Broadband Capping - Why?

LegacyUser

I'm still trying to get my head around download limits on broadband.

Why would providers want to impose a limit - is this just a way of getting extra money from users, or are there technical reasons for it e.g. spreading demand and preventing users from hogging bandwidth?

What exactly does a 3Gig limit, for example, mean in practice?

Take my own usage with SNL.

I have a shared connection at home used by myself, my son and my daughter. Our 'rough and ready' usage in a week would be something like this:

Me:
3 hours per week general surfing
7 hours per week on usenet
6 hours per week online gaming (I'm a big Age of Empires fan )
About 10 mb software downloads, mainly software updates, drivers, patches etc.

My Daughter
15 hours per week surfing and chatrooms
20 mb per week software (mainly using a well known programme starting with letter 'N' )

My Son
5 hours per week general surfing
10 hours per week online gaming (Quake type games)
10 mb per week software downloads (mainly trial games and software updates/patches.

Bear in mind that a lot of the above happens simultaneously.

Anyone able to give me an idea what this would equate to in total download usage per month, ignoring the fact that I tend to avoid sites using video at present ?

I realise that the software download figures above add up to about 200mb per month but I haven't a clue how surfing and gaming convert to download.

Martin



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

LegacyUser

I realise that the software download figures above add up to about 200mb per month but I haven't a clue how surfing and gaming convert to download.

Just take a look at that 2screen thingy on toolbar at the end of a surfing/gaming session. It can tell u how much bytes u have received for that session. Gaming can take a good lot, but it depends on the game, Quake type games are hungry

LegacyUser

as ive shown in a previous topic your only looking at the same speed for 50 users as a 2mb leased line BUT at twice the rpice, so eircon are getting twice the moeny for their bandwidth, there is no economical reason for a download limit at the prices eircon have suggested and the config that will use,
the only reason is to get as much money form the end user,
and i thank you for mentioning the extreme anti feeling towards a cap to the odtr and eircon

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

LegacyUser

We should not be aiming for a "capped" DSL service. It should be flat-rate and comparable to other countries. We should try to find out what price Eircom is requiring for reasonably fast (>= 512kbs) flat-rate (i.e. non-capped) DSL. We should aim high here. People seem to take it for granted that we are supposed to have worse service than other countries in Europe.

Another question - and this was raised at the meeting: On what basis will Eircom be offering DSL on a wholesale basis to other ISPs (i.e. flat-rate or per-megabyte)?

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by o_donnel_abu:

Why would providers want to impose a limit - is this just a way of getting extra money from users, or are there technical reasons for it e.g. spreading demand and preventing users from hogging bandwidth?
</font>

ISP end:
Most ISP types will tell you that the reason they like to impose caps on broadband is because of the infamous 80:20 rule:- 20% of the users will use 80% of the bandwidth. I can vouch for this - Verizon's stats for residential users are shocking. about 1 or 2 percent of their users will download 300mb a day - mostly in Warez and on Napster. Compare that to the average across the board of about 25mb/day.

These users aren't so big a problem at peak times, as everyone is choked to about 60-200k anyway, but, off peak, they slow the service down for everyone.

As someone stated on ie.comp the other day, "Bandwidth Costs Money!" - every ISP in the country would go out of business if they were expected to provide 10gb (300mb/day x 30 days) of bandwidth per customer, per month, for IEP15. In other countries they just suffer the heavy users in the knowledge that they can subsidise them with the users who d/l 10mb/day...

A 1 gig limit is enough to persuade much, if not most, of that (heavily loss-making) 20% to choose a different ISP.

So, in that respect there is a rational logic for capping - ISPs are entitled to reject a customer that they don't believe they can make money on. If they are willing to take on those customers, for whatever reason (marketing Unlimited Service!), goodwill etc.), they are equally entitled to do so.


Telco end
There is far less of an argument for capping DSL than for other forms of broadband. Cable and FWA both suffer from having low absolute limits to the amount of bandwidth provided - eg: only about 2mb/s can be provided over a coaxial cable TV hookup. Limiting users of these services makes perfect sense, since everything would slow to a crawl if they didn't. With DSL, the only limiting factor is the quality of the copper pair. Contention ratios can be changed by changing the backhaul from the exchange, with essentially no upper limit. A Telco could, if they chose to, provide every customer with their own 512k connection, with no overbooking. (going above 512k without overbooking is more difficult)


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 22-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Skeptic1:
We should not be aiming for a "capped" DSL service. It should be flat-rate and comparable to other countries. </font>

Agree totally, I'm just trying to figure out whether there is any *rational* logic for capping.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Another question - and this was raised at the meeting: On what basis will Eircom be offering DSL on a wholesale basis to other ISPs (i.e. flat-rate or per-megabyte)?</font>

They refused to give us any information on prices, just that they are lodging them with ODTR next week so they should be in public domain fairly soon.

