By popular demand. A realistic Poll

Dustaz

We here at Dusty.net have looked at what is available here and abroad and put a finger in the wind of market conditions and are interested to know what people value.

Which would you be more likely to pay for out of this lot?

De Rebel

There is space in the market for most of those offerings. I'd select no.2 on day 1, but would like the idea of having other options available.

Dustaz

Just interested to see what people value most.

Please post your choice and why.

MiCr0

i don't think that poll is actually realistic

the uncapped service would be the same price/dearer than the next higher speed capped package.

ie 512k uncapped would be around 65/70e
my 2c anyhow

mike65

Being the cheapskate I am, I voted No 1 option. I could live with the 3Gb cap.

Whats the upstream rate likely to be?

Mike.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by MiCr0
the uncapped service would be the same price/dearer than the next higher speed capped package.

Not necessarily. A cap is simply a way of rationing out a given amount of capacity.

In a non-capped service it is down to a free-for-all with some users grabbing more of this capacity than others.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

theciscokid

they're all too expensive,

i'm hoping and holding on for utv's deals

*heads back to raiden on da jag*

Fergus

Restricting usage based on a data volume charge is wrong. If a user is damaging the service for others by hogging bandwidth, the should be warned / restricted / barred / etc.

Some people seem to think 512K DSL is a 512K leased line. It isn't. It's sharing a 512K leased line with 47 other users (or whatever the ratio is).

lynchie

Originally posted by Fergus
Some people seem to think 512K DSL is a 512K leased line. It isn't. It's sharing a 512K leased line with 47 other users (or whatever the ratio is).

But with the uptake on DSL at the moment, id say that im probably one of 5 or so on my exchange with it so contention issues arent a problem at the moment. But going forward they probably will.

Ill stick with my 1mb line. If I could get it €100 cheaper id be a happy camper:)

LoGiE

I'll take option two anyday. A 10GB cap is fine and €50 is nothing compared to what I'm paying now.

Michael Collins

Originally posted by LoGiE
I'll take option two anyday. A 10GB cap is fine and €50 is nothing compared to what I'm paying now.

Ditto - Hate the idea of a cap but all in all a 10GB cap would be acceptable

dahamsta

I don't want a cap full stop. I don't want to have to watch my data at all. I won't be hogging bandwidth but just don't want to have to worry about what I'm doing.

I know how you feel but that's not realistic, and to be honest - and I know this is going to sound weird - it's not fair on the telco's. Throttling is the only fair and equitable approach.

adam

Ste-

Can I have a B please Bob
3/4 gig isnt enuff!!!
isn't it bad enuff watching the time never mind what data ur using.

TomF

I voted for #1, although I'd much rather get a cheaper rate, because all I use the Internet for is email and occasional surfing with a 56K modem.

STaN

Originally posted by TomF
I voted for #1, although I'd much rather get a cheaper rate, because all I use the Internet for is email and occasional surfing with a 56K modem.

hmmm maybe BECAUSE you have a 56k modem?

oeNeo

Woops, voted none but meant to vote for option 2.

ando

no2. The most reasonable one

captainpat

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Not necessarily. A cap is simply a way of rationing out a given amount of capacity.

In a non-capped service it is down to a free-for-all with some users grabbing more of this capacity than others.

It's not grabbing , it's using . This is normal in any operation, some need more capacity at some times than others. The uncapped operation is the most efficient way of sharing capacity. A cap is simply a way of charging again for what is already paid for. The use of a cap does not provide rationing on a resource, as it only comes into play after the "high" usage has occurred. So there is no benefit to the light user.

BigEejit

I voted number 2, but if there was an uncapped version at the same cost as capped number 1 I would have voted for that. An dont say it isnt reasonable ... its available all over the world (30 - 40 euros 512k down uncapped that is)

Slutmonkey57b

This FUD with capping needs to be sorted out.

Putting a "cap" on users does NOTHING to solve bandwith - hogging issues.

NOTHING.

Because it is simply charging customers for what they've done AFTER they've done it.

The technology allows telcos to throttle a user's access to the pipe. This is the only method of PREVENTING kazaa hoggers and the like from using the entire pipe 24/7.

Capping is simple another ripoff strategy.

ando

if i was running eircom *god forbid* I would also put a cap on it. I would'nt want ppl running webservers and the like

seamus

Originally posted by dahamsta
and to be honest - and I know this is going to sound weird - it's not fair on the telco's.

Satan rang this morning, said he was having a problem with his boiler That post should be framed.

Anyway, option 2 would suit me best, although I happily take option 1 with a 10 gig cap.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by captainpat
It's not grabbing , it's using . This is normal in any operation, some need more capacity at some times than others. The uncapped operation is the most efficient way of sharing capacity. A cap is simply a way of charging again for what is already paid for. The use of a cap does not provide rationing on a resource, as it only comes into play after the "high" usage has occurred. So there is no benefit to the light user.

The word "using" is probably better since it is less emotive. Capping is a form of rationing out the download capacity since if you choose to sign up to a capped service, included in your monthly fee is a set download allocation.

Capping is not a perfect solution to slowdown in a shared bandwidth situation since it pays no heed to the busy periods, however, it does discourage people leaving on, for example, streaming video 24 hours a day.

