dsl vs 56k comparison

BoneCollector

The difference now is that Eircom *want* people to get DSL now as flat rate has spoilt their per-minute party

As i said in a previous post..

when we get Friaco which should be 24/7 access with a possible 150 hrs limit,
if you do the math.. 150hrs x 56kbs = 3GB cap on current and new offering of adls from errcom.
You now got to look at the pros and cons..
if fraico is introduced @ 30 or less we can all get this cheap comparatively slow internet access or! we can we can use up our 3GB quicker! buy paying €60pm ADSL

So twice the price so we can use our 150hrs usage in 15hrs
So realisticaly you dont get any extra capacity you just pay more to use it quicker!

Ardmore

Originally posted by BoneCollector
So twice the price so we can use our 150hrs usage in 15hrs
So realisticaly you dont get any extra usage you just pay more to use it quicker!

I spent an hour and a half yesterday looking for some cheap flights to Spain for my parents ("Oh, I don't want a 4 hour layver in Barcelona, what if we fly via manchester instead"). Being used to a fast connection in work, trying to visit all these highly graphical sites on a 56k modem was painful!

Believe me, I'd be quite happy to pay to use my 3GB faster!!!!!

Dustaz

Originally posted by BoneCollector


So twice the price so we can use our 150hrs usage in 15hrs
So realisticaly you dont get any extra usage you just pay more to use it quicker!

This is just silly. Adsl is not exclusivly for downloading like a mad yoke. People dont just do the 'Linux ISO' thing you know. Most people do not specifically get dsl to download raw data as quickly as they can.

BoneCollector

This is just silly. Adsl is not exclusivly for downloading like a mad yoke. People dont just do the 'Linux ISO' thing you know. Most people do not specifically get dsl to download raw data as quickly as they can.

Who said it had anything to do with people downloading like mad!?

Its a simple comparason as to what you get if you switch to ADSL and exactly what your paying for.
Essentialy its speed, but capacity remains the same.
on 56kbs x 150 hrs max capacity is 3gb (in theory)
this is also the same capacity you get with adsl @ upto 512kbs before you start paying per MB.

I dont see anything silly about this? comparason

K!LL!@N

Sorry, this is off topic but it's something that really annoys me.
Why do people insist on comparing 150 hours of 56k access, with a 3Gb cap on adsl?
It's a ridiculous comparison to make.

1) I challenge anyone to download 3Gb in 150 hours over 56k. It's hard enough trying to maintain a connection on 56k for more than a few hours.
2) Forget about browsing if you're trying to download on 56k, both are going to suffer.
3) People don't just want adsl to download, they want to play games, they want to browse faster etc.

If you want to compare 56k and adsl, compare it on speed, cost, performance. Not the ability to download 3Gb.


Killian

BoneCollector

You`ve just missed the whole point of the excercise,
and any one else that trys to vent anger about the comparason.
and im not going to write a page and a half explaining it, it being exactly! the same reasoning i always stated FRIACO introduction was most important to be introduced 1st before! broadband and some people Still! dont understand the point and insist Broad band introduction is more important to be introduced 1st.

(think outside the box)

K!LL!@N

I'm all for the introduction of FRIACO.
But i also don't want to wait for ADSL.
They are two very distinct products.
There is a market for both products, at the right price.
Why should one group be forced to wait?
If something can be introduced at the right price, then let's have it.
It's unfortunate that broadband isn't available everywhere, and yes FRIACO will be a step in the right direction for anyone that can't get broadband, but why should those who can get it be forced to wait. That's what you're advocating.

Killian

BoneCollector

That's what you're advocating.

nope!

K!LL!@N

OK, well what are you saying then?

Killian

BoneCollector

to simplify without writing a 1.5 page essay

the comparason between 56k and adsl is a challange to errcoms pricing policy of adsl, similarly so is the argument regarding friaco, futher explanation on that subject is discussed in other threads.

