Vote on offical stance to ADSL Caping

LegacyUser

with so many active topics it hard to cut through the conjecture, this has been talked about in several, and it seems we all have diferent opinions on adsl caping,
some think if its not to bad (the 640k should be enough for everybody approch),

Others think its ok once the per mb charge is not to high,
Other feel a limit of 5gb-10gb is more exceptable,

while some feel any cap is out of oder,

But whats the point in talking endlessly if were not going to agree on how to approch the situation,

So i perpose a vote, its extremely impotant we apear united behind one view point, other wise eircon and others will run rings around us, so please cast your vote below

1)NO Cap in any way shape or form is exceptable

2)A Cap of 5 times the average user downbloads for the month in question,
2 warning within the space of say 6 month and the service is stopped,

3)a fixed limit, 2 warning within the space of say 6 month and the service is stopped

4) a fixed limit, and a charge for every additional MB

i vote 1, but with a few to excepting 2 if the terms are fair

LegacyUser

Unfortunatley I cant respond, when not knowing what exactly 1GB p/m is in terms of time or downloads. I think a lot of ppl will only be able to ascertain what the limits are and whether they are acceptable, if or when they introduced. The only response I could give is obviously NO LIMIT, but there may be a package that I could live w/ if I knew the parameters of my own use on average over a given period.

Martin has intimated that eircom et al will probably introduce tiered packages anyway so even if there is an overwhelming NO LIMITS Vote it will not make a difference. The Cmtee. (I think) wouldn't mind there being limits if it meant that @ least the service was available.

[As ever its all just MHO]

80p.

---

www.80project.com

LegacyUser

What they could always do is charge a 'rental' for the service, and the bandwidth package on top of that, similar to webhosting, which will allow people to choose what level they want. The biggest problem I can see is similar to Chorus, with silly prices per GB after the initial limit is exceeded.

But capping is at the root of it all the equivalent of offering to exchange our ladas for a new ferrari, and then restricting us to driving it at 20mph

LegacyUser

well i think we can vote without knowing the exact limits or if there is any,
and i not to sure about the Cmtee being behind it, whats the point of breaking our bolox workign to get adsl if this terms make it unusable,
What im trying to say is, it is well with in eircons power to over an unlimited service at an effective price,
if we dont push them, why would they,
have we been brainwashed so long to think that the tiny scrapes we get are enough,

I say if were going to do, were might as well do it right from the start, save us alot of trouble later

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by 80project.com:
The Cmtee. (I think) wouldn't mind there being limits if it meant that @ least the service was available.</font>

NO !!!

Our members are overwhelmingly against it. There does, however, seem to be a lot of people in favour of some sort of tiered packages.

I'm just asking stuff about capping so that I can understand the rationale and be able to argue against it better if the need arises

I think the idea of voting may be a *bit* premature, though, as the whole thing about prices and limits is just conjecture at this stage let's see what Eircom put forward to ODTR next week.

Martin

LegacyUser

i vote 1 , i want to be able to download anything and everthing and not have the hassle of getting a program that tells me how much ive downloaded and how much more i can stay online and get stuff/play online games

p.s CAPPING ISNT DEFINATE yet so this may not be for definate yet , lets see what the story is as eircon has handed its pricing structure to the odtr and we will soon see what situation we are in !!

---

routine? expectations? competition? happiness? commitment? infatuation? virginity?
respect? marriage? adultery? money? carnal knowledge? love?...
... blah, blah, blah

p.s i want dsl

LegacyUser

well I vote 1 aswell.

Firmly in the belief that speeds should be capped, and not downloads. Then if u want more than 512k down u can upgrade to a 1mb or whatever your requirements are. You shouldnt be penalised for using your connection. They are just looking to make more money from heavy users. I dont think light users or first time users would be bothered with adsl because it hardly seems logical to pay £40+ a month for a line if ure only spending 10 minutes a day online to check mail. dsl is for heavy users who will (probably) pay up to £60 for unlimited downloading and online time. Nobody in their right mind would pay that much for a service where the d/l limit would be reached after under a week of use. Its just crazy. Sure 'they' might get away with capping for a while, but only for a while because someone will produce a better package. Maybe then we'll finally have some competition for our money in this bloody country for a change.

So in conclusion, after all that nonsensical babble, I vote 1

[This message has been edited by rymus (edited 22-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by o_donnel_abu:
NO !!!

Our members are overwhelmingly against it. There does, however, seem to be a lot of people in favour of some sort of tiered packages.


</font>

I totally agree. I think you got me wrong a bit. I did use the word limits but in reality I was refering to bandwidth. As you pointed out @ the meeting the important thing is flat rate access for a flat fee and perhaps @ the moment the ODTR is stressing price more than actually getting the service launched. As stated the limits refer to line speed as in "I wouldn't mind 56k as long it was available @ a flat rate". (If you get what I mean). There is no logical techincal reason for capping d/l and I'm totally against in for many reasons not to mention the pratciality of personally being able monitoring such a limit. Capping is nothing more than shameful profitering by the Telco's.