Martin

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hudson806:
As someone stated on ie.comp the other day, "Bandwidth Costs Money!" - every ISP in the country would go out of business if they were expected to provide 10gb (300mb/day x 30 days) of bandwidth per customer, per month, for IEP15. In other countries they just suffer the heavy users in the knowledge that they can subsidise them with the users who d/l 10mb/day...
</font>

I have a few questions at this point:

1. Is this what is known as 'bitstream' unbundling?

2. Will Eircom be the sole provider of bandwidth to the exchanges?

3. If 2., will Eircom be free to charge for this bandwidth on whatever basis they choose?

4. On what basis does the DSL provider charge ISPs for bandwidth in other countries?

I am aware that bandwidth pricing is complex and not strictly flat-rate but, to a large extent, the customer is purchasing capacity rather than bits. The basis on which Eircom charge ISPs will largely determine the type of ADSL service we get.

LegacyUser

Skeptic1, bitstream is were eircon has control over the exchange and rents the equipment to a teleco, this sounds alot like what eircon are doing, but brings us
to my question isthe wholesale price, LLU

o_donnel_abu there is no rational cap,
A cap in any form is totaly unexceptable,

Its is a total disgrace, at 70 pounds a month they are lining their pockets, you would want to be be some heavy heavy user with some HUGE hard drive space to actually coast them money,
maybe .5% of users,

The hole point of Broadband is it isnt capped, your reaching into the heart of it and stiping it bear,

Its the Exact Same as ISDN, nothing will changes it will be overly expensive and lead to huge bills, it will not change the internet in ireland one bit,

How i think we should decided Now weather or not its unmetered access were going to fight for.

Some of you say, ah 5gbs is exceptable, and you have to be a sad ******* to download more then that, well as the internet advance more and more things are getting bigger and bigger, 5gbs may soon not be enough once you get usered to the interent, then try and force Eircon to excreass it.

No i say the only exceptable limit, and i still feel at their price there souldnt be one, like some other isps have,

its in the contract if you download 4 or 5 times the what the average user does in a month, you service can be discontinued, after a warning,

This way eircon can cover their **** from abusive user, but one problem this wont make them any extra money,
If they really only wanted to protect bandwidth they would do this, it allso has the benefit that the cap keeps up with changes in the internet as more people use it and download more stuff,

at least chorus doesnt try and hide whay they have a cap,

So lets take a vote on the board on what our offical stance on a cap is, its time to get our cards on the table


Options
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 we work towards one but except 2 depending on the terms


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

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by o_donnel_abu:

I realise that the software download figures above add up to about 200mb per month but I haven't a clue how surfing and gaming convert to download.
</font>

If you check the two screens at the bottom right of your taskbar you'll see how much you've dloaded/uploaded...Having played Games a lot while on SNL i found that they use up your full bandwidth especially if you have a 56k modem like me.

It used to work out for me that 1hrs game play would be around 12meg dload and 4meg upload.

I only used SNL during the off-peak hours with my 56k modem only connecting at 38,777kb/s most of the time mind you and i could still manage to dload between 2 and 3 Gig a month easily!

Farls

btw, get rid of Napster...Kazaa is ideally what u need especially in these times if your dloading music/games/patches/programs.

LegacyUser

To Farls:
Sorry to stray from topic but... what is Kazaa??- You can e-mail details to me if u like

80project@stauntonline.com

---

www.80project.com

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:

o_donnel_abu there is no rational cap,
A cap in any form is totaly unexceptable
</font>

I dont' konw about that: If ISPs want to refuse to serve loss-generating customers, then that is their right.

I think it would be a shame if there were to be no Irish ISP offering an unmetered DSL service, but I accept that these are tough times for the Internet industry, and a business model that involves selling services at a loss just doesn't cut it anymore.

I think its pretty healthy to charge people based on usage: I pay my electricity, gas and telephone bills based on how much I use, and I don't see why net access should be any different. I think its irrational to charge on a per minute basis to send or recieve data, as for dialup Internet, but for a persistent connection it makes perfect sense to charge per mb in order to make people use bandwidth responsibly.

Further, I think that competition between DSL ISPs will in time bring the cost and quality of service to somewhere about the same as European levels in general.

That's not to say that I agree with either the prices or the limits bandied about here though.


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 22-07-2001).]

Stephen

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I think its pretty healthy to charge people based on usage: I pay my electricity, gas and telephone bills based on how much I use, and I don't see why net access should be any different. I think its irrational to charge on a per minute basis to send or recieve data, as for dialup Internet, but for a persistent connection it makes perfect sense to charge per mb in order to make people use bandwidth responsibly.</font>

I'd prefer to think of it like TV - you pay your TV licence every year and get unlimited hours of television for that.

