IBB reliability

Capt'n Midnight

Hmmm 165GB / 40 = 4GB = eircom cap !

Just a reminder on IBB reliability - if the RIP wave product on 2.4GHz is going over 100mW EIRP then the reliability will go through the floor when they are forced to adopt the CURRENT LEGAL limits* (in the USA power limits are 40 times the limits here and EIRP limits are even looser)

*this would also apply to the 3.5GHz version - but the power limits there would depend on the license and there would be less inteference anyway...

Ripwave

Originally posted by chabsey
Well then, afore ye call me a thief and a blackguard I think IBB should train their staff not to lie to customers.

You weren't lied too - it's not their fault that they don't make you site an IQ test before letting you subscribe to the service. The service is capable of delivering 100G, and they haven't implemented any hard cap. But it's a shared service, and if you try to take 100G, you'll a) fail, and b) piss off lots of other people.

If I ask and am assured repeatedly that it is my right and my privilige to download 100 gig a month, then you can be damn sure I will (on occasion) download 100 gig a month and care not a whit for those other 39 people..

You didn't ask if it's "your right and your privelege" to download 100G. You asked if it's (technically) possible, and you were told that yes, it is. And that IBB don't impose any hard cap.

However, if it transpires that I have been lied to then the bone thou has to pick lies not with me, but with IBB staff.

You weren't lied to, and you'll be the source of the problem, not IBB. if you're a RipWave customer, I won't be able to pick your house out by looking for an aerial on your roof, but that won't change the fact that you'll be stealing from the €30 worth of bandwidth that I'm paying for. You're more than welcome to use the Gig or two that I don't expect to use this month, but if you take the Gig or two that I do want/need to use, then yes, you're a thief.

EDIT: Thank you Mutant, for underlining the fact that calling me a thief is a little out of line.

Trying to suck 100G on a 512K 40:1 contended service is more than a little out of line.

cmdrpaddy

you are not stealing you are using the bandwidth you payed for.

Mutant_Fruit

**hopes this isn;t turning into a flamewar**

Here are the facts.

1) Its contended at 40-1.
2) He was told he can download 100gigs a month
3) There is a variable limit on the connection
4) They can impose it if he starts abusing the service

Those are the facts, he was just hypothisising (i wish i could spell...) about what would happen if he wanted to download that much.

THEM: The only limit is your harddrive size!

There is no download limit with Ripwave. However, to ensure fair and equitable access to all users, a fair usage policy will apply. Irish Broadband reserves the right to contact those users with excessive usage to request adherance to reasonable limits.

Next, Wireless is not like ADSL, all contention is done right in their offices. Therefore, bandwidth can be spread evenly among customers no matter Where the customers are based. So technically, if they wish, IBB could have 80 people connetced, and each will be contending with no-one (assuming IBB have bandwidth for 80 people running at full speeds).

but if you take the Gig or two that I do want/need to use, then yes, you're a thief.

So basically you;re saying that by accidenlt going over a limit that doesn't offically exist, you're a thief? That is more than a bit harsh. If you can find written documented evidance of a hard cap, then please post it, and we will all obey it to the letter. But if anyone wants to download 10 gigs (more than twice their download cap by your reckoning) they can.

rob1891

It doesn't matter what a IBB sales person or whoever says to you, when you sign up for the product you sign a 5+ page contract. Amongst other things it says that excessive use will have consequences (sorry I don't have a copy in front of me). Excessive isn't defined, I'm sure you could argue that one in the courts if you were so inclined.

There's only one contract there, you can sign it or go somewhere else, I doubt they care losing a customer who has expressed interest in using as much bandwidth as possible!

Capt'n Midnight

Just wondering - could you use Ethereal etc. to see who the hog is ?

Ripwave

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Hmmm 165GB / 40 = 4GB = eircom cap !

Eircom (and UTV and IOL) have a 48:1 contention ration for that same 165G per month - that's about 3.5G per customer per month. Anyone who uses 8G (in the case of UTV or IOL) is doing so at the expense of other users (or users who haven't yet signed up, at this point in the story).

I went for RipWave rather than DSL because the "minimum contract" cost of €480 is still lower than the current special offer for any of the RADSL offerings, and because I want to support a service that offers genuine competition to eircom. I can also bring my RipWave unit to friends and neighbours homes and demonstrate broadband in their homes, on their own computers. I would have been quite happy to sign up for RipWave even if it had a 3G cap, because that's plenty for "ordinary" use (which is why residential services at 40/50:1 contention are pretty standard). I have no time for parasites who insist that they have the "right" to suck every last byte out of the system - they're on a par with spammers, who have abused the "right" to send free e-mail to the extent that e-mail has become a sewer.

