3 selling non NBS contracts in NBS areas

thebman

Hi folks -

I'm a first time poster to boards.ie, so apologies if my query has been dealt with in an earlier thread......

I'd appreciate any help that you might be able to give me.... I've just signed up to 3 broadband because I live in the middle of rural Kildare where I can't get landline broadband and the speeds achieved by voadafone broadband are painfully slow, so I've no other option [I think?] than to take up 3 under the NBS [NBS rolled out to my area a couple of months ago and my house is covered on the 3 NBS coverage map].

My wife purchased the 3 broadband contract from Carphone Warehouse in Newbridge at the weekend and I tried it on Monday from home. I was able to connect after about 10 attempts and had a speed of about 200kbps [not the advertised speeds, but much faster than vodafone or my dial-up] - however, I couldn't connect at all last night, so I phoned 3 customer service and explained my problem. Turns out that my wife signed me up to the standard 3 mobile broadband package and not the NBS package - apparently, according the Indian fella on the other end of the line, there is a difference in the coverage depending on whether or not you are signed up to 3 under the NBS or not..... is this correct? I would have thought that the standard 3 mobile broadband would have worked under the 'normal' coverage areas and also the NBS areas - apparently not. I just wanted to see if anyone out there can confirm or deny this advice?

Also, is there anywhere were I can find out what the nearest 3 broadband cell tower is closet to my location? Should I have line of sight of this tower?

Any assistance or advice would be very much appreciated....

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62517508&postcount=7033

Surely this should not be allowed. If the taxpayer is paying for the rollout, they shouldn't be selling their standard service in an area the taxpayer paid for the rollout. These people should have to be on NBS contracts should they not?they not?

I mean if not, we just paid to upgrade 3's network and we will have no reassurances of service unless people specifically ask for an NBS contract when purchasing.

smellslikeshoes

If the taxpayer is paying for the rollout, they shouldn't be selling their standard service in an area the taxpayer paid for the rollout.

According to the post you quoted "there is a difference in the coverage depending on whether or not you are signed up to 3 under the NBS or not" surely this means that the only 3 Broadband in those areas are going to be NBS contracts. As evidenced by the user not being able to get coverage on his standard 3 broadband contract in a NBS area.



ps. I've no idea if that is the way it works or if its just the usual BS from 3, I am just going on what is in the post.

watty

There is ZERO difference between what is supplied and charged and technology used.
It's all just 3's phone network. It's clear on the web site that T&C and prices and modem is the same.

They are using a Mobile 3G licence from Comreg. Their licence terms forbids Geographic discrimination. If it's a 3G mast run by 3, any 3 customer can access it. It's illegal breaking of licence condition if they provide 3G and only allow NBS users to connect. Besides Phone calls have priority as they make at least 150x as much money as data for same cost. Without phone call customers the masts are a liability EVERY month.

The taxpayer is only providing a small subsidy (39M Euro Irel, 40M EU out of 225M Eur) toward a Mobile Phone Rollout. Additionally most of the 79M could be used up on the NBS only Satellite Service as that is VERY expensive.

Sponge Bob

But 3 users in an NBS area are entitled to different T&Cs , particularly the minimum speeds . Giving them a non NBS contract is an attempt to remove this entitlement .

thebman

Sponge Bob wrote: »

But 3 users in an NBS area are entitled to different T&Cs , particularly the minimum speeds . Giving them a non NBS contract is an attempt to remove this entitlement .

Yeah that was my take on it. It seems like the people selling it in the stores aren't mentioning NBS at all and giving standard 3 contracts instead unless people ask for NBS contracts.

Otherwise his wife wouldn't have been able to buy the standard 3 contract instead of the NBS contract by accident.

Surely they should be asking what area its going to be used in or something to determine who is in NBS areas?

Our man in Havana

Carphone Warehouse

Enough said.

They really don't have a clue.

As Watty said it makes no difference as the NBS and Non NBS are both the same, no difference in Terms and Conditions. It just goes to show that 3 are not up to the task.

watty

Sponge Bob wrote: »

But 3 users in an NBS area are entitled to different T&Cs , particularly the minimum speeds . Giving them a non NBS contract is an attempt to remove this entitlement .

The contractual minimum speeds are only between 3 and Government.

