* SPLIT* (A Very Pertinent Question)

spongebob

Ripwave wrote:

Defining FIA at 64K doesn't mean fixing pairgains, it means ripping out the existing telecoms infrastructure for the whole country and replacing it with some other technology.

What planet are you on Ripwave. The present copper is perfectly capable of supporting 64k in most instances with a bit of maintenance ....not replacement. 64k generally means ISDN which works up to 4 miles from the exchange or 6km+ .

A better class of pairgain such as my Pairgain from Hell thread would boost the signal beyond that range while delivering FIA . Pairgains can be DEPLOYED to deliver ADSL2+ if necessary. Where Eircom have used pairgains they have often used really crappy ones . If Eircom intend to use their Wireless licences and not copper in a given area they can simply state where they will use wireless and not copper to deliver the FIA spec connection. I have no issue with that. Furthermore the FIA requirement should be for one connection per premises.

There is no one solution as you know well Ripwave. BB for all will be delivered by a variety of technologies determined by topology , terrain, existing networks to leverage, new networks and Hot Air Balloons if necessary !!!!!:(

FIA for all is the logical first step Ripwave . BT progressed from an 'imposition' of 28.8k FIA in July 2003 to a standard Universal 512k (as near as ) by December 2005 .

M

SkepticOne

Muck wrote:

ADSL2+ will be deployed at the same price point and with the same packages as RADSL, maybe it will work out to 5.6km or so. Do tell me why I picked That Specific distance Ripwave like a good lad .

ADSL2+ will NOT result in a better offering in terms of Bandwidth and will NOT result in a lowering of prices, not before the second half of next year. It is the Cheapest way Eircom can knock more DSL lines out of the same copper and it also reduces certain fixed running costs such as power to the port when not in full use.

I agree. The core problem is not technology as such since Eircom can roll out a new technology and still limit services. Even the current Eircom ADSL service (a standard that is several years old) does not make full use of the technology (which should go up to 8Mbit/sec for those near the exchange) so why should we expect them to make full use of ADSL2+. Look at the price of 2Mbit ADSL from Eircom. Why should they reduce this price just because they are using a different technology? ADSL2+ is not going to make it much cheaper, and even if it did, why should they pass on this saving to the consumer?

This is why, if the Government wants to get into improving services in broadband in the already developed areas, more players need to be brought into the market and these players must be involved in real competition, not merely reselling Eircom's cut down DSL.

spongebob

SkepticOne wrote:

This is why, if the Government wants to get into improving services in broadband in the already developed areas, more players need to be brought into the market and these players must be involved in real competition, not merely reselling Eircom's cut down DSL.

ESAT could upgrade the LLU kit they already have in situ to offer 5Mbits (dunno how easily) ....even if only to business customers initially. The government can follow by introducing Capital Allowances for 5Mbit and above connections to business and a one Tax break to individual consumers at the higher marginal rate of 42% .....again for 5Mbit pipes and above.

Cable operators and wireless operators see that 5Mbit is where it is at and follow suit. Nothing smaller qualifies .

We might all catch up with Dungarvan Co. Waterford and the present century then...non?

M

SkepticOne

Muck wrote:

ESAT could upgrade the LLU kit they already have in situ to offer 5Mbits (dunno how easily) ....even if only to business customers initially. The government can follow by introducing Capital Allowances for 5Mbit and above connections to business and a one Tax break to individual consumers at the higher marginal rate of 42% .....again for 5Mbit pipes and above.

Cable operators and wireless operators see that 5Mbit is where it is at and follow suit. Nothing smaller qualifies .

Maybe this would work. Personally, I think that once you have multiple operators who are free to determine the specifications of their services (as in countries like Sweden, Japan, South Korea, etc) and a willingness to compete, then higher spec. services naturally eventually appear. I'm not sure about Esat. Too much of their business seems to be based around reselling Eircom (as is their privilage).

One of the key policies of Japan was that funding was to preferentially favour new companies to the market at the expense of the incumbent in their funding decisions. I would go for a sliding scale rather than a distinct cut off. Also things like contention ratio as well as the price point to consumers need to be taken into consideration.

bealtine

Muck wrote:

ADSL2+ will be deployed at the same price point and with the same packages as RADSL, maybe it will work out to 5.6km or so. Do tell me why I picked That Specific distance Ripwave like a good lad .

