Esat to offer SDSL in cities outside Dublin

LegacyUser

Esat have applied to Eircom to unbundle lines in locations outside Dublin, according to the Irish Times:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/finance/2001/0707/fin15.htm

Esat intend to offer an SDSL service in 5 towns including Cork, Limerick and Galway by April 2002.

The cost of the project is estimated at somewhere in the region of euro 25 million.

As Esat are the first company to actually take the step of applying for unbundling, this certainly must be seen as the first step towards widespread broadband takeup.

Certainly, with Eircom ADSL in Dublin in Autumn and Esat SDSL elsewhere next year, we're finally getting back on track, no?

LegacyUser

Definite step forward i reckon, did the ODTR not say that a company had to apply for unbundling before anything could be done?...and now ESAT have at last applied...I'll help them unbundle myself like!

Farls

LegacyUser

Noice...
Not before time too.
Good news allround

---

Moriarty
mrmoriarty@eircom.net

LegacyUser

They applied for the loops at the end of May. You can be sure that Eircom are taking their time (within the legislation of course) to respond to the statement of requirements (SOR).

LegacyUser

ive said it before, it will take 3 months if esat are on the ball ready to go into exchanges at every stage, to unbundle the local loope,
your looking at january next year before its completed(3 months is the max eircom can delay over all, but esat aint exactly quick either)
all in all a very good think as now the odtr can get stuck in,
One question, why only outside dublin

LegacyUser

I think it's important to point out here that ADSL is an Internet access technology developed for consumers, whereas SDSL is primarily for SMEs and corporations.

The main differences is that SDSL provides the same upload AND download speeds, unlike ADSL which is limited at 1mbit upload, 8mbit download (Eircom will limit this even further, but that's besides the point).

What I'm basically saying is that Esat probably won't be targeting consumers with their SDSL products.

LegacyUser

I guess outside Dublin because

1. leased lines aren't as expensive in Dublin anyway

2. Eircom's ADSL will mop up quite a few home businesses anyway, with the 7 month headstart they'll have (Plus Esat will probably rent Ports on Eircom's DSLAMS in order to provide a service in Dublin)

3. Esat get the NDP grants if the word outside Dublin.

I think there's a lot of confusion about the merits of SDSL vs. ADSL: As access technologies they're about as good as each other in most respects. The reality is that most SMEs just don't the same upstream as downstream, despite what everyone says.

The whole SDSL=Business, ADSL=Home sprang up in the States where the incumbents(=Eircom) provided an ADSL service almost everywhere, but which was wholly unsuitable for business use due to awful reliability, support of the PPP protocol and rotten tech support.

On the other hand the CLECs (Covad/Northpoint/Rythms)(=ESAT), provided SDSL in conjunction with smaller ISPs who were willing to provide STatic IPs, router configurations and decent support.

So pretty soon the word was that for business, you need SDSL.

All IMHO, of course


I agree that Esat won't be targeting consumers with their SDSL product though - SDSL is a minefield, plauged with proprietary standards, horribly expensive routers, and no choice of equipment (only one or two routers work reasonably well with each company's SDSL product).


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 08-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hudson806:
I guess outside Dublin because


I agree that Esat won't be targeting consumers with their SDSL product though - SDSL is a minefield, plauged with proprietary standards, horribly expensive routers, and no choice of equipment (only one or two routers work reasonably well with each company's SDSL product).


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 08-07-2001).]</font>

nobody should get to upset about not getting sdsl in dublin, normal adsl can get up to .5mbps on upstream, and full rate can get 1.5bmps upstream,
id be happy with 250kps up, i dotn think eircom will provide that, but if england is anything to go by telecos probably will(ie freeserver)

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> nobody should get to upset about not getting sdsl in dublin, normal adsl can get up to .5mbps on upstream, and full rate can get 1.5bmps upstream </font>

The ITU's Full Rate ADSL spec (ie G.dmt] only allows for a 640k upstream. Lots of DSL modems will connect at a higher speed if the line quality is good enough, but expecting 1.5mb/s is probably a little optimistic if you don't live inside a telephone exchange

