Broadband problems? Involve COMREG

Cabaal

weisses wrote: »

I talk about government in general relating to this issue (regardless who is in it because i really don't care) you are the one dragging in party politics don't blame me .. i never even mentioned one particular party.

If you have a chip on your shoulder because I happened to mention one party then you need to get over it and grow up, this discussion stops now.

Back on topic in respect of comreg specifically

weisses

Cabaal wrote: »

If you have a chip on your shoulder because I happened to mention one party then you need to get over it and grow up, this discussion stops now.

Back on topic in respect of comreg specifically

I already did at the bottom of my post

but you still didn't answer my question about your own quote that has everything to do with comreg

and regarding to your reply its not on to insult me and then demand to stop the discussion as a moderator you have every right to do so but not in the language used imo
We are not on opposite sides in this topic

O'Coonassa

I got so depressed at the responses on this thread that I emailed all the Senators and all the TD's in the land to register my concern and linked them to this thread so you may keep your manners about you in case they visit.

It's absolutely ridiculous that so many service providers are providing a shabby service. To see the daily complaints stacking up on this and the other related forums and nothing ever improving is really starting to get to me. Surely to God there has to be some way to improve the situation once and for all.

stephenmarr

would it be any good to contact the newspapers maybe get it out to the masses. ie The Sun/ Star/ Mirror, etc.

cherryghost

stephenmarr wrote: »

would it be any good to contact the newspapers maybe get it out to the masses. ie The Sun/ Star/ Mirror, etc.

they're not respected newspapers. :rolleyes:

Johnboy1951

cherryghost wrote: »

they're not respected newspapers. :rolleyes:

Neither are the majority of politicians who may come to read this thread

cromwellmyhero

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Neither are the majority of politicians who may come to read this thread

They wouldn't they might learn

BurnsCarpenter

For the vast majority of telecoms complaints, Comreg don't actually have any powers.
All they will do is intervene on your behalf when you haven't been able to rectify the problem with the company directly.

There are only certain areas where they have the power to do something in relation to consumer complaints - price transparency, ensuring there is a sufficient detail in contracts, having a code of practice for complaint handling.

http://www.askcomreg.ie/home_phone/operators_obligations.84.LE.asp

The only other types of issue where Comreg may act would be in relation to eircom services:

http://www.askcomreg.ie/home_phone/universal_service.90.LE.asp

OP - there is no minimum service level for broadband under any Comreg regulations. If you're having a problem with poor speeds, Comreg will ask the operator if they can impove the service, or ask them to consider leaving you out of contract if they can't. If the operator wants to keep things nice and cosy with the Regulator, they might just help.

The best route for anybody having problems is to firstly chance your arm with Comreg.

If they don't help, you may be able to pursue it through the Small Claims Court, under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Sevices Act*.


*The Small Claims Court obviously can't force providers to improve your service. All you can hope for there is a refund of money already paid to the company.

BurnsCarpenter

dub45 wrote: »

It is disgraceful to see Comreg helping to perpetrate the myth of unlimited bb on their call costs site. Surely they should be pointing out to consumers that such products simply do not exist?

Yet they include them in their summaries with no qualification whatsoever - absolute disgrace!

http://callcosts.ie/broadband/Broadband_Calculator.175.LE.asp

That's shocking tbh - have you contacted them about it?

dub45

Surely a good test of Comreg's power and will would be to ask them about their attitude to UPC continuing to sell a product which on their own admission is not what they advertise it to be and for many people has actually worsened their service?

Why should any company in any industry or service be allowed to continue to sell something which they know does not function as claimed? (And in this particular case actually worsens things?)

IrishTonyO

dub45 wrote: »

Surely a good test of Comreg's power and will would be to ask them about their attitude to UPC continuing to sell a product which on their own admission is not what they advertise it to be and for many people has actually worsened their service?

Why should any company in any industry or service be allowed to continue to sell something which they know does not function as claimed? (And in this particular case actually worsens things?)

All companies come across problems from time to time and they are working to fix it, and from their terms and conditions they have 20 working days to either resolve the issue or come to an arrangement. Plus the products they are selling are speeds up to, not guaranteed speeds. Plus not all customers are affected.

dub45

IrishTonyO wrote: »

All companies come across problems from time to time and they are working to fix it, and from their terms and conditions they have 20 working days to either resolve the issue or come to an arrangement. Plus the products they are selling are speeds up to, not guaranteed speeds. Plus not all customers are affected.

