[UK] Users call for cheaper broadband

dahamsta

The Reg

The broadband industry is warned that it could lose hard-fought-for customers, unless it cuts price and improves performance.

So says research published this month by Berlin-based market research firm Metrinomics, which found that nine out of ten people believe high subscription charges are a major obstacle to the take-up of broadband.

The research, conducted with the help of Register readers, found that contrary to reports, once people have tried broadband they'll never go back to dial-up access, six out of ten claimed they could quite easily imagine life without broadband.

In particular, this finding from the survey explodes the current hype surrounding broadband and warns broadband service providers to ensure that in the race to sign up users, existing customers are not given a raw deal.

[...]

Langball

Even that 6/10 is too low. This hype about broadband is a lot of b0llox really.

Of course people call for cheaper broadband - but why should the carriers care? Lets campaign Lotus to make their cars more available! A big fast car is nice, and it hurts for a small while when you go back to a normal car, but at the end of the day you don't need it. Its not holding you back having a 'standard' car, or narrow-band Internet access in this case. Big fast cars are for the people who can afford them. Thats the way of the world - always has been, always will be. Most people don't need broadband, but thats another story...

...People are being drawn towards broadband by inept companies and developers who develop bloatware rather than cleaver software and services. Developers seem to (for the most part) have halted writing cleaver applications that can work within the confines of available bandwidth. Instead they write bandwidth hungry applications and complain about a lack of bandwidth, or make people feel like they have to upgrade. Its sickening! Then again, what would college kids be like if they didn't have something to campaign about?

Ball, Lang.

vinnyfitz

langballs could you be one?

Langball

No, I really do believe that its all crapaddy-crap-crap. People should to less complaining about lack of bb and more work on refining applications and services to operate efficiently over narrow-band.

There are very few valid arguements for making broadband access as dirt cheap as people are calling for. It will simply drive down the quality of the Internet, service levels, and put a few carriers out of business. Fact is that providing broadband access is expensive. Why should it be sold as a loss-leader? If people want luxuary, they pay for it. Simple as that. We have no God given right to cheap broadband access!

Ball, Lang.

LFCFan

Originally posted by Langball
No, I really do believe that its all crapaddy-crap-crap. People should to less complaining about lack of bb and more work on refining applications and services to operate efficiently over narrow-band.

There are very few valid arguements for making broadband access as dirt cheap as people are calling for. It will simply drive down the quality of the Internet, service levels, and put a few carriers out of business. Fact is that providing broadband access is expensive. Why should it be sold as a loss-leader? If people want luxuary, they pay for it. Simple as that. We have no God given right to cheap broadband access!

Ball, Lang.

Yeah, and at the sametime we should make roads narrower and get the car companies to develop cars that only go 20 MPH and are half the size? Or maybe we should get rid of the internet altogether and go back to Snail mail?

pork99

I find it interesting how many newbies like Langball have no

History
Biography
Location
Interests
Occupation

in their profile

My own profile shows a healthy eclectic mixture of interests, from Merovingian Frankish Kings to the life & times of Alex Ferguson

DC

Anyone can buy a Lotus if they have the money. Ok, they may be put on a waiting list, but they'll get their car.

What's criminal here is that most people don't even have a choice of whether they want to get BB or not. It would be a start if most people had a choice, whatever the price.

Gwan away and stop acting the langball.:rolleyes: Get back to your 286 PC or whatever you think is quite adequate to run your command line applications. And don't forget to renew your black and white TV license.

Langball

Nah, thats just being silly. There are affordable cars out there that suffice. They are cheap and do the job, without having to backpedal to 20mph cars. As for making roads narrower, there is no need. But they are pedestrianising lots of streets if that counts. I see the point your trying to make. But your off the mark. Wider roads, bigger data pipes. Sure, outbound from the ISPs to the net. But not from the customer to the ISP. ISPs widen their roads because of an increase in traffic. But everyone running off and buying hummers and then demanding wider roads and bugger all increase in road tax is just dreaming.

