Different Technologies

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 12:54pm #1

I'm just trying to get my thoughts together on various aspects of Internet access as part of my input at our seminar (details TBA within next couple of days).

As part of this, I would like to bounce a few general ideas around this forum over next two weeks.

First one - to me, as a non-technician, there seems to be a lot of different access technologies being developed/promoted to various degrees, for example:

Standard modem dial up
ASDL over telephone lines
Cable modem
Wireless
Satellite
Existing power lines

Bearing in mind the cost of implementing any new technology against the population size of Ireland, does it make sense to have all these technologies being worked on? I know it would be wonderful to have range of choice but I would have thought that the market just isn't big enough to support them all, also price is very much related to usage volume.

Would it make more economic sense for all parties to concentrate on one technology? Personally, I would favour satellite if it could be brought in at a reasonable cost as:

it would be available everywhere, not just high population centres
there would be no disruption due to cable laying, road digging, etc.

Comments appreciated, but can we please avoid complex arguments about technological issues - I'm trying to establish broad principles here

Thx

Martin

[This message has been edited by o_donnel_abu (edited 12-08-2001).]

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 1:15pm

"Sense" [economic, common etc...] isn't something that seems to be used very often in relation to this subject.

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 1:20pm

Bearing in mind the cost of implementing any new technology against the population size of Ireland, does it make sense to have all these technologies being worked on?

Being as non-technical about it as possible (unfortuntely it does require a slightly technical response), I would say, yes, absolutely. (disclaimer: everything techie I say here is merely illustrative)

Each of those technologies has a number of drawbacks (debated endlessly elsewhere) which will make them unsuitable for certain types of users (Low-ping gamers, high-volume business users, high bandwidth surfers to name but three types).

In terms of costs, since most of them have absolute bandwidth limits (FWA, Satellite, Cable), costs are already calculated around only small economies of scale (ie: from the start the provider knows he will only have 100 users or whatever), so if 5 OLO's got together to provide FWA, it would probably cost almost 5 times as much as if one OLO did it.

Besides, non-operational costs such as IT systems, training etc. always form a very large part of any rollout. These would still be necessary if 5 companies were co-operating.

To put it another way, I would venture that the least expensive part of any broadband rollout is the poles on the hills and the DSLAMS in the exchanges.

And certainly, I think that any cost savings will be negated be the reduced level of competition.

I also don't accept the argument that Ireland is too small a market. Many companies throw that argument out to explain why, frankly, they haven't bothered to change, when the real reason is a total lack of competition.

It easy to believe that there's something wrong with the size of the market here when we still don't have broadband 3 years after everyone else, but I'm still confident that 5 years from now, everyone in the country who wants broadband, will not only have it, but have a choice of provider.

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 12-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 12-08-2001).]

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 1:36pm

the ping with sat makes it allmost unusable for games and browsing, allso speed goes up and down to much,

ADSL is within reach of most irish people, if it got going

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 12-08-2001).]

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 2:02pm

the various xDSL technologies (IDSL, ADSL etc) allow greater distances from the exchanges and the users. I think ADSL allows a max distance of 3.5km and IDSL can reach 5.5km.

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 2:23pm

I do think there is some clarity needed in terms of what variations of braodband should be prioritised. It does seem, as Mary O'Rourke recently indicated, that broadband should be made availbale on a wide variety of devices- portable and domestic connections etc., but in aiming for this we may be putting the cart before the horse! Given this, it may be most appropriate to put more emphasis on ensuring the availabilty on convential devices such as PC's before we guarentee it on more portable wireless solutions, IMO. (whether that be through existing phone lines or cable)

Martin, In relation to your point on satelite, from what I've heard on the forum to date, it definitley does seem to be the optimum long-term solution, and something in Irelands case probably the most economical if the long-term plan is to ensure broadband availability on every part of the island- w/ out the need for phone line upgrades.
Thus in terms of Governments ploughing a lot of cash into it ?? I'm not sure. My resoning being that it seems that there are an ever incresing number of commercial enterprises on the horizon, itching to get into this part of the world. In essence, it may be foolish for the state to invest heavily when in fact commercial, more profiatble and efficent providers may exist.

Overall, it does seem neccessary that some form of conslidation in strategy is neccessary. It may be foolhearty to be so expansive in the initial stages of broadband technology to think we can provide it on such a scale.

80p.
SAVE CHIP !!

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 2:39pm

Originally posted by 80project.com:

Martin, In relation to your point on satelite, from what I've heard on the forum to date, it definitley does seem to be the optimum long-term solution,

I would have said the opposite - satellite is a good idea for the short-term as almost anybody can get it. But in the long-term, satellite is hideously slow, doesn't scale well and is insanely expensive to install and operate.

