Is this really 'broadband'?

SkepticOne

By some definitions a connection needs to be 2 Megs or above to be classed broadband. I don't expect Eircom to bring out such a product (with residential pricing) in the near future.

Where is the competitive pressure? If someone else was offering such a product and Eircom was losing customers to them then you would probably find some movement from them. This is not the case at the moment.

In Sweden where the encumbent offers much higher speed services, they have competition from Bredbandsbolaget which runs fibre to apartment buildings and then distributes the connection to the apartments with ethernet allowing speeds of 10 Mbits/sec. They have recently introduced a 100 Mbit/sec service in some areas. Obviously Telia (Sweden's "Eircom") could not make any money from a basic 512k service at 50 euros with this sort of competition. No one would bother with them.

In Britain, BT brought out a 1 meg service, but this was only after the main cable company, NTL, brought out a similar 1 meg service.

In Ireland at the moment, we have no equivalent of either NTL or Bredbandsbolaget and therefore we get the services we get from Eircom.

In Ireland, Eircom did introduce a "home" priced product, but this was more to do with the removal of a lot of their metered dial up revenue with FRIACO than competition and there are limits to how far this approach can be used.

Future progress in Ireland can only be made with the intruduction of further competition.

Ripwave

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Future progress in Ireland can only be made with the intruduction of further competition.

I'm not aware of any regulatory problems for anyone going into the business of delivering services of the kind you describe from Bredbandsbolaget "which runs fibre to apartment buildings and then distributes the connection to the apartments with ethernet allowing speeds of 10 Mbits/sec". (Apart from the fact that nobody wants yet another company digging up the roads).

I'd have to conclude that the problem is lack of demand, rather than lack of supply.

(Okay, it's a devils advocate position. If someone knocked on every door on your street, saying they were from some company that wanted to run a wire into your house, so that you could get a fast internet connection for €30/month, how many people on your street do you think would sign up? An honest question. On a street of say 30 houses, would you get 15 signups? 10? 5? How many would it take to be worthwhile?)

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Ripwave
I'm not aware of any regulatory problems for anyone going into the business of delivering services of the kind you describe from Bredbandsbolaget "which runs fibre to apartment buildings and then distributes the connection to the apartments with ethernet allowing speeds of 10 Mbits/sec". (Apart from the fact that nobody wants yet another company digging up the roads).

I'd have to conclude that the problem is lack of demand, rather than lack of supply.

Eh, did I say there was? My main point was that it is competition such as this in Sweden that is responsible for Telia's higher speed offerings. Such competition is not present right now here and therefore we don't get as much out of Eircom.

I did not state that it was a regulatory problem.

Ripwave

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Eh, did I say there was? My main point was that it is competition such as this in Sweden that is responsible for Telia's higher speed offerings. Such competition is not present right now here and therefore we don't get as much out of Eircom.

I did not state that it was a regulatory problem.

My main point is that maybe it's demand that is responsible for the competition, not the other way round. If there are no significant regulatory barriers, why else are there no Irish Bredbandsbolaget's delivery this service?

I think it's fair to say that reading this board doesn't exactly give a fair and impartial view of the real level of demand. I'm not convinced that there's enough real demand to justify building an alternative wired infrastructure, especially given our overwhelmingly low density housing infrsatructure, (certainly compared to the apartments that you refer to in Sweden). Hopefully, we'll see in the next few months whether a wireless infrastrure will delivery a compelling service at €30-€35, and stimulate significant demand.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Ripwave
My main point is that maybe it's demand that is responsible for the competition, not the other way round. If there are no significant regulatory barriers, why else are there no Irish Bredbandsbolaget's delivery this service?

Looking into the 'why' of the issue is a different matter. You cite urban density as an issue. There are also a number of historical reasons why competition did not develop as in other countries for which I would blame Government policy at the time.

It is always possible to cite lack of demand as the reason for non-supply or lack of competition. If everyone in the country wanted broadband and was willing to pay a high enough price then, sure, competitors would come in and supply services. Companies would overcome whatever obstacles there are in order to get a slice of the cake. It simply depends on your point of view. The question is, why should demand have to be higher in Ireland than other countries?

I think it's fair to say that reading this board doesn't exactly give a fair and impartial view of the real level of demand. I'm not convinced that there's enough real demand to justify building an alternative wired infrastructure, especially given our overwhelmingly low density housing infrsatructure, (certainly compared to the apartments that you refer to in Sweden). Hopefully, we'll see in the next few months whether a wireless infrastrure will delivery a compelling service at €30-€35, and stimulate significant demand.