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Stephen:
I'd prefer to think of it like TV - you pay your TV licence every year and get unlimited hours of television for that.</font>

But TV is a broadcast medium - there is no additional cost to RTE by you choosing to watch more television.

Internet traffic on the other hand is a narrowcast medium; when you choose to download the latest DiVx or whatever, there is a marginal cost incurred by the ISP. Metered service simply shifts that cost back onto you, to allow you to make the decision about how badly you want that data.

As long as the per mb charge is low enough, you'll instintivly make that decision, just as you don't think about how much the electicity will cost when you watch a DVD, because the cost is so low.

So while it is nice to think of Internet access as being like TV, the fact remains that it is not.

To cut the whole flat-rate vs. metered issue to the chase (based on the assumption that the ISP has to turn a profit to stay in business):

Unmetered broadband either forces you to pay for someone else's downloads (if you're a light user), or someone else to pay for your downloads (if you're a heavy user)

Metered broadband allows you to pay for your own downloads, and hence pay less if you want to.

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 22-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

hudson806 i totaly disagree,
Any form of caping is out of order.
You keep on talkign about useing bandwidth responsibly, but that my whole point, i dont want to look at something and thing, hmm a 100mb movie is that really worth 5 pounds or what ever they will charge,
the whole point of broadband, and i think your missing it, is to lebralise the net,

You keep on talking about selling at a lost,
I dont know the set up caost involved with adsl but i do know by using ADSL Eircon will make twice as much for ever 2mbs of bandwidth it supplies,
an unlimited server just means they will have a smaller profit,

"I think its pretty healthy to charge people based on usage"
i disagree, i think it very unhealthy for the growth of the internet and the has wide spread it is, keeping broadband only to those who can afford high bills,

"I pay my electricity, gas and telephone bills based on how much I use"

Electricity and Gas are products, which have to be generated, expence in providing each of them, bandwidth is there to be used or not, think of it as a road, imagine being charge per km travilled,
Your phone is nothing like the other two, and if you believe its resonable to charge per minute for voice you must to for data

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hudson806:
that it is not.


Unmetered broadband either forces you to pay for someone else's downloads (if you're a light user), or someone else to pay for your downloads (if you're a heavy user)

Metered broadband allows you to pay for your own downloads, and hence pay less if you want to.

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 22-07-2001).]</font>

im trying not to insult you but this ****ed me off,
unmetered allows you the option to download what you want at a fixed price,
metered allows you to pay a fixed price and the option of paying more for every thing you download afte

Most want Broadband for the peace of mind of not having to worry about the bill, or how long there online or how much they download,
if you cant see this a one of, if not the biggest concernt of most members here then i thing your missing the point of ioffl

PEACE OF MIND ring a bell, electicity is unavoidable and if we spent our time worring avery time we switched on a light we be
freaks,

i find it hard to put in words how much i disagree with you, other telecoms in other countries manage find,

Major point, you keep getting back to coast, as if adsl was a major kick in the head for an isp, well over 56k per minute it is, but they still wake a profit on it,

LegacyUser

anyway this is pointless, without more facts,
like the price eircom will charge, and what the limit will be we cant have it out,

We would have to know conenction ratio to work out the profits, and then decide,

Personal its my view that the fee they are asking is more then enough to cover high user,

LegacyUser

I'm just wondering why flat-rate broadband is common elsewhere. The reasons, I think, are two-fold.

1. The cost of bandwidth is marginal compared to the initial capital investment, maintenance and rental cost, therefore although light users subsidise heavy users, it is to a minor extent and is outweighed by the overall attractiveness of flat-rate for all users.

2. By giving users a quota of 'free' megabytes, you are encouraging them to use up this amount at the end of the billing period. Thus it is more attractive to ISPs to promise flat-rate and boot off "abusers" of the service while keeping their criteria for booting them off secret.

My own view: 1) provided we can get a number of ISPs involved in selling ADSL and 2) provided the service is provided to them by the encumbant on a fairly flat-rate wholesale basis, I believe that something akin to flat-rate will emerge through competition.

Nevertheless, although wholesale pricing decisions will apply to all ISPs, the decisions will be made for the benefit of the Eircom group as a whole. Therefore special attention needs to be paid to the basis and level of Eircom's wholesale pricing to ISPs.

Can anyone have a bash at my for questions mentioned in my post earlier:

1. Is this what is known as 'bitstream' unbundling?

2. Will Eircom be the sole provider of bandwidth to the exchanges?

3. If 2., will Eircom be free to charge for this bandwidth on whatever basis they choose?

4. On what basis does the DSL provider charge ISPs for bandwidth in other countries?

If the campaign involves talking to insiders, it is vital that we educate ourselves on the way the market works.