SkepticOne

I think 'stealing' is rather an emotive word. The important thing is that if you take up the service you are authorising IBB to take action if they feel you are using up too much bandwith. This decision will be at their discretion.

If you aren't happy with this, don't sign up. If you sign up and push their resources to the limit, then don't complain if they no longer require you as a customer. No one will be interested. It is a private business arrangement between you and them.

tek

cant help it but to agree with Ripwav0r
/respect tbh

Ripwave

Originally posted by Mutant_Fruit
So basically you;re saying that by accidenlt going over a limit that doesn't offically exist, you're a thief?

Trying to download 100G a month isn't "accidentally going over a limit".

If you can find written documented evidance of a hard cap, then please post it, and we will all obey it to the letter.

There isn't a hard cap - that doesn't change the fact that you don't need a degree in theology to recognize what constitutes "unreasonable" behaviour on a service with a 40:1 contention ratio.

But if anyone wants to download 10 gigs (more than twice their download cap by your reckoning)

I never said that 4G was a "download cap" - I said it's a "fair share". And I would regularly use less than 2 gig a month, and I don't care who uses the remaining 2 Gig (though I'd prefer that they use it at 4AM, when it's a fair bet that I won't be impacted).

rob1891

If you sign up and push their resources to the limit, then don't complain if they no longer require you as a customer.

And they don't need to use bandwidth overuse as a way of getting rid of you. Contract says no services and no transmittion of copyrighted material. I'd challenge any home user to push 60GB of legitimate matieral in a 1 month period.

Ripwave

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
you are not stealing you are using the bandwidth you payed for.

He didn't "pay for the bandwidth" - he paid for access to a shared service with a 40:1 contention ratio. But if he screws over ever other user, then there won't be a service for anyone to use after the 2nd or 3rd month.

(I mentioned "the tragedy of the commons" in another post - you might find the reference "Netsource" easier to understand).

Ripwave

Originally posted by SkepticOne
I think 'stealing' is rather an emotive word.

When you're using a contended service "100G" is an emotional word (or phrase, if you prefer)!

Maggie Thatcher said "There is no such thing as society, just people." She was wrong - if there was no society, no way of sharing resources, none of us could afford roads or schools or hospitals.

Or broadband.

SkepticOne

These discussions seem to occur again and again.

I agree with Ripwave. In a shared bandwidth situation (this includes all residential broadband services) the ISP has an obligation to insure that the a decent quality of service is experienced by the vast bulk of their customers.

One way is to introduce a hard cap and the other way is to monitor overall usage and curb excessive use in the small number that degrade the service.

I prefer the latter as it means that non-technical users won't be put off and these people are unlikely to be heavy users in any case.

If a voluntary group of people were to get to get together and share a leased line, for example, then some measure of fair sharing would be required. Those who hog the connection would have to be dealt with by the group. The situation here under discussion is no different.

Mutant_Fruit

Fact: The top 10% of users generate about 50% of internet traffic.

chabsey

????? Not paying much attention, are you? RADSL is 48:1. [/B]

Mmmm....48:1 isn't what their flyer says, it says 40:1.


Ripwave you seem to have taken offense at something I've said (100 gig perhaps?) and I'm not sure why.
As someone else said, 100 gig is excessive and was a number, plucked at random by me to illustrate to them that I, if given the freedom, might on occasion go crazy and download lots. Not so much that I don't have the time to use/watch/listen/whatever to it, but more than 4 gig I would think (Hey, maybe not.....I've never had the service before so how can I know?!)
So, I asked (and I feel like I should make this clear as you've claimed they didn't lie to me) if, and these are almost my exact words:

"If I download say, 100 gig a month then there won't be a phone call from you guys to say stop?"

They assured me repeatedly that no phone calls would happen, no cap, no limit would be placed on the line. I then said:

"But I've read about this crowd called Netsource who also claimed that and then throttled the speed on high usage customers. Do you guys throttle or limit or otherwise suddenly back down from offering so-called 'no limits' when someone downloads lots?"

Again I was assured that the only limit imposed was one I'd impose myself (ie. my HDD size). The person I talked to actually said that I could download 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without hassle! NOTE: WITHOUT HASSLE.

