[UK] Anger over 1 gig cap ...... A DAY!!

p2p

Great site from pissed off ntl user,
he doesnt know how lucky he is!
:cool:

http://www.dont-pay-ntl.co.uk/

longword

It's worth pointing out that in a colo facility, without any last-mile infrastructure, £1 is considered a pretty good rate for 1GByte. Have a look for example at the basic package available from www.rackspace.co.uk. Their basic package comes with 30GB included, pretty much £30 ex VAT for every 10GB after that. You can get bandwidth cheaper of course, but make no mistake it's not free.

BTW, I have a sneaking suspicion that NTL run that site, hoping that some of their upset bandwidth hogs will take up on the idea and give NTL an even better excuse to cut off their service.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by longword
It's worth pointing out that in a colo facility, without any last-mile infrastructure, £1 is considered a pretty good rate for 1GByte. Have a look for example at the basic package available from www.rackspace.co.uk. Their basic package comes with 30GB included, pretty much £30 ex VAT for every 10GB after that. You can get bandwidth cheaper of course, but make no mistake it's not free.

How much is it in Ireland?

longword

Originally posted by SkepticOne
How much is it in Ireland?

That's commercially sensitive information, but I believe if you shop around you can get it as low as €1 per GB.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by longword
That's commercially sensitive information, but I believe if you shop around you can get it as low as €1 per GB.

Hmmm. This means that the bandwidth for Eircom's 50:1 ADSL costs around 3.25 euros per user per month (excluding fixed infrastructure costs).

<Edit: I'm sure Eircom can get it for less, though, being a large company. >

SkepticOne

It seems like what is needed is a way for competing ISPs to be given more flexible access to Eircom's DSL equipment. If bandwidth is this cheap then being forced into 50:1 contention ratios means that they can't pass on the cheap bandwidth.

The problem is clearly monopolised infrastructure not bandwidth.

longword

I suspect prices that low may be at or below cost price though. There are a lot of empty colo facilities out there and it's a buyer's market. It's much worse for them to leave a rack empty than host a rack dirt cheap and hope to make it back on services.

spongebob

Originally posted by longword
I suspect prices that low may be at or below cost price though. There are a lot of empty colo facilities out there and it's a buyer's market. It's much worse for them to leave a rack empty than host a rack dirt cheap and hope to make it back on services.

NTL charge €35 euros a month in Dublin (incl Vat) for this service and the implied cap is 30Gb DOWNSTREAM , I could live with that so I could

The Reg has the story Here with a few pertinent links..

M

Moriarty

Originally posted by p2p
Great site from pissed off ntl user,
he doesnt know how lucky he is!
:cool:

http://www.dont-pay-ntl.co.uk/

The arguments he puts forward are so inane as to be laughable. The warez monkeys are finally on the firing line in the uk.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by longword
I suspect prices that low may be at or below cost price though. There are a lot of empty colo facilities out there and it's a buyer's market. It's much worse for them to leave a rack empty than host a rack dirt cheap and hope to make it back on services.

I've heard that after the Global Crossing deal, Eircom bought a big whack of bandwidth immediately, but there's still a huge amount of unused capacity. Of course, to make avail of this, you need to connect to it at its termination point in West Dublin. A lot of the colocation business, as you say, never appeared.

I'd be very interested in knowing what the cost is:

1) at bulk from global crossing.
2) as it might be to a medium sized ISP in a) Dublin and b) other parts.

I can't help thinking that it's like food aid at a third world port. Stuff arrives for next to nothing, then it is divided up by corrupt officials at the port and sold on at inflated prices.

Shinji

The arguments he puts forward are so inane as to be laughable. The warez monkeys are finally on the firing line in the uk.

Which is fair enough to a degree, but you can also cause serious problems for some perfectly valid users with that kind of capping. NTL allow users to run game servers etc - you'd eat up a gig a day easily doing that.

