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.

LFCFan

FFS, if you actually stand back and look at what we are discussing here it would make you sick. Other '1st World' countries take broadband for granted and are off arguing about whether or not vDSL would be too expensive at €50 a month or whatever while we're arguing about whether a cap at 10gb for 512kb/s at a rediculous prices is a good deal or not. We've been shafted for so long now that we're starting to accept the bullsh1t dished out to us by the likes of €ircon.

As far as a cap is concerned, what's wrong with a letter in the post to the bandwidth hoggers explaining that furthur abuse of the system would result in termination of the service. In other words if Mr. Kazaa is constantly hitting 40 -60GB's a month then after the 3rd month they get a warning and if they continue to abuse they are cut off. This could be stipulated in the contract. Most people who get broadband might go nuts for the first month and then download habits would normalise. I don't think it's fair to penalise someone who might need to download some large files one month and download feck all for the next 3 months.

spongebob

Certain ports are an invitation to 'abuse', lets see ....... Port 21 for starters. 6667 for DCC sessions etc. etc.

If the contended group is being hit with a collective slowdown because of a hog somewhere in the 25 or 50 on that DSLAM, the best idea is to dynamically throttle port by port until you are left with 3 ports open

110 INBOUND
25 OUTBOUND
80

Then synamically relax the rules in reverse order of application as the demand eases.

Here's a bit of interesting Hog Math.

As there are 3600 seconds in an hour , the max capacity of a 512k pipe(inbound) is

(512*3600) and then divide by 8 to get Bytes.

= 230Mbyte an Hour.

With a 4Gbyte Cap it is possible for a single user to use up their bandwidth in (4,000 / 230Mb) = 17.4Hours of solid hogging and dogging.

As the total capacity of the pipe ...in a month is 24 hours by 30 days (and as each of the '50' users can DOG for 17.4 hours each)

24*30 = 720 Hours in a 30 day month.

720/17.4 = 41.40

Uhhhhhhhh 41.40 wow!

This means that the 512k pipe, in a situation where all the users decide to use up their full 4Gb allowance in a month, can only accomodate 41.40 users to their full quota. The other 8.6 users will get nothing , at all.

It strikes me that this contention ratio is threrefore illegal as it is technically impossible for All the customers on a DSLAM to get what they Paid for.

At 40:1 contention there would be a 7% capacity surplus each month.

M

Andor

This means that the 512k pipe, in a situation where all the users decide to use up their full 4Gb allowance in a month, can only accomodate 41.40 users to their full quota. The other 8.6 users will get nothing , at all.

Eircom Service Contract Update:

Due to matters that have come to our attention, the initially stated Cap of 4Gb has been reduced to 3 - in order to accomodate all users, but your stuck in an 18 month contract and cant do squat in fact, you didn't read the small print that permitted us to alter the contract at any given time!*
Thank you for using eircom i-stream.

[size=-2]*whoa-ho! your screwed now![/size]

SkepticOne

Obviously 3.27 is the "fair" amount if the utility of a broadband connection is measured entirely in downloaded data terms. I would cautious in advising an ISP to think in these terms. They should take into account the reasons that people sign up for broadband. Curbing excessive use may be necessary if a problem emerges, but if they want to maintain the attractiveness of the service to both light (in bandwidth) terms and relatively heavy users, they need to do it in an unobtrusive way. They also need to build in a bit of flexibility into the system. It will be interesting to see how the market develops provided, of course, the damn service appears.

bk

What people don't seem to be realising is that while you may have a 50:1 contention ratio, in any group of 50 people you will probobaly have only one or two hogs.

The vast majority of Joe Public wouldn't know what Kazaa, Linux ISO's, etc. are if they crawled into bed with them. Most users will be down at the pub, watching TV, asleep, etc. so really you wouldn't really have any great problem with hogs and any problem could be easily dealt with by threatening to cut them off under the AUP.