It would be useful for plugging the gaps that new technologies can't fill, though.

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 2:43pm

Originally posted by 80project.com:

Martin, In relation to your point on satelite, from what I've heard on the forum to date, it definitley does seem to be the optimum long-term solution, and something in Irelands case probably the most economical if the long-term plan is to ensure broadband availability on every part of the island- w/ out the need for phone line upgrades.

Please if quoting, dont be as selective- The point was for ensuring access to all of the island

. If you disagree w/ the point fair enough but please dont be selective

80p.
SAVE CHIP !!

[This message has been edited by 80project.com (edited 12-08-2001).]

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 2:48pm

Originally posted by hudson806:
...satellite is hideously slow, doesn't scale well and is insanely expensive to install and operate.

But is this not like almost all technologies, slow and expensive in early stages but rapid development once it starts to get adopted? I speak as someone who still remembers people getting excited about 14.4k modems

Martin

Dustaz · 12-08-2001 2:59pm

Personally satellite access was never an option for me. Its far too slow, gives me horrible pings and atm its way too expensive.
As was pointed out each technology has its merits and drawbacks so concentrating on one is defeating the purpose of Ireland Offline.
xDSL is the main contender imho. Its scaleable, its cheap and its (almost) here. For most people in cities it doesnt need any faffing about with lines.
As was also said satellite is good for 'plugging the gaps' in the areas that cant be reached by xDSL and because it doesnt need to be run by an Irish company its a practically viable option (if not financially).

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 3:30pm

Originally posted by o_donnel_abu:
But is this not like almost all technologies, slow and expensive in early stages but rapid development once it starts to get adopted?

I'm not sure how true it is for Satellite - no matter what, the signal will always have to travel x,000 miles and back again, and there is a limit to how much information you can push over those distances.

I agree it may change, but frankly, with so few companies investing in the technology (compared to DSL), I think we'd be backing the wrong horse, if we did it because it could be improved, since its unlikely that anyone will bother

And 80p, sorry if you think I was being selective, I just try to chop down the quotes a bit when I post. My comment applied to all of your message though - essentially that satellite is only good enough to be an alternative to dialup, and investing heavility in it at the expense of better solutions would be a huge mistake. Again, apologies.

Dustaz - i think your comment has hit the nail on the head

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 12-08-2001).]

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 5:32pm

Originally posted by Dustaz:
...each technology has its merits and drawbacks so concentrating on one is defeating the purpose of Ireland Offline.

Just to be clear - I am not proposing that we concentrate on one technology - just trying to widen the debate a bit

Martin

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 6:01pm

Originally posted by hudson806:

And 80p, sorry if you think I was being selective, I just try to chop down the quotes a bit when I post. My comment applied to all of your message though - essentially that satellite is only good enough to be an alternative to dialup, and investing heavility in it at the expense of better solutions would be a huge mistake. Again, apologies.



No sweat!! Thats essentially what I said though- Leave the investment in Satelite to commercial enterprises. The technology, unlike cable or broadband does allow the service to be provided from outside of the state. It would of course be a huge mistake for the govt. to put all their money on one horse (satelite)

80p.
SAVE CHIP !!

[This message has been edited by 80project.com (edited 12-08-2001).]

dahamsta · 12-08-2001 6:24pm

Originally posted by Dustaz:
Personally satellite access was never an option for me. Its far too slow, gives me horrible pings and atm its way too expensive.
As was pointed out each technology has its merits and drawbacks so concentrating on one is defeating the purpose of Ireland Offline.
xDSL is the main contender imho. Its scaleable, its cheap and its (almost) here. For most people in cities it doesnt need any faffing about with lines.
As was also said satellite is good for 'plugging the gaps' in the areas that cant be reached by xDSL and because it doesnt need to be run by an Irish company its a practically viable option (if not financially).

But you see it would suit me, and most small businesses, and a good portion of consumers out there Dustaz. I don't need small pings - except possibly for SSH - because I'm not a gamer, never will be. Neither do most small businesses, and there's a hell of a lot of consumers out there who don't game either. The only thing that would turn me against satellite would be unreliability and, related, the reputed limited backhaul of the satellite providers.