We all know that such a g'tee on HSPA is impossible. Here is Why. It doesn't really matter what size cells are unless there is not full coverage. A totally isolated cell can give slightly better performance. From customer / user point of view there is no NBS. Just one Mobile Phone System.

oscarBravo

thebman wrote: »

...we just paid to upgrade 3's network...

I thought we arrived at that conclusion a long time ago.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I thought we arrived at that conclusion a long time ago.

Yeah but they should at least be offering contracts on the terms agreed with them before they got funding.

It appears this isn't happening as far as I can see. People in NBS areas shouldn't be signed up on a non-NBS contract and that NBS contract should state the service the user is entitled to as agreed when they received funding for the NBS.

As it stands, they should have to pay the money back if they are breaking the terms of the contract.

watty

There *IS* no NBS contract between 3 and the user:

What is the difference between NBS customers and Non-NBS customers?
NBS customers are customers located in NBS coverage areas defined in the NBS contract entered into between 3 and the Department of Communication, Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR). These customers will receive broadband under the National Broadband Scheme. Non-NBS customers are in all other areas outside defined NBS coverage areas.

from
(my emphasis) http://www.three.ie/nbs/faqs.htm which is NOT a contract with the user.
NBS on site offer http://www.three.ie/broadband/nbs.htm
3's T&C http://www.three.ie/company/terms.htm
The specific extra T&C for NBS are only about provision of Satellite or "repeater" at no extra cost. http://www.three.ie/pdf/NBS_smallprint.pdf

The regular "pay monthly" advert on site http://www.three.ie/broadband/paymonthly.htm

The 12month offer is identical. My belief is that the only difference is that if you can't get a good signal the NBS T&C apply to provide a "repeater" (Waste of money) or Satellite (Subsidised by over €450 on install and subsidized perhaps 50% per month running cost by NBS scheme). Apart from latency, Satellite is better. It would be dishonest to block the 3G signal in an NBS area to get a VSAT install.

So the only "real" NBS element of contract is the Satellite offer. AFAIK if you get a 3G signal you do indeed have a regular 3 Mobile 12 month Contract.

The NBS is a lie. I collected most of my thoughts on NBS and 3's misleading adverts here: http://www.wattystuff.net/issues/mobile-and-nbs/
Read and Weep.

drunkmonkey

thebman wrote: »

It seems like the people selling it in the stores aren't mentioning NBS at all and giving standard 3 contracts instead unless people ask for NBS contracts.

thebman wrote: »

As it stands, they should have to pay the money back if they are breaking the terms of the contract.

It makes no difference to the store which way they sell it but they should have enough cop on to know that a NBS area customer should be signed up under an NBS contract, there is a clear difference when it comes to the service they can recieve. If they are following the procedure set out by 3 that person should have being signed up under NBS, the retail assistant in carphone warehouse obviously messed up.
The customer is still entitled to return the modem within 14 days and get a full refund. They should then sign up under the NBS.

Only person messed up here is the girl in carphone, she had to delibratley enter the wrong address in the ordering system. The system is set up in a way that once an address is entered it clearly comes up if they are NBS or not and if they require a repeater or satellite.

Headshot

i got a 3 modem yesterday to try out NBS in my area (tipperary)

and I was told on the phone my area ranges from ok to good

that's the biggest pile of ****, 3's signal is dreadful. Only 1 3g signal bar and is very slow and unreliable.

lucernarian

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It makes no difference to the store which way they sell it but they should have enough cop on to know that a NBS area customer should be signed up under an NBS contract, there is a clear difference when it comes to the service they can recieve. If they are following the procedure set out by 3 that person should have being signed up under NBS, the retail assistant in carphone warehouse obviously messed up.
The customer is still entitled to return the modem within 14 days and get a full refund. They should then sign up under the NBS.

Only person messed up here is the girl in carphone, she had to delibratley enter the wrong address in the ordering system. The system is set up in a way that once an address is entered it clearly comes up if they are NBS or not and if they require a repeater or satellite.

How can they do that in rural areas where street names don't exist, and townlands can be spelt differently between An Post and the Council?? Or else easily spelt wrong anyway, like my address.

drunkmonkey

Headshot wrote: »

i got a 3 modem yesterday to try out NBS in my area (tipperary)

and I was told on the phone my area ranges from ok to good

that's the biggest pile of ****, 3's signal is dreadful. Only 1 3g signal bar and is very slow and unreliable.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

How can they do that in rural areas where street names don't exist, and townlands can be spelt differently between An Post and the Council?? Or else easily spelt wrong anyway, like my address.