The real problem here is that we know the 4 gig cap has nothing to do with QoS (Quality of Service). Eircom are really hoping that you will go over the cap, so that they can charge you x per MB.

We all know Eircom really hate flat rate services and will do everything possible to maintain a per unit (weither it be time or data) charging model. As they will make a great deal of money when unsuspecting Joe Public goes over the cap. This is what I hate the cap so much, it is a continuation of Eircoms greed and their ruthless ripping off of the Irish public.

Hogs can easily be dealt with in other ways (throttling, disconnection, etc.), please don't fall for the trap that Eircom is laying for us. We finally have flat rate, please don't surrender it back to them.

Ardmore

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Obviously 3.27 is the "fair" amount if the utility of a broadband connection is measured entirely in downloaded data terms. I would cautious in advising an ISP to think in these terms. They should take into account the reasons that people sign up for broadband. Curbing excessive use may be necessary if a problem emerges, but if they want to maintain the attractiveness of the service to both light (in bandwidth) terms and relatively heavy users, they need to do it in an unobtrusive way. They also need to build in a bit of flexibility into the system. It will be interesting to see how the market develops provided, of course, the damn service appears.

Which, difficult as many people find it to believe, pretty much describes Eircoms approach. They set a cap, with "the right to charge" an absolutely ridiculous price for usage over the cap. This gave them the flexibility to hammer persistent hogs, but apparently they haven't applied this excess usage charge to most people, presumably because the problem never reared it's ugly head. Possibly because the bandwidth hogs were scared away from using the service.

elexes

id pay up to 150 without thinking about it if i had a 1 meg unlimited line . but is there any chance of this happening ??

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Ardmore
Which, difficult as many people find it to believe, pretty much describes Eircoms approach. They set a cap, with "the right to charge" an absolutely ridiculous price for usage over the cap. This gave them the flexibility to hammer persistent hogs, but apparently they haven't applied this excess usage charge to most people, presumably because the problem never reared it's ugly head. Possibly because the bandwidth hogs were scared away from using the service.

I meant flexibility for the user not for the ISP. Eircom have done things their way, because for the most part, there is no competition. What little their is is only emerging very slowly.

Praetorian

I would get option 4 (1mb uncapped). But i have the option to share the expense via a wireless network. Either way its still less than im paying now....I guess im used to paying a lot

longword

Originally posted by Muck
Certain ports are an invitation to 'abuse', lets see ....... Port 21 for starters. 6667 for DCC sessions etc. etc.

This is a discussion probably best left for Net/Comms, but DCC doesn't happen on port 6667 - the two IRC clients directly connect to each other on random source and destination ports. Almost nothing of an FTP session happens on port 21, though it can often be tied to port 20.

the best idea is to dynamically throttle port by port until you are left with 3 ports open

110 INBOUND
25 OUTBOUND
80

You can do a hell of a lot of damage with port 80. And wouldn't it be unfair to the other users within that group to be throttled for the actions of an unrelated customer? The only fair solution is a per-user cap, preferably with a daily sliding window as implemented by the likes of telenet.be.

This means that the 512k pipe, in a situation where all the users decide to use up their full 4Gb allowance in a month, can only accomodate 41.40 users to their full quota. The other 8.6 users will get nothing , at all.

It's a good point. And I'm very glad someone else is starting to apply math to the situation. You also have to understand that if your network is fully utilised, you'll run into slowdowns. In particular at peak hours of usage - the general public doesn't surf on a 24 hour clock so as more users sign up you will find the network congested at times, idle at others.

Overselling is pretty common both in the telecoms world and outside it. Eircom don't have sufficient capacity to allow every phone user in the country to simultaneously make a voice call. Airlines routinely overbook flights by 10-20% on the assumption that some passengers won't turn up - and on the whole that works out. Every other DSL provider in the world does it - it's just not economically viable to provide every customer with a dedicated 512k link to the rest of the world for $100/month.

