Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Eir rural FTTH thread III

Options
1…2526283031…51

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    Gonzo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 16,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gonzo


    looks like the 150 meg option is going to be phased out from a few providers.

    Digiweb upgrading everyone on the 150 and 300 plans to 500.
    The NBI (NBP) is now going to have a minimum speed of 500 as well.

    That leaves Eir, Vodafone, Airwire and Pure Telecom still with the 150 option available.


  • Options
    #813
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    Gonzo wrote: »
    looks like the 150 meg option is going to be phased out from a few providers.

    Digiweb upgrading everyone on the 150 and 300 plans to 500.
    The NBI (NBP) is now going to have a minimum speed of 500 as well.

    That leaves Eir, Vodafone, Airwire and Pure Telecom still with the 150 option available.

    You're way too interested in these profiles :D


  • Options
    #814
    Marlow
    Registered Users Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    The issue is, that the pricepoint for the 500 Mbit/s on Digiweb is 54.95 and then 59.95 after the contract is out.

    And that means there is no sub 50 EUR package available anymore, where Westnet is 45 EUR/month and Airwire 49 EUR/month.

    What the offering is doing, is that it literally forces you to pay overall more money.

    The majority of people need less than 150 Mbit/s and would prefer to pay less.

    The only good thing that is coming from the price changes across the board, is that installation prices probably will get lowered in the next days or weeks.

    /M


  • Options
    #815
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,768 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Gonzo wrote: »
    looks like the 150 meg option is going to be phased out from a few providers.

    Digiweb upgrading everyone on the 150 and 300 plans to 500.
    The NBI (NBP) is now going to have a minimum speed of 500 as well.

    That leaves Eir, Vodafone, Airwire and Pure Telecom still with the 150 option available.

    Didn't someone post earlier, a notional wholesale price list which had the same price for 150 Mbps as 500?

    If that was accurate and becomes established, retailers ought to be able to offer 500 for the same cost as 150 in terms of profit margin.


  • Options
    #816
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Didn't someone post earlier, a notional wholesale price list which had the same price for 150 Mbps as 500?

    If that was accurate and becomes established, retailers ought to be able to offer 500 for the same cost as 150 in terms of profit margin.

    Most of the time I'm using 2 - 10 Mbps browsing or watching video streams.
    Then I will use the full 150 when I need to download or update software.

    If every user was on 500 the total amount they download probably wouldn't change much but there would be higher spikes in usage for the ISP. Wouldn't it be additional cost to the ISP to upgrade to support these spikes?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,768 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    Most of the time I'm using 2 - 10 Mbps browsing or watching video streams.
    Then I will use the full 150 when I need to download or update software.

    If every user was on 500 the total amount they download probably wouldn't change much but there would be higher spikes in usage for the ISP. Wouldn't it be additional cost to the ISP to upgrade to support these spikes?

    Only if they are idiots.


  • Options
    #818
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Only if they are idiots.

    Vodafone is already having issues at peak times from what I have seen.
    Are they mismanaging their network or unwilling to spend more on bandwidth?


  • Options
    #819
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,768 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    Vodafone is already having issues at peak times from what I have seen.
    Are they mismanaging their network or unwilling to spend more on bandwidth?

    I have no idea. They can't even run a simple web site, so I would guess they are technically incompetent from top to bottom.


  • Options
    #820
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I have no idea. They can't even run a simple web site, so I would guess they are technically incompetent from top to bottom.

    Would it be problematic for an ISP like this to upgrade customers speeds when they are already having issues?


  • Options
    #821
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,768 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    Would it be problematic for an ISP like this to upgrade customers speeds when they are already having issues?

    I don't know, but if you wanted to go into business and set up a fish and chip shop and you did some research and estimated you could get 200 customers on a Sunday evening vs 40 on a Wednesday, would you equip your shop to be able to serve 40, 200 or 300 customers?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I don't know, but if you wanted to go into business and set up a fish and chip shop and you did some research and estimated you could get 200 customers on a Sunday evening vs 40 on a Wednesday, would you equip your shop to be able to serve 40, 200 or 300 customers?

    Depends, are the customers playing a flat rate for the month or every-time they are served?
    Smaller portions would allow more customers so that could be the best option.