LegacyUser

id like an answer to those questions but i think for the first few, only eircom or the odtr can answer as we dont have all the facts to how it will be set up

Allso thanks, your first comments sumed up my feeling on charging per mb as its not a perventive measure more a month making one

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:

the whole point of broadband, and i think your missing it, is to lebralise the net,
</font>

Erm, the Internet isn't a social service. Broadband exists because companies have worked out how to make themselves more profitable by providing it. No other reason. Nada. Zip.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
You keep on talking about selling at a lost,
I dont know the set up caost involved with adsl but i do know by using ADSL Eircon will make twice as much for ever 2mbs of bandwidth it supplies,
an unlimited server just means they will have a smaller profit
</font>

You're failing to draw a distinction between the LEC (Eircom Ireland) and the ISP. Eircom will just sell backhaul to ISPs. Its up to the ISP to cap it. The ISP market will be competitive once a few ISPs get involved, and prices will fall to more accurately reflect the cost of providing the service. I think that ISPs will inevitably provide a flat rate option, in reflection of the huge demand for this service from heavy users.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"I think its pretty healthy to charge people based on usage"
i disagree, i think it very unhealthy for the growth of the internet and the has wide spread it is, keeping broadband only to those who can afford high bills
</font>

Actually, I think the opposite is true. As long as people who want to just 'dip their toe' into broadband have to subsidise those who live online, the prices won't fall.

It doesn't always seem too obvious, but a day will very soon some when a majority of households are hooked to the Internet on broadband. Even people who just use the Net to email their son in Australia. If we don't start think about a sensible pricing structure now they will be forced to pay for my downloads. That's not fair. In terms of social inclusion Internet access will remain an IEP50/month service for the wealthy.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Electricity and Gas are products, which have to be generated, expence in providing each of them, bandwidth is there to be used or not, think of it as a road, imagine being charge per km travilled,
</font>

So is bandwidth. If an ISP buys 100mb of bandwidth to divvy out amongst their customers, it will cost less than if they buy 200mb. Your statement that it is there 'to be used' is nonsensical.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Your phone is nothing like the other two, and if you believe its resonable to charge per minute for voice you must to for data</font>

Maybe I wasn't too clear about that. WHen you make a voice call, the benefit you get is in terms of time (You have a good idea of what you can say in ten minutes, so its logical to bill on a per-minute basis). When you make a data call the benefit you get is in data, and you should be charged in terms of data. Using the PSTN network for Internet access for so many years has skewed many peoples' perspective on this issue, IMHO.

However, I'm not saying that Flat-rate is necessarily a bad thing. The tiered pricing package idea makes lots of sense to my mind - If I want to make heavy use of the Internet, and I want peace of mind, I'll be put into the same rough usage category as other people who think likewise, and between us we will pay for our service. But we won't be subsidised by the light users.

Is that not only fair?

Of course, if there's an ISP out there (and there seem to be a few elsewhere) that can turn a profit providing an unmetered service, then more power to them - I sure don't want to pay any more than I have to .

And Skeptic - I fully agree with your reasoning of why an ISP will provide flat rate access. Now lets see if the ISPs look at it that way.

And sorry, I don't have any answers for your questions.

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 22-07-2001).]

bkehoe

DSL, etc is designed to be 'flat rate', and to be capped to speeds, and not monthly bandwidth.

Telestra in Australia is the only other company who caps bandwidth usage monthly. When they introduced this, 3GB, which is nothing, a few months ago there was uproar, with many people changing to alernative providers who do the same speeds at the same price but uncapped, thus telestra has lost customers, and probably money too.

Think of this. You want to download, say, the newest Linux distro. Most of em come on 2 or 3 ISO images, so you're talking about 1.8GB in one download. Then you decide to visit windows update, and update your software, and so on.

You quote your usage on 56k. In my opinion, it's irrelevent when it comes to ADSL, as you will use ADSL much more than 56k. First, your games WILL use more bandwidth than they do with 56k, as they will have the capability to do so. You may choose to play a station like 2FM on high quality audio in real player for a few hours. Then when you're surfing, pages will load quicker, so you'll tend to spend more time going to more pages, and without realising download say 2MB of a flash animation just to enter a site. You could end up using 200MB/day without even downloading stuff like warez, divx, e.t.c. Even map pack addons for games can be over 100MB each.

A realistic cap, in my opinion, if absolutely necessary would be 20GB per month at the price they'll probably be charging. Bandwidth is cheap. In the US its around $10 per 5GB. Obviously it will cost more here (well it is Ireland ) but not any more than double.


Brendan

LegacyUser

The cost of providing a local call is flat, because every user has his own dedicated "road" to the telephone exchange. Additionally, because a 56k modem provides so little bandwidth, it is illogical to monitor data transferred. As such, the only logical way to bill for analogue Internet access is to have one fixed monthly cost.

For broadband however, because the subscriber can theoretically download many gigabytes of data per day, it may be reasonable for a telecoms company to enable a limit -- 10 GB per month, for example.

You may note that while broadband users in America can download as much as they want, their TOS usually states that "the user is not allowed to run a public web or file server".