80p.

---

www.80project.com

dahamsta

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I think the idea of voting may be a *bit* premature, though, as the whole thing about prices and limits is just conjecture at this stage let's see what Eircom put forward to ODTR next week.</font>

Ditto.

adam

LegacyUser

1gb limit is ridiculous, I got hrough more than that per month on 56k (yes I have huge phonebills)

LegacyUser

1)NO Cap in any way shape or form is exceptable

Limit the number of users and expand the infrastructure to supply at a high standard and not over run the service like IOL did with Nolimits and regreted it...

NO Cap...
I would pay more for a NO Cap service than a limited one for less

---

"Information is Ammunition"
Choas Engine
Email: choas@netshop.ie
ICQ: 34896460

LegacyUser

I think it would be wrong to limit a consumer ADSL service to a set number of gigabytes per month. This hasn't been done anywhere else that I know of.

However, if Eircom must do this due to Ireland's poor infrastructure (and I would argue with that!), I think a 10GB/month limit would be acceptable.

LegacyUser

poor, infrastructure me bolox, who owns the infrastructure
anywho, you say 10gbs, its the same, 640k should b enough for every one, you dont know were you will be in 2 years time,
now your downloading mp3s soon you could be downloading dvd formats and mpeg videos,

how many to you think you will get on 10gig

Dustaz

I agree that a vote is sort of premature, but id throw me hat into the No Limit ring. Having said that, id be happy with something like a 5-10 gig limit as long as the price reflected the fact it was capped.
I also think its dangerous to be saying that we need the bandwith to download DVD's. This is illegal. Somehow music piracy seems to have become acceptable with the advent of napster, but saying that you need an uncapped connection because you want to download mp3's and DVD format files is more or less saying you are breaking the law.

LegacyUser

sorry i dont want to **** about,
allot of people will download dvd and movies and stuff, lets not pretend they wont,

but its not about that, is about a cappign is ok on a service at £15 a month a 3gb limit, thats ok, look at chorus, its may be £40 but(i think) that includes phone and tv,
Compared to what you pay ntl and eircom in rental, that means your paying £10 for cable with a 3gb limit, chorus want to make their money from the per mb charge, but eircum want both per mb and sub,
your paying twice for the one product

LegacyUser

Well, if you take the example of esat... a fairly small proportion of their members used the services lots and lots. Downloading 1 gig a day on a modem (it's possible) and making sure they're connection for every possible flat rate hour.

On dsl, a big proportion of the users will end up not breaking their 1 GB limit if its put inplace.

Of course ther'll be users who will download over 5gigs a .... about 100+ gigs a month... if the service is made unlimited... eircom will be in a ****ty position... and their ISP will be a ****ed up one to use.

I think what is needed is a tiered system....

home users : 2GB limit say £30/month
heavy users : 10GB £50/month
business users : unlimited £80/month

If its worked out that way... it's a lot more likely the service won't be crippled the same way SNL was.

Also I think another major issue is one of preformance. Eircom should make their dsl high preformance, low latency, quick response times, and good for online gaming... low ping times are essential for gamers... and i'm sure a lot of Ireland Offline's members are gamers... I think it is an issue that should be raised : Sacrificing preformance for more users... it isn't acceptable in other countries... why should it be here.

Dustaz

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:
sorry i dont want to **** about,
allot of people will download dvd and movies and stuff, lets not pretend they wont,</font>

This might be true, but you dont try to get the level of social welfare increased by saying "Come on, have you seen what drugs cost on the street? how can we afford that!"
(err, thats just an example, I dont think everyone on the dole is on drugs )
Id concentrate on more legal forms of downloading. Im probably alone, but i think even mp3's are skirting too close to the wind.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
but its not about that, is about a cappign is ok on a service at £15 a month a 3gb limit, </font>

Yeh , agreed. If the service DOES turn out to be say 60 p/m with a 1gb cap, that is in no way acceptable. for 60 id want a pretty large cap (10gb? more?).
I also have to agree with Hudson in another thread. I dont want to subsidise the users who just download all day. I want broadband for speed, not flat rate access. I want to be able to download what i need fast, view content fast and have low pings. I also like to have these things without worrying about what time of the day it is.
In short, as long as the limit is reasonable and the cost reflects the limited service, I dont have a huge problem. The anticipated 1gb limit is a joke. The target audience for DSL will eat that up.

