional cable within n years of the awarding of the franchise...remember that the ODTR has given them a guaranteed no compete clause called 'Platform Exclusivity' ensuring that nobody else can offer cable.

I would be amenable to extending the duration of the Platform Exclusivity fro a given franchise where they have reached their n % in n years targets, as a reward for not being assholes.

At the moment the sanctions are negative in the sense that the licence can be revoked or their platform exclusivity can be lifted allowing a competitor in. The standard is currently focused on rollout of digital TV and not on other digital services such as high speed data .

I think a reward mechanism is only fair along with the negative stuff.

IE there should be different form of USO

AS regards ESAT it should focus more on operator access to fibre nationwide. The government paid ESAT a bucketload of cash (it were Ocean actually but ESAT inherited Ocean) to roll out fibre to the west.

The government paid the money and the fibre was installed and never lit. A condition was that other operators be allowed to use it once in, ESAT never complied with this.

Has the government ever asked for its money back or else confiscated the % it owns? ISTR that the fibre cost 20m and that Biddy O'Rourke paid 6m

There are 48 fibre pairs so I figure that the govt owns 6/20 outta 48 which means the taxpayer is entitled to 14 pairs or so.

Nationalise it I say....and hand over 2 or 4 pairs for Data Transmission Co-Operatives..........

The cable in question runs:

Dublin/Athlone/Loughrea/Galway/Shannon maybe into Limerick from there.

M

Pragmatica

I think this problem will become even more apprent within the year or so when nobody with land-lines in ireland will be able to browse the net at all due to emerging technoligies and media content ...

I wanted to ask ... The ODTR said in one of their press releases that the telecom's industry generated 3.2 billion euros (no wonder they lick ericons hole) in the last year 3.1 % of GDP ...

My quwstion is ... why a substancial amount of this money is not reinvested ?

Like ... what are we talking a few million here and there ... oh big surprise the gonvermant just invested 4 million here, 6 million there and 20million over there and that's it ... this is laughable ... and @ the same time these neglagable investments are all put into diffrent types of services/technoligies which does nothing for standardisation ...

Is this just more captions for the news so that the genural public think this country is going somewhere ...

Watching the news over the last few days .. I'm totally dismayed ...

A group of 300 waste disposal workers wanting to dump illegally can get a top headline story slot and yet again the masses are pumped with disinformation about the greatness of Irelands net infrastructure in schools with ministers looking like rabbits in headlights in fear of getting asked a question ... whay are they getting away with this ? ...

When are we gona see some real action from IFFOL ?

Whay are we not @ these promotion/launches putting the true nature of net access across to the masses ?

NeilF

Part of the problem at the moment is that the USO is appealing to the lowest common denominator. Eircom have chosen to ignore the spirit in which it was introduced, turn it around and use it as they reason they can keep the country on 56k, metered dialup access. The data requirement is summed up in a single line of an ODTR document. Even the USO document itself is quite lightweight compared to other documents.

I think it needs to be changed so that it is more "preformance related", kept more up to date and just used more. Here’s one way of doing it: Every year the ODTR tests a sufficiently large sample of lines from around the country and compiles and publishes a report on them. After time for comments etc. the ODTR sets a target that a certain percentage of lines (or connections as they could be wireless) should be capable of certain speeds by next year. If the telco doesn’t meet their targets they could lose their license (I know it would just end up in the high court for months but you get the idea) etc. If they do meet them, they could get government money to do even more of the more expensive installs in a given year. Like Muck said, reward them if they do get it right by more business and profits.

This would encourage more investment in infrastructure and hopefully a modern communications infrastructure. Given Eircom’s current way of doing business when can I expect one of their engineers to call to my door to say, “I’m sorry sir but you will not have phone service for about an hour today – we are replacing the old copper wire to the exchange with new super copper wire (or even fibre optic cable). I’ll leave you with details of the new services you can get.” And imagine an hour later he calls back (ADSL modem in hand) and asks would I like a free month’s trial of broadband? Imagine what a clued in telco would be like

The same system could be used for NTL, if it was possible. At the moment a few households have cable Internet. By next year it should be double that etc. If they can do that and keep everybody happy with the services they want at a price they are happy to pay why not let them keep their exclusivity?

I’m not sure I agree with m1ke and the auld wans because what do you do when they move out and the software developer from the city moves in and wants to work from home?

Those who need broadband now (and probably have the biggest phone bills) should be first on the list for upgrades, but there should be some kind of plan where the network is upgraded on a rolling basis.