Headshot you will have broadaband but your only 24hrs into the scheme, If the reception is bad you need to call 3 on 1913 and speak to them about getting an engineer out (I don't know if you bought in a store but if you did they could have booked the engineer to come out to you at point of sale). Engineer will come with a device called a repeater, sometimes they work but some times they don't, what may happen is that you will eventually end up with satellite broadband but this may take up to 3 - 5 weeks, 3 will refund you for the time your without service, until the satellite, repeater etc is installed... Either way it will work you just need to stick with them until it's all up and running.

@2 be confirmed, it brings up a map where every house can be pinpointed, it's very simple and it's the retail assistant that puts in the address, if it's in correct it's there fault and no one elses.

watty

http://www.comreg.ie/publications/re....103498.p.html

page 11
figure 2.3.1 – Location of internet usage, 2006-2009
Only 4% on the move yet 1/3rd of "so called" Broadband Subscriptions are of the EDGE/3G/HSPA Mobile variety from Meteor, 3, O2 and Vodafone.

The repeater is an absolute WASTE. Getting a Dovado router in a weather proof box on your chimney and wiring it indoors via cat5 will work x100 better.

The Satellite service works. If your laptop doesn't work reliably near the window the stupid repeater won't help.

The 3 part of the NBS is not and never will be Broadband. It's just a Mobile phone system.

The ONLY true NBS part of scheme is the Satellite dish terminal if there is a poor 3 Mobile Phone signal in an NBS area. The Repeater is a Placebo.

3 have been planning this rollout of their Mobile phone system for years. It's actually less masts than mentioned in one press release.

If the NBS didn't exist you would be getting virtually the same rollout. Same service and Same coverage. The 3G dongle service is exactly same T&C, performance and price as non-NBS areas. So the ONLY extra ingredient is the subsidised (by Government) Satellite service, as the satellite service is available anywhere at a higher price.

drunkmonkey

"The repeater is an absolute WASTE", i'd disagree with that Statement Watty, It can help in some instances as i've seen first hand.

"dovado router in a weather proof box on your chimney and wiring it indoors via cat5 will work x100 better" The cost is not covered under the NBS, it may be a better solution than the repeater but if the repeater dosen't work you'll end up with satellite, I don't see the point in doing it for anyone on NBS. More suitable for a thread helping o2 and Vodafone subscribers.

"The 3 part of the NBS is not and never will be Broadband" i'm waiting to see how LTE pans out over the next few years before saying mobile broadband will never be broadband, I think at some time it possibly could be broadband.

Sponge Bob

drunkmonkey wrote: »

"The repeater is an absolute WASTE", i'd disagree with that Statement Watty, It can help in some instances as i've seen first hand.

Problem is that repeaters are zero sum devices in the main , for each improvement there is a disimprovement elsewhere in the sector.

"The 3 part of the NBS is not and never will be Broadband" i'm waiting to see how LTE pans out over the next few years before saying mobile broadband will never be broadband, I think at some time it possibly could be broadband.

At some future time in quiet sectors it certainly will be .

watty

3 have no LTE licence.

To get basic DSL speed, i.e. very lowest level of Broadband, LTE needs same cell density and x4 the amount of spectrum.

In a quiet sector with FOUR times the spectrum, LTE can compete with entry level Broadband.
see http://www.techtir.ie/forums/showthread.php?t=1832

Real mathematics and Engineering. Not Mobile Operator Wishfull thinking.

No matter what technology Mobile has, Fixed Wireless is typically x16 better and Fixed Broadband based on Cable or Fibre about x100 better.

Mobile users Need Mobile Data. Fixed users on Mobile are making the performance today, x5 worse for genuine Mobile users.

The Repeater is expensive Spectrum wasting White Elephant, wasting WiFi spectum (the user can't connect via the Wifi it uses) and wasting 3G spectrum. The "repeater" can actually damage preformance for other 3G users on an adjacent cell if it's upstairs on wrong side of the house. It's an irresponsible product for a domestic setting. For similar materials cost (but higher install cost) an outdoor mounted 3G Router gives a better improvement of signal and provides a Firewall, WiFi and ethernet when connected to an indoor unit via POE.

watty

drunkmonkey wrote: »

1)"The repeater is an absolute WASTE", i'd disagree with that Statement Watty, It can help in some instances as i've seen first hand.