Illkillya

Originally posted by K!LL!@N
3) People don't just want adsl to download, they want to play games, they want to browse faster etc.

games = download, browsing = downloading. With me and my brother sharing a connect, 3gb sounds very low.

Dustaz

Off topic comparison split from phillip nolan thread.

PiE

I understand what yer saying BoneCollecter but don't forget there will be alternatives to eircoms ADSL if and when ComReg give the go ahead to offer new service. You won't HAVE to buy it from eircon!

Plus I don't think there's been any details of a cap mentioned yet, has there?

K!LL!@N

Originally posted by Illkillya
games = download, browsing = downloading. With me and my brother sharing a connect, 3gb sounds very low.

Obviously.
When i said downloading i meant downloading files like mp3's, mpeg's, game demo's and the all important linux iso's etc. The kind of stuff that you use full bandwidth to get.
Gaming doesn't use full bandwidth.
How do you and your brother enjoy gaming over a shared 56k connection? I bet you get some nice ping times.
Which proves my point, gaming is better suited to adsl or something similar.

By the way i'm not saying i like the idea of a 3Gb cap, but i'd rather have adsl and a 3Gb than have 150 hours on 56k. But like i said in an earlier post, some people will be happy with 56k.

Killian

K!LL!@N

You'd have to be an idiot to go and waste your 3Gb, downloading solidly for 15 hours.
It's like anything in life, you need to budget. Whether it's money, time or download capacity.
Here's a little analogy for you:
You get paid your salary by the month. Do you go straight out and spend it all and leave yourself with nothing left for the rest of the month?
No?
I didn't think so.
So why not manage your capacity in the same way.
No cap would be nice but i'm not going to sacrifice the other advantages just because there's a limit.

Killian

MagicBusDriver

For normal use 3GB is ok, web browsing, gaming and normal downloading of fileswill be less than a GB. Ask anyone using Eircom solo now.

With the wholesale price other isps will offer ADSL. People on this forum get too hung up on irelavant things like this or the contenson ratio thing. In the end they will not matter.

ADSL at €60 a month is far better than 56k at €30. Ask people who have used both.

K!LL!@N

Originally posted by MagicBusDriver
For normal use 3GB is ok, web browsing, gaming and normal downloading of fileswill be less than a GB. Ask anyone using Eircom solo now.

With the wholesale price other isps will offer ADSL. People on this forum get too hung up on irelavant things like this or the contenson ratio thing. In the end they will not matter.

ADSL at €60 a month is far better than 56k at €30. Ask people who have used both.

Finally someone is talking some sense.

Killian

zynaps

Originally posted by K!LL!@N
So why not manage your capacity in the same way.
No cap would be nice but i'm not going to sacrifice the other advantages just because there's a limit.

Killian

An ISP also has to manage their capacity - that's the whole point of a cap, however, and I have said this in another thread, I don't see how a cap would truly be useful when compared with having the network manage itself in a more sophisticated way.
If it kept track of who was using how much bandwidth automatically, and throttled them down a bit (or a lot, depending on what was needed at the time) if more bandwidth was needed by other users on the network at any given moment, and then gave them their usual bandwidth when it was available again, this would be -much- better IMO than simply giving everyone a set limit upon which they might be charged for exceeding.

The only real reason for carrying on with this cap crap is as a few people (skeptic anyway) have mentioned, to take the opportunity to rip people off if they do exceed that bandwidth - on the other hand, it has been pointed out that we have had no such cases brought to our attention yet.

But either way, it's not all about how much you can download, at least, that's not what most people are looking for.
Some of us (me) want to have no restrictions on how much we download, while the majority simply don't care and will most likely use less than whatever cap has been set.

zynaps

K!LL!@N

That's what i'm saying.
I'm not complaining about the idea of a cap.
I'm saying that people want adsl for everything else it gives them.
And that's why i think the comparison of 56k and adsl on the basis of cap is stupid.