About 800k/s upstream is very achievable though

dahamsta

Actually, you're both wrong, the maximum speeds technically achievable vary quite a lot, but the generally accepted maxes and mins are:

Down: 1.5 to 9 Mbps
Up: 16 to 640 kbps

Source: http://www.adsl.com/general_tutorial.html

Those are the speeds technically achievable, the speeds provided by the majority of ADSL providers are 512k down and 128k up. 64k up is also quite popular.

adam

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dahamsta:
Actually, you're both wrong, the maximum speeds technically achievable vary quite a lot, but the generally accepted maxes and mins are:

Down: 1.5 to 9 Mbps
Up: 16 to 640 kbps

Source: http://www.adsl.com/general_tutorial.html

Those are the speeds technically achievable, the speeds provided by the majority of ADSL providers are 512k down and 128k up. 64k up is also quite popular.

adam</font>

i never knew that, that explains alot,
but 64k up is ****e,
i could live with 128k up nicely but ill allways dream of 256k

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dahamsta:
Actually, you're both wrong, the maximum speeds technically achievable vary quite a lot, but the generally accepted maxes and mins are:

Down: 1.5 to 9 Mbps
Up: 16 to 640 kbps

</font>

Those figures are the standards for G.dmt (The nearly world standard for ADSL). What we were discussing is how fast you can _actually_ connect - 640k does not represent the maximum capacity of copper to carry data at those frequencies, only the max specified by the standard. If your equipment allows it you can connect at the highest speed your modem will negotiate with the DSLAM, which can be up to 800k/s on a good line.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that you try and obtain an 800k/up ADSL service, I was saying it more to dispute the previous claim that there is some sort of standard that gives you 1.5mb/s/up - there isn't unfortunately


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 08-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hudson806:
Those figures are the standards for G.dmt (The nearly world standard for ADSL). What we were discussing is how fast you can _actually_ connect - 640k does not represent the maximum capacity of copper to carry data at those frequencies, only the max specified by the standard. If your equipment allows it you can connect at the highest speed your modem will negotiate with the DSLAM, which can be up to 800k/s on a good line.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that you try and obtain an 800k/up ADSL service, I was saying it more to dispute the previous claim that there is some sort of standard that gives you 1.5mb/s/up - there isn't unfortunately


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 08-07-2001).]</font>

no i think he right about 640k as alot of adsl modems ive seen have a max upload of 640k, thats why it explians alot

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:
no i think he right about 640k as alot of adsl modems ive seen have a max upload of 640k, thats why it explians alot

</font>

I agree. I mentioned the higher speed to indicate that 800k was about all that was _physically_ possible over the copper wire, and thus show that 1.5mbps was not possible.

To be completely clear though, I agree that 640kbps/up is the standard and is as fast as most modems support.

dahamsta

I don't know, I just do what the voices in my head tell me...

Seriously though, I'm not a technician, and I make no pretences of being one. Hardware has always been one of my weaker points. But when the authority on DSL technologies tells me "individual products today incorporate a variety of speed arrangements, from a minimum set of 1.544/2.048 Mbps down and 16 kbps up to a maximum set of 9 Mbps down and 640 kbps up," I tend to believe them. If that's not true in practise - as is the case, but I don't know if that's down to local limitations and/or throttling - so be it.

Also, Gladiator, 64k up isn't really to be sneezed at for the majority of consumers and small businesses. Particularly consumers, who invariably don't want or need to serve from their workstations. That's the most significant reason ADSL has become so popular as a broadband product - reasonable downstream speeds is what the majority of people want and need.

adam

PS. Don't get me wrong - the more they give me, the happier I'll be, particularly if it's symmetric with a static IP. But as I've said before, I'm not particularly concerned with broadband at this point in time. I'd like it, but what I'm really concerned with at the moment is LLU, followed very closely by flat-rate.