There is a mode in the ADSL2+ suite called Re-ADSL (reach extended).
Specifically "G.992.3 Annex L"

This is a firmware type "switch" thats allows:

• 500 kbps at 18,500’ (5.6 km)
• 384 kbps at 28,000’ (8.5 km)

It is up to the "carrier" to enable this mode.

SkepticOne

Muck wrote:

You will no doubt remember that jamie Smyth was fed an interesting titbit from his Press Release suppliers in Eircom. This titbit was that ADSL2+ would be deployed next year. The rationale behind such a deployment is simple. ADSL2+ allows more ADSL lines in a cable bundle with reduced crosstalk. The current RADSL program is heading for 20% penetration is some affluent areas . Once about 30% of lines on a given cable are enabled they all fall over together because of Crosstalk .

I was wondering where you were coming from here. When I said range I meant range as in variety or choice, for example in the consumer price range, there should be a much greater variety of services (different speeds, contention ratios etc). e.g. I shouldn't be limited to 512k with 2Mbit/sec being an option only if I'm willing to pay a fortune. The reason for this is lack of competition. I have edited my original post to clarify this.

spongebob

I meant both RANGE (packages) and RANGE (distance) with an emphasis on the former.

ADSL2+ will be introduced to increase the number of subscribers in affluent areas , not because it supports downlinks of up to 24 Mbits where the current tech supports 8Mbits

I expect a concurrent small increase in distance limits of around 1km from the current 4.5km .

M

SkepticOne

Muck wrote:

I meant both RANGE (packages) and RANGE (distance) with an emphasis on the former.

ADSL2+ will be introduced to increase the number of subscribers in affluent areas , not because it supports downlinks of up to 24 Mbits where the current tech supports 8Mbits

Unfortunately, they have little incentive to bring out higher spec products due to lack of competition. Where I live, even with RADSL, technically I should be able to get 5Mbit/sec. They will sit on ADSL2+ just like they are sitting on RADSL.

Ripwave

SkepticOne wrote:

I agree. Most of the other ones simply follow from these two. I would say that #2 follows from #7. The devil is in the detail on how #7 (bridging the last/first mile) should be solved and which should be the subject of the plan.

In other words, the Oireachtas Report doesn't actually answer Martins question. It's a "plan for a plan". That's not a criticism of the report, by the way - it's supposed to provide an overview of what needs to be done, and it does a good job of that. It doesn't address specific details, which is what Martins question is about.

Looking at the first, although there is no broadband available, demand for broadband translates into dial-up and ISDN profits for Eircom. If broadband were to be provided, revenues from these inferior services vanish. From Eircom's monopoly point of view, revenue is what matters not benefit to consumers.

Whether you thing it's "real" FRIACO or not, the 150/180 packages have effectively capped eircoms income in this area. If there are significant numbers of people regularly paying more than €30/month in per minute charges rather than using one (or two) flatrate packages dialup, it's not obvious that eircom can be considered at fault.

The number of people who would benefit from "unlimited" dialup packages could probably fit in a meedium sized meeting room. And unlimited dialup at €10/month would actually drive down demand for broadband at €35/€40 month, because the price differential would be too big a leap for ordinary users.

Ripwave

Sleepy wrote:

Define Broadband to be a minimum of 128kbps and force Eircom to provide dial up internet access free of charge to anyone who fails the line test for broadband.

What mechanisms do you propose should be used to "force Eircom" to do this? Are there any that have a snowballs chance in hell of withstanding a legal challenge?

spongebob

The USO Directive itself permits Comreg to create a package ....in essence.

M

Ripwave

MarVeL wrote:

How about requiring the reasons behind line fails to be made available (preferably including whether or not there is a pairgain on the line) along with an estimated cost to correct any issues, other than distance obviously.

The almost pathalogical fear of providing real information to the public is certainly a very real part of the problem. Unfortunately the mushroom treatment* of customers and the public generally is such an ingrained fact of Irish business and political life that I can't see it being addresses any time soon. I was under the impression that Comreg has directed eircom to provide some information to people who request new lines, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that eircom isn't ignoring that "guidance" as well.

* Mushroom Treatment: keep 'em in the dark and feed them horse****

Ripwave

SkepticOne wrote:

Even the current Eircom ADSL service (a standard that is several years old) does not make full use of the technology (which should go up to 8Mbit/sec for those near the exchange) so why should we expect them to make full use of ADSL2+. Look at the price of 2Mbit ADSL from Eircom.