You're forgetting something else. At no point does Eircom guarantee you 4GBytes per month. They've merely set that as a maximum for you.

spongebob

Originally posted by longword
This is a discussion probably best left for Net/Comms, but DCC doesn't happen on port 6667 - the two IRC clients directly connect to each other on random source and destination ports. Almost nothing of an FTP session happens on port 21, though it can often be tied to port 20.

You can do a hell of a lot of damage with port 80. And wouldn't it be unfair to the other users within that group to be throttled for the actions of an unrelated customer?

I meant the existence of open ports 6667 and 21 and 119 to be 'interpreted' by the DSLAM as a reason to throttle a given user in a contention group of 50 while preference should be given to 25 110 and 80 users.

It is crude but not totally unreasonable. More scientific methods would be intrusive (packet sniffing)

By changing the cap from 3Gb to 4Gb , Eircom are promising something that cannot be delivered ....in all honesty. Is that not ...grey or illegal ?

The math did make sense at 3Gb by the way, scbby and all as it is.

M

Ardmore

Originally posted by Muck
By changing the cap from 3Gb to 4Gb , Eircom are promising something that cannot be delivered ....in all honesty. Is that not ...grey or illegal ?

They aren't selling you 4GB. They are just reserving the right to charge you if you go over 4GB. That's not the same thing at all.

And no, I'm not defending the cap, I'm just pointing out that it's not illegal.

zynaps

Originally posted by Ardmore
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?

It may have been an extreme example, but it's not really questionable that we are absolutely -way- behind almost the entire developed world, in terms of affordable, fast and available internet access.

A (relatively) quick search on yahoo gave me a Canadian provider, Telus, offering 2.5 mbps/640kbps ADSL for the equivalent of €30.20 monthly.
Another Canadian company, pacific coast.net, offers 1.5mbps/512kbps ADSL for €19.90 monthly.
DLS in Illinois offer wireless at up to 10mbps dependant on location/signal strength for about 60 euros a month.

(Interestingly, almost every broadband offer that turned up had a downstream and sometimes upstream cap, generally from 1gb to 4gb per month - except the wireless service, which had a fair use contract stating similar though)

Besides, why should we not compare ourselves with the most efficient countries in terms of internet connectivity?

Unless Japan and Korea etc. are hiding some magical technology we don't know about, we can do what they did, and better, as communications technology continues to advance.
It's been said many times before, but if we expect and await failure, we're more likely to get it.

zynaps

nahdoic

Originally posted by zynaps
Besides, why should we not compare ourselves with the most efficient countries in terms of internet connectivity?

Yeah. It's about time we stopped playing paddy catch-up with the rest of the world.

Serbian

eheh Do the prices include VAT? Well, I am already paying €40 a month ex Vat for a 512k connection so I already have a cheaper service, but I went for the €70, 700k connection in the interest of the poll

Ardmore

Originally posted by zynaps
Besides, why should we not compare ourselves with the most efficient countries in terms of internet connectivity?
It's been said many times before, but if we expect and await failure, we're more likely to get it.

I'm not talking about "expecting failure", though if you have unrealistic expectations, you can expect failure.

The point I was making is that if when someone does things exactly the way it's done everywhere else (introduce a service in just one small market), everyone here bitches and moans about it not being available everywhere (NTL, IBB, IrishWisp, etc).

You won't find anyone here arguing that Ireland has had broadband for €30/month for the last 2 years (NTLs cable deal in Tallaght), but they'll still trot out comparisons with this amazing deal in one tiny little market in Japan, as though it proves something.