If you choose to pay for a service that only allows a download of, say, 4 gig, then you can't argue that you have paid for more. 4 gig is what was being offered, and you paid for it.

I believe that in a competitive environment, non-capped services will appear pretty quickly because they are attractive to both heavy and light users. Attractive to the heavy users for obvious reasons, but attractive to the light users because they too don't want to have to monitor their usage (many of them may be non-technical, for example).

Capping is certainly a form of rationing, the question is whether you want to go for a service which provides this sort of rationing or whether you prefer bandwidth throttling (another form) or whether you go for no rationing.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
This FUD with capping needs to be sorted out.

Putting a "cap" on users does NOTHING to solve bandwith - hogging issues.

NOTHING.

Because it is simply charging customers for what they've done AFTER they've done it.

I disagree with this. If you make the cap small enough and charge a high enough price for exceeded download amounts, then people will lower their usage.

I think the original i-stream was going to have a 1 gig download with quite high usage charges after that. Anyone foolish enough to sign up for this would find that they get pretty much the full maximum bandwidth at all times. Of course so few people would sign up in this case that the cap would probably not matter

Chaos-Engine

What makes you think its realistic?
Realistic to Eircom???

You know the price of broadband in other countries. Just cause its half price doesn't mean it is realistic??

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta

I don't want a cap full stop. I don't want to have to watch my data at all. I won't be hogging bandwidth but just don't want to have to worry about what I'm doing.

I know how you feel but that's not realistic, and to be honest - and I know this is going to sound weird - it's not fair on the telco's. Throttling is the only fair and equitable approach.

Well, they seem to manage in Britain with its 50:1 ratio DSL services.

zynaps

Originally posted by SkepticOne
I disagree with this. If you make the cap small enough and charge a high enough price for exceeded download amounts, then people will lower their usage.

Like how if eircom offered no flat rate dialup packages, and charged by the minute at awful prices, people would also lower their usage and online time?

Great.

It's 2003, and there are better solutions to 'bandwidth hogging' than caps. We PAY for the bandwidth - it is the service in itself, and I tend to agree with slutmonkey's statement that bandwidth caps are merely another way for our telcos to scab more money out of us.
If they can get 12mbps uncapped ADSL for €30 or so per month in Japan, I think we have a right to expect better than 512k with a 10gb cap for even €50, though it may be a whole lot better than what is available to us now.

That's why I chose the final option

eircom, who currently hold the only available broadband options for us (short of satellite, and wireless on a very limited basis, and esat either are forced by eircom's wholesale prices or are fleecing us for whatever they can get too) can do better, they just choose not to.

I'm not going to let them dictate what I will find acceptable in a broadband service, when I can see the rest of the world is ahead of them by a very long way. I can hold out, until I get within range of wireless or someone else offers a realistic service for realistic prices.
For those who cannot, well, I guess that's what the other choices were for

zynaps

SkepticOne

Originally posted by zynaps
Like how if eircom offered no flat rate dialup packages, and charged by the minute at awful prices, people would also lower their usage and online time?

Great.

I don't think capping is the best form of rationing. We should also question the need for rationing at all. In the case of Britain, the people there seem happy with no rationing on 50:1 ratio DSL. It could be that they impose rationing via bandwith throttling, though.

In addition, although it has been noted in another thread, that users in Ireland use more international bandwidth than those in other countries and, indeed, that international bandwidth into Ireland is more expensive than into other countries, what is the actual price? Is the 50:1 contention ratio down purely to bandwidth charges or is it, once again, due to the uncompetitive market, with companies seeking to protect revenues elsewhere? How come IBB has a contention ratio of 8:1? If something can be made very abundant, then it is often more economical not to meter it since heavy users won't have much of an impact on light users anyway.

Ardmore

Originally posted by zynaps
If they can get 12mbps uncapped ADSL for €30 or so per month in Japan, I think we have a right to expect better than 512k with a 10gb cap for even €50,

Just as a matter of interest, do you know what they charge for municipal water services in Japan? I've a sneaking suspicion that it's rather more than most of us pay in Ireland.

One of the problems with Broadband in Ireland is that, because we're a small country, there is an expectation that things should be available at the same price everywhere in the country. In other countries, it's perfectly normal to find that the cost of telecommunications services differs widely in different parts of the country, simply because it's practical to deliver service in some areas, and not in others. We hear all sorts of bitching about the fact that people in rural areas aren't going to get DSL anytime soon, as though Eircom invented the "distance sensitive" technology as an anti-culchie measure, northsiders are bitching about the fact that God built 3-Rock mountain on the southside.

You can't get 12mbps uncapped ADSL for €30 everywhere in Japan (you can't even get it in most cities in Japan). You can't get anything even remotely like it in most major markets in the US, or in any major market in the EU. but apparently it's the yardstick by which to measure our backwardness?

kamobe

1mb down, uncapped. Nice speed, don't have to worry about paying extra. I was always willing to pay up to IR£70 for dsl originally. This is close to that, but without the STUPID POINTLESS GREEDY CAP :rolleyes:

So i would take it.