I think Martin's posting was maybe suggesting an alternative approach for Ireland Offline, one which I ultimately don't believe in. I don't think Ireland Offline should concentrate on any one technology, rather we should concentrate on the ultimate aim - fast, affordable Internet access for as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, by any means. Of course Ireland Offline can prioritise certain technologies - I think DSL should be a huge priority, because the only thing really holding back its introduction is the obstinance of Eircom and the OLO's - but the ultimate aim is to get it. If it has to be satellite, so be it. The only problem I see with satellite is that a large portion of the revenues will be leaving the country, which may encourage the government to tax it heavily, which would of course defeat the purpose entirely.

And I know this is going to sound harsh, but I feel is has to be reiterated - gaming is a luxury, eBusiness isn't. If you can't get good pings, it will only upset the economy to a very small degree. However the lack of affordable broadband and always-on Internet access for SME's is really hurting Ireland's economy, and it's doing that at a time when we can least afford it. Please don't misunderstand me here, I don't want to begrudge you your always-on or broadband connection. Hell, I'm a consumer too, I want the best of both worlds. But look at this from an economic perspective - which sector do you think is more important to the government?

The only thing good consumer connectivity will do for the goverment is place Ireland higher in the league tables, which doesn't really affect the economy that much. Gaming isn't going to improve the economy to any notable degree. eCommerce from the consumer side won't either, because although you will be more inclined to buy online, it's quite likely that you'll buy abroad, because Ireland will need time to catch on and build our mythical "eCommerce hub". Conversely, if you improve connectivity to SME's, you'll see more Irish business being done on the Internet, cutting costs and improving international revenues, i.e. money coming *in* to the country.

I know it sounds harsh, but economics is harsh. That said, I'm well chuffed with the way Ireland Offline has come to be organised, with consumers working in tandem with businesses to force the issue and bring it to the attention of the pwers that be. And that's important, because large consumer groups have been proven to be very important when it comes to lobbying, particularly with an election on the way. In reality, improved business and consumer connectivity will compliment each other to improve our economy and quality of life, but from the economic perspective, I think it's primarily the business angle that will make the government sit up and take notice. The government are grasping at straws at the moment, and we have the opportunity to educate them and give them something real to grasp and use to build the economy.

adam

dahamsta · 12-08-2001 6:28pm

Two more points:

1) Sorry Martin, I mistunderstood.
2) An important follow-on from the "improved consumer spending" point - this is actually something the government will have to put a leash on soon anyway. Consumer spending - and borrowing - is already too high given the current economic climate.

adam

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 6:29pm

I'd agree that while Satellite and other wireless tech is a good short term solution given our low population density, in the long term other solutions are essential.

I also found myself in essentially entire agreement with Hudsons original post

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 7:07pm

Originally posted by Dangger:
the various xDSL technologies (IDSL, ADSL etc) allow greater distances from the exchanges and the users. I think ADSL allows a max distance of 3.5km and IDSL can reach 5.5km.

RADSL can go up to 5.5km. IDSL is basically just a newer version of ISDN which is "always-on", and therefore can go anywhere where ISDN can go. The speed is 144kbps.

Dustaz · 12-08-2001 10:57pm

Sorry if i was a little unclear. I know that my reasons for wanting broadband are completly different to lots of others reasons. I guess i was trying to point out that its horses for courses. Satellite would never suit me, but its perfect for others.
Therefore we need both.

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 11:24pm

heck ... i dont know what to say first ... technical or not ... i have seen the lates issues of pc live but my brother informs me that there is a artical in there abouth the latest xdsl connection that works up to 7km from the exchange ...

Dish man ... sorry

dahamsta

may come out with a an exelant to the letter brief on economics that he gave me a mental picture of him looking like michale protillo ... LOL ... but what f(uk|ng decent ordinary citerzen is gona opt for an expensive and complicated satalite link that has next to nothing upstrem capicity ? I'll telly you ... only those f(u|<rs working in eircom who can afford it by ripping us all off ...

Dont get me wrong I think a sat connection would be great that meet the needs of bussiness that make substaisail porffits but I though this forum was for the ordinary man/woman and for the poorer members of socity that cant afford to surf the web to take advantage of the wealth of information on it presently not providing them with a means of getting on the web but @ 4-5 times the current cost :O ...

anyway I lossing my train of thought now but common sence was mentioned and it common sence that only a selet few networking gurs will opt for satalite ... cables are not gona be laid donw over the country anytime soon if ever ... xdsl is the way to go ... other than the telcoms is holding it back ... the technology works well and has been imporved with each inversion of the thecnology ... a year or two from now xdsl will likely reach distances of 20km @ highter bandwidths ...

you be out of you mind to think it wasnt the direction to go for the future ...

and finaly ... form an economic point of view since i only have a few bob in my pocket ... LOL ... and I have to be econmical ... not by choicl

... LMAO ... what irish customers are buying products on the web today ... I'm certainly not as are many others cause @ i pay my internt bill! i cant afford anything else ... the biggest boom you could give to the irish ecomerce is implement flat-rate access asap for dial-up! ... Hell eircom may loss proffits but @ least the "Real" economay would benifit ... all bussiness ... not just one ...