2)"dovado router in a weather proof box on your chimney and wiring it indoors via cat5 will work x100 better" The cost is not covered under the NBS, it may be a better solution than the repeater but if the repeater dosen't work you'll end up with satellite, I don't see the point in doing it for anyone on NBS. More suitable for a thread helping o2 and Vodafone subscribers.

"The 3 part of the NBS is not and never will be Broadband" i'm waiting to see how LTE pans out over the next few years before saying mobile broadband will never be broadband, I think at some time it possibly could be broadband.

1)You can disagree, but you only have anecdotal evidence and I have solid engineering.

2) The NBS did not mandate the "repeater." It's up to 3 to have a solution for poor signal areas. The Repeater they use is to feed signal from window to back of a barn like metal shell shop for Product demonstration. It's not a suitable domestic solution. 3 can easily change the solution to a more suitable one. But there is no incentive. Basically if the signal is not good then they are supposed to supply Satellite terminals in NBS area. The Repeater is a "3" Placebo not part of NBS requirement to try and reduce the number of satellite installs. It's a failure for that compared with a proper outdoor solution as used in Czech Republic (or possibly Slovakia, not sure which). It's lazy, shoddy engineering.

3) The NBS doesn't and can't use LTE. Nor does the extra spectrum to give the extra performance exist currently. Your point is irrelevant. I remember you got a ban from Broadband/Midband in past for consistently giving these sort of arguments to support 3.

The ONLY virtue of 3, O2, Vodafone and Meteor 3G/HSPA is that it's Mobile.

drunkmonkey

watty wrote: »

1)You can disagree, but you only have anecdotal evidence and I have solid engineering.

2) The NBS did not mandate the "repeater." It's up to 3 to have a solution for poor signal areas. The Repeater they use is to feed signal from window to back of a barn like metal shell shop for Product demonstration. It's not a suitable domestic solution. 3 can easily change the solution to a more suitable one. But there is no incentive. Basically if the signal is not good then they are supposed to supply Satellite terminals in NBS area. The Repeater is a "3" Placebo not part of NBS requirement to try and reduce the number of satellite installs. It's a failure for that compared with a proper outdoor solution as used in Czech Republic (or possibly Slovakia, not sure which). It's lazy, shoddy engineering.

3) The NBS doesn't and can't use LTE. Nor does the extra spectrum to give the extra performance exist currently. Your point is irrelevant. I remember you got a ban from Broadband/Midband in past for consistently giving these sort of arguments to support 3.

The ONLY virtue of 3, O2, Vodafone and Meteor 3G/HSPA is that it's Mobile.

I've experience on the ground, you could go as far as calling it gospel. Don't get me wrong I think it's the wrong solution, i'm simply saying it works in some places.

I don't think the repeater is the only solution being deployed, the engineers on the ground are using different devices and solutions. It's not as cut and dry as it's being made out here.

Could have my dates wrong but isn't 2012 the year we should see LTE starting to be rolled out, 3 have the contract for 5 years, LTE could be what everyone in NBS eventually ends up with, no?

watty

It works no better than the 3G modem at same place and is worse solution than a router as it uses twice the 3G spectrum and 5.8GHz WiFi unavailable to usr. It could even interfere with WiFi points or 5.8GHz WWAN outdoor links. It will improve the reach from window to a location further inside the house. But ANY 3G router solution will do that better. An outdoor 3G router 6dB to 20dB better still. It's indefensible and with a decent regulator would only be allowed for non-domestic Phone coverage, if at all.

For In building phone coverage (which is what these are designed for) they are obsolete. The future, especially with Energy Saver K glass and the poorer Mobile Phone coverage if GSM is swapped to 3G and more use of data is Femto cells.

Almost every operator is rolling out or trialling Femto cells to improve 3G coverage for Homes and Offices. Of course no use in Ireland as they require real broadband as the backhaul. I'm evaluating this one for a mainland European country as a demo prior to designing one.