I am not disputing that all companies face problems from time to time - it is how they deal with it that matters. If you are a customer that is affected by such a happening then it is irrelevant to you whether 90% of others are affected or just 1% it is after all 100% of your experience! That is why it infuriates me when companies resort to this 'tiny minority' when talking about problems - Apple are notorious for it for example. Surely even if the products they are selling 'are up to' the effect of upgrading should not worsen your existing service?

Where does it say in their terms and conditions that they have up to the 20 days?

And surely if any company knows that there is a reasonable chance of a product upgrade worsening existing performance they should suspend further sales?
That is in their own interest as much as the customer's.

O'Coonassa

IrishTonyO wrote: »

All companies come across problems from time to time and they are working to fix it, and from their terms and conditions they have 20 working days to either resolve the issue or come to an arrangement. Plus the products they are selling are speeds up to, not guaranteed speeds. Plus not all customers are affected.

IMO it's just a matter of plain old fashioned decency or rather the lack of it. You can see clearly enough from these boards that a substantial number of customers are having serious issues with the provision of service with all major providers. It's not that it's happening from time to time, rather it's happening all of the time and it's not like the telcos are a struggling industry returning poor profit margins.

It seems that they clearly have the money to provide an acceptable service and yet what is occurring is that those responsible have business plans which cynically ensure that their networks are continually stretched to capacity. Of course the get out clause is this "up to" description which allows them all sorts of wriggle room to avoid fulfilling their obligations.

Really they should be legally required to guarantee a certain bandwidth capacity and MOS line quality. Imagine if you were buying eggs, bread or milk and the cartons said "up to" X amount of the product may or may not be in the package or carton. A ridiculous notion I know, but this is exactly what is happening with regard to broadband provision.

dub45

O'Coonassa wrote: »

IMO it's just a matter of plain old fashioned decency or rather the lack of it. You can see clearly enough from these boards that a substantial number of customers are having serious issues with the provision of service with all major providers. It's not that it's happening from time to time, rather it's happening all of the time and it's not like the telcos are a struggling industry returning poor profit margins.

It seems that they clearly have the money to provide an acceptable service and yet what is occurring is that those responsible have business plans which cynically ensure that their networks are continually stretched to capacity. Of course the get out clause is this "up to" description which allows them all sorts of wriggle room to avoid fulfilling their obligations.

Really they should be legally required to guarantee a certain bandwidth capacity and MOS line quality. Imagine if you were buying eggs, bread or milk and the cartons said "up to" X amount of the product may or may not be in the package or carton. A ridiculous notion I know, but this is exactly what is happening with regard to broadband provision.

Much as I criticise the isps 'up to' is a fact of life of relatively cheap broadband products. If a company was to guarantee a fixed speed to everyone it would cost a fortune. Look at how much a fixed line costs.
Getting the right balance in bandwidth is obviously the answer.

The present situation with upc in relation to 'fiber' is a different matter than ongoing problems other isps.

anoble66

Sorry but I dont think it should be a fact of life. I think everyone understands that most of our broadband products are a contended service....but come on, 48:1 is just ridiculous.....there is no way an ISP should be able to sell a 8MB bundle as 8MB and then say its contended at 48:1 during peak times - which is when most people obviously want to use the service. You dont sign up to ESB or Bord Gais on the basis that during 5-7pm peak times you may only get 10% gas flow....and thats what the ISP's are getting away with!

And why is it most other countrys can provide a much faster service, which is less contended and for cheaper??

At least Comreg have won their appeal against Eircom to keep the LLU unbundled price at 0.77c instead of the 8.41 that they were charging originally....hopefully we will now see more operators installing their own equipment into the exchanges which should result in higher speeds and lower prices.

dub45 wrote: »

Much as I criticise the isps 'up to' is a fact of life of relatively cheap broadband products. If a company was to guarantee a fixed speed to everyone it would cost a fortune. Look at how much a fixed line costs.
Getting the right balance in bandwidth is obviously the answer.

The present situation with upc in relation to 'fiber' is a different matter than ongoing problems other isps.