LegacyUser

My own view is that no company should be forced by regulation to sell at a loss. The result to that is that they will simply cease to operate in the market. However the regulator need to understand the difference between selling at a loss and what Eircom considers cost-effective. When considering the pricing for wholesale ADSL, Eircom will take into account the effect on the Eircom group as a whole. For example, losses made by Eircom.net can be offset by profits on the the fixed-line business to the disadvantage of independant ISPs. In addition to this, Eircom will calculate the losses incurred from ISDN (and possibly 64K leased lines) users switching over to ADSL. They will also want to make a large profit to pay for their large operating costs elswhere in the business. This sort of thinking is natural for any sort of Business.

Should third party operators, however, pick up the bill for Eircoms' continued use of obsolete technology at high prices? Should they pay for the fact that Eircom is a bloated company and needs the money?

I think that these wholesale costs need to be independently assessed by the regulator and the true cost imposed. Otherwise no ISP will be in a position to offer flat-rate even though they might feel such a product would sell very well. This is very similar to the situation with nolimits and per-minute billing.

Personally, I would like to see both pre-paid and flat-rate options available. I am deliberately leaving out retail prices at the moment because I want to see as much competion in the retail market as possible.


[This message has been edited by Skeptic1 (edited 22-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

ba i cant argue with you, you make fine points, mine is that, thats the way the internet works.
one users doesnt use all his 50 pounds worth, a light user, this subs a user who use more then his 50 pounds worth,

its the same way with connction ratio,
why isnt there a 1:1 ratio, because theres no need,
one person isnt useing their full 516k so another user can, so everybody get the speed when they need it, this allow isp to have a 50:1 ratio,
its the exact same thing,
if you going to charge each user for what they download then i demand not to share my speed, i demand that if i paying for a download i should get it at the speed i pay for, do you not agree?
you see it works both ways, the only reason it works is because its all subed.

LegacyUser

Skeptic1 nailed it on the head,
and hubson, one last things, i hope your wrong about the economical thing as nothing makes eircom more money then 56k internet,

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">why isnt there a 1:1 ratio, because theres no need</font>

There isn't a 1:1 ratio because it would be absurdly expensive. It was once available in the US via Covad's SDSL service - they would provide a 1:1 backhaul to the ISP, which could then deal with service quality for itself. Of course, when ISPs found themselves having to pay for DSL-3 backhauls for less than 100 customers that changed pretty quickly. And the quality of the service fell as a result.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">DSL, etc is designed to be 'flat rate', and to be capped to speeds, and not monthly bandwidth.</font>

DSL is just an edge technology - how it is implemented is entirely up to the provider. It just happens that most ISPs find the most appropriate model to be flat-rate.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Telestra in Australia is the only other company who caps bandwidth usage monthly.
</font>

Quite a few smaller ISPs who rent ports from CLECs and ILECs in the US also impose monthly caps - they can't see any economic way to stay in business without them, presumably.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
In the US its around $10 per 5GB.
</font>

And how many ISPs do you think are going to get rich providing a 20gig/month DSL service for 15 bucks at that price?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Urban Weigl:
The cost of providing a local call is flat, because every user has his own dedicated "road" to the telephone exchange. Additionally, because a 56k modem provides so little bandwidth, it is illogical to monitor data transferred. As such, the only logical way to bill for analogue Internet access is to have one fixed monthly cost.</font>

I'm sorry. I don't think I made myself any clearer in my clarification of this Allow me to try again:

On the switched PSTN network we are charged by the minute, but an you point out, this is because of the limits of circuit switched networks.

Leaving aside the technology involved for a second, its slightly bizzare to be be charged for data on a per-minute basis - it just seems slightly anachronistic, since you can use either lots of data or very little data when you connect (not so much with 56k, but imagine if you had 512k dialup internet access... ) It would be more logical to bill by data used.

Now DSL comes along and rectifies the per-minute problem with always on connectivity. I would argue that this means that we can now move to the more logical method of billing by data transferred, which always should have been done if PSTN technology hadn't been so limited (There was always a correlation between data transferred and time online on narrowband connections anyway.)

However, some people are now saying 'We've used technology to eliminate the need for the per-minute charges; therefore the service can only be flat-rate." All I'm saying is that that is not necessarily the case, and that usage charges(either per mb (nasty) or tiered pricing(my preference)) might make more sense for everyone.

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 22-07-2001).]

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 22-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

What's clear is we gotta have always-on, data-based connections. DSL is really the only show in town. Forcing telcos to mess about with voice-network based products when they could be installing DSL is only going to delay progress.

There should be no capping, but different quality flat-rate services. On the cheap ones, it's a free for all and you suffer bandwidth nose-diving at times. Just like with the cheap dial-ups you suffer engaged tones at times, etc.