[This message has been edited by dahamsta (edited 08-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dahamsta:
I don't know, I just do what the voices in my head tell me...
</font>

hehe

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Seriously though, I'm not a technician, and I make no pretences of being one. Hardware has always been one of my weaker points. But when the authority on DSL technologies tells me "individual products today incorporate a variety of speed arrangements, from a minimum set of 1.544/2.048 Mbps down and 16 kbps up to a maximum set of 9 Mbps down and 640 kbps up," I tend to believe them. If that's not true in practise - as is the case, but I don't know if that's down to local limitations and/or throttling - so be it.
</font>

Once again, what you are saying is exactly true. Really, I only mentioned the higher speed to demonstrate to Gladiator that 1.5 mbps is probably not possible. Its not a standard, its not built into every modem, and nobody is gonna sell you an ADSL service at that speed.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Also, Gladiator, 64k up isn't really to be sneezed at for the majority of consumers and small businesses. Particularly consumers, who invariably don't want or need to serve from their workstations. That's the most significant reason ADSL has become so popular as a broadband product - reasonable downstream speeds is what the majority of people want and need.
</font>

Agreed. I'm in that small minority that would like to run a server off it. But in all fairness, only a warez server or something would _really_ need lots of bandwidth - I only want www and ssh, and I'm not expecting many visitors to the www site

To put it another way, if you're serving up more than about 64k/s, your information is probably important and you should probably get a leased line of collocate your machine.



[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 08-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

things i want most from broadband is allways on, i think this is the most important thing to have for me, secound would be reliablity, i know some place in america were you pay for one level of service and get something totaly different, and finaly speed, id actually perfere if some one offered me 256k down and 256k up, i do allot of design and stuff and it would be extremely handy for me to access files on a home ftp from work,

but none of this means a damn without a unlimited service, my plains would go out the window if there was a 1 gig or even 3 gig limit, as on 516k you can download around 5 gigs a day.

its nice to know we all have plains and dreams of what we will do once we get adsl,
might start a new topic on that

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Once again, what you are saying is exactly true. Really, I only mentioned the higher speed to demonstrate to Gladiator that 1.5 mbps is probably not possible. Its not a standard, its not built into every modem, and nobody is gonna sell you an ADSL service at that speed.</font>

1.5 mibt may not be realistic with ADSL, but 1mbit certainly is (I know someone who moved to Texas, and connects with his ADSL modem at 1 mbit up, 8 mbit down. He keeps complaining though, because he has to pay $150 per month for this, including 4 static IPs. I told him how much a leased line costs in Ireland, and I think he stopped complaining about it now.)

FYI, the standard upload speed for consumer ADSL in the UK is 256kbps.

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> 1.5 mibt may not be realistic with ADSL, but 1mbit certainly is (I know someone who moved to Texas, and connects with his ADSL modem at 1 mbit up, 8 mbit down. </font>

This used to be pretty common in the US, before the ILECs(=Eircom) started migrating to G.dmt (The current ADSL standard), which only allows 640k upstream.

In some cities, such as NYC, Bell Atlantic discontinued selling 8mbit/1mbit service about 2 years ago, and then gradually upgraded their DSLAMs, cutting off customers on that service as they went, or offering them the 1.5mbit/384k service. Its interesting to see Verizon is still allowing it in Texas though.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
but none of this means a damn without a unlimited service, my plains would go out the window if there was a 1 gig or even 3 gig limit, as on 516k you can download around 5 gigs a day.
</font>

1 gig is just sooo miserable - download the latest linux ISO, and boom, you've almost used up your monthly allowance. I reckon I'd need about 2GB just to do what I do now on nolimits, never mins all the kewl new stuff to do on broadband.


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 08-07-2001).]

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 08-07-2001).]

dahamsta

Just to be clear, I don't think I'm particularly wrong, or particularly right for that matter. The argument seemed to be going down the road of "what's technically possible", and the standard says that the figures I mentioned are technically possible. They didn't pull those figures out of the air, they tested the technology and found what was possible, albeit probably in a laboratory environment. I know that no-one will guarantee, give, or even come close to those top-end rates. Gods, I'd wet meself if I got those rates...

But for once, I agree with Gladiator on something (and that's a fair statement in itself) in that at the moment, broadband is not my primary concern. Sure, I'd love it, but give me 64k always-on access right now - and there's nothing stopping that only Eircom and the OLO's apparently - and I'll be happy.

For a while. A short while. And then it will be time to start a NEW campaign...

adam