IrishTonyO

You might be surprised to hear that Ireland rank 6th in the world for average internet access speed. It was in the news the other day as well, an inprovement of 73% in the past year

http://hitechpedia.com/lots-of-countries-are-getting-fast-internet/

weisses

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15047/comms/ireland-has-highest-eu-percentage-of-slow-net-connections

I'll go for this one

anoble66

Yeah I looked at that alright....but that doesnt take into consideration how contended the service is here and how the ISP's basically dont have enough backhaul bandwidth to handle the amount of users.

I still think the below report is complete BS..

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You might be surprised to hear that Ireland rank 6th in the world for average internet access speed. It was in the news the other day as well, an inprovement of 73% in the past year

http://hitechpedia.com/lots-of-countries-are-getting-fast-internet/

O'Coonassa

dub45 wrote: »

Much as I criticise the isps 'up to' is a fact of life of relatively cheap broadband products. If a company was to guarantee a fixed speed to everyone it would cost a fortune.

I don't really buy this argument for the simple reason that the service I use, when it is working, never drops below a certain capacity. It therefore seems entirely feasible for the ISP's to cite that capacity rather than the "up to" figure which is only a theoretical maximum unlikely to occur in reality.

As for cheap broadband products they don't really exist here do they? I know that there are economies of scale involved but BB customers over the water are able to get 20Mbps for as little as £15 per month. Now that's relatively cheap IMO.

Incidentally so far as I'm aware in order to deliver what they are billing as 20Mbps providers over there are using the same ADSL2+ technology that is here being billed as 24Mbps.

weisses

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You might be surprised to hear that Ireland rank 6th in the world for average internet access speed. It was in the news the other day as well, an inprovement of 73% in the past year

http://hitechpedia.com/lots-of-countries-are-getting-fast-internet/

Ireland is ranked above the Netherlands ........yeah right

O'Coonassa

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You might be surprised to hear that Ireland rank 6th in the world for average internet access speed. It was in the news the other day as well, an inprovement of 73% in the past year

http://hitechpedia.com/lots-of-countries-are-getting-fast-internet/

I'd be more than surprised I'd eat my hat. The methodology employed by Akamai involves the measurement of traffic on their own global server network and the results are therefore skewed by their own high end corporate customers.

Moreover when considering the economic hubs of a nation, ie: its cities, the fastest in Europe are already over the 10Mbps threshold. Places like Limerick, Dublin, Galway, Cork and Waterford lag far behind.

According to Ookla Net Metrics, whose methodology is more balanced between corporate and SOHO users, Ireland ranks at 48th in the world for downstream transfer and 53rd for upstream. This is far behind the 6th place position that you have been led to believe in and well behind most of our European competitors. Indeed according to Ookla the average downstream rate for the whole of Europe is nearly 3Mbps faster than the average for Ireland.

As a nation our broadband provision is lagging behind and I know for a fact that this and the substandard service offerings are detrimental to our economic well being. As Eamon Wallace has pointed out in the article that weisses has linked to “Ireland cannot be accused of policy failure because we simply do not have a policy. It would be fairer to say we have a policy vacuum." Something needs to be done to rectify the situation, our best hope for the future lies with a technology based economy but who in their right minds will set up shop here when we lack the infrastructure they require?

Sponge Bob

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I'd be more than surprised I'd eat my hat. The methodology employed by Akamai involves the measurement of traffic on their own global server network and the results are therefore skewed by their own high end corporate customers.

The original statement and all supporting links are here

http://irelandoffline.org/2010/01/ireland-has-the-highest-percentage-of-slow-internet-connections-in-europe/

Why was the average so high when the total number of EXCLUSIVE IPs connecting at 5mbits and above was the fourth lowest in Europe.

That is because UPC and the Mobile operators and Imagine get their network caches to connect at high speed to Akamai over in the INEX.

In other words the connection does not come from the end user but from a transparent proxy in the end users network core.

The more interesting figure is that the uncached and unproxied 5mbit connections, those originating on Digiweb or Eircom or Bt for example and not UPC/Mobile Networks are the 4th lowest in Europe and under half the EU average.

The most interesting figure is that Ireland has twice the EU average of completely sh1te connections and the highest % of such in Europe.