And sorry "lastly" again really i mean it this time ... were just about to get ourselfs out off the current mess and your looking to jump into a even worse situation ... Once we get compettion and fair reulation in the telecoms industry ... you looking to opt for another sulition that will in almost all probablility be a monoploised satalite company with all the previous regulatory problems that we've tackled already and will take even longer form now to get it fair and balanced for everyone ...

Sorry for my language ... I dont mean to be rude ... I just a bit passionate now

LegacyUser · 12-08-2001 11:36pm

Originally posted by Pragmatica:
... were just about to get ourselfs out off the current mess and your looking to jump into a even worse situation ...

Sorry to repeat myself but as I said above:

- I am NOT proposing that we concentrate on one technology - just trying to widen the debate a bit

Martin

[This message has been edited by o_donnel_abu (edited 13-08-2001).]

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 12:46am

I was'nt refering to you

... @ least I dont think I was ... LOL ... "You" really just ment all that think satalite is gona do anything for thoes on the dole or min wage like me

...

Jaysus I'd be chuffed to bit martin if you had a satalite link

... You'd would have a better network for you kids and all too but you know the afordability is the ballance the the majority are after ... we dont really mind that we have a poor connection or any kinda makeshift connection to the net as long as long as joe bloggs can say ... "God! I wouldn't mind buying a computer for christmas and getting my kids online too now that I can afford it"

Bisides it's a bad idea in any field to switch lanes @ the last moment ... @ least your looking in the mirror

...

Who know maybe satalite will take off in the near future but it aint gona be cheep ... and what happens when the friggen thing goes fubar ? everyone will be left without a connection

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 1:58am

Originally posted by Gladiator:
the ping with sat makes it allmost unusable for games and browsing, allso speed goes up and down to much,

if you are talking from experience and not word of mouth i will accept what you say about browsing, but ping is a no brainer.
and for fluctuating speeds, again if you are talking from experience, but otherwise stop talking about it.

Ashley Lyn

Ashley Lyn Cafagna

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 2:04am

Originally posted by hudson806:
I would have said the opposite - satellite is a good idea for the short-term as almost anybody can get it. But in the long-term, satellite is hideously slow, doesn't scale well and is insanely expensive to install and operate.

Satellite is not expensive to operate, sure the inital costs are great, but once the technology is in place, the other costs are minor.

And @ 45MBit per Transponder, i dont think it the satellite that has bandwidth problems, its getting a fat pipe to feed the uplinks for the satellite.
With Satellites having a standard 30+ TP's, thats 1.3GBit/sec+ that can go over the satellite.

Its a great technology and the Big *G* will improve it further with low orbit.

DSL is a "pipe" dream for me.

Ashley Lyn

Ashley Lyn Cafagna

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 3:30am

Yeah .. but who can afford it ? nobody that doesn't have a good wage and if you can get a sat link presntly and can affort it ... what are you alll doing here @ this forum ?

happy surfing to you all how have it

xdsl to us that cant affor sat

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 3:38am

true, im off, deregistered from IOFL.
bye.

Ashley Lyn

Ashley Lyn Cafagna

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 8:43am

Originally posted by chernobyl:

With Satellites having a standard 30+ TP's, thats 1.3GBit/sec+ that can go over the satellite.

Thats the total? 2 STM-4s. For all of Europe or even just all of Ireland, thats laughable.

Plus the high initial cost will act as a barrier to entry, and keep costs high.

To reiterate what I said earlier, satellite is OK as an alternative to dialup (and for many, it will be the only alternative...) For everybody else, basically any other broadband service would be better.

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 13-08-2001).]

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 9:40am

i notice chernobyl gets up tight about sat anytime someone Dares to comment thats its not as great ans soem may think,

Do you disgree with what i said, no because you know its true,

while your on a 300ms ping or there abouts with your one way sat, maybe you can manage browseing on that, but with 700ms ping (two way) it get extremely hard to browse the internet,

Allso Yes sat speeds go up and down, as much as cable speeds do, 512k can become 112k at peak times, do you disagree with that, you yourself have said this before

Now you keep on talking about experience, as you may remember i did allot of home work into sat internet afew months back when i was about to get it(before esat cut me off)

While i doubt i have your level of experience in fact i doubt most sat users have your level of experience, that doesnt mean what im saying isnt right, or that i should be allowed to voice an opinion, few people here have cable or adsl, but allot of people know allot about it.

i think dahamsta is allso missing that fact, while yes maybe it will be great for your company and maybe worth it in the long run what are you going to do for browseing, it could be very frustrating using two way sat,
that said id get it in a flash, as £150 bills are far more fustrating.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 13-08-2001).]

dahamsta · 13-08-2001 10:20am

Yeah .. but who can afford it ? nobody that doesn't have a good wage and if you can get a sat link presntly and can affort it ... what are you alll doing here @ this forum ?