  • Options
    #823
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    Vodafone is already having issues at peak times from what I have seen.
    Are they mismanaging their network or unwilling to spend more on bandwidth?

    I had to drop from 1gb to 500mb because of congestion could never get near it.

    Even though there's very few people around me on it.

    It's not just vodafone


  • Options
    #824
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    limnam wrote: »
    Even though there's very few people around me on it.

    It's not just vodafone

    Yep it's not and I don't think it's a local or on the open eir part of the network.

    Upgrading the speed for everyone has to have a cost even if there is little difference in what has to be paid to open eir. There is more to the cost of providing FTTH than open eir's fee.


  • Options
    #825
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    Vodafone is already having issues at peak times from what I have seen.
    Are they mismanaging their network or unwilling to spend more on bandwidth?

    at 16:1 they only have to deliver about 60mb to a 1gb subscriber


  • Options
    #826
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    limnam wrote: »
    at 16:1 they only have to deliver about 60mb to a 1gb subscriber

    I've not seen any evidence of a bottleneck at the OLT, even with 32:2(Gbit)
    It depends on the ISP and comes from their network.
    When it happens with Vodafone other people not with Vodafone connected to the same OLT are unaffected.


  • Options
    #827
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    I've not seen any evidence of a bottleneck at the OLT, even with 32:2(Gbit)
    It depends on the ISP and comes from their network.
    When it happens with Vodafone other people connected to the same OLT are unaffected.

    Got you.

    But if all you have to provide to a 1gb customer is 60 odd mb. Why would there be costs into infrastructure? Moving someone from 150 to say 1gb?


  • Options
    #828
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    limnam wrote: »
    Got you.

    But if all you have to provide to a 1gb customer is 60 odd mb. Why would there be costs into infrastructure? Moving someone from 150 to say 1gb?

    Because they would be upgrading every customer. Where all the traffic meets on the ISP's backhaul would have to be upgraded wouldn't it?
    The contention ratio should never be obvious to the customer if done right.


  • Options
    #829
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    Because they would be upgrading every customer. Where all the traffic meets on the ISP's backhaul would have to be upgraded wouldn't it?
    The contention ratio should never be obvious to the customer if done right.

    What I mean is.

    If the minimum required to provide to a 1gb customer is 60mb and everyone is say on 150mb profile and they move them to a 1gb profile. They still only have to provide 60mb.

    The network would surley withstand that anyway.


  • Options
    #830
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    limnam wrote: »
    What I mean is.

    If the minimum required to provide to a 1gb customer is 60mb and everyone is say on 150mb profile and they move them to a 1gb profile. They still only have to provide 60mb.

    The network would surley withstand that anyway.

    No because that never happens in reality and it's not what an ISP would aim for because people will not pay full price to only get 60Mbit.
    When you go from most people on 150 to most on 500 then you have all the OLT's frequently coming close to max of 2GB, not an issue at the local level.
    But when all these lines of 32 customers are close to maxed more often that all connects at the ISPs backhaul and they would have to provide more bandwidth or people will see contention even if no one else on their 32 user line is active.
    Upgrading backhaul costs money driving up cost.


  • Options
    #831
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    limnam wrote: »
    But if all you have to provide to a 1gb customer is 60 odd mb.

    Heh, I can tell you don't work for an ISP. Telling a 1Gb/s customer that you only "have to" provide 60Mb/s will result in one fewer customer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    No because that never happens in reality and it's not what an ISP would aim for because people will not pay full price to only get 60Mbit.
    When you go from most people on 150 to most on 500 then you have all the OLT's frequently coming close to max of 2GB, not an issue at the local level.
    But when all these lines of 32 customers are close to maxed more often that all connects at the ISPs backhaul and they would have to provide more bandwidth or people will see contention even if no one else on their 32 user line is active.
    Upgrading backhaul costs money driving up cost.

    I'm not saying they aim for it.

    But if the vast majorities usage is say 95 percentile of about 10-15mb/s

    Add to that the miniumum regardless if you aim for it or not but the minimum with 16:1 is 60mb/s knowing that the 95 percentile is 10-15mb/s why would there be cost implications for infrastructre?