Given the amount of stick they take for the fact that they can only deliver their current service on 50% or so of the lines in the country, why would they want to create even more hassle for themselves by offering 8Mb services to a tiny proportion of their customers, unless they can offer it at a substantial price premium?

Politically, it's not worth the hassle. Eircom are effectively stuck with a "one size fits all" pricing plan, because any pricing plan that is seen to advantage certain parts of the country will be a PR disaster. As long as that's the case, they have a big disincentive to producing higher speed services, unless they price it well above the "basic" service.

Not to put too fine a point in it, what's in it for them? In already congested areas, it buys them more lines with less crosstalk, and throughout the country ADSL2+ could buy them higher distance limits. But higher specced services at the same price, as long as you're close to the exchange? They got away with "up to 512k" RADSL, but they wouldn't get away with 8MB in my exchange, and 512k in your exchange!

Paddy20

Have you never heard of the FOI [Freedom of information Acts]. Eircom are obliged Afaik to supply the information required as they supply a vital public range of public/utilities services.

IOFFL have only just received a massive tome of FOI material which hopefully will throw some light and truth on this national scandal.

It is high time our wonderful Government, learned how to Govern on behalf of all sectors of this community.

Moriarty

Ripwave wrote:

Given the amount of stick they take for the fact that they can only deliver their current service on 50% or so of the lines in the country, why would they want to create even more hassle for themselves by offering 8Mb services to a tiny proportion of their customers, unless they can offer it at a substantial price premium?

Politically, it's not worth the hassle. Eircom are effectively stuck with a "one size fits all" pricing plan, because any pricing plan that is seen to advantage certain parts of the country will be a PR disaster. As long as that's the case, they have a big disincentive to producing higher speed services, unless they price it well above the "basic" service.

I don't buy that for a minute. People are annoyed with eircoms (lack of) provision of dsl because it's a policy decision on their part. What you're talking about are technical limitations of the equipment that all telcos have to deal with.

No reasonable person would blame eircom if they were offering these services but couldn't get access to them because they were too far from the exchange. Everyone knows that DSL is a distance sensitive technology. Eircom are in no way to blame for that. If you don't like it, you move closer to an exchange or look into other methods of delivery.

Ripwave

Moriarty wrote:

People are annoyed with eircoms (lack of) provision of dsl because it's a policy decision on their part

The decision not to make 8MB services available close to the exchange is a policy decison too, and it seems some people are starting to get annoyed about it!

Moriarty wrote:

No reasonable person would blame eircom if they were offering these services but couldn't get access to them because they were too far from the exchange. Everyone knows that DSL is a distance sensitive technology. Eircom are in no way to blame for that. If you don't like it, you move closer to an exchange or look into other methods of delivery.

I agree with you, Moriarty. Unfortunately, constant reading of this forum and the Broadband forum has left me with the distinct impression that there are lots of people complaining that they can't get DSL even though they are too far from the exchange, and blaming eircom for this state of affairs. They don't think that they're being unreasonable. And they won't particularly thank you for suggesting that they are being unreasonable

And obviously, that's aside from all the people who aren't too far from and exchange, and still can't get broadband.

SeaSide

Can I observe that "we" are always fighting for the bare minimum.

I remember that five years ago the fight was just to get an ISDN connection and that took a couple of years. Then the fight was just to get FRIACO and that took another couple of years. Then the fight was to get DSL and now the fight is to get a DSL connection.

As the fight has always been at the backside (among the sh1te) of the beast there has never been a way that the direction can be influenced.

Getting back to Donegal Mans original question the answer to what I at least want is fibre. Everything else will eventually top out and therefore fibre will eventually have to be dug.

jd

Paddy20 wrote:

Have you never heard of the FOI [Freedom of information Acts]. Eircom are obliged Afaik to supply the information required as they supply a vital public range of public/utilities services.

FOI only applies to government bodies.
look here

damien

Think Paddy20 meant info Eircom supply the Govt and ComReg. The answer is no too. They can stick a "confidential" tag on it and that's that really.

But I do have a nice fresh letter about my FOI request on line failures. I'll post it in the FOI thread and keep this on topic.

jwt

Ripwave wrote:

What mechanisms do you propose should be used to "force Eircom" to do this? Are there any that have a snowballs chance in hell of withstanding a legal challenge?

How did they do it in Holland? What makes them so different from us.