Anywhere you think (have you a signal analyser and able to measure main cell and repeater CDMA?) the Repeater "works" a phone or laptop will work equally with less disruption at exact same place. It doesn't "work". Period. Other operators doing this in other countries with 3G exclusively use a Fixed outdoor aerial, which gives a 12dB to 30dB improvement in signal.

Are enginneers or Technicians/Installers/Riggers that visit the customer with a bad signal? Which?

I very much doubt anyone on current NBS will have LTE. LTE rollout is starting in some other countries, but Ireland has not even got a firm date to auction an LTE licence.
3 has no LTE licence and has to bid for one, if or when spectrum is available. Unless there is four times the spectrum, the single user in a sector speed is the same.

No existing modem supplied by 3G operators supports LTE.

It's more efficent under load than 3G/HSPA, but in same 5MHz channel gives about exact same speeds if there is one sector user.

cgarvey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I've experience on the ground

We all have. Detail it, if you believe you have more (e.g. are employed in the industry, etc.)

drunkmonkey wrote: »

the engineers on the ground are using different devices and solutions.

Such as?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

LTE could be what everyone in NBS eventually ends up with, no?

There's just WAY too many ifs in that for it to be easily believed. If the NBS still exists then, and if LTE license auction is held before that, (with me so far? because history shows that our record will mean that so far we're not looking too hopeful!), and if 3 get an LTE license, and if 3 have funding to roll out replacement mast-end equipment to the less viable (NBS) areas, and if 3 have funding to roll out CPE replacement, and if 3 *want* to, and if LTE proves to be a proven technology worth investing in, of course .... THEN maybe, and only maybe!

cgarvey

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They lied outright about the OECD

How?

watty

3 needs to learn about Hot Dead Chickens. Apparently this new protocol Vint Cerf has is ideal for Mobile Networks as TCP/IP as used by Broadband is too "Brittle".

Sponge Bob

cgarvey wrote: »

How?

The OECD has a definition of broadband

http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3343,en_2649_34225_39575598_1_1_1_1,00.html

1. DSL:
a. Includes all DSL lines offering Internet connectivity which are capable of download speeds of at least 256 kbit/s
b. The DSL line is excluded if it is not used for Internet connectivity (e.g. leased lines)

2. Cable:
a. Includes all cable modem subscribers at download speeds greater than 256 kbit/s

3. Fibre
a. Includes all fibre-to-the-premises (e.g. house, apartment) subscribers at download speeds greater than 256 kbit/s
b. Includes all fibre-to-the-building subscribers (e.g. Apartment LAN) using fibre-to-the-building but Ethernet to end-users. NOTE: This counts only the number of actual subscribers to the provider, not end users.

4. Other
a. Wireless (includes only connections with speeds faster than 256 kbit/s to end users)
i. Includes fixed wireless technologies
1. Satellite
2. LMDS
3. MMDS
4. WiMAX (fixed)
5. Other fixed-wireless transport technologies

ii. Does not include
1. 3G mobile technologies
2. Wi-Fi

Rather that tell the ASAI that 3G mobile is not considered a broadband technology by the OECD and is SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from official statistics used in International Broadband surveys ....by both the OECD and the EU

3 said

http://www.asai.ie/complaint_view.asp?CID=655&BID=32

( item 2)

They 3 also said that the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Committee for Information, Computer and Communication had stated that “Wireless broadband technologies have always been included in the historical OECD broadband subscriber statistics…”

Not if the wireless technology is 3g or wi-fi .

That is an outright lie by 3 to the ASAI .

cgarvey

That ain't no lie, by any definition that I've ever heard!! It's a remarkable dancing around the truth, but it's a statement of fact, and is correct; completely correct.

Now, in the context of the complaint, it's obviously a deliberate tactic to thwart the debate, and that should be brought to the attention (in a clear a manner as Sponge's post, which is quite black & white on the issue) of the ASAI.

I'm not suggesting it's semantics, or a minor point, by any means, just there is no lie there; and, therefore, to accuse them of such is incorrect (legal issues, and forum charters aside).

watty

“Wireless broadband technologies have always been included in the historical OECD broadband subscriber statistics…”

Is true.

The "lie" is in suggesting by implication that this includes 3G/HSPA/Mobile, when for various reasons it doesn't.

It's like claiming figures for Apple sales to justify investing in Oranges because they are both fruit.