That's simply not true. The services that are due to roll out soon are much more affordable than anything currently available. They're also more practical, since they don't require a separate uplink (which brings costs down even further).

Who can afford them? I can. My last phone bill was nearly three hundred pounds. The one before that was over two hundred. Still not enough to justify a leased line, but plenty to justify a spend of £200 a month. And I'm certainly not the only one.

adam

dahamsta · 13-08-2001 10:25am

i think dahamsta is allso missing that fact, while yes maybe it will be great for your company and maybe worth it in the long run what are you going to do for browseing, it could be very frustrating using two way sat, that said id get it in a flash, as £150 bills are far more fustrating.

Well done Gladiator, you've outdone yourself this time by contradicting yourself not in the same thread, or even in the same post, but in the same paragraph!

Yes, satellite has its flaws, it has plenty of them, but it's a solution to a problem, and would be for a lot of people. I would prefer - as I'm sure would most people on this forum - DSL or cable, but I need a solution. Like I said, if it has to be satellite, so be it. This is the whole point of Ireland Offline - in a competitive market, we would have choice. I don't have choice, I have necessity. To run my business effectively, I need a broadband or always-on solution. Now. Not yesterday, not the mythical January 1, now.

adam

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 8:21pm

Originally posted by Gladiator:
i notice chernobyl gets up tight about sat anytime someone Dares to comment thats its not as great ans soem may think,

This is just for personal growth, but can you show me where i have neen defensive before?..or even up tight.

Ashley Lyn

Ashley Lyn Cafagna

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 8:32pm

i dont see how im contradicting, your going to have problems browsing the internet, and its going to be worse for a company as that (keep in mind i dont know what company you run) will be mainly what you want,

If you think im contradicting myself by saying in oen statement sat is tough for browsing and in the other saying id get it anyway, its because id do most of browsing over 56k and leave downloading to the sat.

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 11:12pm

All well and good if sat does what you need and more ... £190 is the highest I've spent on any bill but realistically ... £40-£50 a month would be my upper limit and likely everyone elses considering poverty in the whole of ireland ...

If I could affort 200 a months discounting the pros and cons of pings etc ... I'd get a sat connection too ...

but even if it was cheaper there would still be hidden charges ... well not hidden as line rental covers phone and internet ... I'm still gona need a phone in the house which will be used rarely now and again, so that price might as well be £230 ...

Alright most of the guys including yourselfs and techies here and it looks attracitve but it doesnt look attractive for me ... Most people are affraid of computers, so will it look attractive to Joe Sope that just got his first computer out of dixons last week ?

Bard · 13-08-2001 11:28pm

Originally posted by Pragmatica:

Most people are affraid of computers

I wouldn't agree with that- I think we're in a more tech savvy country than you seem to believe...

Anyway, - £200 per month would certainly be WAY out of the question for me - totally unaffordable... and that's not JUST because I'm "between jobs" right now. I don't think it's WORTH paying £200 a month for a home Internet service, but I guess that's part of the reason IrelandOffline are here, eh?

Bard

'First motorbike in the bible ???? ---- a Triumph --- 'Yea verily Moses struck down the ammmanites and all the land heard the roar of his triumph !!!'

LegacyUser · 13-08-2001 11:43pm

Originally posted by Bard:
I don't think it's WORTH paying £200 a month for a home Internet service, but I guess that's part of the reason IrelandOffline are here, eh?

I agree!!
If I was a business dependant on the web... Maybe!

but...
For something in the 3 figure zone (ie. £100+ ), i think I could better alocate those funds in other forms of amusement!!

80p.
SAVE CHIP !!

LegacyUser · 14-08-2001 2:20pm

you have to link pirce to quality of service,
look at eircoms adsl, a 24:1 ratio on a mb link, now when 3 people are on line you getting less then you pay for, the problem is that at peak times thats going to become somethink that looks allot like the speed you get on a dac box,

At least in the uk its 50:1 on a 2mb link, given you a better chance of getting your bandwidth