On the other hand, with the Internet, whats wrong with using more text based services. Actually, let me rephrase that - less graphically intensive services. HTML mail, embedded images, its all evil. What ever happend to making the best of what you can afford?

As for my history etc pork99 - I have only looked at this for the first time today. Previous to this my pref was less bandwidth intensive things like ntp ;-)

Ball, Lang.

koneko

Originally posted by Langball
On the other hand, with the Internet, whats wrong with using more text based services. Actually, let me rephrase that - less graphically intensive services. HTML mail, embedded images, its all evil. What ever happend to making the best of what you can afford?

Because that's a step in the wrong direction.

Why should we move to text based services? This isn't the 1980's. We should be moving forward, using more advanced services. Streaming audio, streaming video. Buying music over the internet. Playing games online with people on the other side of the world.

That isn't going to happen on a slow connection.

Langball

DC - your talking sense. But are wrong on one point. You say its criminal that people don't even have the chance of access to broadband services, regardless of cost. The fact is that there are very few places in this country where you cannot get broadband. As quick look in www.infrastructure.ie show. Lets take tullamore as an example...

"Telecommunications: In terms of telecommunications, Tullamore has broadband infrastructure in the form of both 155 Mbits and 2.5 Gbits Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology. The location has primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)."

You will find most places have broadband services available - just at a price. But thats the price of luxuary.

Ball, Lang goes back to his ZX Spectrum only dreaming of something as luxuary as a 286 ;-)

pork99

But thats the price of luxuary

fair point

I want broadband but I'm sure I could live without it as I have up to now

but what if cheap broadband is a luxury here and taken for granted in other EU countries? where does that leave us?

Calibos

langball seems to have hijacked the thread a bit with his eircom troll/luddite like comments but I think the point that dahamsta was trying to make is that there is a huge, albeit price sensitive market for broadband out there just waiting to be tapped despite what the rat says.

Oh and doesn't it just make you sick that they are still moaning about the high price of broadband in the UK. I'd give my left arm for DSL @ stg£27 a month. I suppose lang has a kind of point about people expecting a top class service for peanuts which you could possibly apply to the Uk market but definatley not to Ireland. I'm sorry but you don't have to be a technophile to think there is something seriously wrong with the current pricing in Ireland (€109+cap)

I'd be prepared to pay a maximum of half the current price after VAT ie €55-60 and only for a 512k service. None of this 256k for €60 malarky.

tribble

Langball - let's pretend for a second that you're right about the uselessness of broadband.
Let's pretend that streamed international radio, instant email, online video rental or cheap international communication wouldn't be useful to the masses.

Even if we accept this then we are still left with the fact that a hugh percentage of high earning (high tax contributors) in Ireland are working in the IT sector. If Ireland is not seen by the major international investors as a forward thinking, 'connected' country then why will they invest further here?
Simple they won't. "Why goto Ireland, they don't even use IT themselves"
This (bb) is the future, like it or lump it.

Personally i would agree that modern UI (User interfaces) are bloated, i hate html mail and find the command line more useful for lots of applications - but the plebs do not. It's is easier to experiment with Graphical Interfaces and buttons than a blank black screen, more friendly if you will.

My 2 euro $'s

crawler

Langball - firslty I take serious issue with the fact that you assume we are all college students. It's a long time since I saw the inside of a college!

Secondly you are assuming that all people need internet services as a luxury item - What about the graphic designer working from home but with a head office 100 miles away - Are you saying he should "make do" with the good old black screen and text editor?

Thirdly Ireland must keep pace with the rest of the developed world - I dont think the rest of the developed world view BB as a luxury item - if you doubt me on this go to China where they see it as a God given right and requirement.

4th - I am assuming you want to see the irish economy grow , more SME type companies develop and support on line trading , larger companies offering REAL value added services and products?