NOW....here's the thing, before you run out to your stables and saddle up your high horse or otherwise polish that soapbox of yours....I do not want to download 100 gig a month, I can't think of what the hell I'd need that would constitute 100 gig a month and I haven't got the time to bother downloading 100 gig a month.

My point was and always has been that if they claim I can (WITHOUT THEM HASSLING ME) then I will feel nice and free, no guilt and no compulsion to stop downloading when I hit, say, 10 gig. You understand?

I've learned a lot reading this thread as I don't normally have time to read or understand half of the technology behind this stuff. I for instance didn't know that there was a 165 gig limit on a line per month and that's what the other 39 people were 'contending' for. I thought it was a case of 'get what you can while you can' .

So, was I lied to? Yes.
Why? Cause they told me (3 times, two different people) that there was no limit and NO PENALTY for downloading like crazy.
Is there a limit? No, not technically.
Is there a penalty for excessive use? Yes <---- There's the lie.

Und dat is all I have to say about that.

chabsey

In a shared bandwidth situation (this includes all residential broadband services) the ISP has an obligation to insure that the a decent quality of service is experienced by the vast bulk of their customers.

I absolutely agree. However, if it's to be assumed that Eircom, Esat, UTV etc etc. all advertise their services with a download limit imposed (for most residential customer setups) to illustrate that very obligation to keeping the quality of the service high. Isn't it a little bit stupid to advertise a similar service as having no download limit when in actuality it's the exact same limit, maybe even half of what other people are offering?


If it's just to get more customers then they should expect quite a few annoyed downloaders hassling them.

I wonder what would happen if you went on a mad download spree during the free 7 day test period they give you. Would they keep schtum and be thinking to themselves ' Wait until this guy is signed on properly, we'll suffer his excessive use for 7 days then slam the little bastard when he's tied to 12 months'?

Also, I wonder if someone's usage went something like this:

January: 3 gig
Feb: 3 gig
March: 2 gig
April: 8 gig
May: On holidays in the Maldives, get bitten by a shark, lose a toe.
June: 2 gig
July: 24 gig
August: 3 gig
etc.
etc.

I wonder would they freak out come July or would they just think that it was an unusual month for the customer and leave him/her alone?

Mutant_Fruit

I'd challenge any home user to push 60GB of legitimate matieral in a 1 month period.

I take that challange! I am currently a beta tester for a new company that are starting up. They basically do "streaming games". A game can be up to 550 megs to buffer, and when you play it, you are constantly downloading/uploading (mostly downloading). I can typically waste several gigs per game i test, and i;d do one or 2 (sometimes 3) a week.

I see nothing wrong in that, as i will probably be using this company when they become officially opened aswell! That means in order to play any games, i'm going to be using several gigs a month, at least.

rob1891

Mutant, that's clearly a job you are doing (I hope they pay you!), not acting as a home user. My point was that the majority of home users who transfer large amounts of data are violating their terms of service in ways other than excessive use.

From what's been said here, it doesn't sound like IBB really care how much bandwidth you are using, which is nice to hear but I'd take it with a pinch of salt. If they ever do try to kick you off the service for excessive use I'd hope you would take them to the courts. I doubt other users would though, because what makes them heavy users is filesharing, and distributing anything copyrighted is breaking the contract, so why argue. (was netsource ever taken to the courts?)

Rob

Ripwave

Originally posted by chabsey
Mmmm....48:1 isn't what their flyer says, it says 40:1.

Learn to read, Chabsey. Ripwave is 40:1, RADSL is 48:1.

I'm not going to waste any more time replying to you, you're not worth the effort.

Mutant_Fruit

Its not a job, its voluntary. I get free access to all the games and programs on their site as they sort out bugs etc, then i get reduced costs when they go live!

But yes, most users would be p2p'ing. Which is a burden, but what i;m doing is not that different, except its 100% legal. I;'m still chewing up bandwidth. The current game i'm testing (one of the new releases on the site) is a 550 meg download to start off on, and then wheni play i should be using on average 30kb's a second. (my job is to see what the maximum usage is while playing the game, so it can be classified as to the minimum conenction u need to play etc etc.)

So 1 hour's playing is a lot of bandwidth (over 100megs at the least).

SkepticOne

Originally posted by chabsey
I absolutely agree. However, if it's to be assumed that Eircom, Esat, UTV etc etc. all advertise their services with a download limit imposed (for most residential customer setups) to illustrate that very obligation to keeping the quality of the service high. Isn't it a little bit stupid to advertise a similar service as having no download limit when in actuality it's the exact same limit, maybe even half of what other people are offering?