As previously mentioned, I don't believe the bandwidth is the major cost to the providers anyway and it's shrinking all the time with improved technology. Capping would introduce a nasty norm into the market..

What I really don't want to something like the mobile network where all the operators effectively form a cartel to all offer capped service as standard..

LegacyUser

hudson806 i see your point, but look at mine, thats the way it works, you share bandwidth, why no sharing the coast to,

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Fergus:

There should be no capping, but different quality flat-rate services. On the cheap ones, it's a free for all and you suffer bandwidth nose-diving at times. Just like with the cheap dial-ups you suffer engaged tones at times, etc.
</font>

That would be nice, but the easiest technical way to provide different products is with capping; at low speeds (<1 meg/s)reducing the speed of the service still further doesn't noticably reduce the load on the ISP.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As previously mentioned, I don't believe the bandwidth is the major cost to the providers anyway and it's shrinking all the time with improved technology. Capping would introduce a nasty norm into the market..
</font>

Definitely. I would only be in favour of tiered pricing if it accurately reflected the cost of providing the service. eg: 1gig for IEP40, IEP60 for 10gig and so on.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
What I really don't want to something like the mobile network where all the operators effectively form a cartel to all offer capped service as standard..</font>

With a bit of luck that won't happen. Part of the reason its so common on mobile networks, is that bandwidth is a finite resource - each base station can only handle a certain amount of data at any time.

LegacyUser

hudson806 you cant say what a fair cap is untill you have what the per mb charge is,

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:
hudson806 you cant say what a fair cap is untill you have what the per mb charge is,</font>

(Rolls eyes skyward). I was giving a vague idea of the levels I'm thinking about, mainly to indicate that I agree that most of the prices being bandied about here are too high. I don't think anyone is mad enough to think that that was supposed to be a comprehensive pricing proposal or something



[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 23-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

if there goign to charge per mb, then there should be no sub fee, or a tiny one like £10 or a fiver, im deadly serious,

your talking about paying for what you use, then why should you pay more,

i think we will get a situation the same as 56k, set up the exact same way, esat pay a % or every mb downloaded to eircom and so fort,

this is what your sugesting,

LegacyUser

There is no point in getting angry over rumored prices and capping. This is still being decided by Eircom at present. Getting angry only irritates others and drives them away. Nobody will be forced to purchase Eircom's ADSL afterall.

LegacyUser

ba i just worried about this pay as you use ****, will just mean a convertion over to a system like the per minute one we have except per mb, were telecos get charged a % on every mb downloaded then pass it one,

And of course lads with will lead to on and off peak, bandwidh is more expenisve on peak so the per mb charge is higher on peak

I sya stop this now, one you say some charge on a bandwidth basic is ok, then you open a flood gate

sceptre

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:


Its is a total disgrace, at 70 pounds a month they are lining their pockets, you would want to be be some heavy heavy user with some HUGE hard drive space to actually coast them money,
maybe .5% of users,
</font>

Often that .5% (or whatever) is effectively contributing to the profit in any case by recommending the service on. I always knew that I was costing Esat money but got them about 30 extra customers through direct referrals

Any cap of less than 10gigs or over won't get me on the service, if someone came out with a 24/7 unmetered 56k option, 10 gigs could be exceeded on that anyway. Economic sense from the POV of Seamus Ryan, consumer would indicate that.

sceptre

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Skeptic1:


2. By giving users a quota of 'free' megabytes, you are encouraging them to use up this amount at the end of the billing period.
</font>

Agreed - look at all the downloading done via Napster during that 3 day period last year - 71% increase.

(moderately offtopic in an ontopic sort of way
Even with my mobile, i tend to phone people for no reason rather than see the minutes go away (then again, I'm odd in that regard - if they gave me unlimited minutes, I'd probably use it less than I do now). the girlfriend is the opposite - last we checked she had 920 offpeak minutes available to her - for some reason the "Phone a friend" minutes are converting into real minutes at the end of every billing period - unlimited minutes and she'd never be off the damn phone.

LegacyUser

i totaly agree sceptre, you see thios is were 24/7 interent was a great for broadband, because they knew with a cap it wouldnt fly

LegacyUser

"In the US its around $10 per 5GB."

I've co-located servers in the US, where I pay $0.57 per GB for 175GB of monthly traffic.

If Eircom charges a small fee such us £2 per additional GB downloaded, IMHO that would be fair. That said, I think they should take the same route taken by 99% ADSL providers and not charge for bandwidth.

LegacyUser

This is my understanding of things.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Bandwidth increases in quantums of telco installation investment.

Throughput has a hard upper limit imposed by available bandwidth. Once that limit is reached additional users lower each individuals throughput.