5th - no matter how much you refine applications narrowband will eventually outlive it's current usefullness - Look at record players and B&W TV's - I'm sorry my son but time moves on.

Finally - you are obviously an educated person who knows a bit about telco stuff you also have many correct facts - if you are to bite the hand that feeds then bugger off - if you are here to be genuinely contructive then you are very welcome and I look forward to seeing more of your posts.

Dustaz

Originally posted by Langball

"Telecommunications: In terms of telecommunications, Tullamore has broadband infrastructure in the form of both 155 Mbits and 2.5 Gbits Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology. The location has primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)."

I cannot begin to sum up the idiocy of this statement. If this is what you want to use to back up your original argument then i suggest you go back to college yourself and find something else to rebel against.

Hannibal_12

Well its the first time I have ever read anyone saying broadband is useless. I could go on about the wealth of services available to those who have broadband or to the workers who can telework thanks to a reliable always on high speed connection or to researchers who require the net for conferencing with colleagues abroad or with consumers who are encouraged to spend more time online and perhpas buy more products thereby increasing revenue for online companies...........................but who needs all that. I'm perfectly happy to sit for three hours updating my system drivers and another three or four updating my operating system and another three hours doing something else.
Long live the E-Tub , All hail per minute narrowband, welcome to Ireland.

De Rebel

Dustaz

Could you ever check out that guy'd IP. 10/1 he's on a fast connection laughing at us for taking his trolling seriously.

I think everything beyond the initial post deserves to be in the recycle bin.

Calibos

I think everything beyond the initial post deserves to be in the recycle bin

Except my post!:D

Xian

Originally posted by Hannibal_12
Well its the first time I have ever read anyone saying broadband is useless.

ahem (it was a while ago - excuse the Young Turk tone)

I'll take you up on a specific point, Langball, rather than fan the flames of the wider discussion. If I can summarize it, the headlong rush to broadband encourages developers to make more and more bandwidth-hungry applications rather than making innovative use of the bandwidth currently most widely available, 56K.

This stems from the time when clock speed was the bottleneck. Moore's Law, that clock speeds double every 18 months, seemed not so much a law as a blank cheque to developers to add ever more bloat to their software. Now this bottleneck has passed (essentially because few have a need for applications that require a 2GHz chip at the moment) online games consoles, video-streaming and movies-on-demand bear the hallmarks of an industry hoping this new bottleneck, bandwidth, will be an equally profitable cash-cow.

In fact Moore's Law cannot be applied to the internet as it is not a closed system. The internet will never be measured in terms of bandwidth as computers are in clock cycles as it can never be benchmarked. True, applications are developed with high bandwidth requirements, but the important measure of the growth of the internet is the number of people on it, not its increase in size (when you talk about your website, do you go on about how big it is or how many hits you got last month?).

No, the law that best applies to the internet is Metcalfe's Law: the usefulness, or utility, of a network equals the square of the number of users. This means that although developers can target high-bandwidth customers, they would make best use of the internet by targetting the lowest common denominator of all users' bandwidth, because the best use is based on the number of users. Currently this is 56K. It will rise, but the incentive will always be to follow the LCD. Because of its limitations, DSL will not contribute to this rise, nor will other current broadband solutions. They only serve to improve an existing service.

Hannibal_12

Originally posted by LFCFan
Yeah, and at the sametime we should make roads narrower and get the car companies to develop cars that only go 20 MPH and are half the size? Or maybe we should get rid of the internet altogether and go back to Snail mail?