Co-lo prices have nothing to do with this discussion and I'm not even sure why they were introduced.

At the end of the day, imposing caps on broadband users indicates one thing and one thing only; your network is rubbish and needs capital investment on upgrades. ISPs do NOT pay by the byte for their bandwidth; they own a certain amount of capacity and they pay for it regardless of whether it's being used or not.

If 1% of users are capable of using enough of this bandwidth to seriously impact the remaining 99% of users, then it's apparent that you don't have enough bandwidth to service your users - as all you'd need is for that other 99% to increase their usage very slightly (say listening to a radio station online for a few hours a day) and your network would go boom.

Ultimately NTL are making the stupid and backwards mistake which Irish ISPs have been making for the last year - namely supplying broadband on the proviso that users are only allowed to use it like a faster version of narrowband.

(By the way, as a further comment to the "warez kiddies" thing... I use NTL at the moment, along with a Nildram ADSL connection. My traffic per day runs to about 1.5gb (less than a gig on NTL though, as its shared between the two connects) and that's with NO warez or illegal material included. I use the connect for working from home. Oftentimes that'll jump to three or four gig when I have to download major OS revisions, beta software or whatever, or if I just decide to listen to a streaming radio station in the afternoon rather than my own MP3s, or watch some of the video newscasts on the BBC website...)

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Shinji
Co-lo prices have nothing to do with this discussion and I'm not even sure why they were introduced.

I think the reason they were introduced was to show that the cost of bandwidth is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is the way the bitstream service is configured by Eircom which the ISPs are then forced to use.

longword

Originally posted by Shinji
Co-lo prices have nothing to do with this discussion and I'm not even sure why they were introduced.

Find me a better guide to the price of raw bandwidth.

Yes, ISPs buy capacity (Mbits/sec) rather than by the gigabyte transferred, but it generally doesn't make sense to charge their customers for capacity they're not using. Customers want high speed, but don't need to use it 100% of the time.

What the ISPs do instead is play the averages and estimate the capacity required to service their users. It would still be unfair to simply average out that cost and charge one user the same as another who's using a hundred times more of the ISP's capacity, so they charge per gigabyte used. It all works out and everyone's happy.

Shinji

It all works out and everyone's happy.

Well, except that everyone isn't happy, because this isn't what broadband internet was meant to be. ISPs are not paying by the megabyte, and hence charging customers by the megabyte is a very questionable practice.

Should I pay more for my TV license (or Sky/NTL sub or whatever) if I leave my television on for a few more hours a day than my next door neighbour? Obviously not - it costs them nothing for me to be switched on, therefore they charge me nothing for using their service more. This is what broadband internet was meant to introduce.

Suggesting that colo fees are an accurate measure of the price of raw bandwidth is a long way off the mark. It's actually an accurate measure of how much ISPs have found they can get away with charging businesses for colocation bandwidth. The actual cost structure has nothing to do with it, it's down to what the market can sustain. Where consumer broadband is concerned, that is NOT the business logic which needs to be applied, because the profit off broadband services is not meant to come off the connectivity.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Shinji
Should I pay more for my TV license (or Sky/NTL sub or whatever) if I leave my television on for a few more hours a day than my next door neighbour? Obviously not - it costs them nothing for me to be switched on, therefore they charge me nothing for using their service more. This is what broadband internet was meant to introduce.

I think one of the problems is the way broadband companies advertise services as if it were like TV (a broadcast medium). They need to be more honest with their customers.

oneweb

...then hear what they have to say. I'd find it pretty hard to pop 1GB A DAY FOR THREE DAYS on a regular basis (Good aul' heanet , it's physically possible, but not practical in real life*) IMO, NTL are right to impose a reasonable cap (OK, they didn't communicate it as well as they should have), and I don't think anyone here would complain about a 1GB-a-day cap (be honest). I'd rather have a cap, and know that the service isn't gonna keel over because of other abusers.
I get the feeling that NTLhell is run by a bunch o' ungrateful li'l brats that just don't appreciate what they've got.