I agree with this. AFAIK, Bredbandsbolaget mainly supplies those services in apartment blocks in Sweden. Even if that company decided to serve apartment blocks in towns in Ireland, there would be too few of them to have much of a competitive impact on the incumbent. A more common source of competitive pressure on the incumbent is the cable TV network. Unfortunately, due to the legacy nature of Ireland's cable infrastructure, much of the existing stuff needs to be ripped out and replaced. Consequently what little upgrading is being done is occurring in the newer cabled areas that have higher capacity cable. Therefore I agree that in Ireland most of the competitive pressure will happen with wireless.

Ripwave

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Unfortunately, due to the legacy nature of Ireland's cable infrastructure, much of the existing stuff needs to be ripped out and replaced.

It's worth pointing out that part of the reason for this is that, when it came to cable TV, Ireland was actually ahead of the pack, and cable was rolled out on a very large scale much earlier in Irish cities than in other countries (because of the demand for access to BBC/ITV). This means that a lot of our cable infrastructure is older than it was in other countries.

Jokah

I get great connection speeds with Netsource. At any time, even at peak... I get a solid 40-60kbs connection speed and the average download speed works out at 50kbs.

I feel I have broadband. I will never go back to dialup, unless of course I'm in the far reaches of china....:p

But when you look at the likes of the USA, Sweden and Japan, you wonder....

muffen

I feel I have broadband. I will never go back to dialup, unless of course I'm in the far reaches of china....

This is funny... you know that you can get 512Kbit ADSL for less than 15euros a month in China..

You're more likely to have to use dialup in the far reaches of Ireland than the far reaches of China

124124

What difference does it make to anyone (except hardcore gamers) if you have 1Mbit or 100Mbit, if your DL is capped at something as retarded as 4gigs?

Well well, I know some one who uses broadband to run a small home based business. My mates gf, is into some crazy Photoshop stuff, and she needs to download (and upload, after doing her part of the work) dozens (if not hundreds) of pics (not coded jpegs, but the full blown TIFFs - each pic over 100 MB in size) mostly from USA and from other parts of the world and the broadband just not sufficient for it. Lets just say, for her, its not feasible to go with more expensive connections at this stage.

Well, just an example of people who use broadband not only for pleasure and am sure there are many others out there.

In general, I agree with the general idea of removing/increasing broadband cap, (which ever is economically viable) and I am almost sure more aggressive competition in the market should be the main factor to bring in such value for service. But speed (I blame it on bad contention ratio) is also an issue.

Cheers.

Jokah

Wow, I did not know that Muffen....:eek:

We are still being ripped off, no doubt about it. The cap is stupid, that is why I paid more to go with Netsource.

I know there is a "cap" as such now with Netsource, but I will never download over 16 gigs a month.

But the fact of the matter is, if I am required to move out of Dublin (work), and down the country somewhere, there is a slim chance I will be able to get broadband over the phone wires...

Everywhere else around the world it , no problem....its goes back to what Ripwave said..

"This means that a lot of our cable infrastructure is older than it was in other countries."

I am just happy that I can at least surf the internet at decent speeds..

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Ripwave
It's worth pointing out that part of the reason for this is that, when it came to cable TV, Ireland was actually ahead of the pack, and cable was rolled out on a very large scale much earlier in Irish cities than in other countries (because of the demand for access to BBC/ITV). This means that a lot of our cable infrastructure is older than it was in other countries.

Yes, a lot of it dates back to the early 70's and late 60s. Another factor inhibiting the development of cable in Ireland has been Government policy. In the early 90's the Government ordered Telecom Eireann and RTE to puchase the Dublin Cablelink system. The reasoning behind this was to ensure its technological development. As it turns out, of course, it had the opposite effect since any development would have simply been duplicating its parent companies capabilities and competing with them.

Moreover, no company was allowed to compete with the cable system. Only in 2002 were these exclusive franchises eliminated. In 2000, NTL objected to Eircom's proposed use of DSL to deliver video on the basis that it violated NTL's legal monopoly. We don't know if Eircom really intended to go ahead with this, however the prohibition against Eircom would certainly have had the effect of taking the pressure off NTL.

If you were evil in the 90's and wanted to make sure of a country's backwardness in telecoms you could follow the example of Ireland's policy decisions and you would not go far wrong. First allow the state telecoms monopoly to purchase the cable system ensuring that telecoms capability does not get developed by the subsidiary cable company. Also ensure that the state broadcasting monopoly takes a stake in the cable system thus ensuring that the cable system does not develop advanced TV capability which might bring it into competition with the parent company. Then pass a law preventing competition with the cable system just to make doubly sure. Finally, be sure to ignore recommendations by advisory bodies to ugrade the system while in state hands.

All this, of course, is with 20-20 hindsight. There wern't many people pointing out the error of these policies at the time they were being made in Ireland. It is not worth dwelling on them too much now. However it does, I think, illustrate that Government policy is very important and can screw things up badly if got wrong.