I feel myself that new installs, to somewhere that had no lines previously like a new housing estate, should have what is currently state of the art for the simple reason that if we are serious about becoming a digital nation we need good connectivity for everyone. In a new development of a couple hundred houses it can't be that much harder or expensive to put fibre into the channels and ducts than copper wire, and have a mini-exchange on-site. They won't make their investment back in twelve months but then most other companies who invest in infrastructure don't recoup costs in a few months either. Putting in new lines on the cheap, that won't upgrade to ADSL or whatever the hot technology is in fifteen years time and are just cash-cows for the company, is just unacceptable and a revised USO would make sure that this didn't happen.

For those stuck with bad lines your suggestion that they get other stuff cheaply is spot on, especially if they have access to other technologies (such as WLL) and choose not to use it. If I did my quick calculation correctly someone getting 19.2kb/s is online over three times longer than would be necessary if they had a 64k ISDN connection. They should only have to pay 30% of their bill, and should get their line rental free...... as a goodwill gesture

spongebob

Individual Customer Rights are a vital part of a USO

There should be no line or equipment rental whatsoever for an individual who

1. Is not receivinga good enough service (within a revised ..upwards.. USO)

2. Has Informed their company about it!

3. Has waited 24 hours for a show and a further 24 for the fix.

4. Compensation for aggravation, per day, in addition to the free rental, should kick in after 2 weeks and be paid daily thereafter , doubling its per day rate every 4 weeks. Eventually it will hurt the operator and then they will throw resources into fixing it.

Thats it, it will be a long string of ****e by the time the regulator writes it but that should be that.

M

Pragmatica

NeilF ...

I agree totaly with ur idea that new estates should be rolled out with the future in mind ... Surly there's no great differance in laying fiber than there is in laying coper ... it would leave ireland with a solid infrastructure many years from now

I know from a friend in america that even for home networks, fiber is mostly used as it's cheaper and easier to work with now and thicknet cables are practictly phased out ...

About the USO ... for donkey's years now all sorts attempts have been made in the technology field to standardize computers systems and such from diffrent classes and and in every hybrid cross breed u can think of the standard falls to the lowest common denominator of the crappiest system ... I think that instead of humming and haghing over which technology is better, easier to rollout or cost effective etc ... that one technology mostlikley xDSL should horsed with investment ... but that doesnt mean givin up on flat-rate dialup which is the only soultion that most people have now but are paying too much for ...

I would also tend to agree that those that have servelay bad lines should be compansated in some way but it would be a difficult to work out how ... u might have a bad line but then u might have only used the net 2 times in the year etc ...

Dont get me wrong ... I'm not one of these people that want everything for nothing ... just a fair deal ... like having my line fixed for one, a fare pricing system for connecting to the net and the comfort to know that our telco's are brinning a better solution to us asap or weather it'll be years away and that it's not just for dublin

spongebob

Prgmtca

Nice to see you in the suggestive groove here.

The issue of housing estates should really be dealt with in the context of

Planning Acts

and

County Development Plans

I concur with the sentiment that there should be a responsibility to provision new estate for Advanced telecoms. There should also be a provision to provide gas pipes as well and that is not done either in towns where gas has not arrived yet.

Current requirements on builders of estates are that they provide ducting for €ircon and then wire 2 pairs to the house itself. Bollox I say.

The requirement should be modified to:

1. Ducting for €ircon with 2 pairs to the house.
2. Ducting for alternative telecoms that €ircon is explicitly prohibited from using, this can take Cable or Community provisioned services.

Run €ircon to the front and the alt.telecom to the back!

The second duct should belong to the estate, IE let the whole housing estate of say 50-100 houses block buy from a service provider and then allow them to use the ducting to provision this service. It should work out the same as the estate landscaping maintenance, frequently done by the residents as a cooperative.

Remember that County Development plans, where these requirements are made practical law, are only revised every 5 years so if your local one is up for renewal soon you should get in there quick, submit to the planners and hassle the councillors. Otherwise you must wait another (up to) 5 years.

M

murcielago

Recent posts on the topic of universal service (obligation) and this thread in particular have had their origin in a post by me murcielago and a response by muck in which the latter correctly introduced the uso standard determined by odtr at 2400bps. Previously various posts had given 9600bps as the standard offered by Eircom but nobody provided a source or reference for same. It is possible that Eircom operates to a nominal or aspired standard of 9600bps. Does anybody know one way or the other? Meanwhile 9600bps (CCITT V.29) appears to be the maximum speed offered by modern stand-alone fax modems. A PC fax modem transmits at up to 14400bps to another PC fax modem.

Universal Service as a concept or principle is not exclusive to telecommunications. Universal service in education has always been a matter of public discourse and more recently the Best case brought it before the courts. Health and public transport are amongst other fields that involve issues of universal service.