As I say, bring 'em over here and see what they have to say about their cap then (3gigs per 3days against 3gigs per 30days???)

[Starts dreaming of a 1GB limit per day...]

*Just got me thinkin, do these people not have a real life???

dahamsta

I get the feeling that NTLhell is run by a bunch o' ungrateful li'l brats that just don't appreciate what they've got.

Bizarre that you'd bring it up when no-one else has, however: no, it's not, it's run by NTL. I disagree with the notion that unhappy NTL users are "a bunch o' ungrateful li'l brats", although there is at least one that's a sellout. Anyway, where was I...

NTL seeks to clarify 1GB/day broadband cap

NTL has been stunned by the outcry from its broadband customers over the cableco's decision to cap usage of its broadband service to 1 gigabyte a day.

The announcement was sneaked out on Friday but caused such an uproar that senior execs have been forced to step in and clarify the cableco's position.

A protest site set up on Friday calling for customers not to pay their NTL bills until the matter is resolved, has already received more than 30,000 hits and 100s of emails from angry users.

[...]

SkepticOne

One interesting post on that forum:

2Mbps leased line: £15,000 pa (approx) - I believe it's cheaper via certain *cough* NTL *cough* companies.

Shared between 40 users @ £35/month 40:1 contention:
Thats £16,800 pa in potential income. This is a better service than NTL currently offer, it's a symetrical connection and there are no transfer limits. Want more bandwidth than 2Mbps - you may start showing a profit (which is more than can be said for NTL). If only we could run our own cables, can you say wireless???

The price comes rocketing down for additional bandwidth and longer leases. For example a 5-year lease on a 2Mbps line would be about 2/3 of the price of a one year lease. A 5-year lease wouldn't be very prudent however as certain *cough* NTL *cough* providers will be re-entering chapter 11 well before then.

In short I have being paying over the odds for a sub-standard service all along. I would like to extend my gratitude towards NTL whilst pointing out the inherrent irony in the unfortunate manner that they chose to bring this to my attention.

I did the maths and this equates to an average of 16 Gigs per month per user - far better than anything available in Ireland. Get a move on DublinWan! How much would the equivalent leased line cost here? With this sort of bandwidth you would not need to worry about download restrictions.

longword

Originally posted by Shinji
Should I pay more for my TV license (or Sky/NTL sub or whatever) if I leave my television on for a few more hours a day than my next door neighbour?

That totally flat model works if and only if the marginal cost for every hour of use is zero. Every gigabyte a customer downloads increases the ISP's need for backbone capacity. Simple math. Simple economics.

Suggesting that colo fees are an accurate measure of the price of raw bandwidth is a long way off the mark. It's actually an accurate measure of how much ISPs have found they can get away with charging businesses for colocation bandwidth.

It's actually a very competitive business. There's nobody constraining the business. No barrier to entry. No teleco or cable company sitting on top of infrastructure. In a colo get charged separately for space, power, and your bandwidth, you can see exactly what the costs are and why. If you think you can run a colo with no charges for data transfer, I say go for it. You'll get lots of customers. Then go bust really, really quickly.

I have a mission for you. You know where google is. Find me anywhere in the world that will sell you a gigabyte of data transfer for much less than a dollar. Find me anywhere in the world that will sell you an uncontended megabit per second 24/7 for $50. I think you'll find the real world is somewhat different to the special little dream world in your head.

colinsky

is there ANY service in Ireland that would provide enough bandwith to be able to download 1GB within 24 hours, for that price (or not!)?

I'd be happy to have his access.

Ardmore

Originally posted by Shinji
Well, except that everyone isn't happy, because this isn't what broadband internet was meant to be. ISPs are not paying by the megabyte, and hence charging customers by the megabyte is a very questionable practice.