Yeah, eircom has pissed away years of opportunity for us on the broadband front. But one of the problems with Universal Service Obligations is that the customers in the built up areas (where ADSL is practical) have to subsidise the customers in the less densely populated areas, and, even though broadband isn't a USO (yet), anyone can see the mindset that Eircom have to deal with - deliver the same service to everyone, at the same price, or else.

spongebob

Originally posted by Ardmore

You won't find anyone here arguing that Ireland has had broadband for €30/month for the last 2 years (NTLs cable deal in Tallaght),

But one of the problems with Universal Service Obligations is that the customers in the built up areas (where ADSL is practical) have to subsidise the customers in the less densely populated areas,

N.T.Unwell have told so many lies that they are disregarded in this forum. They pass 3000 houses on upgraded cable, nobody knows any more precisely an dcertainly not themselves. If you want to waste about 2 days, try to find out where the upgraded cable is yourself and then try to get N.T.Unwell to admit where it is themselves and then try to sign on for it once all the parties accept that it exists and is signable up to(-ish , tthats means by N. T. Unwell standards) . Then search for the user NTL_Cable_Modem in this Board (underlines necessary) in order that you may see one of the most pathetic attempts at damage limitation in all of last year.

I'll have that subsidy too so I will, thanks Ardmore. You're sound for a non-culchEE

M

maxheadroom

Originally posted by Muck
If you want to waste about 2 days, try to find out where the upgraded cable is yourself and then try to get N.T.Unwell to admit where it is themselves and then try to sign on for it once all the parties accept that it exists and is signable up to(-ish , tthats means by N. T. Unwell standards) .

2days? Try 3 months! It actually took me 3 months of phoning, arguing and lecturing (yes, the roads were dug up. Yes, the cable was replaced. Yes the tap on the front of the house had 4 ports. Yes there are lots of little green boxes... you get the idea)


But moving a little more on topic, Ardmore's point was that you wouldn't use ntl:'s pathetic excuse for coverage to back up an argument that you can get broadband in Ireland for €30, so why would you pick a similar arrangement in Japan where a small amount of users can get 12Mbps for ~€30 to back up the point that "in japan you can get 12mbps uncapped DSL for €30". If that's the kind of logic you want to use then "You can get uncapped cable broadband (512kbps) for €30 in Ireland" is a perfectly valid argument too.

leeroybrown

I went for the €70 option (but only just) purely on the grounds that if I was getting DSL I'd want to split the costs with at least one other person in my house if possible.

Paying €20 line rental along with €50 for 10 Gigs makes an extra €20 for a 30 Gig cap seem quite appealing when you're splitting between people.

The 24:1 contention ratio is also much better if you have 2 or more heavy users browsing, gaming, downloading, etc.

zynaps

Originally posted by maxheadroom
But moving a little more on topic, Ardmore's point was that you wouldn't use ntl:'s pathetic excuse for coverage to back up an argument that you can get broadband in Ireland for €30, so why would you pick a similar arrangement in Japan where a small amount of users can get 12Mbps for ~€30 to back up the point that "in japan you can get 12mbps uncapped DSL for €30". If that's the kind of logic you want to use then "You can get uncapped cable broadband (512kbps) for €30 in Ireland" is a perfectly valid argument too.

Where has this dsl option in Japan been stated as similar in pathetically limited availability to ntl's "nothing" cable offer, which is available to what, two, three thousand people at best?

I'm just going on the basis of someone's post about their experiences of widespread, cheap internet connectivity in Tokyo. He did not state exactly what parts and how much of Tokyo, or what conditions outside of Tokyo were.

So, if you want me to rephrase and say TOKYO has 12mb DSL for about €30 a month, fair enough.
Is Tokyo comparable with the measly amount of upgraded cable connections ntl is offering here?

No. Thanks.

And I'm not saying, Ardmore, that we should be the same as other countries, or have the same internet connectivity schemes and pricing expectations as them.
I'm saying we should see from them that it is possible to do much better than what we have here.
I'm not saying it's necessarily possible or a good idea at all to try to provision the same services at the same prices to everyone in Ireland, regardless of the difficulty in getting them those services due to topography, geography and local resources, blah blah.

zynaps