Universal service is a government responsibility. In the case of telecommunications a number of issues arise. Funding is a major issue. Should the US be funded from general taxation? Levies on telcos appear to be a common source of funds. Which telecommunications firms should have to bear levies? And who should have the franchise of providing the funded service? In the case of a monopolist cross-subsidisation deals with the matter.

Universal Quality Standards are another issue. In some underdeveloped countries a two-tier quality system applies. A few years ago in Brazil only 20% of the population had connections to a fixed line telecommunications network. Quality standards were high. The government decided to achieve a more rapid expansion of access to telecommunications services by having a reduced standard for its universal service to rural areas, deprived individuals, communities, and education & health providers etc. USA legislation states 'consumers . . .in rural, insular, and high cost areas should have access to telecommunications and information services . . . that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to [those] in urban areas'.

Generally, universal quality standards refer to inter-equipment compatibility and to compliance with agreed international protocols.

Continued with my next post on the current situation in Ireland ;

murcielago

Continuing the previous post on the current situation in Ireland that appears to be;

a) The government has entrusted the ODTR with responsibility for managing the provision of a universal service. The ODTR has a funding responsibility. Does such funding come from general taxation or from own resources?
b) The ODTR has designated Eircom as its agent to supply services in accordance with a Universal Service Obligation. An OAP living alone has entitlement to a rent-free phone and a certain number of call units per month. The OAP does not have a choice of telco similar to that of a choice of doctor under the medical card scheme.
c) The ODTR specified in 1999 a speed of 2400bps as meeting its universal service obligation. The ODTR did not show much foresight. With the well-recognised rapid changes in technology writing in stone something like 2400bps is not very smart without at least providing for regular (say 6-monthly) reviews. In any case the V.90 protocol was well established by at that time. So it is highly inaccurate to claim that 2400bps represented leading edge technology in 1999. Many sons and daughters resident abroad in say USA and Australia provide - as a gift - e-mail facilities to an elderly parent so that they can communicate with one another. A telephone connection of 2400bps is more likely to be a frustration than an amenity in such a situation.
e) Apart from bps the ODTR does not appear to have stipulated any other specifications or quality attributes. In the case of voice transmission volume and clarity of sound are the most salient attributes required by an elderly person of diminished hearing.

A telecommunications service has two characteristics that distinguish its purchase from that of an ordinary everyday physical good.

1) A telephone provider enjoys a concession or licence from the state. The state restricts the number of licences issued. Competition is restricted. The licensee has a licence to make money. In contrast the state issues a TV or driving licence to every (qualified) applicant. A cabbage or potato grower does not require a licence. Accordingly the state acquires a responsibility for and an authority over the commercial activities and conduct of its licensee.

2) A telephone service is intangible and involves a high level of technological knowledge and skill on the part of the provider. A consumer has to take the provider on trust. A patient has no alternative but to trust the surgeon. The same condition of trust applies in many cases of service supply. In all such cases there has to be public control in order to guarantee the integrity and competence of the service provider. There has to be a measure of transparency.

It is unsatisfactory that I do not know the designed capacity and other attributes of my phone line. It is unsatisfactory that I cannot have an independent check. And if I find deceit on the part of the telco there appears to be no big deal. It is unsatisfactory that some less well off customers are cross-subsidising business firms and affluent others. Bad connections are not always due to location, but instead to history, negligence, indifference and absence of clout/pull/influence. It is not satisfactory that neither ODTR nor the telcos comply with ISO9001.

ODTR is the regulatory authority in Ireland. It should act like one. Compel telcos to give product quality information. Insist on differential prices for products of different standards. Aim to provide all actual and potential customers with equal opportunities. Unless I am mistaken the Treaty of Rome gives entitlement to equality of service in communications (including transport) to everyone irrespective of location and this was found to be so in the case of Nouvelles Frontièrs v. EU.


E&OE

Pragmatica

I get ur point ... I agree that there maybe differances between certain areas that reduce quality of a service or it's more costly to keep to the same standard of other areas ... but I dont think it's prevelant here as (I'm guessing cause I dont have a figure but) the majority of "bad lines" are not actually physically "bad lines" in themselves ... They are classed as bad lines because they have a DACS box reducing the quality of data transfer ... I think there is very few internet users that have physically imparied lines ...

I'm kinda way out there in the country side and to date I haven't heard of anybody complaing about a bad line that a DACS box wasn't attached to ...