I'm sure that Eircom would be quite happy to charge you for a dedicated 512k connection. I'm equally sure you wouldn't be happy to pay for it.

And if I have to share that infrastructure with you, I certainly don't want to be subsidising any warezmonkeys.

Should I pay more for my TV license (or Sky/NTL sub or whatever) if I leave my television on for a few more hours a day than my next door neighbour? Obviously not - it costs them nothing for me to be switched on,

unlike broadband, which actually does cost them when you're using the connection. Broadband is like the ESB, not like broadband.

This is what broadband internet was meant to introduce.

Sez who?
Nuclear power was supposed to produce electricity that was "too cheap to meter". In some markets, broadband is too cheap to meter. But bandwidth isn't free, and the nature of our market (where a huge majority of our access is to "foreign" sites) is markedly different to some of the other markets we're being compared to. (US users visit US sites most of the time. Korean users spend a lot of time on Korean sites. UK users visit UK sites a lot more often that Irish users visit Irish sites).

Eircoms per megabyte rates are ludicrous, but they do serve a deterrent purpose. The not yet available €55 ADSL service is more attractive to me with a cap than without, because with a 50:1 contention ratio, p2p users and warezmonkeys will impact on the service I get.

It's interesting to note that IrishWISP charge a lower rate for Corporate VPNs because they don't use Internet bandwidth. But at €350 installation (I need their "wireless to internet converter") it would take well over 6 months to be more cost effective.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Ardmore
Nuclear power was supposed to produce electricity that was "too cheap to meter". In some markets, broadband is too cheap to meter. But bandwidth isn't free, and the nature of our market (where a huge majority of our access is to "foreign" sites) is markedly different to some of the other markets we're being compared to. (US users visit US sites most of the time. Korean users spend a lot of time on Korean sites. UK users visit UK sites a lot more often that Irish users visit Irish sites).

How much is international bandwidth in Ireland?

longword

Originally posted by SkepticOne
How much is international bandwidth in Ireland?

It's also a question of how much does that cost per unit bandwidth. When you peer to someone, they agree to accept your traffic to their sites, and you agree to accept their traffic to yours. As a country we have bugger all sites worth visiting and most of our traffic is downloading stuff from foreign sites, so it's worth nothing to the upstream in the USA to peer to Ireland while it's worth a great deal to us to peer with them. The link tends to be priced accordingly and that hurts small countries like ours.

SkepticOne

Yes, so taking that into account, how much does it cost? We need some figures before we can gauge the fairness of caps and per megabyte charges thereafter.

It is my contention that most of the issues with caps stems from the 50:1 contention ratio that will be imposed on competing ISPs rather than the cost of raw bandwidth (per megabyte or otherwise).

If we knew the cost to the ISP then we could determine if a lower contention ratio was possible for an affordable price.

bk

Originally posted by Ardmore
It's interesting to note that IrishWISP charge a lower rate for Corporate VPNs because they don't use Internet bandwidth. But at €350 installation (I need their "wireless to internet converter") it would take well over 6 months to be more cost effective.

That is an unfair example.

You have to remember that Esat and Eircom are both bandwidth suppliers, they are effectively buying the bandwidth straight off the backbone networks (i.e. global crossing). Also because they buy so much bandwidth (for business use etc.), I'm sure they get massive discounts from their suppliers.

On the other hand IrishWISP is a much smaller company, they probably don't buy enough bandwidth to be able to get it straight from the backbone or get discounts, they probobaly have to go through one of the regional leased line suppliers (Eircom, Esat, Via Networks, etc.). This means that IrishWISPs bandwidth costs are much, **MUCH** higher then Eircom.

Now taking into account the above and that IrishWISP are charging EUR 49 for 12 Gigs, it just goes to show what a rip off Eircom DSL at EUR 55 and a 3/4 Gig cap is, given that their bandwidth costs would be much cheaper.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bk
Now taking into account the above and that IrishWISP are charging EUR 49 for 12 Gigs, it just goes to show what a rip off Eircom DSL at EUR 55 and a 3/4 Gig cap is, given that their bandwidth costs would be much cheaper.