LegacyUser

while other isp have caps, few try to fund a service that way,
at £60 the service is fully funded and is proitable, accross the board,
you cant turn around and ask for more money then, its either funded one way or another,

its like the first 56k access here, were you payed perminute and a sub,

if you going to be charged per mb it should be free or nearly free,

As for heavy users, you cant be like esat and say me only want the users who will make us the MOST money, heavy users might not coast money they jsut dont earn the isp as much,

off course they would love you to pay your sub and sit there and not use it,

this crap about one person subing another hubson talking about, isnt that bad, its the only way these things work

LegacyUser

The question is, why do they need a cap? Are they trying to protect their upstream bandwidth? Or are they just trying to get more money out of us? If it's the latter, then all our reasoned arguments will be in vain anyway. In the hope that it may be the former, I'll continue.

Provision of a different type of speed-limited rather than download-limited tiered service is, from my point of view, a much better idea.

A simple system like 64k, 128k, 256k or 512k with appropriate pricing attached seems like a much better way of protecting themselves again bad, evil, malicious users.

I have many arguments to support this, but here are my top ones:

1. I want always on access. I don't want to have to watch how much I'm "downloading".

2. Imagine, if you will, the situation when a few broadband-enabled users with a 1Gb download limit get virus-ridden. A subseven trojan or a few nasty Outlook viruses later and they're using 10-15Gb, maybe more a month and they have no idea why they're using so much and have to pay stupid amounts of money while generic ISP tech support say they don't know what the user's doing, but that's how much bandwidth they're using, so they're just going to have to pay up.

3. Mirrors, local game servers. If the ISPs put up their own game servers and download mirrors, news servers, etc. then they'll protect their upstream bandwidth. They have to, however, educate their users about them. I use the debian mirror on esat every day from work (and used to use it at home when I was a SNL user). In fact a good 75% of my traffic as a SNL user was probably to various esat machines.

To summarise, I am very strongly against download caps, in any form.

Martin.


[This message has been edited by mbf (edited 23-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

its the peace of mind thats important
i agree totaly, im sick of worryign about downloads or how long im online

LegacyUser

My First post (so go easy )
I agree that a cap is totaly out of order, it would defeat the whole perpose of broad band.

---

Monkeys could fly you know, given wings.

LegacyUser

My vote is for 1.

dahamsta

I hate to be the bad boy of the thread, but are you all out of your tiny minds? I mean, isn't is stating the obvious that we don't want a cap on transfers? If caps have to be discussed - and personally I think it's a pretty silly subject to be discussing in the first place, not least because there isn't even a service there at the moment, but also because Eircom are probably reading this and laughing their little bums off - wouldn't we be better off spending our time discussing the root of the problem? No ISP in the country is going to introduce a service without caps with the current cost of bandwidth in Ireland. If Eircom are contemplating caps - and I'd just like to repeat that no-one knows whether they are or not - that's the reason.

I dunno, five threads on caps on a service that doesn't exist. It smacks of straight lunacy to me. People seem to be losing the thread...

adam

LegacyUser

its improtant there one view point of the general member to be taken to eircom and the odtr, no one wants caps, but some people like sheep will take them because were used to getting a ****e deal,

O and no isp in ireland with out caps, cough ntl cough

no point in discussing the rout cause of the problem because theres no way we will change the amounth of bandwidth in ireland by talking

dahamsta

I didn't say anything about the amount of bandwidth.

adam

LegacyUser

As was said - the amount of bandwidth in ireland is grand. Its the cost of the international bandwidth that is the problem.

LegacyUser

when is the odtr realising the prices that were given to them by eircom ?

I want to brass myself for a shock ...

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dahamsta:
I didn't say anything about the amount of bandwidth.

adam</font>

well then we have something new to take up with the odtr, but since eircom own allot of the bandwidth or have deals to rent it at low coast, this Bandwidth is cripling them **** doesnt fly,

LegacyUser

I agree that Capping is unacceptable considering that we will be entering a new age of the internet where we will have access to much larger data transfers such as TV and Radio on demand, share programs such as Bearshare and Kazaa which would be downloading massive files and probably new stuff that we havent even imagined yet. The likes of Eircom and Chorus seem to think that we only want high-speed access so that our hotmail will open up faster but I reckon its going to be a whole new ballgame. I think that if we are paying what will obviously be an expensive service then we deserve to be able to use that service without the need to hold back. Its like having one of those TV sets in hospitals that you keep needing to put in 50p every hour or so. So my official stance is I AM AGAINST CAPPING OF THE ASDL SERVICE IN ANY FORM!

---

Ours is not to reason why!!

LegacyUser

Quote_____________________________________
but its not about that, is about a cappign is ok on a service at £15 a month a 3gb limit, thats ok, look at chorus, its may be £40 but(i think) that includes phone and tv,
___________________________________________

Just to let you know. The £40 a month is just for the wireless ASDL with 2p per MB over the 3GB limit,
TV and phone bills are charged seperate

---

Ours is not to reason why!!

LegacyUser

there no such thing as wireless adsl, thats plain wrongs,
not haveing a go but other new people might think your right,
i think its called fwa but im not sure