I estimate that removing the boxes would in most cases double the users throughput and and gurantee 24,000bps in all cases and up to 33,800 in most cases ... I know this personally through the pure fact that people way out here in the remotest part of the country (Co. Donegal in the north west - which doesn't have a backbone unlike the rest of the country and is usually that last county on the list for everything investment wise) and that are not on DACS equiped lines are all getting approx 44,000bps ...

Pragmatica

murcielago ... I'm sorry friend ... I had only read part one before posting my reply ... Your post was extremely well structured and informative ... Why? oh why? Cant u be our regulator

That's the best post I read here in months ....

NeilF

Originally posted by Muck
Current requirements on builders of estates are that they provide ducting for €ircon and then wire 2 pairs to the house itself.

That physical requirement is probably adequate; although I would agree that there should be plenty of capacity in the ducts for other telcos to put in their own lines and fibre is definitely the way to go. The problem is what Eircom do with those pair of lines once they leave your house. If those two pairs go directly to an exchange a mile or two away then not alone can you get ADSL you could combine the two pairs to get HDSL and 2Mb/s. Likewise 100m away there can be a DACS box that reduces them to tin cans and string.

Still, I looked at my own county's development plan. What a laugh. I never knew I lived near so many special rocks and stones

Anyway, the point of this thread is that the USO says 2400bps and Eircom think we deserve nothing better. While the long-term plans (such as fibre in estates), and indeed the role the ODTR should play in this, are something we should be pursuing we also need a short-term solution that gets decent access to as many people as quickly as possible. I'm thinking months instead of years. That means a solution using the existing infrastructure, which is the whole point of DSL - it used the copper already there.

Eircom are trialing ADSL which has a limit of a couple of miles and I think a lot of people will be too far from the exchange to get ADSL. However, there is another variant called IDSL, which is basically an always-on dual-channel ISDN connection that will work up to 11km or about 6.5 miles from the exchange. Unfortunately it doesn't have a voice line "built in" like ADSL so you would still need a voice line, either from the second pair to your house or a DACS solution would be ok too.

So, my suggestion for the USO is a minimum of 128kb/s. Virtually everyone with a proper line (no DACS) 11km from the exchange should be able to get either unmetered dual-channel ISDN (via a FRIACO offering) or IDSL which also offers an always on connection. Those on DACS boxes that cannot be removed should have cheap 56k FRIACO, a new copper pair installed or be offered a wireless solution. That speed is assuming it is implemented widely in something like twelve months. If it would be a protracted affair I would go for 256k or 512k.

However, the USO is just a minimum. Eircom should be compelled to offer better technologies to those who can get them and present a plan to the ODTR for the upgrading of the infrastructure where they cannot currently offer new services.

Fergus

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1997/en_397L0033.html

The fixed public telephone network
The fixed public telephone network means the public switched
telecommunications network which supports the transfer between network termination points at fixed locations of speech and 3,1 kHz bandwidth audio information, to support inter alia:
- voice telephony,
- facsimile Group III communications, in accordance with ITU-T
Recommendations in the 'T-series`,
- voice band data transmission via modems at a rate of at least 2 400 bit/s, in accordance with ITU-T Recommendations in the 'V-series`.

It really should be re-written. The Group III fax standard specifies use of 9,600 bit/sec full-duplex (V.29) and 14,400 bit/sec half-duplex (V.17).

Of course, if you say you're trying to do data transmission with a 'modem', it could be argued that you're only entitled to expect 2,400 bit/sec.

Fergus

I would guess that there must be many examples of groups of loops (e.g. a housing estate), that are terminated at a sub-distrubution frame (box in the street) before going on to the local exchange. Surely regulations could be formulated to allow other telcos to run trucks of pairs from their exchange to these boxes and make the final connection from there.

Some impartial 3rd party would have to be responsible for the last part between the box and the houses, in the event of maintenance/repairs.

Medion

I do not know much about bit rates but I want to get something of my chest that been bothering me as I read about the USO.

I know that the USO is very low. But is this just restricted to dialup connections because alot of you seem to be suggesting that it should be upgarded to 24,000 bits or Fax qualtiy and the ODTR has put a similar figure on it but would this not mean that maybe eircom maybe can supply really bad quality ADSL connection as long as it's above 24,000 bits.

There should be an diffrent standard for each technology and we should be aiming higher than what we want so when they half the figure we get what we really wanted in the first place.

This is a great post guys, I didnt know that it was all so complicated. I've seen where IOFFL say's there goning to work more on this issue in the new year. Keep us posted on the developments of this action and not keep the issue it in the background. I've learnd alot from this tread and look forward to the result. Thanks

oscarBravo

In a (late, sorry) reply to the original post:

Up to now, I have been on a carrier line. It's a pretty good carrier line, and I usually get about 22k connect speeds. On really good days, I get 28.8 or even 31.2.