Apart from the willingness to do it

Ripwave wrote:

Unfortunately, constant reading of this forum and the Broadband forum has left me with the distinct impression that there are lots of people complaining that they can't get DSL even though they are too far from the exchange, and blaming eircom for this state of affairs. They don't think that they're being unreasonable. And they won't particularly thank you for suggesting that they are being unreasonable

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me when you look at the Uk or northern Ireland and see customers getting BB 10+ Km from an exchange.
And that is eircom's fault.
Poorly maintained copper coupled with an arbritary limit placed on ADSL combine to keep customers from receiving bb when if they were in the exact same position in the UK they would have few if any issues.

Fair enough if you are 20 miles from an exchange in the dark valley somewhere, but more than 3.5 km from a city centre exchange? And even inside the 3.5km its dubious if you can get bb.

Ripwave wrote:

The number of people who would benefit from "unlimited" dialup packages could probably fit in a meedium sized meeting room. And unlimited dialup at €10/month would actually drive down demand for broadband at €35/€40 month, because the price differential would be too big a leap for ordinary users.

Very true.

John

eircomtribunal

Ripwave wrote:

Whether you think it's "real" FRIACO or not, the 150/180 packages have effectively capped eircoms income in this area. If there are significant numbers of people regularly paying more than €30/month in per minute charges rather than using one (or two) flatrate packages dialup, it's not obvious that eircom can be considered at fault.

This is a very important issue and I would not want to see it put aside by this throw-away analyses.
It is not about whether Eircom is at fault etc. Dermot did not direct ComReg to make prepaid Internet hours available, but affordable always on Internet access. The current FRIACO prepaid hours packages cannot and do not attract newcomers to the Net. Our dismal 37% Internet penetration of households will, if not rectified by proper flat-rate, seriously hinder our bb development.

The number of people who would benefit from "unlimited" dialup packages could probably fit in a meedium sized meeting room. And unlimited dialup at €10/month would actually drive down demand for broadband at €35/€40 month, because the price differential would be too big a leap for ordinary users.

The contrary is the case in both cases:
1.The whole population needs a € 10 flat-rate dial up, the lack of it is the cause of our dismal Internet figures.
2. The US with their 10 dollar flat-rate have experienced a migration of over half of Net users to broadband.
Not having a lot of Internet users because of ridiculously overpriced dial-up or prepaid hours FRIACO is hindering bb uptake.

Why should somebody who cannot get bb have the pleasure to reward Eircom with 30 euros for 150 hours narrowband access that fecks up his phone line, when the luckier bb enabled user can have always on broadband, that does not feck up his line for the same amount?

P.

SkepticOne

Ripwave wrote:

SkepticOne wrote:

Even the current Eircom ADSL service (a standard that is several years old) does not make full use of the technology (which should go up to 8Mbit/sec for those near the exchange) so why should we expect them to make full use of ADSL2+. Look at the price of 2Mbit ADSL from Eircom.

In other words, the Oireachtas Report doesn't actually answer Martins question. It's a "plan for a plan". That's not a criticism of the report, by the way - it's supposed to provide an overview of what needs to be done, and it does a good job of that. It doesn't address specific details, which is what Martins question is about.

I assumed Martin's question was about the detail of what needs to be done as well as the broad overview.

SkepticOne wrote:

Looking at the first, although there is no broadband available, demand for broadband translates into dial-up and ISDN profits for Eircom. If broadband were to be provided, revenues from these inferior services vanish. From Eircom's monopoly point of view, revenue is what matters not benefit to consumers.

Whether you thing it's "real" FRIACO or not, the 150/180 packages have effectively capped eircoms income in this area. If there are significant numbers of people regularly paying more than €30/month in per minute charges rather than using one (or two) flatrate packages dialup, it's not obvious that eircom can be considered at fault.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real" FRIACO. I don't think I used the expression in my suggestions. With regard to Eircom being "at fault", Eircom simply operate their business to maximise revenue. Whether this revenue comes from broadband, dial-up, the tax-payer etc. makes no difference to them. It is not Eircom's "fault" that they still make money from dial-up or ISDN but from the consumers point of view it is a problem. It is to improve the situation from the consumers point of view that I made these suggestions. What I said was that demand for broadband translates into dial-up and ISDN revenues for Eircom in areas where broadband is not available. Do you have a problem with this?