Components of cost of DSL:

Installing Quality Local Loop Cable - one off, but probably most expensive part of rural DSL

Maintaining Local Loop Cable - ongoing inflation related cost

Installing intra-exchange bandwidth - one off

Maintaining intra-exchange bandwidth - ongoing inflation related cost

Installing backbone bandwidth - one off

Maintaining backbone bandwidth - ongoing inflation related cost

Each section of the above can be provided by a different telco. In each case they will base their pricing on being able to maintain the existing infrastructure, depreciate the installation costs and make a profit.
AFAIK telcos offer both bandwidth and throughput pricing for exchange and backbone.
I do not know how the DSL LL will be priced.
Presumeably the end user is the customer for the LL.

For the others:
If the customer buys bandwidth they are assured of that bandwidth at all times,
but have an upper limit on data throughput.
Installation investment is triggered by customer demand.

If the customer buys data throughput, they
only pay for what they use but have no guarantees as to the bandwidth they will get.
The telco will usually have internal bandwidth limits that trigger further installation investment to stop the customer moving provider.

An ISP is a customer to these telcos.
It buys exchange bandwidth/throughput and backbone bandwidth/throughput.

It could sell it flat rate as follows:

No guarantees: bandwidth and throughput are entirely dependent on number of customers and level of usage. The bandwidth/throughput the ISP buys is directly related to number of customers, not level of usage. It may attempt some performance balancing by buying more bandwidth from busy exchanges.

Bandwidth guarantees: the ISP guarantees average bandwidth for the rental period.
To ensure this, heavy users pay more.
This could be via grading, premium payments or use restriction/cutoff.

Cost guarantees: The ISP guarantees
a maximum bill for the rental period.
Bigger bills allow greater usage.
To ensure this, use is restricted/cutoff as the limit is reached and overruns are deducted from the following rental periods.

I am not sure if DSL supports restriction mechanisms.
If not cutoff, cost and deduction penalties would have to suffice.

The no guarantees model is usually rejected because of customer complaints.

Can anyone suggest another model that allows the ISP to make a profit and allow for changing use patterns?

LegacyUser

Hope this helps

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">


1. Is this what is known as 'bitstream' unbundling?</font>

Bitstream unbundling is where eircom still own and physically manage the line. eircom then stream off agreed bandwidth eg 2Mb to the OLO's equipment co-located at the exchange. eircom therefore have the ability to constrain the bandwidth to the access seeker.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
2. Will Eircom be the sole provider of bandwidth to the exchanges?</font>

Any operator can supply bandwidth to the access seekers equipment in the exchange. or eircom can agree to backhaul it to a different point of interconnect.

eircom are the only operator allowed to attatch equipment to and manipulate the subscriber line, so they effectively control what bandwidth can be delivered to the consumer.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3. If 2., will Eircom be free to charge for this bandwidth on whatever basis they choose?</font>

No, rates for bandwidth are published and non-discrinatory (though I doubt they're cost orientated)

LegacyUser

has any1 any idea what the setup charge will be. Im on highspeed at the moment mainly for gaming purposes but will most likely switch to adsl.

Will they accomodate those of use who hav highspeed without making us pay disconnection fees to change back to pstn lines and then adsl installation fee aswell.

Shouldnt those of us who have been giving them the majority of their money (highspeed+isdn users) get some sort of deal to avoid paying the extra costs of going back to pstn

LegacyUser

its £99 to convert from isdn back to normal,
and you have to do this in order to test for adsl, then if your line cant take it, its another £99 to upgrade,

best thing to do is get a new line installed

LegacyUser

Yes I am inclined to agree with you regarding getting an extra line.

I originally had two lines and when I had ISDN installed I kept the remaining analogue line even though Eircom were offering a discount if I surrendered it.

I decided to keep it in case ADSL became available. If the ADSL line is successful (if I ever get one) I can always terminate the ISDN account.

It is interesting to note that if you fill in the application form for ADSL on the ESAT site you are asked if the line being converted is an ordinary Voice Line or an ISDN line.

LegacyUser

hold on were you still paying rental, or was it just sitting there attached,

LegacyUser

If you are not paying rental you do not have a line (ok you may have a length of wire going as far as the street, but that does not guarantee anything). When Eircom install a phone they usually put in extra pairs (in my apartment there were three pairs)

When I first moved into my apartment seven years ago it was close to impossible to get a telephone line in the Dublin 1 area, you had to take your place in a Queue behind Roches, Arnotts, etc.

Due to a fortunate chain of events I had the opportunity to purchase three lines and I did so. A few years later my cousin purchased an apartment next door to mine but as he was unable to have a phone installed within a reasonable amount of time I transferred one of mine but retained two (one for voice and one for data).

If I ceased paying rent on any of these lines it may be impossible to get it re-installed as there may not be sufficient capacity at the exchange.