There are a couple of issues here.

First is their sales line which I would agree is dodgy. They should be up front about what is on the contract and say that they reserve the right to take action in cases of excessive downloading. However, if you sign the contract subsequently you can't complain if they utilise their side of it.

The other issue is whether they should have a hard cap like UTV, Esat, Eircom etc or whether they monitor the usage and take action where necessary. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches from the points of view of both the company and its users.

If for some reason, you need to download a fixed amount every month, then go for a fixed cap service. If you are a moderate user but don't want to be bothered with bandwidth monitoring and don't want to recieve a big bill for going over the download limit, then go for the 'non-capped' service.

Mutant_Fruit

Isn't it a little bit stupid to advertise a similar service as having no download limit when in actuality it's the exact same limit, maybe even half of what other people are offering?

Your making an enormous assumption there. Your assuming each ISP has just the very minimum bandwidth for all their customers to operate at the same time, on 20-1 contention, or 40-1 (depending on service).

Your also ignoring that fact that some people would only use 500 megs of their cap. Whereas others may want to download 10 gigs! The idea behind a no cap service is that there is no cap! Not the waffle being spouted here that the limit is really 4ish gigs per person if they all leeched at once. That isn't a cap! thats just a limit of the system, when the system reaches max capacity of course you'll not be able to download at full 512k speeds! of coures you'll only be able to download a fraction of what you could download if you were the only person online!

chabsey

Originally posted by Ripwave
Learn to read, Chabsey. Ripwave is 40:1, RADSL is 48:1.

I'm not going to waste any more time replying to you, you're not worth the effort.

Why should I care about RADSL? I was only ever talking about Ripwave!

You're weird.

I love when I win an arguement.

As Margaret Thatcher famously said about the individual versus the small minority of fundites when they stroke on the coal mining issues of the 1900's: "You are obviously confused"

I believe Horace said something similar in his famous lyric poem "How to raise an unrelated issue", and I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie, especially now as you're so ashamed.

chabsey

Originally posted by Mutant_Fruit
Your making an enormous assumption there. Your assuming each ISP has just the very minimum bandwidth for all their customers to operate at the same time, on 20-1 contention, or 40-1 (depending on service).

I don't disagree at all. Listen I'm only using the figure Ripwave came up with. I'm still not sure how he arrived at it (the 165 gig thing). As I said before I don't know much about how all this bandwidth stuff works, I'm just trying to educate myself as a potential consumer so you're probably right about me being wrong in my assumption (if that makes sense!).

Your also ignoring that fact that some people would only use 500 megs of their cap. Whereas others may want to download 10 gigs! The idea behind a no cap service is that there is no cap! Not the waffle being spouted here that the limit is really 4ish gigs per person if they all leeched at once. That isn't a cap! thats just a limit of the system, when the system reaches max capacity of course you'll not be able to download at full 512k speeds! of coures you'll only be able to download a fraction of what you could download if you were the only person online!

Again you're right but I was just startled by the figure of roughly 4 gig that I got when I divided 165 by 40. I just assumed Ripwave was right in giving 165 gig as the limit per month, as I said above. He seems to know what he's talking about most of the time so there ya go.

Who knows, I'm just annoyed at being told that there's no limit and no penalty and no warning. Obviously now they're claiming there is a warning given to excessive use. Maybe I'll get bored with downloading really quickly (quite likely) and get nowhere near a theoretical or actual cap each month.

I won't know until I use the service.

cmdrpaddy

I'm just annoyed at being told that there's no limit and no penalty and no warning

You never know, the clause in the contract is put in to save them if they ever need it, e.g. if everyone started signing up for ripwave they couldn't cope with them all downloading 24/7. That means it might be months or years before they have to apply that clause and thats what they probably meant when they said they wont be calling you if you download 100gigs a month, they have no problems with any of their equipment at the moment and its unlikely that they will but they reserve the right to impose a cap if the number of users increases beyond their capacity to allow continuous unlimited downloading.

chabsey

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
You never know, the clause in the contract is put in to save them if they ever need it, e.g. if everyone started signing up for ripwave they couldn't cope with them all downloading 24/7. That means it might be months or years before they have to apply that clause and thats what they probably meant when they said they wont be calling you if you download 100gigs a month, they have no problems with any of their equipment at the moment and its unlikely that they will but they reserve the right to impose a cap if the number of users increases beyond their capacity to allow continuous unlimited downloading.

Yeah fair enough. Time will tell I suppose.