The number of people who would benefit from "unlimited" dialup packages could probably fit in a meedium sized meeting room. And unlimited dialup at €10/month would actually drive down demand for broadband at €35/€40 month, because the price differential would be too big a leap for ordinary users.

I don't think I raised the issue of "unlimited" dialup vs other dial-up. Why are you arguing this point?

Personally, I don't think demand for broadband is the issue at hand. If very cheap dial-up was available as well as broadband and someone choose dial-up because it is cheaper, that is fine even if it lessens the demand for broaband.

It is possible that in the US, for example, where people generally don't pay metered rates for dial-up and most of the packages are unlimted, that this has lessened the demand for broadband. So what? The important thing is that people are getting the services they want.

Overall take-up figures for broadband are important for other reasons perhaps, but from the individual consumer's point of view it is not a concern.

SkepticOne

Ripwave wrote:

[quote=SkepticOne
Even the current Eircom ADSL service (a standard that is several years old) does not make full use of the technology (which should go up to 8Mbit/sec for those near the exchange) so why should we expect them to make full use of ADSL2+. Look at the price of 2Mbit ADSL from Eircom.

[...]Not to put too fine a point in it, what's in it for them? In already congested areas, it buys them more lines with less crosstalk, and throughout the country ADSL2+ could buy them higher distance limits. But higher specced services at the same price, as long as you're close to the exchange? They got away with "up to 512k" RADSL, but they wouldn't get away with 8MB in my exchange, and 512k in your exchange![/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you are responding to here (maybe someone elses post?). What I and others have been arguing is that in the absence of competition, there is little incentive for Eircom to change their behavior. Hence suggestions for LLU, etc. In countries where there is such competition, those political reasons ("Politically, it's not worth the hassle. Eircom are effectively stuck with a "one size fits all" pricing plan,") you mention would not be a consideration.

AndrewMc

eircomtribunal wrote:

The contrary is the case in both cases:
1.The whole population needs a € 10 flat-rate dial up, the lack of it is the cause of our dismal Internet figures.
2. The US with their 10 dollar flat-rate have experienced a migration of over half of Net users to broadband.

Not having a lot of Internet users because of ridiculously overpriced dial-up or prepaid hours FRIACO is hindering bb uptake.

Why should somebody who cannot get bb have the pleasure to reward Eircom with 30 euros for 150 hours narrowband access that fecks up his phone line, when the luckier bb enabled user can have always on broadband, that does not feck up his line for the same amount?

Would it be reasonable (i.e. realistic, really...) if it was suggested to Comreg that if somebody's line can't carry DSL yet, then they should get FRIACO at half the normal price, or even less. If Eircom make almost nothing from dial-up, it might provide some sort of incentive to improve DSL availability.

It's not 10 euro-for-all, but it's a compromise of some sort. Kinda like welfare for the communicationally-challenged.

Maybe not. Haven't had my morning coffee yet

eircomtribunal

SkepticOne wrote:

If very cheap dial-up was available as well as broadband and someone choose dial-up because it is cheaper, that is fine even if it lessens the demand for broaband.

It is possible that in the US, for example, where people generally don't pay metered rates for dial-up and most of the packages are unlimted, that this has lessened the demand for broadband. So what? The important thing is that people are getting the services they want.

I'd like to point this out again, as I think it is very important.

Cheap flat-rate access is essential to entice as many people as possible to use the Internet. The more Internet users we have the bigger the demand for and migration to broadband.
In the US (with long established sub 10 € monthly narrow-band flat-rate) now over 50% access the Net by broadband, in Ireland the figure is 7%, in many EU countries it still below the 50%.

Narrowband access of anachronistic, but we are caught in the past and still need this crutch of flat-rate narrowband to catch up. Our 37% household Internet penetration is just way too low.
Even if, like in the US, 50% of our 476 000 online-households would (or could!) migrate to broadband, we could not even achieve the EU average of 20% broadband household penetration.
Our basis is too small.

And making sure the incumbent does not make a fortune out of dial-up revenue from the unfortunate he excludes from broadband access, is a powerful incentive for the incumbent to invest in broadband.

P.

spongebob

AndrewMc wrote:

Would it be reasonable (i.e. realistic, really...) if it was suggested to Comreg that if somebody's line can't carry DSL yet, then they should get FRIACO at half the normal price, or even less. If Eircom make almost nothing from dial-up, it might provide some sort of incentive to improve DSL availability.