I believe that Eircom have got around this problem by installing boxes which allow say 20 physical lines at the pavement service 40 lines within a block of apartments (I have not read up on this so my description may be inaccurate but you should get the picture) ... the problem with this has just come to light - if you live in a block or street so wired you cannot be offered ADSL as ADSL requires dedicated copper. So at this stage I believe that paying rent for the remaining analogue line is worthwhile.

LegacyUser

still it seems liek alot of money, at you must be paying close to 75 pounds each bill just in line rental between the isdn and the normal one

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by infomat:

It is interesting to note that if you fill in the application form for ADSL on the ESAT site you are asked if the line being converted is an ordinary Voice Line or an ISDN line.</font>

They're probably asking that so they know whether to bother getting in touch with you at all.

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. Is this what is known as 'bitstream' unbundling?

Bitstream unbundling is where eircom still own and physically manage the line. eircom then stream off agreed bandwidth eg 2Mb to the OLO's equipment co-located at the exchange. </font>

This isn't, in fact bitstream unbundling, but it is similar to what bitstream unbundling would have been. Bitstream unbundling, as we all know, died a death (yay!) some months back. This is just a regulated wholesale DSL service.

The main difference is in the type of restrictions placed on Eircom. With a regulated DSL service Eircom is obliged to offer the OLO's the same services as it offers itself, on the same terms it offers itself.

Bitstream unbundling would have placed additional restrictions on Eircom, which would have reduced their ability to hold the market to ransom, for example, by deciding not to launch a DSL service at all.

So superfically, they look the same, but in reality there is a subtle but significant difference.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
eircom therefore have the ability to constrain the bandwidth to the access seeker.
</font>

This is a little misleading. Eircom don't have the ability to constrain bandwidth to the access seeker, except by choosing to restrict bandwidth to themselves, since they have to offer themselves the same products as they offer the OLOs. In reality, there are plenty of good reasons for restictions of this sort when sharing DSLAMs, and it is regarded as 'best practice' for wholesale DSL services worldwide - (Verizon and BT, to name but two, do the same)

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">eircom are the only operator allowed to attatch equipment to and manipulate the subscriber line, so they effectively control what bandwidth can be delivered to the consumer.</font>

Yes and no. It is a technical reality that shared DSLAMs have to have bandwidth to them carefully divvied up. In effect, it means that the LEC has to set a standard and stick to it. This is not about 'controlling bandwidth' - just good engineering.

However, it does highlight one of the reasons why bitstream unbundling wouldn't have done a whole lot to increase consumer choice.


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 25-07-2001).]

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 25-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hudson806:
This is not about 'controlling bandwidth' - just good engineering.
</font>

Agreed...apologies about being misleading with regard to bit stream, it wasn't my intention.

I was attempting to highlight a distinction between full LLU and bitstream......The fact that eircom as the only operator allowed to attach equipment at the exchanges means that they control (as is their right) the realisable bandwidth.

With regard to the current DSL wholesale product...I am aware that as eircom are about to launch their own version they have to accomodate a wholesale offering for OLO's (I don't think they have been forthcoming about the wholesale price yet).

But has bitstream bitten the dust?

I know that only esat were making noises about wanting access but weren't going to proceed under the original prices issued by eircom (which were subsequently revised downward to an EU average by the ODTR), but I wasn't aware that bitstream as a service offering was finished......possibly made redundant by forthcoming wholesale DSL.

dahamsta

eircom as the only operator allowed to attach equipment at the exchanges means that they control (as is their right) the realisable bandwidth.

The equipment itself is an important factor too though, in that Eircom would control the technology available. In other words, Eircom would be able to, for example, supply ADSL but not SDSL, which would allow them to retain some of their medium-sized leased line customers who needed to serve from the office. That's why bitstream was only good as a stopgap, and why the OLO's weren't all that pushed about dropping it - it became obvious that by the time bitstream came in, LLU wouldn't be that far off.

But has bitstream bitten the dust?

Almost, but not quite. Esat are the only OLO not to drop out of the bitstream program, however I gather that they only stayed in to "punish" Eircom, by agreement with the other operators. I doubt there's much testing going on, I think it was really just a token gesture to annoy Eircom and make a point to the ODTR. I can't back that up as fact, but I have it on good authortity.

adam

LegacyUser

could someone please point out the major difference between llu and bitsream,

i know in general, but ive little details,

i thought esat was in llu trials, if no one is in llu then why did the odtr publish prices for llu, and if these prices are in fact for bitsream why call it llu

LegacyUser

The difference between bitstream and LLU relates to the amount of control that passes to the new entrant. Both have differing legal bases for introduction. LLU has been operational in Ireland since January 1st and the ODTR has determined prices and supported the implementation of operational arrangements such as processes etc. Bitstream is under discussion with working groups, and an autumn launch is planned. The ODTR gave the Ireland Offline committee a full rundown on developments at our recent meeting. Should any of the committee require an update, the ODTR will be happy to do so.
Aileen Canning
Project Manager - LLU and Bitstream, ODTR