Exactly. To be honest this argument about utilising current bandwith more effectively makes me laugh as do the proponents of it, they seem like apologists for Eircom & the ODTR. Even now updating graphics drivers for instance takes me more than an hour simply because I am crawling along at a miserable speed on an analogue connection. Now I could say to them make your driver files smaller, but then they would say to me, we cant, our chip has 125 million transistors that require huge lines of complex code, which takes up space, alot of space etc....
You can apply this analogy to a multitude of different applications. Its why processors are becoming faster and faster with no end in sight. Applications are becoming more resource hungry but this is not something to be frowned on. While I agree that some software is bloated an unoptimised, most is just progressing in function and complexity and thus necessitates a proportional increase in power.
Even games now have incredibly complex physics engines in them to accurately model how people fall, items ricochet off walls, how shadows are cast etc...., these all come at a price.
I dont think this discussion would even be taking place if we all lived in the states or england, we're trying to rationalise the shortage of decent bandwidth here by coming up with plausible reasons to do without it.i.e bloated software etc.
I don't think broadband necessarily enhances the internet but rather makes it work they way we were always led to believe it would. Not in the E-Tub however, here 56k rules and ISDN is the latest tech.

Dustaz

Originally posted by Xian
No, the law that best applies to the internet is Metcalfe's Law: the usefulness, or utility, of a network equals the square of the number of users. This means that although developers can target high-bandwidth customers, they would make best use of the internet by targetting the lowest common denominator of all users' bandwidth, because the best use is based on the number of users. Currently this is 56K. It will rise, but the incentive will always be to follow the LCD. Because of its limitations, DSL will not contribute to this rise, nor will other current broadband solutions. They only serve to improve an existing service. [/B]

Couldnt let this go without taking issue with a point there xian

While what you say may be true for some applications, its simply unworkable for large swathes of the internet.

Beam TV is a good example of this. Started by the Mill (a post produiction house in Soho) and basically a glorified FTP server, its become the darling of the advertising/video/media industry in a VERY short space of time. Basically, subscribers use beam tv's servers to put up viewing copys of ads in progress for approval from clients, comments from directors etc. Not all of these people are browsing from work (altho admittedly a lot are). Directors and musicians for example usually download and view from home. This system is totally unworkable with 56k and as such is totally unworkable here in Dublin (sorry PROC lads, no advertising of note down there ).

Now this is a high end solution, but there are a LOT of sites that are simply not 56k friendly because time has moved on.

Xian

Originally posted by Dustaz
...basically a glorified FTP server

Originally posted by Xian
They only serve to improve an existing service.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Dustaz

Im still a bit confused then.

This service and many others could not work under 56k. Its not being improved by broadband, its being made possible by broadband. Metcalfes law still applies to it, but the LCD is raised from 56k to at least 512k. There are a lot of services/sites/areas of the internet that this is true for.

Xian

Originally posted by Dustaz
Im still a bit confused then.

Because of how emotive the wider discussion has tended to become in the past, the terms of reference in answering Langball's argument were very specific. He referred to developers and the incentive to add bloat to programs because of broadband. The application you referred to was "a glorified FTP server", the ftp server being the application, developed with the LCD in mind, and the Beam TV use of the application being nothing more than an agreement by a niche of users that this particular ftp server would be used for high bandwidth. There is no development involved in that, nor does it constitute a raising of the LCD. Only a fool (or Microsoft) would develop an application that required broadband for it to function given the current state of connectivity worldwide.

quozl

how about ignoring the bandwidth and considering the latencies. I play in uk gaming leagues and that's becoming more and more common. I couldn't do that on an analogue modem, with latencies of c300ms and huge spikes. I can barely do it on ISDN which has acceptable latencies but due to it's narrow bandwidth floods/chokes during moments of activity.

This is something that requires broadband. And this isn't because of bloat or laziness, this is because while quakeworld was playable on ISDN, modern games are not as they involve more players, larger maps and more objects. Bandwidth required to describe what is occuring in the game has to of course increase proportionally to the number of variables in the game.

Oh and by the way, NTP is network time protocol, perhaps you're thinking of NNTP? Though I wouldn't be hugely suprised if you find your 56k connection and watching your system clock update itself satisfying. You don't seem particularly hard to please.

quozl