This is a virtous linkage Andrew. In the event that a line cannot support functional internet access the person must spend far longer online for the same 'result' . Giving them a discounted rate encourages the owner of the line to fix same and give themselves a revenue increase on the spot. It is consistent with the legal obligation on Comreg to ensure that Functional Internet Accesss (FIA) is universally available. A special €10 rate for Unlimited FRIACO for an impaired line focuses the mind . Fixing that line can produce €20 revenue a month from day one (daytime package) .

Furthermore, if the internal wiring on the premises is at fault (as it often is) the owner of the wires can simply test just outside the premises , establish that it is working in a manner consistent with FIA and serve notice on the customer that they should deal with the wiring inside themselves......and probably charge €50 for the unneccesary visit as well. Therefore it is not a regulatory 'burden' as there is a mechanism to claw back costs where the line is not at fault.

Your suggestion is equitable to all the stakeholders and is easy to administer.

M

SkepticOne

eircomtribunal wrote:

And making sure the incumbent does not make a fortune out of dial-up revenue from the unfortunate he excludes from broadband access, is a powerful incentive for the incumbent to invest in broadband.

I certainly agree with this.

Where we might differ is on the the use of flat-rate as a demand stimulation tool for broadband or for the internet in general. I have very little interest in demand stimulation measures as I think it obscures the issue of supply and is often used by telcos and policy makers as a way of justifying poor supply. For me, the important thing is that broadband is available to those that want it. That was always my understanding of the goals of IOFFL although I stand to be corrected.

Overall figures for broadband are important, but I prefer to view them as symptoms of underlying supply problems rather than goals to be achieved in themselves.

As far as flat rate is concerned I certainly agree that the lower the price, the better. Same with broadband. I view these as good in themselves.

Ripwave

eircomtribunal wrote:

This is a very important issue and I would not want to see it put aside by this throw-away analyses.
....
The contrary is the case in both cases:
1.The whole population needs a € 10 flat-rate dial up, the lack of it is the cause of our dismal Internet figures.
2. The US with their 10 dollar flat-rate have experienced a migration of over half of Net users to broadband.

Not having a lot of Internet users because of ridiculously overpriced dial-up or prepaid hours FRIACO is hindering bb uptake.

For a man who claims to dislike "throw-away analyses", you seem to be very fond of tossing them off yourself.

The population doesn't "need" €10 flat-rate dialup. In a country where people happily pay 50c/minute to make a mobile call, it's really not credible to suggest that cost is a huge barrier to wider take-up of the internet.

And then there's your absurd view of the US market. Dialup accounts from the major ISPs in the US cost from $17 to $24/month, plus taxes, plus call charges (yes, Virginia there really are local call charges in many parts of the US!)

MSN.com - $21.95 plus tax ($14.95+tax for 20 hours)
AOL.com - $23.90 plus tax
AT&T Worldnet - $21.95 plus tax ($16.95 plus tax for 150 hours)

The mass migration of US dialup users do broadband has come about because the premium for going from dialup to broadband is relatively small - DSL special offers are available for as little as $30/month (plus tax). But then, we have some pretty attractive DSL starter offers here at the moment too. Someone currently spending €25/month for dialup probably doesn't take too much encouragement to spend €30-€40 on DSL, where it is an available option. Getting them to go from €10 to €40 would be a different story.

Why should somebody who cannot get bb have the pleasure to reward Eircom with 30 euros for 150 hours narrowband access that fecks up his phone line, when the luckier bb enabled user can have always on broadband, that does not feck up his line for the same amount?

Why should someone get 150 hours of dialup for only €30, when their neighbour is paying 1.2c/minute to call his friends and family?

Eurorunner

Dialup accounts from the major ISPs in the US cost from $17 to $24/month, plus taxes, plus call charges (yes, Virginia there really are local call charges in many parts of the US!)

Im sure it varies but on the other end of the scale, in Carson City, Nevada, a pal of mine is paying a big fat zero for dialup.

Ripwave

eircomtribunal wrote:

In the US (with long established sub 10 € monthly narrow-band flat-rate)

Where did you get this number from? Every major US dialup ISP costs over $20/month. The migration to DSL was helped by the fact that the incremental cost of switching to broadband was relatively low.

Ripwave

Eurorunner wrote:

Im sure it varies but on the other end of the scale, in Carson City, Nevada, a pal of mine is paying a big fat zero for dialup.

AOL has tens of millions of customers paying over $20/month. How many customers are availaing of your friends zero cost ISP?