Another example is Irish Broadband who do a contention ratio of 8:1 for residential services and no cap. Further evidence that we're being told porkies with regard to 'expensive' bandwidth.

I can see why an ISP forced into a 50:1 ratio might have to use caps (although I would disagree that this is the best way), but this would be because of rigid conditions imposed by Eircom rather than the cost of bandwidth. Bandwidth could be free, but they might still have to take measures given the hight contention ratio.

longword

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Yes, so taking that into account, how much does it cost? We need some figures before we can gauge the fairness of caps and per megabyte charges thereafter.

I doubt we'll ever know that. It's the definition of commercially sensitive information.

It is my contention that most of the issues with caps stems from the 50:1 contention ratio that will be imposed on competing ISPs rather than the cost of raw bandwidth (per megabyte or otherwise).

That's the alternate issue of intranational links - between the exchange and the POP/NOC. I'd wager that a megabit from Cork to Dublin costs more than Dublin to New York. The best we can do is compare contention and bitrates to other countries. 50:1 €45 ex VAT puts us right on par with where the UK was a two years ago.

Ardmore

Originally posted by bk
That is an unfair example.
You have to remember that Esat and Eircom are both bandwidth suppliers, they are effectively buying the bandwidth straight off the backbone networks (i.e. global crossing). Also because they buy so much bandwidth (for business use etc.), I'm sure they get massive discounts from their suppliers.

I've already said that the price ESAT and Eircom quote for bandwidth is ludicruous if you expected to pay it. But the point about the IrishWISP example is simply to demonstrate that bandwidth isn't free, not to demonstrate what it costs.

As far as anyone knows, Eircom hasn't charged a single person 3c+VAT for a megabyte of bandwidth - they are using it as a deterrent, and an "encouragement" for heavy users to pay for a more appropriate level of service. I don't have a problem with that.

bk

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Another example is Irish Broadband who do a contention ratio of 8:1 for residential services and no cap. Further evidence that we're being told porkies with regard to 'expensive' bandwidth.

I can see why an ISP forced into a 50:1 ratio might have to use caps (although I would disagree that this is the best way), but this would be because of rigid conditions imposed by Eircom rather than the cost of bandwidth. Bandwidth could be free, but they might still have to take measures given the hight contention ratio.

So I think it is reasonable to say that we have dispelled the myth that reasonable bandwidth (<30 Gigs) is very expensive for Eircom / Esat (certainly nothing like 3c + VAT per MB) and is in fact quiet cheap.

So that leaves us with only two reasons why you might have a 3 / 4 GB cap.

1) The 50:1 contention ratio - which is fair enough, but there are other ways of dealing with this (i.e. throttling).

But this leads us to the question, should we allow Eircom to force other ISPs to use a 50:1 contention ratio bitstream product, should there not be more flexibility to allow 25:1 contention ratios to be sold to ISPs.

2) Eircom actually want people to go over the cap so that they can then charge for it at outrages rates (3c + VAT per MB) that are much higher then the cost of the bandwidth. In other words continue their per unit charging model.

While point one above is valid, IMHO point two is the real reason for Eircoms cap.

Dustaz

Originally posted by bk

2) Eircom actually want people to go over the cap so that they can then charge for it at outrages rates (3c + VAT per MB) that are much higher then the cost of the bandwidth. In other words continue their per unit charging model.

While point one above is valid, IMHO point two is the real reason for Eircoms cap.

All available evidence refutes this. This could of course change, but at the moment, thats not the point of the cap.

bk

Originally posted by Dustaz
All available evidence refutes this. This could of course change, but at the moment, thats not the point of the cap.

What evidence is that? and so what is the point of the cap?