I applied for, and eventually got, a second line. The plan was to use the original phone number for business, and the the second for a home number and for dial-up (to avoid tying up the business phone).

Problem: the new line doesn't do data calls. It's a WLL connection, with a wee antenna on my gable wall and a black box in the attic. The voice quality is fine, but when I place a data call (using two different modems, to a private network and to UTV Internet), the line disconnects as soon as the remote modem answers.

I checked the spec on the box: it's an Airspan AS/4000. The system is capable of xDSL, ISDN, whatever, but mine can't do dialup. I'm checking it out with Eircom, but in the meantime don't get too excited about WLL as Eircom's way of getting broadband to the masses. Phone lines, yes. Data, no.

I'll keep y'all posted if I get it fixed.

NeilF

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Problem: the new line doesn't do data calls. It's a WLL connection

Wow, someone with a WLL connection from Eircom The fact that they are using equipment capable of delivering broadband for the future is good. The fact that they didn't ask you to trial some sort of broadband service means were still stuck with the incumbent Eircom that we all know.

It must do some sort of data connection though. If it didn't Eircom would be breaking the USO as it currently stands, which is a pretty mean achievement

Have you tried connecting with 56k (v.90) disabled on your modem? You probably know this already but 56k works because it pushes the phone line to its limit and makes some assumptions about your setup. Trying it over a WLL connection might not work too well whereas if you told it to dial at 33.6 or 28.8, which are more robust speeds, you might get a solid connection every time. 33k isn't much but it is 50% more than 22k :rolleyes:

If you're onto an engineer about it again keep asking questions until he asks, "Are you from that lot, IrelandOffline?"

oscarBravo

Originally posted by NeilF
The fact that they are using equipment capable of delivering broadband for the future is good.

Yup.

The fact that they didn't ask you to trial some sort of broadband service means were still stuck with the incumbent Eircom that we all know.

Yup.

It must do some sort of data connection though. If it didn't Eircom would be breaking the USO as it currently stands, which is a pretty mean achievement

That's the basis of my discussions with Eircom.

Have you tried connecting with 56k (v.90) disabled on your modem? You probably know this already but 56k works because it pushes the phone line to its limit and makes some assumptions about your setup. Trying it over a WLL connection might not work too well whereas if you told it to dial at 33.6 or 28.8, which are more robust speeds, you might get a solid connection every time. 33k isn't much but it is 50% more than 22k :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know. The thing is: the instant the phone is answered, it disconnects -- not like a "boop, boop" engaged tone thing, but immediately back to a dialtone. Which, as you can imagine, confuses the modem no end.

If you're onto an engineer about it again keep asking questions until he asks, "Are you from that lot, IrelandOffline?"

Hee hee! Again, I'll keep you posted.

spongebob

Dúd

Have you tried to turn off call waiting/3 way calling?

This combination of services in Eircom speak is called 'phoneplus services' and can be turned off and on at no charge if you ring 1901

If it works and u get some kind of data connect (or some howlin and yowlin but NOT dialtone) then post back and I will tell you why.

M

oscarBravo

It subsequently got more interesting: it does the same for voice calls as well. I had an Eircom engineer here looking at it, and there is obviously a fault with either the black box or the base station (or whatever they are called in WLL-land).

Unfortunately, despite my emphasising on the repair call that this is a WLL line, they sent out one of the landline guys, who frankly admitted he knows less than feck all about WLL. I'm waiting for the WLL guy to show.

I'll still keep you posted.

@ Muck: Don't keep me in the dark, why would that work?

spongebob

?

oscarBravo

If the problem still appeared to be with data calls only, I'd try your suggestion. Since the line is to all intents and purposes knackered, I'll wait for the engineer to do his thang, and see how it looks then.

spongebob

The sudden appearance of dialtone, unexpectedly, is indicative of a flashhook which is an essential part of the provisioning of phoneplus services. A flash hook is a short hangup of less than 600ms

Turning off the services as I mentioned also turns off the 'need' to listen for and act upon receipt of a flash hook in the CO and may rectify u r problem. If not u ring 1901 and get them turned on again!

Ciao

oscarBravo

Looks like you were right, Muck, it is flash-related. I tried calling my mobile: when I answered, the mobile immediately told me I was on hold, and I got dialtone from the landline. I flashed the hook (had to do it twice), and got reconnected.

I am expecting an engineer Monday. I'll mention the flash issue to him, and see what he makes of it. I think it will be the same guy that connected me up in the first place, he seemed pretty clued in.

Thanks again for the pointer.