Oh and when i said "manage your capacity", i meant people should manage their capacity in their own homes. I didn't mean the telco's. I agree with you, they need to find a better way to control abusers of the service.

Killian

zynaps

Originally posted by K!LL!@N
I agree with you, they need to find a better way to control abusers of the service.

No offence, but I did not mean that at all - in that case I would be (and probably am) an abuser of nolimits - I connect for at least 10 hours overnight on average, every day, and more on weekends, and I spend most of that time downloading... things.

What I meant was that the network should have a system in place to manage itself more intelligently, without just slapping a cap on people. This would take care of the problem of "abusers of the service" as you call them, but I don't like how so many people view it like that.

Why is it that people who choose an internet service and decide to use it to download things over it (yes, that is one of its main uses...?), are viewed as 'abusers' merely because they are using as much bandwidth as is available to them?
We are looking at contention-based access schemes, so in theory users using a lot of bandwidth (which, again, is what they paid for) could detract from the bandwidth available to everyone else.
This is not their fault, it is the fault of whoever provides the DSL network and only gives 50 users enough bandwidth for a few users.

This imaginary intelligent bandwidth monitoring thing I'm talking about would not judge users based on how much they download and categorise them as abusers (ffs), it would however prioritise users by how much bandwidth they do use, so if over the last 24 hours for example, a certain user has maxed out their connection, they would have their priority and thus the bandwidth available to them lowered temporarily, which would only effect them if there was a shortage of available bandwidth (from other users who didn't use as much bandwidth requesting some).
I really, really do not see why everyone keeps harping on about "abusing the service".

Sorry to keep on about it, but there ye go

zynaps

K!LL!@N

Ok, abuse might not be the best term to use but you'd be spoiling the service for everyone else. And the more people with your extreme downloading tendencies( you have to admit, you wouldn't be the typical user ) the more everyone else suffers, including you.
I can understand you having to leave your 56k connection on all night to download stuff becuase it takes so long. Just out of curiosity, would you do the same with an ADSL connection? Would your appetite for downloads grow with the speed of your connection? I don't really understand the need to download constantly, just because you can.
I'd be perfectly happy with a throttling system, which would cut back on peoples bandwidth if they were <insert alternative to "abusing" here> the service.

Killian

zynaps

I'd probably download a fair bit more, yes - there are things that are available over the net that are not really available or at least easy to find in ze real world.

Anyway, I believe the user shouldn't be faulted for how much they want to download.
When you pick up the phone to call someone, you don't think "hmm, have I been disrespectful to other users of the PSTN network by overusing the phone lately"? Nah, of course not.
Granted, it's probably unlikely (maybe even technically impossible) that many people using their phone too much would really degrade the phone network for others.

But I believe it should not be the user's responsibility to take these things into account. It should be handled by the ISP automatically, and if it was done in the right way more people would probably enjoy what they got out of the service.

Light enough users would still get the bandwidth and always on internet they needed, and heavy users with no social life (hi!) would not have to worry about how much overall data they have accessed in a month - they may notice slowdowns sometimes to a lesser or greater extent, but I could certainly put up with that, knowing because I had been downloading so much I was having some of my bandwidth temporarily reallocated to users who didn't take so much.

It really is pretty absurd to expect every user to account for every megabyte of traffic IMO
(Especially since even if you have no plans to download anything, or if noone has what you want/etc/etc, if you leave filesharing software running you will wake up to find you've sent 200 megs and received 15... what happens to the cap then?)

zynaps

BoneCollector

Would your appetite for downloads grow with the speed of your connection?

i have to say i do use the internet repectively..
probably why i did not get kick off no limits.. However..
a mate of mine did over use no limits and was kicked off, but when he got netsystem (even though it was one way) his usage reduced dramaticaly cus what use to take him hours now took mins.. so

the answer to your question seems to be not neccaseraly!
usage would reduce and productivity would increase!
and..
you would have alot more time to enjoy other acivities apart from sitting infront of your pc allday