    The vast majority of servers the vast majority of people connect to can barley give 100mb/s anyway

    So I don't see where all this congestion would be.

    The amount of average home users sitting down testing with speed test is fairly low i'd have thought.


  • Options
    #833
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Heh, I can tell you don't work for an ISP. Telling a 1Gb/s customer that you only "have to" provide 60Mb/s will result in one fewer customer.

    100% and I'd be gone.

    But it is the reality of the contention ratio no ?

    1gb is probably bad example as people ordering it often have a reason to do it.

    Where I think a lot more on 150mb wouldn't notice if the vast majority of the time they were getting a lot less.


  • Options
    #834
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    limnam wrote: »
    But it is the reality of the contention ratio no ?

    No. Contention ratio is a meaningless number. Nobody in the industry ever talks about it. Networks are designed and managed (by decent ISPs) to avoid congestion.

    The wholesale provider monitors the DSLAMs and OLTs to make sure that individual ports don't regularly exceed a given percentage of their capacity. Backhaul networks are similarly monitored, and any link that shows signs of reaching capacity is scheduled for upgrade.

    At least, that's the theory. No competent ISP - wholesale or retail - lets congestion affect customer experience and just ignores it because it fits within the parameters of a notional contention ratio.


  • Options
    #835
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No. Contention ratio is a meaningless number. Nobody in the industry ever talks about it. Networks are designed and managed (by decent ISPs) to avoid congestion.

    The wholesale provider monitors the DSLAMs and OLTs to make sure that individual ports don't regularly exceed a given percentage of their capacity. Backhaul networks are similarly monitored, and any link that shows signs of reaching capacity is scheduled for upgrade.

    At least, that's the theory. No competent ISP - wholesale or retail - lets congestion affect customer experience and just ignores it because it fits within the parameters of a notional contention ratio.

    Weird,

    I ordered 1gb. Was fine for a few weeks.

    Then I could never get above about 450mb/s

    This was put down to contention ratios

    Regardless of time or day.

    So because it was contention we couldn't troubleshoot it.

    So I dropped down to the 500mb package.


  • Options
    #836
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    limnam wrote: »
    Weird,

    I ordered 1gb. Was fine for a few weeks.

    Then I could never get above about 450mb/s

    This was put down to contention ratios

    Regardless of time or day.

    So because it was contention we couldn't troubleshoot it.

    So I dropped down to the 500mb package.

    So Vodafone are unable to manage their network and you think upgrading every user will work out fine?


  • Options
    #837
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    So Vodafone are unable to manage their network and you think upgrading every user will work out fine?

    I'm not with vodafone.

    No I'm just shooting the breeze here. I don't know anything about vodafones network.


  • Options
    #838
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    limnam wrote: »
    I'm not with vodafone.

    No I'm just shooting the breeze here. I don't know anything about vodafones network.

    I've no idea how much it will cost to provide more bandwidth at peak times but it will increase bandwidth used by an ISP's backhaul.
    The options for the ISP are, swallow the cost(profit margins are already really tight though, charge users a slightly increased fee(price points are already very competitive) or just let the network performance suffer.


  • Options
    #839
    Grnsj
    Registered Users Posts: 41 ✭Grnsj


    limnam wrote: »
    Weird,

    I ordered 1gb. Was fine for a few weeks.

    Then I could never get above about 450mb/s

    This was put down to contention ratios

    Regardless of time or day.

    So because it was contention we couldn't troubleshoot it.

    So I dropped down to the 500mb package.

    You are likely being lied to by your ISP. I suggest moving to someone more competent.


  • Options
    #840
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    Grnsj wrote: »
    You are likely being lied to by your ISP. I suggest moving to someone more competent.

    I would hope not

    As I dropped down I pay less so wouldn't make much sense to not try to keep me on the higher profile.

    They're also highly recommended here.

    But yeah the contention thing didnt make much sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    There are a number of points where there could be contention. I doubt if it was at the OLT.
    Having a small number of the heavy usage customers drop down to a lower tier package would be an easy and cheap solution. Whatever it is that ISP would probabky have to spend time and money on it before they could think about giving all customers a speed upgrade.


Advertisement